Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_spotlight]

No not really. What I stated was that the argument was not a scientific argument but a word salad mockery of your word salad.

The strength of the scientific position is it is the only position backed by objective evidence. If you want to ignore evidence go for the cliff face and demonstrate your superior position already.

I have never denied the physical laws of the material universe. I guess it is just easier to jump to ridiculous conclusions than to actually take part in a discussion. Your tendency to jump to conclusions is exactly what science does. It takes a small piece of data and stretches it into absurdity dimensions. But because you are doing it then all is well. But no way would you let another outside of your science group attempt to do the same thing.

Not quite. Science takes a look at all of the evidence together and sees that it points to a common conclusion - see consilience.

You have never denied the physical laws of the material universe? You denied the existence of the material universe itself stating that we exist in a simulation. Do you understand what a simulation is? There are no laws in a simulation. A simulation can be altered to get different results where physical reality can not.

[_SteelHead]

Frank,
Can you provide an example of where science has taken a data point and used it to extrapolate to absurdity?

[_Franktalk]

Not quite. Science takes a look at all of the evidence together and sees that it points to a common conclusion - see consilience.

You have never denied the physical laws of the material universe? You denied the existence of the material universe itself stating that we exist in a simulation. Do you understand what a simulation is? There are no laws in a simulation. A simulation can be altered to get different results where physical reality can not.

You have failed to read what I write. I have always stated that the physical universe exist. What I believe is the physical universe is terraformed into a place where advanced humans can pretend to be from the physical universe. A simulation but a real physical world made to be a play ground. Your assumptions as to what I believe are just like all of your other assumptions. A total overreach of what you perceive around you. Your high priest of science tell you where you can drift from the accepted path and where you must hold to the party line. Please spotlight bow down to your leaders.

[Guest]

You have failed to read what I write.

Have mercy sifu!

I have always stated that the physical universe exists.

And that you need to cast it aside. If it is real, one cannot in good health cast it aside.

What I believe is the physical universe is terraformed into a place where advanced humans can pretend to be from the physical universe.

Oh ok, sorry I treated your viewpoint lightly before.

A simulation but a real physical world made to be a play ground.

That still has the requirement that a soul can be moved about. Something that science has shown to be false.

Your assumptions as to what I believe are just like all of your other assumptions. A total overreach of what you perceive around you.

Uh huh. Since you accept the physical universe as do I, I'd say the one with the over reach is the one who sees things that aren't evidenced or that contradict evidence like detachable souls and terraformed worlds.

Your high priest of science tell you where you can drift from the accepted path and where you must hold to the party line. Please spotlight bow down to your leaders.

Yah, not buying it. I arrived at my position independently. You on the other hand seem to be defined by a need to go against the grain of science, just sayin.'
Evidence, especially in a real universe rather than a simulation, is what must be followed to find truth. It is the only thing that provides valid constraints upon possible models. And even though you won't acknowledge it, dualism is one of those things that has been discarded because of the evidence.

[_Gunnar]

As I see it, Franktalk contradicts himself without realizing it. On the one hand, he claims that science is "overreaching", while at the same time criticizing science for letting its conclusions be constrained by the available evidence. His whole approach is oxymoronic and self-contradictory.

[_Maksutov]

Not quite. Science takes a look at all of the evidence together and sees that it points to a common conclusion - see consilience.

You have never denied the physical laws of the material universe? You denied the existence of the material universe itself stating that we exist in a simulation. Do you understand what a simulation is? There are no laws in a simulation. A simulation can be altered to get different results where physical reality can not.

You have failed to read what I write. I have always stated that the physical universe exist. What I believe is the physical universe is terraformed into a place where advanced humans can pretend to be from the physical universe. A simulation but a real physical world made to be a play ground. Your assumptions as to what I believe are just like all of your other assumptions. A total overreach of what you perceive around you. Your high priest of science tell you where you can drift from the accepted path and where you must hold to the party line. Please spotlight bow down to your leaders.

I guess educated people are intolerable to you, eh? Insecure much?

[_Franktalk]

As I see it, Franktalk contradicts himself without realizing it. On the one hand, he claims that science is "overreaching", while at the same time criticizing science for letting its conclusions be constrained by the available evidence. His whole approach is oxymoronic and self-contradictory.

Science obtains data in the real world. Science is not aware that we exist in a layered reality. Science uses its acquired data to extend its conclusions about the real world using theories. The theories of science are constrained because of their mindset. So the overreach in science is due to the self limiting nature of the boundaries it imposes on itself.

Since you reject the notion that there could be a layered reality then my statements would appear to be illogical. But if there are indeed layers to reality then it is science that is illogical. That is what I am pointing out.

[_spotlight]

Science obtains data in the real world.

OK

Science is not aware that we exist in a layered reality.

Also OK. The reason to gather data is to become aware of whatever is.

Science uses its acquired data to extend its conclusions about the real world using theories.

replace "extend its" with "arrive at" and OK.

The theories of science are constrained because of their mindset.

Here you take a nose dive. This does not happen in science.

So the overreach in science

Is not really there.

is due to the self limiting nature of the boundaries it imposes on itself.

Wrong. Constraints are due to a requirement to be consistent with all collected data.

Since you reject the notion that there could be a layered reality

It is not rejected without cause. Such an idea is incompatible with the data.

then my statements would appear to be illogical.

They don't appear to be illogical, they are illogical, since they are disproved by the data, indeed by the very evidence itself.

But if there are indeed layers to reality

Then the data would support that fact but since they contradict that fact then it follows that there are not layers to reality.

then it is science that is illogical.

Nope, it is Franktalk that is illogical and in denial of reality or ignorant of the facts.

That is what I am pointing out.

And I corrected it for you.

[_Franktalk]

Spotlight,

I see you are of the opinion that everything that can be measured has already been measured. You are of the opinion that everything possible to be discovered has already been discovered. I draw this conclusion from your statement. You refuse to accept even the possibility that there are more things to be discovered in reality. That is one hell of a science you got there.

[_spotlight]

Spotlight,

I see you are of the opinion that everything that can be measured has already been measured. You are of the opinion that everything possible to be discovered has already been discovered. I draw this conclusion from your statement. You refuse to accept even the possibility that there are more things to be discovered in reality. That is one hell of a science you got there.

Enough has been discovered to falsify dualism. If you understood falsification you'd understand that principle. It does not matter how much evidence is gathered that is compatible with a theory, it still never proves a theory true. It is always possible that the theory will be proven to be untrue however if something is eventually discovered that breaks it. In this case quite a lot of evidence breaks the theory of dualism and along with dualism goes your hypothesis as well.

All it took to break Newtonian mechanics was the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. So all of your crowing about how what we now know will one day all be obsolete is already true about dualism. It just hasn't filtered down to everyday people in society yet. Give it another generation for that to happen.