Posts by bluemason3

Ethics is really just a functional tool designed for practical utility—basically, making group work actually function. If ethics ends up clashing with someone's interests, then it’s not true ethics; it's just an impulsive, mindless reflex. Because of that, there's no point in treating it as a separate variable in the equation of wisdom. After all, blunt, unthinking ethics can't possibly be wise.

Gerald Jackson48 said:It’s true that as our collective knowledge expands and we redefine how things work, language should probably keep pace. But honestly, language tends to get stuck in the past. Sometimes it's just practical—changing everything is a massive headache. Other times, it's more about ideology. If we changed every term the second a new theory dropped, people would be totally lost. Sure, old names might not perfectly capture a new scientific paradigm or the latest way we understand the world, and they can definitely lead people down the wrong path, but constant updates would just cause total chaos.

A buddy of mine was joking around about this the other day. He thinks there’s going to come a time when we don't say things like, "Honey, this dinner tastes amazing..." Instead, we'll be saying, "Darling, this meal is stimulating my orbito-medial cortex in all the right ways..." 😁

I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes things just happen. You can plan everything out perfectly, follow all the rules, and still end up staring at a mess. It’s just how life works in America. Not every day goes according to the playbook. That's just reality. kaže:
Let's get one thing straight: inanimate objects aren't organisms. It’s just basic science. A rock isn't breathing, and a chair definitely isn't eating lunch. Simple as that. Everything else is just noise. 🙄

I mean, sure, but I have no clue what ant8 is actually getting at here. Honestly, I wouldn't even be surprised if Capra claimed that inanimate objects have their own DNA or something equally wild. It’s like saying particle movement is just a metaphor for some cosmic dance or an eternal song. Just one of those things.

Fair point.

The inevitable friction happens between casual slang and scientific terminology. Then you get this feedback loop where people cite scientific sources, leading to some kind of re-re-semanticization. It becomes a game of telephone where a layperson takes a scientific term—one that migrated from old colloquialism to a new scientific definition (usually becoming more precise in the process)—and tosses it back into their own new version of casual speech. That's how you end up with a whole chain of misunderstandings.

On top of that, schools are still teaching that "planetary model" of the atom... 😬

I’m not convinced calling it a "particle" in an elementary particle is actually the right way to go about it. It feels like we’re just trying to visualize things based on our everyday experiences—treating them like tiny little pieces of matter simply because they're too small for us to see, even though they aren't necessarily "bits" of stuff at all.

It’s similar to how I feel pop science turns different modeling methods into these "objective realities" when they’re explaining things to laypeople. For instance, they present a phenomenon as being both a wave and a particle, whereas I’d argue we’re just applying the concepts of a wave or a particle depending on which model we use. The phenomenon itself isn't physically morphing from one thing to another.(I have a feeling someone mentioned "dualism" earlier, but I can't be bothered to scroll back and check).

These are heavy topics for the natural sciences. Honestly, I doubt many people here have enough background knowledge to avoid getting a pretty warped perspective from those questionable "mystical physics" authors out there.

Zachary White19 said:If we're going by evolutionary logic, you could compare a Fox News viewer to a jellyfish and try to figure out who's smarter, but I don't think that gets you anywhere... Not sure that's really wisdom. Maybe try comparing a rock to a Fox News viewer instead. Is the rock wiser? What can a Fox News viewer even do to a rock?

There's really no point in comparing different species, let alone comparing inanimate objects to living things.

A person who is too dim to survive is definitely not wise.

Zachary White19 said:By those evolutionary standards, jellyfish would be geniuses... even without brains. And flies are pretty damn smart too...

It depends on whether you're looking at the species as a whole or the individuals within it. A fly that manages to outsmart the rest? That’s just a smart fly.

A wise person is essentially someone with enough life experience to read their surroundings correctly and make the right calls.

By that logic, wisdom is defined by how successfully you hit those evolutionary targets—stacking resources, staying alive, and passing on your genes.

So, if we follow that thread, being wise just means being successful. In that case, your average Republican local official with a four-bedroom house, three Mercedes, and two mistresses is miles ahead of Hegel.

It’s the same amount as Budo had—about 1.36077... kg of hemp.

Yeah

Harold Doyle3 said:You know that Planck was terrified of presenting his "crazy" idea regarding blackbody radiation?
Why do you think that was?
If you ask me, it was because of rigid attitudes like these—the fear of being branded a charlatan.

Roger Penrose actually added a disclaimer about this, noting that his book isn't a formal scientific text, but rather his own subjective musings on consciousness.

He asks more questions than he provides answers, but then again, a well-posed question is half the answer.

If the math holds up, there's no reason to call him a fraud. We can just treat these things as hypotheses until we have solid proof, which is basically what most theoretical models are until they're proven.

I don't see the issue here. 🤔

So, his book is essentially religious, yet it leans on scientific terminology and personal authority to create an illusion of science. In other words, it's pseudoscience. 🙂

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:The average person shouldn't be digging through scientific papers anyway. Take me, for example—I studied math, yet I still find most math papers totally incomprehensible and way too dense. They're written for hyper-specialized experts within a tiny niche of mathematics.

Pseudoscience is what pretends to be science but is actually garbage. Popular science literature isn't "science" per se, but it's useful for general knowledge. Nobody cares about the probability integral of two particles colliding, but knowing the concept of mathematical probability? That's actually good to know.

The average person isn't going to dig through the technical methodology, but anyone can wrap their head around an abstract and a conclusion.

The real issue is that for most people, telling the difference between pseudoscience and pop science is an uphill battle. Sometimes it’s hard to even distinguish legitimate research from pure pseudoscience when it's tucked away in those predatory journals. And honestly, if someone actually possesses the tools to tell them apart, they probably don't even need the pop science version to begin with.
Chapter 22 just feels like one more battlefield for indoctrination before you finally get to any actual science.

We need to start teaching scientific literacy in high school, specifically through a solid curriculum on research methodology. I'm talking about both the hands-on fieldwork side and the statistical data processing. This would cover the fundamentals needed to actually make sense of about 90% of published scientific papers. Now, obviously, this isn't going to teach anyone formal mathematics, theoretical physics, or comparative literature. But it would provide the groundwork for almost any quantitative experimental study. It’s about understanding how research actually works at its core. And let's be realistic—nobody expects a teenager to be performing at a post-doc level.

We can build public awareness through popular science books, which makes sense given that nobody has the time to become an expert in every single field. Most people just need a clear, simplified summary of how a specific area works. That said, you can't really distinguish actual science from pseudoscience if your entire understanding is based solely on pop literature.

Harold Doyle3 said:Haven't read it... putting it on my "do not read" list immediately. I hit a wall with the other gender.
(My version of the other gender told me enough theory for one day and handed me a vacuum cleaner instead.
Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose? It starts off heavy with numbers and math, talking about Turing's machine and all that, but it picks up later.
He argues that there's a "significant quantum component" present in consciousness. He has plenty of critics, of course... people will probably just shrug and say R. P. is a prime example of someone with massive potential who barely scratched the surface.

Real science is exhausting and tedious. It requires endless work, constant scrutiny, and facing nothing but criticism and skepticism until things finally crystallize over time.

It’s much easier to indulge people in popular literature. If you play that game, you can end up with more fame, influence, and money than you ever would grinding away at a university or staring at equations for ten hours a day. 😁

To be seen, look at how many academics here in the States, once they hit an age where they aren't making major breakthroughs, let their egos take over. They start making noise in the media, jumping into political debates, and generally talking out of turn (think Radman or Paar...).

Turning scientists into icons is incredibly damaging to the field. Even within academia itself, (research shows there's a massive bias toward the work of famous colleagues, despite a system specifically designed to prevent that), let alone among the general public. It's also useless to drag unresolved scientific debates to the masses by using simplified, populist methods that turn serious topics into partisan shouting matches.

Basically, if you aren't a specialist actively working in a specific field, you should completely ignore anything that isn't a peer-reviewed, published, and ideally replicated study that has reached a broad consensus. Names like Penrose, Paar, Djikic, or Einstein shouldn't carry any weight when they step outside strict scientific protocols. Their personal reputation shouldn't give extra validity to ideas that haven't become established scientific standards or moved beyond being mere fringe theories.

Unfortunately, most people don't care about rigorous papers; they prefer authority figures. So, if you want to stop pseudo-scientific nonsense from flooding the airwaves, you have to deal with "science popularization." But for anyone taking this seriously, it’s all just noise and a circus not worth the attention.

Sam Martinez9 said:For those anti-physics types who aren't exactly eager to get their hands dirty with heavy equations but still want to grasp the essence of quantum mechanics and where the catch lies, I’d highly recommend Capra and the era of change. The book is worth the read for more than just the science; he bridges everything from Newtonian mechanics through quantum theory all the way to capitalism, touching on biology and social structures along the way. That said, since his background is in physics, he really shines when discussing the hard sciences—biology included. His take on the social sciences feels a bit less grounded.

I’ve been told that his book Tao physics is actually even better when you're diving into quantum territory, though I haven't managed to get my hands on a copy yet.

Especially if they have a soft spot for pseudoscience... 😁

So, how exactly are those pathetic gurus going to survive dealing with people like this, huh? 🙂 🙂

Totally irresponsible. ☕

gentlerider7 said:Honestly, who cares if someone is happy or satisfied? People can be content in a gutter for all I care, but being "satisfied" doesn't mean a damn thing—what actually matters is who’s actually telling the truth.

We aren't dealing with hard sciences here. This is more like juggling concepts, fantasies, and projections. Talking about "the truth" feels a bit pointless.

gentlerider7 said:But honestly, it comes before the need for things to just be normal again, right? I mean, when someone starts daydreaming about some perfect paradise, isn't that just a massive red flag that everything in their actual life is falling apart?

Honestly, it sounds more like someone who can't handle reality—a failure escaping into a fantasy world. I doubt Bezos or Ronaldo spend much time worrying about utopias.

Harold Doyle3 said:Total rebel!

Even worse—he just went ahead and vaccinated.😲

gentlerider7 said:I mean, honestly, this whole "Golden Age" myth pops up in pretty much every culture on the planet, right? And let's be real, there’s probably a damn good reason why everyone keeps telling the same story.

It’s the same reason we dream about future utopias—just a basic need to escape into our own imaginations.

gentlerider7 said:When people pitch these utopian ideas, they're basically banking on the assumption that most folks just want more of the exact same stuff we already have. They act like there are these set-in-stone, objective benchmarks for what actually counts as "good."

I’d love to be a slave owner, but honestly, slaves complain too much.

gentlerider7 said:It doesn't really matter since he was being brought up here as a philosopher, not a psychologist. Besides, when you're dealing with a single idea like this, does it even matter who originally said it?

It’s a valid point, much like those stories about walking on water or enduring hell. Without any actual proof, you can just ramble about whatever you want. That's how every cult leader twists history and society to fit their own little ideological bubble—and frankly, everyone's just full of it.

neonsailor26 said:I have to disagree here—that simply isn't true.

I’d say it’s actually spot on.

Sure, if you're looking at specific schools of psychotherapy, you could argue otherwise. But since he didn't employ any actual scientific methodology—much like Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and the rest of that crowd—he isn't particularly relevant to psychological science. Real psychology is rooted in the Anglo-American experimental behavioral tradition, which has always been openly opposed to those pseudo-scientific German psycho-philosophers.