e: whoops that's opiate use, cocaine is 2.3% in england and wales, 3.8% in scotland, and 2.8% in america
Edited by Panopticon ()
getfiscal posted:i want to make a documentary which is a series of interviews of award-winning astrophysicists, having them explain briefly how the universe is shaped and whether the universe had a beginning etc, just extremely basic cosmology, and then at the end have them each say what the percentage chance of that basic cosmology holding for future research is. and the result would be funny because you'd have some guy be like yes i won the nobel prize, the universe had no real "beginning" and always existed, you have to think about time as related to space. then the next woman would be like "time started with the big bang, before that time didn't exist" or whatever, look i'm not a cosmologist, i just mean that they'd all contradict in glaring ways and it'd be funny when interspliced with stuff from atheists about how they are certain god doesn't exist or whatever.
this is one of the dumbest things religion apologists do. we're not exactly sure about the specifics of the beginning of the universe, therefore, it's office pool time. *throws dart at a board* huh. who had "the wholly unsubstantiated oral mythology of the bronze age simpletons of the arabian peninsula"? cuz thats what did it. dammit. i had twenty bucks on "60s theories about self transforming machine elves"
c_man posted:that wouldnt be as funny as you'd think unless you got a lot of weird fringe people because today basically everyone agrees on a pretty detailed cosmological account based on quite a bit of evidence. the major questions are more theoretical difficulties than differences in opinion about the basic story. it would take something pretty unprecedented to overturn the basic story as it stands today.
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:getfiscal posted:i want to make a documentary which is a series of interviews of award-winning astrophysicists, having them explain briefly how the universe is shaped and whether the universe had a beginning etc, just extremely basic cosmology, and then at the end have them each say what the percentage chance of that basic cosmology holding for future research is. and the result would be funny because you'd have some guy be like yes i won the nobel prize, the universe had no real "beginning" and always existed, you have to think about time as related to space. then the next woman would be like "time started with the big bang, before that time didn't exist" or whatever, look i'm not a cosmologist, i just mean that they'd all contradict in glaring ways and it'd be funny when interspliced with stuff from atheists about how they are certain god doesn't exist or whatever.
this is one of the dumbest things religion apologists do. we're not exactly sure about the specifics of the beginning of the universe, therefore, it's office pool time. *throws dart at a board* huh. who had "the wholly unsubstantiated oral mythology of the bronze age simpletons of the arabian peninsula"? cuz thats what did it. dammit. i had twenty bucks on "60s theories about self transforming machine elves"
i try to be humble, i guess. could the universe have always existed and time is a dimension of space? sure. could the universe be on a turtle's back? probably, how would i know? not really my place to say.
Keven posted:Hell there's only one scientist I have real respect for, a guy named Socrates. And this scientist said that true wisdom is knowing that we know nothing. Seems like some dislike the taste of humble pie, but I'm not a college town Ivy League boy caught up in his idea of himself. I'm just a regular man, with regular passions.
i pick up what you're laying down. i'd rather have a cold beer than cold fusion. i'll leave chattering over whether the bible is real to the eggheads.
c_man posted:that wouldnt be as funny as you'd think unless you got a lot of weird fringe people because today basically everyone agrees on a pretty detailed cosmological account based on quite a bit of evidence. the major questions are more theoretical difficulties than differences in opinion about the basic story. it would take something pretty unprecedented to overturn the basic story as it stands today.
Thats pretty conceited and exactly demonstrates the attitudes of our modern so called scientists most of whom dont even have a basic understanding of the science of marxism-leninism and yet while missing that vital conciousness pretend they have all the answers to the whole damn universe, some dumbass self aware matter looking out from a speck of dust and claiming to have "solved" the entirity of the existence of matter, lol. The universe is obviously a dialectical wave and the sooner these astrophysicists man up and admit that the marx bros were right all along the better.
explain this without dialectical materialism biotches:
thats right, looks familiar doesnt it, also god is real, suck it scientists
tears posted:Thats pretty conceited and exactly demonstrates the attitudes of our modern so called scientists most of whom dont even have a basic understanding of the science of marxism-leninism and yet while missing that vital conciousness pretend they have all the answers to the whole damn universe, some dumbass self aware matter looking out from a speck of dust and claiming to have "solved" the entirity of the existence of matter, lol. The universe is obviously a dialectical wave and the sooner these astrophysicists man up and admit that the marx bros were right all along the better.
the funniest thing about people who take this attitude is that they dont realize that the soviet astronomers/cosmologists accepted the big bang more or less simultaneously to when it become settled in the west
tears posted:and yet the "big bang" is not what im taking objection to
you dont know what you're taking objection to because you dont know what you're talking about
Let me explain my irritation with my fellow know-it-all scientists. What we have currently is a pretty robust theory developed from observation of the universe from our little speck of rock that the universe originated from a single point and has expanded, galaxies, suns, systems and planets arose, quantity transformed into quality, they cooled, produced the conditions necessary for carbon life and then we came along, the only known arrangement of matter that has developed consciousness of itself, quite probably the lowest, least complex arrangement of matter that can gain consciousness of itself.
And thats crux 1, we are fucking dumb, we think slowly, or brains are pretty crap really, we get steadily less good at processing, understanding and being fully conscious of things as they become more removed from our immediate material existence, in both time and space, as scales become larger or smaller away from the scales we have evolved at, and yet we look out into the whole damn universe, with our consciousness which we are ever so proud of and a few of us declaim to the rest: this is how it is, we have the answers, we've solved it.
Well, what have they solved? They haven't solved shit, they've just recounted observations: the universe arose from a single point, it expanded, here’s how galaxies are formed etc. You can literally watch that shit through a telescope by looking at galaxies in various states of formation. And they haven't even got past the observation stage: dark energy, dark matter etc, these are just ways of saying some-thing’s happening and there must be something there but we can't observe it, and this isn't insignificant numbers here, this is saying we can't yet account for ~83% of the matter in the universe! The sum of the entire knowledge of the human species is minuscule compared to the sum of all that is to be known, and to not recognise this is weak and conceited, humans throughout every stage of history have thought they were approaching knowing everything, understanding everything, and we look back and laugh, and in the future, as now, humans will look back at 2016 and their “end of
Everything else beyond the little we know is pure speculation, on the universal and beyond-universal scale its philosophy: try asking a physicist on the origin of the big bang, or what dark matter is, or where the universe is heading, or other dimensions beyond our pitiful weak consciousness, or on the similarities between the super-galaxy web and the human brain and they will at best go “hmmm, yeah, that's interesting, but its more philosophy than science”. The universe as we know it is just the sum of our observations from our planet using crude ass tools filtered through our crude senses into our crude brain and we're just not very good at consciousness of scales and concepts that our outside our immediate material circumstances, we're just not very intelligent, and so our understanding of the universe is piss-poor
combine this with two things:
1) the lack of the science of dialectical materialism and marxism-leninism providing an overarching framework through which to understand and theorise about the universe. If you accept the pre-eminence of marxist science over all other scientific disciplines, i.e. that dialectical materialism is the “theory of theories” for all matter-energy in the universe, which any Marxist-Leninist must, then you can surely see that without seeing the divided scientific fields within this overall framework scientific research and discovery is hampered. DM also tells us that, in relation to the point above, knowing everything is impossible, because there are always more connections, further links to the relatedness of matter-energy and we are no-where near understanding even a fraction of it. What amazes me is that DM is so self-evident across the whole universe but my fellow scientists seem either wilfully ignorant, or at best unable to look outside of the narrow blinkers of their extreme specialisation and thus never really join the dots. And so you get many many stupid ass theories (not referring to the big bang here!) bandied about by supposedly intelligent people, outright fascism pushed onto people as scientific fact and because its science, by a scientist, it has to be obeyed and taken as 100% truth from you betters. This pisses me off immensely.
2) Science under capitalism is terrible. The drivers are all wrong: wealth and exploitation; and, the actual value of labour put towards scientific research is minuscule. You just need to compare for e.g. the phama-industrial complex's marketing budget to its r&d budget, or money put into space exploration after the soviets were no longer on the stage, or marine biology vs fishing technology. Or even just the tiny proportion of government budgets and human labour as a whole that goes towards what should be the most important thing we humans as a conscious species do after satisfying the material conditions of our own existence: inquiry into the material conditions of our own existence and how to understand and improve them. There is literally no reason to conduct scientific research under capitalism unless it facilitates new ways to exploit the natural world or people. And so to think our current scientific system under capitalism is any better or different than say our education system, or our agricultural system, or prison system is laughable. And yet, scientists will tell you the complete opposite, the myth of the noble research institute, and the masses believe that, rather than understanding that the majority of science is research into how to fuck them and the earth further.
And so when I see people lauding scientific research under capitalism as having all the answers or being some great noble quest for knowledge rather than a bunch of underfunded smug bourgie fascists looking at new ways to exploit the proles for their capitalist masters I can't help but scoff & get angry
and that’s why we need to synthesise to a higher stage of consciousness, communism, if we really want to advance science
Edited by tears ()
tears posted:c_man, my problem is not with the big bang or any other individual part of scientific knowledge, its with “science” as a whole as operating under capitalism and its smug sense of self satisfaction and confidence in its own infallibility. Also this isn't an attack on you, im just pissed off
Let me explain my irritation with my fellow know-it-all scientists. What we have currently is a pretty robust theory developed from observation of the universe from our little speck of rock that the universe originated from a single point and has expanded, galaxies, suns, systems and planets arose, quantity transformed into quality, they cooled, produced the conditions necessary for carbon life and then we came along, the only known arrangement of matter that has developed consciousness of itself, quite probably the lowest, least complex arrangement of matter that can gain consciousness of itself.
And thats crux 1, we are fucking dumb, we think slowly, or brains are pretty crap really, we get steadily less good at processing, understanding and being fully conscious of things as they become more removed from our immediate material existence, in both time and space, as scales become larger or smaller away from the scales we have evolved at, and yet we look out into the whole damn universe, with our consciousness which we are ever so proud of and a few of us declaim to the rest: this is how it is, we have the answers, we've solved it.
Well, what have they solved? They haven't solved shit, they've just recounted observations: the universe arose from a single point, it expanded, here’s how galaxies are formed etc. You can literally watch that shit through a telescope by looking at galaxies in various states of formation. And they haven't even got past the observation stage: dark energy, dark matter etc, these are just ways of saying some-thing’s happening and there must be something there but we can't observe it, and this isn't insignificant numbers here, this is saying we can't yet account for ~83% of the matter in the universe! The sum of the entire knowledge of the human species is minuscule compared to the sum of all that is to be known, and to not recognise this is weak and conceited, humans throughout every stage of history have thought they were approaching knowing everything, understanding everything, and we look back and laugh, and in the future, as now, humans will look back at 2016 and their “end ofhistoryscience” bigheadedness and laugh.
Everything else beyond the little we know is pure speculation, on the universal and beyond-universal scale its philosophy: try asking a physicist on the origin of the big bang, or what dark matter is, or where the universe is heading, or other dimensions beyond our pitiful weak consciousness, or on the similarities between the super-galaxy web and the human brain and they will at best go “hmmm, yeah, that's interesting, but its more philosophy than science”. The universe as we know it is just the sum of our observations from our planet using crude ass tools filtered through our crude senses into our crude brain and we're just not very good at consciousness of scales and concepts that our outside our immediate material circumstances, we're just not very intelligent, and so our understanding of the universe is piss-poor
combine this with two things:
1) the lack of the science of dialectical materialism and marxism-leninism providing an overarching framework through which to understand and theorise about the universe. If you accept the pre-eminence of marxist science over all other scientific disciplines, i.e. that dialectical materialism is the “theory of theories” for all matter-energy in the universe, which any Marxist-Leninist must, then you can surely see that without seeing the divided scientific fields within this overall framework scientific research and discovery is hampered. DM also tells us that, in relation to the point above, knowing everything is impossible, because there are always more connections, further links to the relatedness of matter-energy and we are no-where near understanding even a fraction of it. What amazes me is that DM is so self-evident across the whole universe but my fellow scientists seem either wilfully ignorant, or at best unable to look outside of the narrow blinkers of their extreme specialisation and thus never really join the dots. And so you get many many stupid ass theories (not referring to the big bang here!) bandied about by supposedly intelligent people, outright fascism pushed onto people as scientific fact and because its science, by a scientist, it has to be obeyed and taken as 100% truth from you betters. This pisses me off immensely.
2) Science under capitalism is terrible. The drivers are all wrong: wealth and exploitation; and, the actual value of labour put towards scientific research is minuscule. You just need to compare for e.g. the phama-industrial complex's marketing budget to its r&d budget, or money put into space exploration after the soviets were no longer on the stage, or marine biology vs fishing technology. Or even just the tiny proportion of government budgets and human labour as a whole that goes towards what should be the most important thing we humans as a conscious species do after satisfying the material conditions of our own existence: inquiry into the material conditions of our own existence and how to understand and improve them. There is literally no reason to conduct scientific research under capitalism unless it facilitates new ways to exploit the natural world or people. And so to think our current scientific system under capitalism is any better or different than say our education system, or our agricultural system, or prison system is laughable. And yet, scientists will tell you the complete opposite, the myth of the noble research institute, and the masses believe that, rather than understanding that the majority of science is research into how to fuck them and the earth further.
And so when I see people lauding scientific research under capitalism as having all the answers or being some great noble quest for knowledge rather than a bunch of underfunded smug bourgie fascists looking at new ways to exploit the proles for their capitalist masters I can't help but scoff & get angry
and that’s why we need to synthesise to a higher stage of consciousness, communism, if we really want to advance science
Thank you.
science generally speaking is good, instrumental use of reason and house blend of science+secular faith is fascist dogshit. religio? welcoem to hell who gibves a shit