Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "penguinz0"
channel.
-
3
-
Well, I don’t think reality really cares about your desire for relevance, it just is what it is…in any case you’re just describing and admitting your bias. Willing to ignore all the scientific evidence, simply because it disagrees with what you want to be true. Not the greatest of logic I feel, if that’s how you reach conclusions…it’s just confirmation bias.
Also, Narcissism is more reflective of an individual who believes themselves special, superior, more important than everything else. If you need creationism because you need to feel important…well, do I even need to say it? That right there sounds pretty narcissistic to me, personally. Not that some of your point is lost on me though, I’m definitely here taking the piss out of you because of my own narcissistic tendencies, so don’t feel bad, you’re not entirely wrong, Atheists/agnostics do boast superiority. But so do theists, you didn’t write your comment above because of pure intentions…it was largely to brag, and put a little dirt in the eye of those you see as inferior. I think we all suffer from a bit of “main character syndrome”, how can we not? Our existence is the only one we know…but I digress.
I don’t feel insignificant in a godless universe, if anything it makes life even more important and special, something to cherish and protect. Think about it, you are important, you’re alive! Alive in a mostly lifeless universe, that’s mostly extremely hostile to your fragile existence…that’s incredible! You don’t think that’s special on its own? How about this then. Our 5 senses make it possible for us to experience this reality. If you didn’t have any of them though, would any of it really exist? So in a way, YOU create reality, just as much as it creates you. The universe needs life, or it technically doesn’t exist. So you are already quite special, just by being alive. Personally, I find that very humbling.
And it’s far more exciting, the challenges put in front of us are immense! Because challenges, let’s be honest, that’s what makes existence fun! I can’t think of anything more boring, than a perfect utopia where nothing changes, and there’s no challenges. I find purpose in solving the mysteries of the universe and just knowing how much there is to explore, learn, experience and discover, that’s exciting. In a seemingly endless universe, the possibilities are endless, our potential is limitless….in a tiny terrarium, meh, feels a lot like a prison to me, with very few options…what’s the point? 🤷♂️ But, I’m willing to accept it if it’s proven correct…it’s just not looking good currently, as far as the evidence goes.
Idk, I just prefer not to waste it, I’m happy for every day I get to be here…maybe the Earth wouldn’t be so messed up today, if everyone didn’t take it for granted, if everyone strived for today, rather than waisting time praying for an after life that may never come. But that’s just me. Unlike theists, who can’t wait to get out of here for some reason, I see the here and now as heaven…we’re already experiencing it, what more do you want? This world isn’t enough? 🧐
Anyway, I feel you’re looking at secularism as purely a nihilistic and miserable existence. But nihilism isn’t the only conclusion to be drawn from a universe with possibly no god, there’s many more positive ways to look at things, I assure you.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your attitude is in the right place I feel, you shouldn’t assume someone is correct, simply because they’ve acquired some status most would consider as a higher intelligence. Nobody is infallible, even genius can make mistakes and they often do. And vice versa, even a broken clock is still right twice a day. So I agree that we should never be afraid to question even the most established ideas…heck that’s how great scientists made their entire careers, by going against consensus. You think Einstein is remembered today because he went with the status quo? Heck no…he challenged the work of Newton, he was not a very well liked fellow when he started out. The problem today is that his work is the new status quo, but he probably was not correct about everything, so we should have more people willing to challenge him, rather than just assume he was correct about everything.
But I think you are in a way limiting yourself with your rigidly defined axioms of experimentation. Not that you’re entirely wrong mind you, experimentation is about determining cause and effect relations, but experimentation is just one part of the process of science, it’s not everything. I mean most scientists most of the time just collect data and record observations, without necessarily knowing for certain what that research may be used for in the future, or by whom. They’re not conducting experiments, but they’re still scientists in a field of science, just collecting data, just a cog in the wheel, but still very important. A zoologist for example, may conduct the odd experiment here and there, but most the time they’re just seeking new species to observe and record. Are they not scientists, simply because they don’t really do a lot of experimentation? The work they do, can help in fields such as engineering, sometimes they stumble upon creatures with unique abilities, skeletal structures, or ways of doing things, that can be studied to advance our methods, or provide us with new materials, or…lots of things really. Identify new toxins, create new medicines, etc, the potential for discovery is almost limitless. So while it’s largely not a field of experimentation, it’s still very useful, and I’m glad we have scientists dedicated to that field.
I think you’ve also made experimentation a bit more rigid than it actually is, which keeps you from recognizing some variables as independent variables. Time is often an independent variable used in experimentation, were you aware of that? In the field of astrophysics, time is most often the independent variable used in experimentation. Of course we can’t manipulate the flow of time, quite like we can poor a can of pop on a flower to see what effect it has, but what we can do is choose when to make observations. We can allow a certain amount of time to pass, then make an observation to see what effect that amount of time has. With the stars, we can choose dates to make an observation, such as in the Eddington experiment, where an observation was made of the positions of stars before the Sun was close to them, then checked again during a solar eclipse (the only time you can really make an observation of stars around the Sun), to record their positions, to see if they do in fact shift by gravitational lensing. See, we’re limited with what we can do in astrophysics, but that doesn’t mean we don’t still have options. We can’t physically move the Sun to a position and see what effect it has on the space around it, but we can predict where it’s going to be…and then just wait for that moment in time to occur. So time becomes the independent variable in many experiments done for astronomy and astrophysics…though, we now put rockets and satellites and astronauts into space, so there’s a lot more we can do now in astrophysics, then we could a hundred years ago. But point is, I think you’re looking at experimentation with blinders on, and overlooking some variables that can also be independent in an experiment. You may think astronomy and astrophysics are pointless or flawed in some way, but there’s a great many technologies you use today, that can give thanks to those fields specifically. So they have proven themselves to be quite useful…and what’s the alternative exactly? Would you prefer we make no attempt at all, should we just stop being curious about the cosmos, simply because we have limitations? You and I both know that doesn’t jive well with human nature…curiosity is our super power, it’s a big part of our nature.
I also get the feeling your opinion here is making a slight argument against theoretical physics…but if you’ve ever built a house before, I’m sure you understand the importance of making a blue print first, yes? Why would you think science would be any different? Can’t even start to build, if you don’t first have a plan, enough for a foundation. Theoretical physics is the sketching phase of science…any artist can tell you how important sketching is, to the process of making a masterfully finished final piece. It has its purpose, and it’s a pretty important one. We don’t just automatically know things, we have to work it out first…it’s a long process, that starts on a chalk board. We don’t get to experimentation, without first asking the questions, and making the predictions. So when Neil said astrophysics is largely in the mind, that’s because a lot of it is done mathematically. It’s a lot of waiting, because time is often the independent variable in most experiments for astrophysics…and the cosmos does things very slowly, so might as well spend the time asking more questions and making further predictions.
I think your heart is in the right place, but I do feel you’re kind of pigeon holing yourself with your current opinion of modern science, you’ve created a rigid box around yourself that’s very limiting to what you can achieve. Science today is a big web of varying disciplines, rigidly defined systems are great and all, they keep us consistent, but if you think you know everything already, then you’ll fail to see anything outside of what you think you know. You may find yourself unable to think outside of your own rigidly defined box.
Great insights though, interesting way to look at the problems and pitfalls of modern science and call them into question, I am all for that. I hope I was able to also provide some interesting insights and perspective. Take care.
1
-
1