The Need to Start From Scratch

[WanderingLands]

The reason why we need to start from scratch in Philosophy, as well as Science, Religion/Spirituality, History, Political, Economic, and Social theories, is because of the fact that there has been so much clutter in what perceptions and opinions that have been put out in these subjects of knowing. In the case of Philosophy, since this is a particular one that I'm discussing although it is the same with all subjects of knowing, there are so many different schools in Philosophy that talk of varying ideas that often war off with one another. Examples include: rationalism vs. empiricism, realism vs. idealism, Plato vs. Aristotle, Heraclitus vs. Parmenides, liberalism vs. conservationism, meaning vs. nihilism.

As much as we learn a lot of knowledge that could be potential truths from different philosophers of different eras of our human history, we find differing opinions that often disagree with whatever type of philosophy that we are drawn into. Thus, we often get confused with which side of philosophical idea is correct, and so instead of actually finding out what this "perennial philosophy" exactly is, we argue against one another in trying promote which philosophy is better. Though there may have been some attempts to merge different ideas together, such as that of Immanuel Kant who tried to merge rationalism and empiricism in attempt to solve the problems of philosophy, even that has been critiqued by another philosopher named Hegel who came up with the idea of dialectics to solve the problem of Kant, ie. the idea that we can never know the exact thing in of itself.

Of course, I do acknowledge the fact that many people have different beliefs and different opinions and objections to certain ideas, which is indeed a good thing in our expenditure for Truth. This is why in the 21st century, we have resources on philosophical inquiry such as using Logic, and also using things such as the Scientific Method, and to also use our intuition and feeling, to process all of our thoughts and possibly conceptualize reality. We must now use our brains and our senses to critically think for ourselves to find our ow answers, if we want to succeed on the quest of Truth (the essence of the "perennial philosophy").

The same would also go for Science as well. What we need to do to solve the crises of Science that has arisen from mainly theoretical and mathematical physics is to scratch out the entire Standard Model theory (such as the many particles, quasi-particles, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, big bang, multiverse), and to start from scratch by use of the Scientific method, and to get back to the basics of Science. In doing so, we should also go back to Natural Philosophy (the combination of Science and Philosophy), so we can combine the truths of the physical world and the truths of metaphysical concepts.

Obviously, we will still look to resources outside ourselves for information, such as researching up on philosophy, science, history, politics, etc. to get differing perceptions of reality. This time, however, shall be a time of not subscribing to an particular paradigm (ideology, belief system, opinion), but an examination of all of those opinions to find Truth.

[The Voice of Time]

The reason why we need to start from scratch in Philosophy, as well as Science, Religion/Spirituality, History, Political, Economic, and Social theories, is because of the fact that there has been so much clutter in what perceptions and opinions that have been put out in these subjects of knowing.

Error is also progress, it tells us where we shouldn't go. So no, your desire is fundamentally flawed and to any reasonable person it's undesirable when scrutinized.

[Ginkgo]

The reason why we need to start from scratch in Philosophy, as well as Science, Religion/Spirituality, History, Political, Economic, and Social theories, is because of the fact that there has been so much clutter in what perceptions and opinions that have been put out in these subjects of knowing. In the case of Philosophy, since this is a particular one that I'm discussing although it is the same with all subjects of knowing, there are so many different schools in Philosophy that talk of varying ideas that often war off with one another. Examples include: rationalism vs. empiricism, realism vs. idealism, Plato vs. Aristotle, Heraclitus vs. Parmenides, liberalism vs. conservationism, meaning vs. nihilism.

As much as we learn a lot of knowledge that could be potential truths from different philosophers of different eras of our human history, we find differing opinions that often disagree with whatever type of philosophy that we are drawn into. Thus, we often get confused with which side of philosophical idea is correct, and so instead of actually finding out what this "perennial philosophy" exactly is, we argue against one another in trying promote which philosophy is better. Though there may have been some attempts to merge different ideas together, such as that of Immanuel Kant who tried to merge rationalism and empiricism in attempt to solve the problems of philosophy, even that has been critiqued by another philosopher named Hegel who came up with the idea of dialectics to solve the problem of Kant, ie. the idea that we can never know the exact thing in of itself.

Of course, I do acknowledge the fact that many people have different beliefs and different opinions and objections to certain ideas, which is indeed a good thing in our expenditure for Truth. This is why in the 21st century, we have resources on philosophical inquiry such as using Logic, and also using things such as the Scientific Method, and to also use our intuition and feeling, to process all of our thoughts and possibly conceptualize reality. We must now use our brains and our senses to critically think for ourselves to find our ow answers, if we want to succeed on the quest of Truth (the essence of the "perennial philosophy").

The same would also go for Science as well. What we need to do to solve the crises of Science that has arisen from mainly theoretical and mathematical physics is to scratch out the entire Standard Model theory (such as the many particles, quasi-particles, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, big bang, multiverse), and to start from scratch by use of the Scientific method, and to get back to the basics of Science. In doing so, we should also go back to Natural Philosophy (the combination of Science and Philosophy), so we can combine the truths of the physical world and the truths of metaphysical concepts.

Obviously, we will still look to resources outside ourselves for information, such as researching up on philosophy, science, history, politics, etc. to get differing perceptions of reality. This time, however, shall be a time of not subscribing to an particular paradigm (ideology, belief system, opinion), but an examination of all of those opinions to find Truth.

The only reason we have moved from Aristotle to Newtonian mechanics,to relativity and finally to quantum mechanics is because knowledge is an accumulative process. Scientific knowledge is built on previous discoveries and insights. It doesn't really matter if knowledge progresses through the Hegelian dialectic or Kant's 'thing-in-itself'. Only when we have a thorough knowledge of a discipline that we can see the inadequacies. Laypeople such as ourselves, who don't have the specialized knowledge see problems were no problem exists.

I am not all that comfortable with the idea that science is in some sort of crisis. If we were to look at science using this terminology then the reality is that science has always crisis. Aristotle versus Newton, Newton verses Einstein and Einstein versus quantum mechanics. There is nothing historically unique about quantum mechanics versus naive realism.

No amount of natural philosophy will ever give rise to LHC or a MIR machine. It is only because the various disciplines of the modern sciences developed out of natural philosophy that I am lucky enough to have a medication that I can take at the same time each day. In an age of natural philosophy I would be relying on alchemy.

[WanderingLands]

Error is also progress, it tells us where we shouldn't go. So no, your desire is fundamentally flawed and to any reasonable person it's undesirable when scrutinized.

Error may be a good thing as it is a challenge for us to retrace our steps to avoid them, but it is not progress. If not solved or if repeated, then error would be a digression. This is especially true when we try to make sense of existence through systems such as Philosophy and Science, where if we were to hold onto Errors, we would not solve anything and it would lead to confusion like it is now. Examples are also in computers, where we have to get rid of the root problem by checking for whatever type of virus to fix it. Seeing that having to retrace our steps is needed to bypass error, it is indeed necessary to start back from scratch.

[The Voice of Time]

If you don't know where you shouldn't go, you are worse off than not. So you are wrong again, it is progress.

[WanderingLands]

The only reason we have moved from Aristotle to Newtonian mechanics,to relativity and finally to quantum mechanics is because knowledge is an accumulative process. Scientific knowledge is built on previous discoveries and insights. It doesn't really matter if knowledge progresses through the Hegelian dialectic or Kant's 'thing-in-itself'. Only when we have a thorough knowledge of a discipline that we can see the inadequacies. Laypeople such as ourselves, who don't have the specialized knowledge see problems were no problem exists.

I am not all that comfortable with the idea that science is in some sort of crisis. If we were to look at science using this terminology then the reality is that science has always crisis. Aristotle versus Newton, Newton verses Einstein and Einstein versus quantum mechanics. There is nothing historically unique about quantum mechanics versus naive realism.

As much as there have been many things discovered that we may have never known back in the past, we still have a ton of contradictions that many in the world of Philosophy and Science refuse to correct let alone even acknowledge. Saying that there are no contradictions and no crises in science when many people outside academia have legitimately pointed out these errors is at best ignorance and at worst deceit. This is why I say repeatedly that it is us "laypeople" that need to take the time to look into these matters and use the available tools of inquiring knowledge to make our own conclusions, especially when there are countless books and other resources that can be obtained more easily than in the past.

No amount of natural philosophy will ever give rise to LHC or a MIR machine. It is only because the various disciplines of the modern sciences developed out of natural philosophy that I am lucky enough to have a medication that I can take at the same time each day. In an age of natural philosophy I would be relying on alchemy.

The LHC and the MIR are nothing but fluke machines that are propagandized to the masses for the purposes of mystification and indoctrination, especially in the case of making up particles for whatever particles to explain the forces and aspects of the universe whereas in Natural Philosophy, we can simply deduce these forces the classical elements of Earth, Water, Fire, Air, and Ether or Spirit as the element that binds all the four mundane elements.

[WanderingLands]

If you don't know where you shouldn't go, you are worse off than not. So you are wrong again, it is progress.

You are taking things out of context, as you've probably never read my entire OP and decided to take a few sentences out of context instead of considering the whole picture. I never said that we shouldn't know about where not to go; I said that error is a necessary challenge whereas progress is the solving of such errors and challenges.

[The Voice of Time]

Your definition of progress is wrong, so you are wrong for the third time.

For instance, if you find out that you cannot perform a certain feat because of gravitational forces, then there is no way in which you can solve that situation, instead, you use the fact that gravity does not allow the given feat to be performed, to avoid such situations in the future.

The build-up of such known errors, is a progression of knowledge and makes our future choices relatively more reliable. The same is true for other feats that are impossible or require fantastical situations to work. You should stop basing yourself on your own erroneous reasoning.

[WanderingLands]

Your definition of progress is wrong, so you are wrong for the third time.

For instance, if you find out that you cannot perform a certain feat because of gravitational forces, then there is no way in which you can solve that situation, instead, you use the fact that gravity does not allow the given feat to be performed, to avoid such situations in the future.

The build-up of such known errors, is a progression of knowledge and makes our future choices relatively more reliable. The same is true for other feats that are impossible or require fantastical situations to work. You should stop basing yourself on your own erroneous reasoning.

First of all, I do not appreciate people coming on this thread being arrogant and condescending. Please act politely as your behavior on this thread is getting on my nerves.

You see, error in the case of inquiring knowledge is falsehood and misconception. If you don't know that an error is an error, it can blind you from seeing the bigger picture of reality and so promoting falsehood derails progression of knowing truth. That's why we should indeed scratch the Standard Model theory in Science and examine the ideas of philosophy via Logic and reasoning so that we can overcome error.

[Ginkgo]

The only reason we have moved from Aristotle to Newtonian mechanics,to relativity and finally to quantum mechanics is because knowledge is an accumulative process. Scientific knowledge is built on previous discoveries and insights. It doesn't really matter if knowledge progresses through the Hegelian dialectic or Kant's 'thing-in-itself'. Only when we have a thorough knowledge of a discipline that we can see the inadequacies. Laypeople such as ourselves, who don't have the specialized knowledge see problems were no problem exists.

I am not all that comfortable with the idea that science is in some sort of crisis. If we were to look at science using this terminology then the reality is that science has always crisis. Aristotle versus Newton, Newton verses Einstein and Einstein versus quantum mechanics. There is nothing historically unique about quantum mechanics versus naive realism.

As much as there have been many things discovered that we may have never known back in the past, we still have a ton of contradictions that many in the world of Philosophy and Science refuse to correct let alone even acknowledge. Saying that there are no contradictions and no crises in science when many people outside academia have legitimately pointed out these errors is at best ignorance and at worst deceit. This is why I say repeatedly that it is us "laypeople" that need to take the time to look into these matters and use the available tools of inquiring knowledge to make our own conclusions, especially when there are countless books and other resources that can be obtained more easily than in the past.

No amount of natural philosophy will ever give rise to LHC or a MIR machine. It is only because the various disciplines of the modern sciences developed out of natural philosophy that I am lucky enough to have a medication that I can take at the same time each day. In an age of natural philosophy I would be relying on alchemy.

The LHC and the MIR are nothing but fluke machines that are propagandized to the masses for the purposes of mystification and indoctrination, especially in the case of making up particles for whatever particles to explain the forces and aspects of the universe whereas in Natural Philosophy, we can simply deduce these forces the classical elements of Earth, Water, Fire, Air, and Ether or Spirit as the element that binds all the four mundane elements.

People such as you and I who are outside of the discipline don't actually know. Believing we do know is the problem.

When it comes to quantum mechanics I will never contribute anything to quantum gravity or loop quantum gravity simply because my knowledge in this area is inadequate. Do you think you have something to contribute to this theory?


Do you think your argument would appeal to someone who had Hodgkin's Lymphoma? MRI machines, chemical medication, radiation and stem cell research all play an important part in prolonging life. Do you think the sufferer would be prepared to ditch modern treatment in favor of some type of elixir derived from the principles of natural philosophy?

[The Voice of Time]

First of all, I do not appreciate people coming on this thread being arrogant and condescending.

I wasn't trying to please you, merely trying to stop you from saying wrong things... or, paraphrasing your paragraph below: "stopping you from falsehood and misconception".

You see, error in the case of inquiring knowledge is falsehood and misconception. If you don't know that an error is an error, it can blind you from seeing the bigger picture of reality and so promoting falsehood derails progression of knowing truth.

If you don't live out errors, then you can neither know that they are errors. So for the 4th time, you are dead wrong. Scientific experiments often "promote falsehood" (by scrutiny and testing of assumptions in the real world) so as to be certain that in fact things are wrong and not merely an assumption and belief (undermining the assumptions would lead to a lack of empirical reason).

Many a time people's beliefs and assumptions have in fact hindered progress (one of the biggest examples of this was in biology in the Soviet Union where Stalin banned a particular field of study and set back soviet scientists by decades), by analysis what you are suggesting is in fact closed-mindedness and the promotion of basing knowledge on people's prejudice, as after taking away the opportunity to live out things to see if they are indeed lies, you can only assume by random inferences, that is: prejudice.

That's why we should indeed scratch the Standard Model theory in Science and examine the ideas of philosophy via Logic and reasoning so that we can overcome error.

I have no idea what the "Standard Model Theory in Science" is supposed to mean, sounds like a neologism to me. The only standard model I know about is the one in physics.

[WanderingLands]

People such as you and I who are outside of the discipline don't actually know. Believing we do know is the problem.

When it comes to quantum mechanics I will never contribute anything to quantum gravity or loop quantum gravity simply because my knowledge in this area is inadequate. Do you think you have something to contribute to this theory?

I believe that it is not true, as we have resources such as the internet, where we can research things online and even test some scientific things via buying some scientific equipment (which is something that could be done from the past as well as the contemporary 21st century). With a great deal of commitment to educating yourself, I believe that you can do possibly anything and solve things that someone at a university could never possibly do.

As for "quantum gravity" and "loop quantum gravity", I believe that these concepts are loosely based on mathematics and not at all based on observation, or is based on scant observation. First of all, gravity is a concept as we haven't been able to detect actual gravity. It may have been a good concept at the time, but I would prefer a more tangible object that can possibly replace gravity, such as possibly electromagnetism. Also, I don't believe that we've ever seen a loop in space, as space is mainly pitch black.

Do you think your argument would appeal to someone who had Hodgkin's Lymphoma? MRI machines, chemical medication, radiation and stem cell research all play an important part in prolonging life. Do you think the sufferer would be prepared to ditch modern treatment in favor of some type of elixir derived from the principles of natural philosophy?

First, Natural Philosophy is much broader than studying alchemy; it encompasses many things that are even included today in modern science. Second, the study of elixrs and making elixrs takes a lot of research into the body and its functions; just as it is for modern medicine. You have to find the right herbs for the right treatment for a particular ailment that one would have, and you sometimes also have to have a great knowledge of astrology (which is why alchemy is part of esotericism) in order for that elixr to work. I myself have bought an elixr myself to increase chi and to clear the mind, and it most definitely works.

Third, modern medicine is in reality not adequate enough to treat diseases, as compared to the more natural medicines like homeopathy, magnetic therapy, and other holistic medicines and techniques (such as meditation and yoga) that can treat diseases more efficiently and even prevent the many more diseases that we have today. I'd say that you should read Murder By Injection by Eustace Mullins as a starter for looking into what I'm saying.

[WanderingLands]

If you don't live out errors, then you can neither know that they are errors. So for the 4th time, you are dead wrong. Scientific experiments often "promote falsehood" (by scrutiny and testing of assumptions in the real world) so as to be certain that in fact things are wrong and not merely an assumption and belief (undermining the assumptions would lead to a lack of empirical reason).

Many a time people's beliefs and assumptions have in fact hindered progress (one of the biggest examples of this was in biology in the Soviet Union where Stalin banned a particular field of study and set back soviet scientists by decades), by analysis what you are suggesting is in fact closed-mindedness and the promotion of basing knowledge on people's prejudice, as after taking away the opportunity to live out things to see if they are indeed lies, you can only assume by random inferences, that is: prejudice.

I never said that we shouldn't live out our errors as errors are inevitable. I'm saying that errors are challenges that can either make or brake us, and it is our will to overcome and prevent errors like that that we make progress. It is not "prejudice" to know what are errors and to know when to avoid them.

[Ginkgo]

I have no idea what the "Standard Model Theory in Science" is supposed to mean, sounds like a neologism to me. The only standard model I know about is the one in physics.

The Voice of Time is correct, there is only a standard model when it comes to physics. This highlights my claim that inadequate knowledge in a discipline can lead to misconceptions.


P.S.
If its all the same, I prefer to stay with my medication.

[Ginkgo]

As for "quantum gravity" and "loop quantum gravity", I believe that these concepts are loosely based on mathematics and not at all based on observation, or is based on scant observation. First of all, gravity is a concept as we haven't been able to detect actual gravity. It may have been a good concept at the time, but I would prefer a more tangible object that can possibly replace gravity, such as possibly electromagnetism. Also, I don't believe that we've ever seen a loop in space, as space is mainly pitch black.

Space is not only black, try looking at it through the infrared. It is a form of electromagnetic radiation that can be detected.

The bottom line appears to be that between the two of us we will never contribute anything to quantum mechanics because we don't really understand it.