Science is dead!

[cladking]

Science is wrong. Or more accurately every single paradigm is wrong. True science is experiment and experiment can't be wrong.

There are no laws of nature and no God's law. All is logic except homo omnisciencis.

[Age]

If you have beliefs, which get in the way, then why have and keep beliefs?

Why not just get rid of the beliefs you are keeping, and then just not have any more?

I call our species "homo omnisciencis"

because we each believe we individually and collectively know everything.

But why would you human beings, or so-called 'homo omnisciencis', even want to begin to believe such a thing as this?

Until you, "cladking", came along I had never met another one of you human beings who believes it knows everything.

Surely you do not really believe this do you "cladking"?

Rather than seeing what exists we see what we believe so our preconceptions are always being reinforced.

I have also pointed out and mentioned this here in this forum a few times already about you adult human beings.

We might also be called "homo circularis rationatio" because our beliefs necessarily drive our reasoning in a circle right back to our assumptions.

Yes I know. This was very clearly seen happening and occurring among you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, and which I have pointed out many, many times already throughout this forum.

We can not operate at all without preconceptions.

Here is another one with holds, very deeply, this Truly bizarre and weird belief.

Now, why, exactly, do you believe that absolutely none of you human beings could exist/operate without having nor holding onto preconceptions, themselves?

you just talked about how your 'beliefs', which is just another preconception, is driving your so-called 'reasoning', in a circle right back to your very own 'assumptions'. Which, obviously, could all be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, from the outset, or at any time, or partially false, wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect.

So, once again, why have and/or keep a 'thing', like preconceptions, presumptions, and/or beliefs, which obviously may well not even be True at all?

Some of these are simply inane or display circular reasoning such as "I think therefore I am".

The Real and True or irrefutable phrase or term is; 'There is 'thought', therefore 'I' am, or 'I' exist'.

And, as long as 'reasoning' is Self-proving, painting a Truly perfect Right, Accurate, and Correct Picture of all-there-is, and which is in agreement and acceptance with and by every one, then there is absolutely nothing Wrong with this at all.

But, if one's so-called 'reasoning' is just circling back on to the very pre-existing 'assumption' that one had and was 'believing' was true, in the beginning, then there is absolutely every thing Wrong with this.

Nothing is as it appears.

So, to you, there is absolutely nothing at all whatsoever that 'is' as it 'appears'.

Which, ultimately, means that the belief, 'We can not operate at all without preconceptions', actually is not as it appears. Meaning, you human beings can actually operate without absolutely any preconceptions. Which is, and always, just an irrefutable Truth and Fact anyway, and all along.

Humans didn't always think this way and no other species has ever experienced thought other than our own.

Considering the size of the Universe, Itself, and how long It has been around for, what you just said and claimed here is a pretty big claim, especially considering how Truly little and insignificant you, and that species, really are here.

you have been around for 'how long', exactly, and know 'how much' about what actually exists in the Universe, exactly?

This is all brand new and arose when we did ~2000 BC.

What, exactly, is, supposedly, all brand new, and arose only about 4000 years before this is being written?

Reality might better be seen from the inside as all other life sees it but our perspective is always from infinite distance.

Really?

If yes, then why do a lot of you adult human beings have a very hard time seeing past your very own personal and individual pre-existing beliefs and presumptions, or in other words your very own preconceptions, which are usually absolutely always nothing like from an 'infinite distance' at all?

[Age]

Who's a little know-it-all?

I know nothing at all.

So, in one sentence is says it claims to know everything, and then, it, supposedly, claims to know absolutely nothing at all.

I have merely deduced the formatting of science and reality from experiment. Others will have to fill everything in.

I'm not so little. But I have discovered all this through coming to understand thought which I began when I was very little.

What do the words 'all this' refer to, exactly, which you claim to have 'discovered'?

Obviously I may have made some errors in logic because just like everyone I see not reality but what I believe. Induction is merely a standardized form of pattern recognition for humans and deduction oft goes astray.

If you already know that going astray is what often happens, when you go 'that way', then why do you keep continuing to go 'that way'?

[Age]

Science is wrong. Or more accurately every single paradigm is wrong. True science is experiment and experiment can't be wrong.

What is the difference between the 'science', which you claim is wrong, and, the 'true science', which you claim can not be wrong?

There are no laws of nature and no God's law. All is logic except homo omnisciencis.

So, all is logic, except for you and your species, alone, right "cladking"?

[cladking]

What is the difference between the 'science', which you claim is wrong, and, the 'true science', which you claim can not be wrong?

The science that is wrong is the models and interpretations. Experiment can't be wrong per se.

So, all is logic, except for you and your species, alone, right "cladking"?

This species is a component of a greater logic that is reality but we don't experience consciousness/ logic as other species do. It is our perception and mental processes at odds with the rest of reality.

So, in one sentence is says it claims to know everything, and then, it, supposedly, claims to know absolutely nothing at all.

I do not claim to know anything. I believe I have discovered the formatting of reality that applies to all that exists and does not exist. Science nor consciousness are bound by any specific set of axioms but once a set is adopted it is required to respect each of them. Science/ experiment doesn't work like the rest of reality but is correlated to it through experiment.

But why would you human beings, or so-called 'homo omnisciencis', even want to begin to believe such a thing as this?

For the main part we don't even know we do it. We each try to use facts and logic to arrive at correct conclusions. But we don't understand the nature of thought, language, and consciousness. Many of our most basic beliefs arrive to us through (or with) language and these are often incorrect and have been used to create our models of understanding. We have a massive tapestry in want of having numerous loose threads pulled from it.

[cladking]

But why would you human beings, or so-called 'homo omnisciencis', even want to begin to believe such a thing as this?

Nobody, least of all scientists, want to begin with the conclusion. But our brains have been reprogrammed with a language that requires it. In order to "think" about anything at all we must first learn language. This language is analog, abstract, and symbolic. It must be parsed and it proceeds only one dimensionally. It is largely this one dimensionality that causes it to become circular because beliefs are always forefront in our minds and perceptions.

All other life "thinks" four dimensionally and results are based on the logic of their brain (nature) and their experience which is all largely determined by their genetics.

[cladking]

I have also pointed out and mentioned this here in this forum a few times already about you adult human beings.

Children are far more adaptable.

Now, why, exactly, do you believe that absolutely none of you human beings could exist/operate without having nor holding onto preconceptions, themselves?

In a nutshell it is because the natural human language that was digital, logical, and representational grew far too complex for the average person to use. So pidgin languages sprang up everywhere. In order to think at all one must have a formatting, a language, and these new languages are illogical and contained numerous flawed premises.

[cladking]

Considering the size of the Universe, Itself, and how long It has been around for, what you just said and claimed here is a pretty big claim, especially considering how Truly little and insignificant you, and that species, really are here.

you have been around for 'how long', exactly, and know 'how much' about what actually exists in the Universe, exactly?

Homo omnisciencis has existed for only 4000 years. We replaced homo sapiens and our history started when they became extinct because before this history was recorded in the older language that we have never been able to translate.

Our insignificance knows no bounds however this might change in the future if we don't kill ourselves first.

[cladking]

The Real and True or irrefutable phrase or term is; 'There is 'thought', therefore 'I' am, or 'I' exist'.

Everything that exists exists without thinking except our species. This is axiomatic to all other consciousness and forms a less than poor axiom alone. If I don't believe your species exists or am unaware of it it won't simply blink out of existence or never have arisen.

In very real ways "I" is an abstraction and even existence from our perspective is an abstraction. "Thought" is almost pure abstraction. Science based on the thinking of the observer has given us the double slit experiment.

I merely maintain that the sentence/ concept is a poor foundation for any line of thought, much less science.

What exists exists and what doesn't exist does not. We live in a grey area of abstraction between them but no abstraction actually exists. We believe we live on a mountaintop or the crown of creation looking out over all of reality but we see and experience what we believe.

[Walker]

As long as there is science, there will be corruption of science.

You might as well just say, as long as there are people, there will be corruption. Politics, religion, finance...

Different applications of corruption have varying impacts. For example:

Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say
(You don’t say. Who would have ever guessed.)
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/t ... icj23jo%3D

Experts … Ha!
- The Climate-Change Science is settled, so why are these trolls pursuing misinformation, and why is this sort of thing still allowed on the internet?
- These types of reports could interfere with the $Trillions$ yet to be spent by Non-Deniers.