Deconstructing the Myth of Science: Limitations and Objections

Science's limitations, including its reliance on relative truths and inherent biases, necessitate a deconstruction of its assumptions.

### Deconstructing the Myth of Science: Part 2 -  Challenging Assumptions and the Limitations of Scientific Knowledge

* 🔬 This video delves into the **limitations of science**, challenging common cultural assumptions about its nature and function.
* 🤔 The speaker emphasizes that understanding his points requires **deep contemplation and independent insight**, not mere belief.
* 🗣️  Early objections are addressed, acknowledging the potential for misuse of these teachings by those with egoic motivations.  The speaker states that  "Just because the points that I make are inconvenient for you doesn't make them untrue."
* 🧠 The speaker highlights the **mind's role as a gatekeeper**, filtering information and resisting challenges to one's worldview.  He uses the metaphor of "jailbreaking your mind" to illustrate this concept.
* ⚠️  The speaker warns against the immediate dismissal of challenging ideas, urging viewers to observe their own reactivity to potentially uncomfortable concepts.
* 🔄 The video challenges the idea that science automatically improves itself, arguing that **evolution requires questioning and willingness to change existing paradigms**.
* 🤔 The speaker critiques **pragmatism**, arguing that equating usefulness with truth is flawed, using examples of Newtonian mechanics and tribal knowledge in the Amazon.  He states that "just because something is useful doesn't automatically make it true".
* 🌌 The video concludes by asserting the existence of **absolute truth**, which current scientific methods cannot fully grasp, emphasizing that science's value stems from its attempt to correspond with this truth.

### Deconstructing the Myth of Science: Part 2 - The Limitations of Observation and Method

* 🔬 **The inherent limitations of scientific observation** are highlighted, arguing that scientists often dismiss data contradicting their worldview, exemplified by the debate around the existence of ghosts.
* 🤔 The speaker questions the sufficiency of current scientific **methodologies** to account for all of reality's phenomena, emphasizing the subjective nature of observation and evidence.
* 👻 The example of ghosts is used to illustrate how **belief systems** influence the acceptance of evidence, questioning what constitutes proof and highlighting the role of preconceived notions.
* 👽  The discussion expands to encompass other phenomena like UFOs, Bigfoot, and mystical experiences, asserting that scientific biases lead to the dismissal of evidence outside the established paradigm.
* 🔬 The speaker challenges the notion of objective scientific standards, arguing that **methodological biases** within the scientific establishment influence the acceptance or rejection of findings.
* 🤔 The video presents the "problem of anomalies," where contradictory data is often dismissed as "noise" without objective criteria for evaluation, exemplified by the calculation of the **speed of light**.
* 🔄 The "recontextualization problem" is introduced, illustrating how changing the context of a fact can completely alter its meaning, highlighting the importance of context in interpreting data.
* 🕸️  The "entanglement problem" is discussed, emphasizing that the measuring instrument, the scientific method, individual facts, and the scientist's personal biases are all intertwined, impacting the objectivity of scientific findings.  "What we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our methods of questioning," - Werner Heisenberg.

### The Myth of Objective Science: Belief, Bias, and the Relativity of Truth

* 🔬 **Scientific rules and standards**, inherently finite, create inevitable bias, rendering objective science impossible.  This challenges the "myth of science" as a neutral enterprise.
* 🧠 Methodological biases in science blind researchers to aspects of reality, making any scientific truth inherently **relative**.
* 🤯 A thought experiment involving a VR simulation highlights the **relativity of scientific truth**; findings within a simulation become meaningless upon its end.
* 🔬 Scientific truth is relative to numerous factors: culture, era, language, methods, instruments, neurology, perception, and consciousness.  Even "1 + 1 = 2" is conditional upon the observer's state.
* 🤨 **Belief**, often misunderstood, is the foundation of scientific understanding; even seemingly validated facts rely on a chain of beliefs and trust in authority.
* 🏦 Science suffers from an "overleveraged" problem: a vast knowledge base, mostly based on untested beliefs, creates a fragile system vulnerable to error.  The 90%+ of the population who have never done a science experiment underscores this issue.
* 👨‍🏫 **Science education**, often resembling indoctrination, shapes a worldview resistant to alternative perspectives, hindering critical evaluation of the scientific method itself.
* 🔄 Scientific consensus, often mistaken for objective truth, is a social construct driven by institutional survival, not solely by the pursuit of truth;  changing this requires a "culture war" and substantial marketing efforts.

### Deconstructing the Myth of Science: Part 2 - The Reality of Scientific Progress

* 🔬 **Semmelweis's** tragic fate exemplifies how science often rejects groundbreaking discoveries that challenge established paradigms, highlighting the myth that truth alone guarantees acceptance.

* 🤯  Similar resistance occurred with **Georg Cantor's** work on infinity, demonstrating a recurring pattern of rejection for revolutionary ideas.

* ⚔️ Scientific progress is not a cordial process; it's a **challenging battle** against entrenched ego minds threatened by new models of reality.

* 🧠  **Ego minds** resist new truths, fearing challenges to their worldview, often silencing or discrediting those who present them.

* 👨‍🔬 Scientists face pressures to maintain their careers and reputations, leading to self-censorship and a prioritization of survival over truth.

* 🏢  **Major scientific institutions** are driven by survival and funding concerns, influencing research and limiting exploration of unconventional ideas.

* 💰  **Funding biases** favor practical research with immediate payoffs, starving areas like mystical research and limiting the scope of scientific inquiry.

* 🔬 The **reductionist approach** in science, creating over-specialized fields, hinders holistic understanding of reality and prevents interdisciplinary communication.

Deconstructing The Myth Of Science - Part 2

Actualized.org

Video introduction: Deconstructing the myth of science, part two.

Discussion of what science is and how it works.

Emphasis on non-ideological and insight-driven teachings.

Importance of independent contemplation and insight derivation.

Addressing objections early due to the mind's filtering mechanisms.

Addressing Objections to the Deconstruction of Science

Objection 1: Undermining science is dangerous and opens the door to pseudoscience.

Response: Questioning science is necessary; the ego can misuse any teaching.

Objection 2: Science evolves and betters itself; critique is pointless.

Response: Science evolves when people change their minds about its workings.

Objection 3: Science doesn't claim to pursue truth; it improves lives.

Response: Pragmatism equates manipulating reality with truth, which is problematic.

Objection 4: How can science work if it isn't true?

Objection 5: Science is simply observation.

Objection 6: Show evidence contradicting science.

Objection 8: Using science makes the speaker a hypocrite.

Problem 2: The recontextualization problem.

Problem 3: The entanglement problem (multiple sub-problems).

Thought experiment: VR simulation to illustrate the relevance of philosophy.

Problem 4: The number one enemy of truth is belief.

Problem 5: The overleveraged problem in science.

Problem 8: The problem of falsifiability.

Problem 9: The problem of infinity and incompleteness.

Summary: Questioning all assumptions made by science.

Science benefits from rigorous questioning.

Loyalties should lie with truth, not human inventions.

Scientists are not conspiring; this is a human condition.