The Taboos of Science

[Strelky]

It pisses me off to see how many interesting topics are near impossible to discuss

This video explains quite a bit.

[video=youtube]http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=3_dEsw1Ff1U

[R733]

This vid won't play for me, but I can tell You one thing; mainstream science will reject investigation of anything that would contradict objective causality world view, as objective causality gives scientific community power of authority (humanas are machines and we know how to handle them). They're forming new priesthood.

[Corpus Vile]

Doesn't load for me either, it's completely white. Can you post a link to it?

Nevermind, found it in the page source, there was a /v too much in the link.

 

[video=youtube]

 

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

Any taboo will fall away with time. Such is the march of time, when stupid, stuck in their ways die off and more fertile, open minds replace them.

[Tasha69]

Any taboo will fall away with time. Such is the march of time' date=' when stupid, stuck in their ways die off and more fertile, open minds replace them.

[/quote']

 

Well, what many consider taboo today... wasn't in the past. The problem is that too many people are concerned with the idea of "political correctness".

 

Aka, too many narcissistic assholes these days...

[Strelky]

Well' date=' what many consider taboo today... wasn't in the past.

[/quote']

 

I beg to differ. I think quite the opposite in fact

[R733]

Well' date=' what many consider taboo today... wasn't in the past.

[/quote']

 

I beg to differ. I think quite the opposite in fact

 

Actually, that's correct. In recent past there were studies of "paranormal activities" that were based on statistical data; today any official studies of such would be ridiculed and marginalized. I'd like to add that in posted vid the guy calls ideas of Dean Radin "crazy", and issue of consciousness as "irrelevant" without argumenting his opinions. And that's the core of taboo/ignorance; making judgment without investigating the subject. It's the same flaw as in religious people - assumption of one's own omniscience. This species is ignorant as fuck. Maybe it has root in some genetic feature that our creators (aliens) have encoded in us...

 

Here are the most (in my opinion) important taboos that are purposefully ridiculed by corporate owned mainstream media;

 

-Disclousure project - infiltration of our governmets by more advanced race(s)

-Consciousness (soul) and thought energy science.

-Real origins of religions/myths - orygins of our species.

-Non-monetary based "economy" and advanced energy (non-nuclear) techs.

-Underground military projects involving colonies outside of our solar system and bases on mars and earth moon.

-Means of population reduction of our planet.

[R733]

[video=youtube]

 

[video=youtube]

[Strelky]

Spirituality may be ridiculed, but it isn't taboo, people can actually make a living off of it. When you talk about something being taboo, it isn't about what people think of your idea, Its their willingness to discuss it. MOST people can tell you why they don't believe in psychic phenomena.

As for your examples, I have some counter-examples for you:

Heliocentric Theory

Evolution and Natural Selection

Quantum Mechanics

All of the "trasitory taboos" listed in the video

Science in General

I do agree this species is ignorant as Fuck

[Something]

It's 2:32 AM. Don't ask me to do sane things.

-Disclousure project - infiltration of our governmets by more advanced race(s)

-Consciousness (soul) and thought energy science.

-Real origins of religions/myths - orygins of our species.

-Non-monetary based "economy" and advanced energy (non-nuclear) techs.

-Underground military projects involving colonies outside of our solar system and bases on mars and earth moon.

-Means of population reduction of our planet.

 

1) That's not a scientific taboo. That's what we call "classified information"

2) It's been ongoing for thousands of years. The most we've discovered with modern technology is the electrical pathways signals take during complex thought

3) Evolution

4) That's Economics, not Science

5) I dunno what this is, but it's not science either.

6) There's a reason we don't discuss this. You'll find that most societies aren't big on mass extermination.

[leddis3]

 

-Disclousure project - infiltration of our governmets by more advanced race(s)

-Consciousness (soul) and thought energy science.

-Real origins of religions/myths - orygins of our species.

-Non-monetary based "economy" and advanced energy (non-nuclear) techs.

-Underground military projects involving colonies outside of our solar system and bases on mars and earth moon.

-Means of population reduction of our planet.

 

- Anybody who knows about Lord Xenu's total control of our governments has either been eliminated or is working for them. How do you know? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

- Abstract philosophical concepts are science now?

- The obvious answer is: The Stargate.

- Yeah the U.S. government keeps all the perpetual motion machines locked in the same warehouse as the Ark of the Covenant.

- Pft! Don't you know the moon landings were faked! This was in order to cover up our real invasion of Venus.

- You might want to ask China how well enforced population control has gone for them.

[ChancellorKremlin]

Actually, on the last point, China's population control has been hailed as being extremely effective and far more effective and "humane" than those of other countries which have tried their methods, like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and recently Nigeria.

[leddis3]

Aside from the ignorant families who desire male heirs and abandon their female offspring, which not only increases the population but creates more orphans.

 

I'm not saying it's an inherently bad idea, just that many complications can arise because the population will be naturally resistant to such things.

[ChancellorKremlin]

That's true, but that sort of thing (infanticide, preference for male offspring) also happens in a number of other societies which have no form of population control too. I think that is down to culture and society, rather than population control itself.

 

And in the long run, that is something we have to look into to. While the planet has a theoretical carrying population that is orders above what we currently have, this is all dependent on technological advancements in farming and agriculture, and obviously more effective use of resources.

 

And let's face it, we're terrible at that. A BBC report the other day said the UK wasted pretty much 50% of its food last year. Fifty percent! That's half our food intake!

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

I still say you should need a license to have kids.

[Strelky]

I still say you should need a license to have kids.

 

That will solve the problem about as good as needing a permit to own a gun

[Something]

And let's face it' date=' we're terrible at that. A BBC report the other day said the UK wasted pretty much 50% of its food last year. Fifty percent! That's half our food intake!

[/quote']

 

And yet the UK still doesn't have a famine.

 

I'm loathe to waste food, personally. But if the trend of population growth is something to go by, Europe may have "oversized population" in the same category as human effects on climate change and Manbearpig.

[ChancellorKremlin]

And let's face it' date=' we're terrible at that. A BBC report the other day said the UK wasted pretty much 50% of its food last year. Fifty percent! That's half our food intake!

[/quote']

 

And yet the UK still doesn't have a famine.

 

I'm loathe to waste food, personally. But if the trend of population growth is something to go by, Europe may have "oversized population" in the same category as human effects on climate change and Manbearpig.

 

I don't quite understand what you mean here. I'm not saying we have famines, I'm saying we waste food. If we consumed 5o% less food, we'd still eat as much as we do, and that 50% is food that could either not be grown/reared to start with, or simply not exported from their places of origin into the UK and sent elsewhere instead where it is most needed.

 

As for the population size, I agree with you. The UK has a bigger population than France, and France is massive compared to the UK. To me that doesn't say the French should breed more, but that the UK should maybe breed less lol.

[Something]

I don't quite understand what you mean here. I'm not saying we have famines' date=' I'm saying we waste food. If we consumed 5o% less food, we'd still eat as much as we do, and that 50% is food that could either not be grown/reared to start with, or simply not exported from their places of origin into the UK and sent elsewhere instead where it is most needed.

 

As for the population size, I agree with you. The UK has a bigger population than France, and France is massive compared to the UK. To me that doesn't say the French should breed more, but that the UK should maybe breed less lol.

[/quote']

The UK having food doesn't mean the rural places are without. Again I don't like wasting food but that's just me.

 

And the trend of population growth in Europe (in general) is suggesting they're gonna go into population decline soon. That's why I say it's a non-issue, even if it were an issue (which it isn't)

[R733]

Spirituality may be ridiculed, but it isn't taboo, people can actually make a living off of it. When you talk about something being taboo, it isn't about what people think of your idea, Its their willingness to discuss it. MOST people can tell you why they don't believe in psychic phenomena.

As for your examples, I have some counter-examples for you:

Heliocentric Theory

Evolution and Natural Selection

Quantum Mechanics

All of the "trasitory taboos" listed in the video

Science in General

I do agree this species is ignorant as Fuck

 

If it is not investigated seriously by mainstream science it's is taboo; mainstream science is where the most money and resources goes. This how you control and manipulate science science - by funds and mainstream media. 

 

I have no idea what you mean by mentioning QM, Helliocentric theory etc,  Evolution is subject for another topic; current interpretation of random selection contradicts evolution as pure randomness would create statistical probability distibution where no complex (statistically improbable) structures can persist.

 

It's 2:32 AM. Don't ask me to do sane things.

 

 

1) That's not a scientific taboo. That's what we call "classified information"

2) It's been ongoing for thousands of years. The most we've discovered with modern technology is the electrical pathways signals take during complex thought

3) Evolution

4) That's Economics, not Science

5) I dunno what this is, but it's not science either.

6) There's a reason we don't discuss this. You'll find that most societies aren't big on mass extermination.

 

1) "I'm okay with authorities bullshiting me; I don't deserve to know the truth"

2)"I have fragmentary knowledge and I assume it's complementary one"

3)"I not aware that there is no coherent fossil record of human species and the one we have suggest that evolution of humanity was unnaturally fast"

4)"I didn't noticed that the guy used word economy in " " hence what he mentioned is replecing current illogica, wasteful economy with scientific, logical approach."

5)"I don't think that behaviour patterns and exopolitics can be contained in science (which should explain all process)"

6)"The best thing to do is to pretend that problem does not exist and wait for rulling class will solve that problem for us."

[leddis3]

Our evolution was unnaturally fast?

On what basis? Do you have some other sapient species you can compare us to?

[R733]

Our evolution was unnaturally fast?

On what basis? Do you have some other sapient species you can compare us to?

 

Why are you asking me insted of doing your own research? Is that your approach to science? Dinosaurs were evolving for over 200 mln years and there are no (offcially at least) records of advanced reptile forms capable of using tools/abstract thinking. And here, the humanity exploded in about 10-20 mln years from primitive mammals to advanced humanoid form.

[leddis3]

Why are you asking me insted of doing your own research? Is that your approach to science? Dinosaurs were evolving for over 200 mln years and there are no (offcially at least) records of advanced reptile forms capable of using tools/abstract thinking. And here, the humanity exploded in about 10-20 mln years from primitive mammals to advanced humanoid form.

 

You're the one making the claims, hence I'm asking you.

Your point about dinosaurs is meaningless, and presumes there are set rules to evolution, which is merely a reactionary force.

Notice that today, giant forms of life such as the large dinosaurs basically don't exist aside from in the ocean and even then they're rare. The environment changed, and with it the ways species can survive. We simply evolved differently.

[sen4mi]

I think we should probably distinguish between science and people that deal with science.

 

I think of science as a philosophical approach for dealing with ideas that often do not make much sense.  We can check if an idea actually works when we test it and if it does not we can discard that idea.

 

Meanwhile everybody deals with science.  And, for example, some people have problems conveying their ideas, so when they run into problems with another person not understanding an idea they talk louder.

 

So, now, we flash forward from that scene with a few hundred years of science, and we see people getting upset when so many others completely don't get some simple thing that they understand [and it's always simple when you understand it], we have other people watching how they deal with issues and repeating the stuff that seems successful, and then we try to talk about it.  Hilarity ensues.

 

For Science!

[R733]

 

Why are you asking me insted of doing your own research? Is that your approach to science? Dinosaurs were evolving for over 200 mln years and there are no (offcially at least) records of advanced reptile forms capable of using tools/abstract thinking. And here, the humanity exploded in about 10-20 mln years from primitive mammals to advanced humanoid form.

 

You're the one making the claims, hence I'm asking you.

Your point about dinosaurs is meaningless, and presumes there are set rules to evolution, which is merely a reactionary force.

Notice that today, giant forms of life such as the large dinosaurs basically don't exist aside from in the ocean and even then they're rare. The environment changed, and with it the ways species can survive. We simply evolved differently.

 

No, it's not may job to preach you and provide evidence to support my claim (althogh I can/should do that). Even if I would present evidence It's your job to investigate that evidence on you own, otherwise you become object of propaganda, victim of you own ignorance.

 

Your point about dinosaurs is meaningless, and presumes there are set rules to evolution, which is merely a reactionary force.

 

Dinosaurs are evidence that we didn't evolved naturally; evolution is a very slow process. 65 mln years ago that process was disturbed and most of complex life forms died out.  Large, land mammal like animals were extinct at that time, only small, very primitive rat-like animals survived on the surface, because they had less body weight to keep.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiadapis

 

There is no reason to make assumption that (natural) evolution of primitive mammals should be so much faster than reptilians. Do you have any reason for this assumption?

 

As far as for mechanics for evolution; you're wrong that it's just a reactionary process because of uncertainty, which we know exists in our reality.

 

I think we should probably distinguish between science and people that deal with science.

 

I think of science as a philosophical approach for dealing with ideas that often do not make much sense.  We can check if an idea actually works when we test it and if it does not we can discard that idea.

 

Meanwhile everybody deals with science.  And, for example, some people have problems conveying their ideas, so when they run into problems with another person not understanding an idea they talk louder.

 

So, now, we flash forward from that scene with a few hundred years of science, and we see people getting upset when so many others completely don't get some simple thing that they understand [and it's always simple when you understand it], we have other people watching how they deal with issues and repeating the stuff that seems successful, and then we try to talk about it.  Hilarity ensues.

 

For Science!

 

One of the greatest problem in communication is that our language sucks so badly. It's good for empty rhetoric or semantics (like in politics/religions) but it sucks when it comes to exchange of actual informations. Most people use many empty, vague words like "evil",  "love" or "god". Lots of semantics without any substance or value.