I do not know why you entertain beliefs that are not backed up by any evidence. This reminds me of the days where you fawned over myers-briggs tests and other assessments that werent scientifically validated
0
Tobias 1102~1Y
I don't know why your reaction to someone talking about something they're clearly passionate about is to essentially stomp on it.
2
Comment awaiting approval
astralwolf91~1Y
Its a combination of 3 things - having passion for knowledge, distaste for pseudoscience, and being an asshole
0
Astreon152~1Y
You cannot have passion for knowledge and distate for pseudoscience: learning about pseudosciences...is acquiring knowledge.
You have passion for what you consider real science. That leads to obscurantism (one only has to observe the difference between occidental healthcare and oriental healthcare to realize it), because orthodox scientists are so used to proving they are right, that they forget that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence (not to mention they forget that they are humans before being experts, which by itself is a hindrance to the learning process).
The only right answer to "are there aliens out there" is "maybe", because their existence is, currently, as unprovable by science as their inexistence. Anything other than that is faith, which is never neither right nor wrong.
0
Astreon152~1Y
Don't let it get to you Tobias: science is a something the aliens invented to better hide their existence, by making it impossible to scientifically prove, and letting people think that what is not scientifically proven does not exist :)
0
Tobias 1102~1Y
To what degree do you think our human minds understand - or even can understand - the nature of reality? Something like 99%, just a few details need ironing out?
0
Astreon152~1Y
That's 2 reaaally different questions.
"Understand", i'd say not much, but that's because human thinking is unfortunately not only a rational process. Since we're not computers, we do not only calculate objectively to analyse a situation: education, emotions and such interfere with and hinder our comprehension. How many people actually manage to "put themselves in another's shoes" to see a situation from their perspective ?
If you picture the sum of all knowledge as a sphere, most people only have a needle approach to it. An expert might have a needle so long it actually pierces through, but hardly anyone manages to have a global apprehension of any given situation, even if only superficial.
"Can understand", i have absolutely no clue. Neuroscience is trying to figure it out, and there's the legend that we're using only a tiny percentage of our brain's overall capabilities. But i don't really have an opinion on this topic: what matters to me is what i'm able or unable to understand, not what there theoretically is to understand.
Also, in order to even define what "the nature of reality" that i'd need to understand is, wouldn't i have to have the ability to understand it ?
You have passion for what you consider real science. That leads to obscurantism (one only has to observe the difference between occidental healthcare and oriental healthcare to realize it), because orthodox scientists are so used to proving they are right, that they forget that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence (not to mention they forget that they are humans before being experts, which by itself is a hindrance to the learning process).
The only right answer to "are there aliens out there" is "maybe", because their existence is, currently, as unprovable by science as their inexistence. Anything other than that is faith, which is never neither right nor wrong.
"Understand", i'd say not much, but that's because human thinking is unfortunately not only a rational process. Since we're not computers, we do not only calculate objectively to analyse a situation: education, emotions and such interfere with and hinder our comprehension. How many people actually manage to "put themselves in another's shoes" to see a situation from their perspective ?
If you picture the sum of all knowledge as a sphere, most people only have a needle approach to it. An expert might have a needle so long it actually pierces through, but hardly anyone manages to have a global apprehension of any given situation, even if only superficial.
"Can understand", i have absolutely no clue. Neuroscience is trying to figure it out, and there's the legend that we're using only a tiny percentage of our brain's overall capabilities. But i don't really have an opinion on this topic: what matters to me is what i'm able or unable to understand, not what there theoretically is to understand.
Also, in order to even define what "the nature of reality" that i'd need to understand is, wouldn't i have to have the ability to understand it ?