philosophy is missing from the topics list.

fon
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

philosophy is missing from the topics list.

Post by fon »

Hi all. I was wondering where does all this anti-science thing spring from, and where does an unreasonable confidence that a natural occurrence is superior to a deliberate scheme to attain some goal?

There is nothing in nature to steer a particular outcome towards a satisfying conclusion. A virus gonna virus, there is nothing logical or meaningful in its activity, it's defined by random selection i.e. circumstances, not by any plan.

So our schemes to respond to a virus are (we hope )guided by our own rational observations. We think we can outthink nature since we have studied nature, while nature itself is incapable of study, it only has trial and error. So I ask, how is it that a thing that only proceeds by trial and error is regarded (by some) as superior to a process like science that can do the full human action cycle of trial observation,analysis and rational response.

We beings have all the aces in the deck, nature only has the jokers. We need to be much more confident in why animals stand astride, and dominate nature in every area we have ever tried. Nature has no respect at all for anything, zero, Nature respects nothing but nature. Hence the only thing meaningful in this world, or any world, are those who use nature. So I was wondering where does the anti-science thing spring from, and where does an unreasonable confidence that a natural occurrence is superior to a deliberate scheme to attain some goal?

Nature is usually a meaningless thing to be defeated and dominated. I just don't understand why anybody would respect nature as a force for good. Please let me know why mindless nature is superior to scientific understanding. It is what it is. Please let me know why I should love nature, at the expense of my rationality. Perhaps "natural" sucks esp wrt cancer for example. There seems to be on the surface little natural about an MRI scanner.

RichardTechnik
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:01 am

Re: philosophy is missing from the topics list.

Post by RichardTechnik »

fon wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:39 pm Hi all. I was wondering where does all this anti-science thing spring from, and where does an unreasonable confidence that a natural occurrence is superior to a deliberate scheme to attain some goal?

There is nothing in nature to steer a particular outcome towards a satisfying conclusion. A virus gonna virus, there is nothing logical or meaningful in its activity, it's defined by random selection i.e. circumstances, not by any plan.

So our schemes to respond to a virus are (we hope )guided by our own rational observations. We think we can outthink nature since we have studied nature, while nature itself is incapable of study, it only has trial and error. So I ask, how is it that a thing that only proceeds by trial and error is regarded (by some) as superior to a process like science that can do the full human action cycle of trial observation,analysis and rational response.

We beings have all the aces in the deck, nature only has the jokers. We need to be much more confident in why animals stand astride, and dominate nature in every area we have ever tried. Nature has no respect at all for anything, zero, Nature respects nothing but nature. Hence the only thing meaningful in this world, or any world, are those who use nature. So I was wondering where does the anti-science thing spring from, and where does an unreasonable confidence that a natural occurrence is superior to a deliberate scheme to attain some goal?

Nature is usually a meaningless thing to be defeated and dominated. I just don't understand why anybody would respect nature as a force for good. Please let me know why mindless nature is superior to scientific understanding. It is what it is. Please let me know why I should love nature, at the expense of my rationality. Perhaps "natural" sucks esp wrt cancer for example. There seems to be on the surface little natural about an MRI scanner.
This is Philosophy ?

Not even close. Your reading of opposition to, presumably, NPI policy here as antiscience is disingenuous or, at best mistaken.

Think about nature as an infinitely complex system, self-regulated with negative feedback. Far from holding all the aces, we beings, collectively have developed a limited understanding of tiny parts of that system. Those that are arrogant enough not to understand that, make errors that can lead to serious excursions which, in the end the system will establish a new stability.

Nobody
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: philosophy is missing from the topics list.

Post by Nobody »

"our schemes to respond to a virus are (we hope )guided by our own rational observations."

Well, most of us have absolutely no power to respond to this virus and we have no phenomenal contact with it. So, are the schemes that constitute the response we do encounter rooted in rational observations?
No, we are caught in an institutional and political situation, not a natural one. So what determines the existential framework that brought us all to this site? It was not a virus, it was the public significance of a virus and the way it was signified via global institutions who have defined its reality. Look at the way they are signifying the variants as a renewed threat. They are little different to the original virus.
So are "our schemes to respond to a virus...guided by our own rational observations"? I don't think they are. We have had behavioural routines forced upon us under threat of assault by state agents. From where have the institutional who have developed these frameworks got their schemes from? Well, look at Ferguson's models: those are complex representations that are suffuse with assumptions at every turn, masquerading as science and therefore cloaked in legitimacy. Why has science dictated policies that have removed freedoms? That is an issue concerning the public authority of science that is itself an issue of the production of its legitimacy as a range of institutional practices.
Should science have been the only authority that was considered? Should moral principles concerning the nature of human being carried more prominence? Even the epidemiologists appear to think the response has been inhumane and ineffective, so it would appear that moral considerations should have been given more prominence.
So, where have the schemas embodied in the institutional response come from?
Science was used to make the virus a socially corrosive force when, if scientific opinion had not been stifled, alternative palliative measures may have been taken but the scientific consensus that has reigned was an effect of the political and economic interests that were mobilised behind it. Hence, there is a relation established between representing a reality and acting upon the world that this virus has clearly manifest.

Nobody
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: philosophy is missing from the topics list.

Post by Nobody »

This is from a Scientist who wrote a paper on covid that I read:

The idea that all of the changes in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein came about through natural evolution all at the same time has about the same degree of plausibility as the trajectory of this bullet. Belief in either of these absurd tales cannot be rationally justified. It is statistically impossible that all of the unique features in the SARS-CoV-2 genome arose naturally, that is, by chance. The virus genome shows clear traces of the use of recombinant DNA techniques. A fictitious natural lineage of the virus has been constructed in the mainstream scientific press that is based on more fraudulent science. To any clear-thinking person, the only possible conclusion from the findings presented in this chapter is that the evidence proves criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.” Michael Palmer.

Do we need vaccination for individual protection? The pandemic is essentially over—the ongoing “second wave” is a hoax that is based on fraudulent test procedures. The infection with SARS-CoV-2 does not usually cause serious disease. Effective treatments exist for severe cases (but they were relentlessly maligned in the media and their use prohibited by officialdom). No COVID vaccine has yet been shown to induce sterilizing immunity—therefore, mandating vaccination “to protect others” is unjustifiable.

In a sane world, none of this would have happened—the danger of COVID would not have been blown out of proportion, and nobody would even have started on developing a vaccine, never mind filing for emergency use authorization. The remainder of this chapter should accordingly be irrelevant. Sadly, the world is not a sane place right now. if there were a shred of common sense and regard for our health left among those who are promoting COVID vaccination, this is the kind of vaccine they should be advocating. The big push for the nucleic acid vaccines makes it plain that another agenda is at play. Notes on Covid by Michael Palmer.

Clearly the schemas that have represented the reality of the virus are profoundly affected by the political context surrounding the virus and its use as medium for the expression of the economic interests surrounding its address.

JohnK
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:47 pm

Re: philosophy is missing from the topics list.

Post by JohnK »

Nobody wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:42 am This is from a Scientist who wrote a paper on covid that I read:

The idea that all of the changes in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein came about through natural evolution all at the same time has about the same degree of plausibility as the trajectory of this bullet. Belief in either of these absurd tales cannot be rationally justified. It is statistically impossible that all of the unique features in the SARS-CoV-2 genome arose naturally, that is, by chance. The virus genome shows clear traces of the use of recombinant DNA techniques. A fictitious natural lineage of the virus has been constructed in the mainstream scientific press that is based on more fraudulent science. To any clear-thinking person, the only possible conclusion from the findings presented in this chapter is that the evidence proves criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.” Michael Palmer.

Do we need vaccination for individual protection? The pandemic is essentially over—the ongoing “second wave” is a hoax that is based on fraudulent test procedures. The infection with SARS-CoV-2 does not usually cause serious disease. Effective treatments exist for severe cases (but they were relentlessly maligned in the media and their use prohibited by officialdom). No COVID vaccine has yet been shown to induce sterilizing immunity—therefore, mandating vaccination “to protect others” is unjustifiable.

In a sane world, none of this would have happened—the danger of COVID would not have been blown out of proportion, and nobody would even have started on developing a vaccine, never mind filing for emergency use authorization. The remainder of this chapter should accordingly be irrelevant. Sadly, the world is not a sane place right now. if there were a shred of common sense and regard for our health left among those who are promoting COVID vaccination, this is the kind of vaccine they should be advocating. The big push for the nucleic acid vaccines makes it plain that another agenda is at play. Notes on Covid by Michael Palmer.

Clearly the schemas that have represented the reality of the virus are profoundly affected by the political context surrounding the virus and its use as medium for the expression of the economic interests surrounding its address.
And it begs the question as to whether the nomenclature re the virus was misleading, that is “SARS” is not true for lots of us - although it appears that it can cause severe problems for some, but not all. Something like what is done for the other half dozen or so coronaviruses could have been more accurate, albeit not good commercially for some firms.

funtimes
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:45 am

Re: philosophy is missing from the topics list.

Post by funtimes »

What is missing is peoples awareness that "we" doesnt exist or a shared system of beliefs within the current delusional psychosis. Beliefs have been manufactured and already understood topics have been exploited for political purposes. Science is not science. Fact is not fact. Psychosis is psychosis. It represents no actual basis in reality and so there are no philosophies to understand beyond the madness of man. If you want to get lost in the madness thats upto you but to make that an academic field of study of that would be for the promotion of psychosis and the disintegration of society.

Post Reply