Thats not science, then. It's gonna be a complicated discussion if we can all invent definitions for the words instead of what the words are accepted to mean.

Scientists can believe whatever they want, science is greater than single scientist with his own agenda, that's the beauty of it. One scientist may hide his own research's findings if it interests him, or may come to biased conclusions, but the results can be replicated by anybody else following the same method and therefore, in the long term, it can't be hidden.

As for "same old objective interpretations", I dont know what you mean. Science has reconsidered all sorts of theories and completely changed the way we see things, based on reliable evidence. Old paradigms have been shattered several times due to science. What other way do you propose, if not through the scientific method, to find out about how the universe works?

Do you honestly think we know less about how the universe works than we did before the two last centuries scientific revolutions?

DMT can be a terrific tool. But whatever the insights DMT may bring, they are essentially different than the knowledge obtained through science. DMT and science are NOT competing. Often I do not understand the animosity against science. You can discuss as much as you want the positions of some scientists, extreme reductionist approaches, close minded attitudes, etc... but the attacks on "science" remind me of the attacks on "religion" by radical atheists basically fueled by hate to major organized monotheisms.

If you attack religion because of the Pope, you are being unjust to many religious traditions. If you attack science because of orthodox conservative scientists you are being unjust to science.

You pretty much said it yourself here and maybe I didn't make a strong enough argument earlier. Essentially what I was trying to get at is this part you say about existential questioning, that science doesn't really deal with that and your totally right, and that's its inherent flaw imo. Science deals with the external world, yet it tries to attempt to fit everything, every personal experience, thought, emotion, action etc. into a nice, neat objective box when it can't. Just take this miami zombie guy everyone is freaking out about. His drug test comes back clean (except for pot, but what sort of ganja makes someone do THAT?), so there is no rational or scientific explanation for why this guy behaved the way he did. Science as a practice has no way of getting inside this person's subjective experience to see what the hell was going on with him.

You can explain exploding quasars, elementary particles, biological process, and a ton of other stuff via the scientific method. However, you cannot observe the inner workings of an individual which is totally a subjective (and very important) thing. Yet science would push you to believe that your emotions are nothing more than chemical processes at work, your thoughts are generated by a large organ in your head, etc.

What this does is steal away the soul of man. Science itself is not a bad thing whatsoever, in fact it has been one of if not THE most useful thing we've ever come up with, but it sadly has its limitations and with today's society so hell bent on material worth, the paradigm that has developed during this era is one that is very rigid in how it thinks reality works and does not offer much room for outside-the-box interpretations of its collected data.

Try getting a scientist to experiment with meditation, mind altering substances, yoga, or other subjective 'technologies', and a large percentage of them will scoff at you and brush you off as an irrational person. That stuff isn't real to them because it doesn't meet the objective paradigm. It's the current paradigm I was trying to make my arguement against, not the process of doing science itself.

you're generalizing, and ignoring that many scientists have experimented with mind altering substances, some scientific breakthroughs were inspired from altered states. a lot of them still take psychedelics, they just don't blab off about them.

also, this title is really dubious. how can a set method with stringent controls contradict itself? human interpretation contradicts itself.

I am generalizing your right. As a rule of thumb, most academic minded people are very anti-woo woo stuff. Left brain vs right brain or whatever. I very much admire the scientists who do stretch their minds and approach science from a variety of angles, like some of the names I listed in my first post. Its stagnated science that bothers me, and it seems that type of science that gets taught the most as fact.

Like the OP said, the big bang THEORY is very much presented as big bang fact. That's what I've been trying to (and unsuccessfully) get at. Scientific theory gets pushed so much in school and media that it becomes factual in a lot of people's minds, and once accepted as a fact it becomes hard to break people out of a rigid, locked in interpretation of certain things.

Just because we can't today doesn't mean it isn't possible in the future. One day we may understand enough about the human brain to actually recreate or otherwise know what a person's subjective experience was.

The seemingly impossible has become possible before because of science and it will happen again because of science.



That is not at all the fault of science but of an ignorance of science. IMO science isn't being taught enough or well enough in schools and is being attacked and subjugated way too much these days.

Are you serious?

Tell me how can DMT reliably tell how the universe works and how this can be shared and used in a practical manner.

By the way, are you talking about purified DMT? And how do you think the knowledge of extracting DMT has been developed? I could cite another million of examples of how a scientific method has reliably shown how things work and how we all make use of this knowledge, now im wondering how you propose DMT can do that and what clear examples of this exist.

This is exactly what I meant by the post. A lot of theories are accepted as fact amongst the status quo whether it's a theory or not. I was never talking about science as a whole and I believe I was misinterpreted.

Hell I'm having a hard time disagreeing with anything anyone is saying about this lol. I actually completely agree with you and I'll use my own ignorant self as an example of this.

Its fair to say science isn't being taught well enough because just looking at the way I was educated, you were not encouraged to ask why things were the way they were. This kinda goes back to academic institutions telling people WHAT to think and not HOW to think. Someone like Carl Sagan, who is a great hero of mine, is a great example of what I think a true scientist is about. It's about the wonder of looking at nature and wanting to know how it works, if for no other reason that for curiosity's sake alone.

Again, I praise strongly the scientific method for figuring out our collective reality. Just looking at the rise of modern medicine is a huge example of how greatly this thinking process has influenced us. But in today's classrooms and universities, your taught to memorize formulas and theories that just keep getting outdated all the time. You are not encouraged to think of things in a different way, you're taught to go along with the existing paradigm.

With the blatant disregard for the value of personal, subjective human experience science does us a personal disservice while it provides us with a collective service. Maybe that's a better way of putting it, but then again maybe not. I'm not trying to start a long debate about what this one little human thinks, my opinion is irrelevant really.

I think you are mixing things here.

First, there are many branches of science that operate following non-reductionist approaches. A lot of the social science we use is not reductionist. Study of systems and emergent behavior is not reductionist. Climatology, chaos theory, cosmology and some areas in biology, for instance, are not reductionist.

Second, science does not dismiss what it cannot understand. Some scientists might, but when we cannot understand something using the current scientific tools, new hypotheses are proposed. New tools are developed. Or new ways of observation. I absolutely agree with you, though, that there are a lot of phenomena that should be addressed more thoroughly and seriously by scientific research. Sometimes they are neglected because they disagree with already existing paradigms - and changing those paradigms, or at least challenging them, can be in conflict with a scientific community that has mostly utilitarian, pragmatic motives. But that does not disagree with how science essentially works. It might disagree with the reasons behind a good deal of the current research, but not with science.

And regarding ancient civilizations, I am 100% with you in one sense: they were more socially and ideologically advanced than the classic colonialist frame of mind, or the christian frame of mind, has wanted us to believe. But suggesting that we know LESS than them about how the universe works is a huge overstatement. This is obvious if you consider astronomy, chemistry, biology and genetics, social theory, physics, medicine, philosophy, mathematics... even if we believe that there are some areas of knowledge where we have somehow devolved, generally speaking (mysticism? transcendent knowledge?) we have MORE knowledge than we ever had before. The reasonable discussion might be about whether that improvement is only quantitative or qualitative as well.

DMT and other psychedelics give us tremendous insights about our human experience, and about matters that are extremely slippery for the current science paradigms. They can even grant you, subjectively, an experience of the absolute if you want. But dismissing science? It's like you are charging against science without understanding what's the point of every separate thing. Science cannot explain hyperspace so far. But DMT won't make you understand the life cycle of a star, or provide you with tools to type a message to someone you don't personally know using a decentralized computer network.

I don't know if some day we'll cross bridges and see the scientific method embrace the subjective experience. But right now they are different things, and they should be understood as such.

Tek articulated matters very well, I share his view. I'll add this: consciousness is not yet part of science in the same way that for example gravity is. That's a huge mistake, giving that it's our driving "agent". When gravity was discovered, or when it was discovered that the world is not flat, science pretty much shaped after that, for instance. But when consciousness was discovered, science didn't seem to make that same move? Why's that? That is what I meant with that made up saying of mine.

By the way, I am not saying I'm denying science and I'm definitely not arguing against the brilliant parts of it, or anything like that, on the contrary: I love it and I'm sort of a scientist myself. That's not the point. The point is how to use our tools the best way. And science is far from being "properly" used. Science is (I should say should be) a work of trial & error, of assumption & verification. Why are certain things excluded, just because they're "uncomfortable to explain"? Maybe the problem is the lack of creativity, not lack of an explanation. And that creates conflict.

* I say sort of a scientist because I don't like titles like this at all. It tends to force people into thinking I'm operating under a certain belief system, when in fact I'm operating by them all. Everything counts, nothing matters.

Most experiments? Nonsense. What experiments? There is essentially no empirical or theoretical basis in our current stage of scientific development to suggest that we inhabit a universe that is not made entirely of matter and energy. This is not a dogmatic position though, because science ultimately goes where the evidence is. It is provisional by its very nature, but the point is that there are no credible reasons within our current, best knowledge to require anything transcendent or mystical or "consciousness is all" to explain what we experience and observe.



He is wrong. It is fully possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics consistently without any reference to consciousness. Quantum mechanics may be weird and anti-intuitive, but it doesn't mean some mystical woo is going on. There are several books you can read that debunks lots of these claims, and takes a careful look at the evidence and shows that consciousness is not needed. Perhaps it really is needed, I can't know (yet), but so far there are no real credible reasons to assume it is.



Then you are not arguing against science, but against philosophical doctrines. Science does not take any such assumption on faith, but analyzes observations by applying certain methodological rules and formulates models to describe those observations and predict others. Science is a method, it is the systematic study of observations made of the natural world by our senses and technological instruments. The working hypotheses of science is that careful observation is our only reliable source of knowledge of this world, and so far it has proven its success beyond any reasonable doubt, and thus earned our trust. Other knowledge systems have deliberately failed in this respect (except for perhaps giving insight into ones own personal life and relationships), and thus lost trust within science.



No evidence points to that consciousness is the primary substance in this universe. Our best scientific theories can be formulated in extremely precise ways with no reference to consciousness at all. Besides, how the hell do we explain the early universe when there was no consciousness there at all? By proposing rocks are conscious observers? The rest of your arguments in the post I quoted rests on the assumption that such evidence exists when it does not, so I will not comment further.



Well, the Big Bang Theory is pretty much an established fact. It has passed all rigorous scientific tests, it fits with our data and it has a towering amount of evidence to support it. Even though we don't have all the details of the picture, we have a very good general picture, and it is unlikely that the outline of this picture will change drastically. Perhaps, but the Big Bang Theory has developed through centuries and are still being confirmed and supported by our best experiments and observations.



This I can agree with. There is a lot of problems in public education of science, but I don't quite share your experience of it being so dogmatic. I am in university physics, working with theoretical physics, and through my education nothing were really dogmatic. Professors and our textbook always made it clear that the theories and models presented were the best we had, and that they agreed perfectly well with data. It also always made clear the weaknesses of, say the Standard Model of Particle Physics and the unanswered questions left by it. But more emphasis on the provisional nature of science is needed, at least further down in the educational system, as well as in the media coverage and so on.



What you are taught is not outdated all the time, and if some of what you are taught is, it doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. We all go through the basic mechanics of Newton for example, even though Einsteins theories of relativity is a lot more correct. But Newton wasn't wrong, in fact he was pretty damn good, but just not good enough to explain everything. Newtons mechanics has its own area of validity and application, and is being used even today to create bridges, cars, space ships and so on. When the velocities of object approach the speed of light for instance, or when shit are turning very very massive, we have to use Einstein. But both theories agree in areas of study where they overlap.



The problem is that subjective experiences seldom can be used alone to produce objective knowledge about this universe, explain observations and make predictions. Science doesn't blatantly disregard the value of personal, subjective human experiences, it just doesn't need it because it is, by its very nature, personal and subjective. Many scientists value personal, subjective experiences. I do. My colleagues do. But enjoying a psychedelic, the view of the stars at night or figuring out you treat your mother bad is not very interesting for scientific progress. I just don't get how that can be so hard to understand.



I don't understand what you are talking about. Consciousness is one of the biggest mysteries in contemporary science, and is given a great deal of attention. During the last few decades we have made huge progress in understanding the connection between material processes and consciousness, or mind. There is a whole field of science dedicated to such research, namely neuroscience. It looks at the brain and tries to figure out how our different experiences can be explained through the material processes of the brain, and the connection between consciousness and said processes. Science does not ignore consciousness by far, it is greatly challenged by the mystery of it.



You might not deny science, but you don't seem to have really tried to understand how it works either. You mention that science should be a work of trial & error, of assumption & verification. This is exactly what it is doing, constantly, every day. This is in a nutshell the scientific method that perpetually is producing new knowledge. This is the precise method that have flown man to the Moon, landed Rovers on Mars, given us incredible medical technology we could only dream of before among countless other things.

Science doesn't exclude anything because it is uncomfortable to explain, that is nonsense and just shows that you seem to know very little about what you are talking about. Certain areas suffer from lack of attention, sure, but just about everything has been, or are currently being, investigated through the scientific method. When something is excluded it is because of a complete lack of evidence, because a hypothesis does not agree with data or because something has been shown to be wrong or inadequate. In short, the stuff that is excluded is excluded largely because it doesn't pass the rigorous controls and scientific tests that are needed in order for something to be passed along. That is for the most part what happens, but through the history of science we also see that things have been excluded because they were not (yet) considered important, or that they were being ridiculed by the old generation stuck in the current paradigm. But eventually these things enter mainstream science because evidence accumulates and predictions are made, and a new generation of scientists sees the fruits of the new ideas.

Oh...so it only took just a few decades so far. How more to go? But wait, we're only like...7 billion people right now. Anyway...I don't know where I'm aiming at, so let's just call it crazy talk on my part.



So you think that John Anthony Hopkins guy and the geologists and biologists who made tests and proved that the egyptian sphinx was under heavy rain were just what...providing child's entertainment? How is that not (yet) important? What does that even mean? Why can't you just consider the possibility right then and there? Why do you need 20 years or 100 years to do so? I'm just giving one isolated example, which should be enough for the purpose of illustration.

I don't understand where you're aiming at either. You high?



Yes, there are many examples indeed of where ideas or observations were not considered important by the majority of the scientific community. Why many scientists may not consider a given thing to be important is hard to say (ask them), but it can be that they think it is wrong, that there is not enough evidence, that they are working within a paradigm dismissing such issues as unimportant and bladibla. However, there are always scientists and people to consider possibilities there and then, or else no major breakthroughs in science would ever occur. It doesn't escape the attention of everyone. What I am talking about is not individuals, I am talking about scientific progress and the scientific community as a whole. It might take long before ideas are accepted because new generations of scientists (as mentioned already in my last post) must come, the old generation must die, more evidence must accumulate and someone have to make predictions that are later confirmed - to mention a few things.

Oh, come on now, what makes you say that?

Science is after all run by scientists...attitudes need to change, that's for sure.

Hehe, I was only making a joke, no pun intended.



Scientists do not run science, scientists are doing science - or rather, science is what scientists does. It's a method. What kind of attitudes needs to change, by the way?

None expected



Biases need to go away.

Couldn't this be said about essentially every discipline everywhere? As with all things there are people along the entire spectrum. Don't decry the entire dance just because some people don't play nice. That's like the people that say just because parts of our government are run poorly we don't need any government.

Time itself begins at the big bang.

Nothing was created at that moment. In order to have created something, there must have been nothing before that moment. But there is no such thing as before that moment, because time starts at that moment.

Nevertheless it's pretty darn mysterious - most scientists will admit it.

Still -- everything around us appears to be moving away from us. The universe appears to be expanding and has been for billions of years (because even very distant light that's taken billions of years to reach us seems to have come from galaxies that are moving away from us).

These are pretty direct observational facts that seem to suggest a Big Bang type scenario. Yes, it's a wierd concept - but no-one yet has come up with anything that explains our observations in a way that's any less wierd.

P.S. a couple of other possible resolutions of the conservation of mass/energy problem raised by the OP.

1) prior to inflation, there may have been a singularity - all of the mass/energy of the Universe was always there but it was in an infinitely small volume

2) the total energy of the universe may be zero. Matter in a finite universe has negative gravitational potential energy (because it would take energy to move everything infinitely far apart, against their gravitational attraction). The magnitude of this energy may be equal to the positive energy that exists in the form of matter in the universe.

To answer the OP in a more general sense, scientific theories are often contradictory. Two of the best-tested theories currently known, relativity and quantum mechanics, are in some sense contradictory. It has to be remembered that theories are nothing but models of the way the universe works. They are, and possibly always will be, imperfect.