Thread: Science Explains Everything Challenge

Is this a riddle?!

Science cannot explain an imaginary set of rules for an imaginary world. They are made up, and science deals purely with factual, objective reality.

So, what can explain imaginary rules for a made up world? Why, the game's rulebook of course! The imaginary world doesn't count as personal revelation if more than one person is participating in the delusion.

Give me my award.



[Edit] No, there are no real world objective phenomena that I can conceive of that can be explain by something other than science, unless the explanation is theoretical.

Science cannot explain how Invader's avatar scares the hell out of me.

Science cannot explain Chi energy.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Science cannot explain Chi energy.

That's a good one, actually. There are numerous overlapping systems, ancient and modern, descriptive and prescriptive, regarding the vital energies of the earth and living beings. At least millions of humans derive insight and/or benefit from them daily.

Why are my energies redoubled through the exercise of Qi Jong? Why, at the point of exhaustion, am I repeatedly able to come to a state of mental clarity and renewed physical energy by ritually gathering Chi from the earth?

Originally Posted by Merlock

Of course it isn't an answer. That's the whole point. You won't get an answer.

No you don't get it.. I mean, you weren't really saying anything - you're just saying that I have to struggle with it myself.

As for the latter part, not quite so. "Personal revelation" and the like can be explained to others, but only those you trust and those who trust you. Good friends and the like. Again, based on the heart, mind, feelings, ideals, etc.

Where as science has "proof", which doesn't require trust, thus easily dispersed into the masses in the form of experiments caught on tape or paperwork to corroborate them, etc.

Don't forget that science is the ideal of offering others the ability to experience the results themselves. It's not just simply believing the word of other scientists - this is why peer reviewed journals exist!

Science is used for things we "need" technically. But when do you think people turn to magic and the like? When they really need something, socially, not technically. When one needs to resurrect a dying family member or best friend and science tells them, "Not going to happen", where do you think they will turn?

And in such cases, do you really think anyone will share the knowledge they really need for their own important purpose with the public at large? Never.

I agree, but I can't help but think that this is sort of an excuse for those who make these statements against science.

That's why this question came up in such a naive manner. You think you're entitled to just be told what you want to know for the sake of knowing. Just like many think they're entitled to "rights" and "freedoms", and entitled to a great deal of things, just "because".

Hang on.. I'm just after discussion, not demanding anything nor do I have any expectations. If I say something to someone, I hope for a response, but I never expect one.

But there shall always be a larger stake at play as long as society exists and doesn't become a mindless mass of apathetic cattle: purpose. True purpose. Social purpose. Not curiosity, not technical capability, but purpose revolving around things that truly matter to us as conscious self-aware beings with personalities, not beasts that just require means to an end to survive.

I hope you are not saying these things in a pejorative reference to science..

Originally Posted by Invader

Science cannot explain an imaginary set of rules for an imaginary world. They are made up, and science deals purely with factual, objective reality.

You're making a desperate leap to the imagination here. Even in an imaginary world, how are things explained in the imaginary world that cannot be explained scientifically? Even in fantasy, science can still be applied. Stop encapsulating science.

So, what can explain imaginary rules for a made up world? Why, the game's rulebook of course! The imaginary world doesn't count as personal revelation if more than one person is participating in the delusion.

Give me my award.

Those rules are still based on scientific grounds, no?

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Science cannot explain Chi energy.

Well that is nice, you still fail to explain what else can explain Chi energy that is not scientific?

Here's the problem with Chi energy and all other energies and this challenge. The question will be utilizing a fallacy of "begging the question".

To make my point, let me use an example:

P1) Science cannot explain Klampops.

P2) Klampops are my personal colors that I do not think others can see.

C) Thus, science cannot explain Klampops but I can.

However, the problem here is that.. how can anyone know what Klampops are to disagree or argue this point? Notice that even the conclusion is reached via logic which is utilized by science!

So when you say that science cannot explain Chi energy, how can it be explained that does not still remain fallacious? Because anyone can say, "Well science cannot explain Klampops, but my friend knows what they are!"

Which.. is personal revelation.

Which.. is a nice way of saying imagination.

What do you think...?

Edit:

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That's a good one, actually. There are numerous overlapping systems, ancient and modern, descriptive and prescriptive, regarding the vital energies of the earth and living beings. At least millions of humans derive insight and/or benefit from them daily.

Why are my energies redoubled through the exercise of Qi Jong? Why, at the point of exhaustion, am I repeatedly able to come to a state of mental clarity and renewed physical energy by ritually gathering Chi from the earth?

How is this not personal revelation..?

This still falls parallel to the grounds of, "science cannot explain klampops, but I can". They are logically the same.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Here's the problem with Chi energy and all other energies and this challenge. The question will be utilizing a fallacy of "begging the question".

To make my point, let me use an example:

P1) Science cannot explain Klampops.

P2) Klampops are my personal colors that I do not think others can see.

C) Thus, science cannot explain Klampops but I can.

However, the problem here is that.. how can anyone know what Klampops are to disagree or argue this point? Notice that even the conclusion is reached via logic which is utilized by science!

So when you say that science cannot explain Chi energy, how can it be explained that does not still remain fallacious? Because anyone can say, "Well science cannot explain Klampops, but my friend knows what they are!"

Unless "Klampops" have been: widespread, dialogued, written about, universally true to anyone, identified, contextualized, taught about, confirmed, attained, realized, and put into practice, there is no way to compare them with Chi energy.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Which.. is personal revelation.

Which.. is a nice way of saying imagination.

What do you think...?

I thought you agreed with me earlier. Without personal revelation, or rather, "revelation", what exists? Nothing. It is naive to think it is a nice way of saying "imagination". In fact, revelation usually bypasses the imagination altogether.

Originally Posted by really

Unless "Klampops" have been: widespread, dialogued, written about, universally true to anyone, identified, contextualized, taught about, confirmed, attained, realized, and put into practice, there is no way to compare them with Chi energy.

Why not? Simply because it is spoken of a lot does not mean it is different in concept. Are you able to distinguish without begging the question?

I thought you agreed with me earlier. Without personal revelation, or rather, "revelation", what exists? Nothing. It is naive to think it is a nice way of saying "imagination". In fact, revelation usually bypasses the imagination altogether.

No, I do still agree. Simply, it is like another topic. I simply see science as the most utilized form of perceptual understanding. In order to understand things, we typically utilized scientific methods intuitively anyway. Otherwise, we end up stuck in circles constantly re-justifying our dogmatic beliefs rather than developing and integrating new information.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Why not? Simply because it is spoken of a lot does not mean it is different in concept. Are you able to distinguish without begging the question?

Chi has been widely recognized and familiar within certain practices (etc) as spiritual energy and energy flow.

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

"Klampops" - you actually just made up on the spot?

Originally Posted by O'nus

No, I do still agree. Simply, it is like another topic. I simply see science as the most utilized form of perceptual understanding. In order to understand things, we typically utilized scientific methods intuitively anyway. Otherwise, we end up stuck in circles constantly re-justifying our dogmatic beliefs rather than developing and integrating new information.

~

How does "revelation" become reliant on things that are potentially false, then? Something that is not existing cannot be "revealed".

Originally Posted by O'nus

Well that is nice, you still fail to explain what else can explain Chi energy that is not scientific?

Here's the problem with Chi energy and all other energies and this challenge. The question will be utilizing a fallacy of "begging the question".

To make my point, let me use an example:

P1) Science cannot explain Klampops.

P2) Klampops are my personal colors that I do not think others can see.

C) Thus, science cannot explain Klampops but I can.

However, the problem here is that.. how can anyone know what Klampops are to disagree or argue this point? Notice that even the conclusion is reached via logic which is utilized by science!

So when you say that science cannot explain Chi energy, how can it be explained that does not still remain fallacious? Because anyone can say, "Well science cannot explain Klampops, but my friend knows what they are!"

Which.. is personal revelation.

Which.. is a nice way of saying imagination.

What do you think...?

Edit:

How is this not personal revelation..?

This still falls parallel to the grounds of, "science cannot explain klampops, but I can". They are logically the same.

~

Millions of people know and understand what Chi is. Millions of people have and can feel chi energy if they wish though various exercises or rituals.

There are numerous overlapping systems, ancient and modern, descriptive and prescriptive, regarding the vital energies of the earth and living beings. At least millions of humans derive insight and/or benefit from them daily

Like Taosaur, and many Qigong, Bagua, and Tai Chi masters say: Chi energy is not just 1 system. It includes circulation, electromagnetic energy, the muscular-skeletal system and many others. Chi energy can be scientifically explained, but it would be a four-foot-tall book that would require years and years of rigorous investigation.

Although, I agree that for now, Chi is a subjective experience. However, it is a common subjective experience. Nearly the whole population of China, and millions more across the world partake in Chi cultivating exercises. Is this imagination? I don't think something this widespread and widely known is imagination..

What, like religion? You know - those mutually contradictory stories also believed by billions of people? The numbers argument doesn't work mate.

Personally I have no reason to believe in Chi. Nor have I ever recieved a proper explanation of what Chi actually is.

Still, I think there are things which lie outside of the grasp of science... O'nus has so far ignored them though which is a bit irritating. Qualia cannot be explained by reductionist methods... neither can the existence of the universe. Science observes how things are, it does not explain why they are.

Personally I have no reason to believe in Chi. Nor have I ever recieved a proper explanation of what Chi actually is.

Go to a local qigong place and ask. It's not about believing, it's about experiencing. Everyone can experience it thought proper exercises/rituals/dances. All it takes is good instruction and practice.

Originally Posted by Xei

What, like religion? You know - those mutually contradictory stories also believed by billions of people? The numbers argument doesn't work mate.

Personally I have no reason to believe in Chi. Nor have I ever recieved a proper explanation of what Chi actually is.

Still, I think there are things which lie outside of the grasp of science... O'nus has so far ignored them though which is a bit irritating. Qualia cannot be explained by reductionist methods... neither can the existence of the universe. Science observes how things are, it does not explain why they are.

You pose a good point that I should have known..

I now realize that my creation of this thread is prepositional.

I apologize.

~