View Full Version : ADHD science or nonsense challenge!

07-25-14, 09:13 PM
This thread is meant to explore the idea of what is science and what is non science, by using the general guidelines, in the link below to determine what is science and what is nonsense.

Side note: please feel free to agree or disagree and explain why you agree or disagree with any of the links 5 guidelines as part of the discussion.

Let's start by discussing Dr. Mate's work. if you disagree reply, and explain why, and please give members a chance to re-reply.

PLEASE QUOTE ACCURATELY, inaccurate quotes will be determined non sense, until quoted accurately.

1) deals with only with natural phenomena


2) is based on evidence based on real world tests


3) is consistent with the coherent body of scientific models


4) is based on logical arguments; anything to be found to be based on false premise is abandoned


5) is always falsifiable


07-25-14, 11:24 PM
Wait, wouldn't #5 exclude anything that's not ontological materialism? (Heartening back to KD's thread).

I'm all for that, but I just want to see if I understand what we're saying. In the last thread, "falsifiable" was the heart of the debate if I understood correctly.

07-26-14, 02:36 AM
Wait, wouldn't #5 exclude anything that's not ontological materialism? (Heartening back to KD's thread).

I'm all for that, but I just want to see if I understand what we're saying. In the last thread, "falsifiable" was the heart of the debate if I understood correctly.

(I missed that discussion, what is the title of the thread?)

I think it is hard to prove something was prevented.

But I also think that it is important to have the option to try and falsify any information, and let the evidence speak for itself.


07-26-14, 03:39 AM
As an example - I feel that it is wrong to kill animals / subject them to pain for human consumption - particularly when human beings don't need to eat animals and are harmed by eating them.

So if science is going to assist us in determining the right course of action - exptal science can define that human beings don't need animals to survive (epidemiology) and that we're harmed by them (nutrition research)

- but how'd science add in a contribution from an individual's personal viewpoint.

I guess we could demonstrate that animals don't enjoy (are stressed) living the factory farming life ... and so could use exptal science to validate the evidence which manifests itself as a feeling of un ease at the use of animals for human food

-- but (see organic food is better thread) - the quotation in the last post of that thread last night clearly states

"it's funny how the results of a scientific study sponsored by a corporation is always aligned with the interests of the corporation"

So - the answer is clear - publically funded and not private corporation funded science.

No - that won't work either - because governments are heavily pay rolled by corporations and even if a government could fund without caring for the interests of the corporation (all powerful corporate lobby groups - a corporotocracy not democracy) - then the vested interest would then be shifted into the mind of the scientist ie have you ever seen a scientific specialist who has produced a paper which suggests that their speciality is unimportant ?

The corporation focus alters the scientific conclusion.
The vested interest of the scientist alters the scientific conclusion.


So - what's most important to any consideration of science ?

OBJECTIVITY ie not caring whether the evidence points to yay! or nay!


But you've just stated that all funding organizations and scientists are NOT objective.


It's a problem - where the solution is simple.

At completion of mind (wisdom,enlightenment) - the individual obtains a mind which is objective because it cares more for global logical consistency (because the mind is globally logically consistent) than it does for material world remuneration
- since with wisdom - the material world reward system is discarded for a social reward system which can be simply stated as freedom from the material world reward system.

Explain that again ?
You're born addicted.
When the mind is complete (you understand your context) - the addiction is overcome (it's there to drive completion in mind)
- and you're free from the desire for material world attachment factors ie money/power

Therefore simultaneously lose global logical inconsistency with desire for money/power.

IE the human being doesn't gain objectivity as a fixed atribute until wise.
The human being cannot be a scientist until wise.


This idea was described to me as follows:
'The scientist knows how to calibrate all of their tools bar the only one that actually matters - the human mind'

07-26-14, 03:48 AM
So - and once again - there's no point in defining what science is unless we can stipulate that the individual doing the science has a particular state of mind or structure of mind as delivered by 'wisdom'.

So the axiom on science relates to the nature of the human mind - clearly stating that any attempt to define science without pre-definition of the structure of mind performing science (wise)
- will fail.

However - once wise - the individual can ONLY do science ie all of their thoughts are true scientific in nature
- once again eliminating the need to define science
- because it will just happen.


The point I'm trying to get around to - is that definition isn't really important - what's necessary is a form of education of the mind that gets it ito wise/scientific able/moral structure asap - and the rest 'll happen naturally.

07-26-14, 02:57 PM
Science is diminished if personal bias (such as "morality," which encompasses a very small number of absolutes) comes in and skews the results.

07-27-14, 10:38 AM
The expression of a true scientific mind is in simplification.

What most so called scientists do in this world is over-complicate.

Sadly - the more we complicate the more problems we create for ourselves.

As we over-complicate at unprecedented levels we introduce so many problems - which we ironically try and solve inadvertently causing more problems - resulting in overwhelming confusion over the best course of action.

It's not really hard to see what human beings should do.

Drop external reward ie money.
Ensure that human beings only work for personal reward (don't work beyond a few days of your life dedicated to a house build/gardening if there's nothing which you find rewarding).
Watch on as we disentangle the nasty web of disease/suffering.

At its root - all that's wrong with people is that they're not working for reward from doing something worthwhile from a species perspective

- anything to do with money, power, title, certificate etc etc etc
is only about the self.

And it's all pointless.

You'll find that people who derive no satisfaction from money, power, title, certificate etc etc etc ie material world rewards
- are the ones who're most open to this idea.

The others are simply victims of addiction.