This triggers the sciencetards

as if you have enough reflexivity to have the choice to refuse them

10 Dogmas of Science Listed:

1) Everything is essentially mechanical

2) All matter is unconscious

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

5) Nature is purposeless

6) All biological inheritance is material.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

These are fair to criticize.
Boo to those who state criticism and analysis shouldn't be allowed in science.
When we take away analysis, science becomes religion.

Also: Fuck the bulverism and straw man arguments.
If you use them, then you don't understand science or reason.

> The science delusion
someone is mad :^)

You can break these dogmas if you work your ass and bring countering-evidence. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and force you to believe in them.

>People require counter-evidence
Do you not know what the "argument from ignorance" is? It's a fallacy.
Science is supposed to be empirically conclusive but epistemologically open.

>Bulverism detected

bulverism ? what is this fresh autism ?

People established these scientific laws over a course of excrutiating trials, research and peer reviews. You are free to disagree with them with no evidence but if you claim there is an alternate truth, you need equal amount of evidence to prove yours and disprove theirs.
Sorry kid, but science is hard work.

Let's see

Wikipedia:
>Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, public speaker, and researcher in the field of parapsychology.

A fucking parapsychologist. Kek

> argumentatum from ad-hominem
So anything a parapsychologist says is wrong ? If he believes evolution is true and says it's real, I guess that simply proves that evolution isn't real right ?

>bulverism?
Why don't you Google it.
>fresh
It's not a neologism, it's a name for a fallacy coined by CS Lewis... why don't you learn how to Google?

>People established these scientific laws over a course of excruciating trials, research and peer reviews.
[I corrected your "excrutiating" there]

We're not talking about proven scientific laws, we're talking common presuppositions, which are always irrational.

>Kid
I'm a 33 American male currently residing in the United States.
Just because you irrationally utilize bulverism and straw man arguments doesn't mean I'm naive.
It is you whom are naive when you lie about what the argument is about to dismiss it.
If there is anyone here that is ignorant and immature it is not I... it is you.

Cool story kid. You can't simply discard science with saying "I don't like it". If you're looking to disprove them, you need evidence.

End of story.

>ad-hominem

Since every argument has a conclusion, can you kindly show me mine?

> I had no argument
which is worse

Thats because you dunno shit about what science is my senpai.scientists dont believe any of these 'dogmas' simply because they cant proove they're right or wrong.

Science is empirical so it has no stance nor does it care about any of this

Yep, just stated the facts, the implications were yours.

I never said that.
I never said I discarded science.
I just said a lot of what is purported to be science isn't.
And the Scientific Consensus agrees with me 100% without a single sound of dissent.
In Example:
youtube.com/watch?v=9f9I5zAjZ6I

I am pro-science.
I am also pro-epistemology.
Apparently you don't understand what empiricism and science are rooted in epistemology.

You can't just accuse me of having thoughts and feelings I don't have to dismiss my criticism of pseudo-science.

I can criticize pseudo-science without saying a single thing about science.

I'm an atheist, a rationalist, an empiricist an epistemologist.

You however just cycle in straw man arguments and insult people and their intelligence.

Which is very immature.

> I'm an atheist, a rationalist, an empiricist an epistemologist.
> Science is a dogma lol
> Heres some dumb youtube video as a rebuttal

i don't even...

I never said Science is a dogma.
Not once.
Why do you lie?
I'm not OP and I'm not the guy in OPs video.
I think you might suffer from Schizophrenia.

Then what are you saying you shithead ? You pussyfoot around your argument by leaving it in a vague state so when someone adresses it, you just say "nuh i said no such thing".

State your argument in detail in your next post.

be honest, do you post on b from time to time?

Not agreeing with your argument/counter-argument doesn't mean I have an argument or need one.
If you make up lies, that doesn't mean I have to give some sort of alternative.

>All things that purport to be science are automatically science!
What? No.
>THEN OMGF YOU ANTISCIENCE FAGGOT WHAT IS YOUR FUCKING ARGUMENT YOU FAGGOT ANTISCIENCE ANTISCIENCE FAGGOT KID CHILD BABY FAGGOT

No. Only Veeky Forums.
I have a degree in epistemology and I post here because idiots on here use bulverism and straw man arguments and state they don't need proof if they have faith a concept is correct because they believe it or were mislead by the media.

Soooo there is butthurt and caps on greentexting autism in your bae argument ?
Such a scientific and rational premise you have there kid. No wonder you don't have any serious responses.

What is said to be science but actually is not science?

I mean I believe people are stuck in dogmas. My bad, I wasn't clear.

Most of Psychology
Most of Psychiatry
Chiropractic Medicine
Most of Statistics
Most of Sociology
Some of Medicine
etc.

How are you not aware of "Social Science" problem?
It's called the "Soft Science vs Hard Science" debate.
Without judging you, how old are you?
Because if you're young or separated from decent teachers then it's excusable.

Not really paying it any mind, since my field doesn't really overlap with them and I've got enough on my hands here.

26 quite soon.

I'll show you guys with the hat image

Ok, so you're still young.
Here are some terms and concepts that will be useful to you in the future:

[And I know, Wikipedia, but fuck it]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism_dispute
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psychological_effects
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence_bias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindguard

When people do bring counter evidence on a place like Veeky Forums it is shot down with fallacious reasoning and predetermined opinions on the subject, usually dismissing the counter evidence as cranks, conspiracies, or shills for a cause.

Uh no, you obviously intended to discredit anything he said by saying 'a fucking parapsychologist, kek'

Now you'll use semantics to try and prove your point that really you didn't blah blah blah.

Not buying it.

Just out of interest, why is this such a problem?

I mean, if we determine that this and this field aren't science, what have we/what will we accomplish?

Wouldn't your time be better spent on actually pushing your field further.

scientists on suicide watch

>10 Dogmas of Science Listed:
>These are fair to criticize.
Those aren't "dogmas" by any reasonably definition, though. Half of them are axioms, and the other half are measured results.

>My case is correct because every time I present it it gets laughed at.
Oh boy.

yeah, we're just drowning in evidence to all the batshit ideas/baseless hypotheses that get spewed around here on Veeky Forums. I hope you're referring to the chastisement that pro-smoking bloke receives from his sketchy ass blog links as 'evidence' or the flat-earth fellows who back their claims with even more deluded youtube videos.

holy shit you're autistic...

It's banned because it's fucking dumb and the guy is hypocrite.

...

That's because their counter evidence is a youtube video by some conspiracy neckbeard on retarded topics, such as Flat Earth.

Hey man are you suggesting that you need to be an active (profesional or hobbyist) researcher doing science rather than an armchair sophist to contribute counterevidence?

What do you mean you are an epistemologist? Epistemology is a discipline. Do you mean you are partaking in the discipline, or that you favor/exalty epistemology as a discipline?

is he religous by any chance

is he even wearing shoes?

>TEDx
>TED talk

pick one

refusing to wear shoes is a great way to reinforce everyone's prejudices about 'parapsychologists'

Those aren't dogmas; they're the bare skeleton of knowledge that science can reduce to. To affix purpose to nature or spirits to matter is to make essentially unscientific claims because they will never be falsifiable. Similarly, evidence for any of those other claims just isn't there. The reductionist approach is sensible in the absence of evidence.

Claim to be a wizard who can potentially heal wounds with life force if you want, but don't dare to call yourself scientist then.

>When we take away analysis, science becomes religion.

religion is a coping mechanism once you face your failure of your life, just like other contrived fantasizes, your faith in the scientific method included.

Religions are meant to leave material-bodily hedonism, travels, concerts, foods, sex and so on, for a spiritual hedonism, through prayers for theists and mediation for atheists.
Plenty of material hedonist love to think of themselves as less hedonistic than they are, since it improves their hedonism in thinking that they are not animals...most people who claim to be religious are not all, it is just the way they are.
In buddhism, you even leave this spiritual hedonism, after you have gained it, which is called jhanas, since you understand that this bliss from prayers, which is just a great, but not perfect concentration-stilness, are not personal nor permanent and that you are still prone to avidity and aversion.

>TEDx
Fucking cancer.

>Nature is mechanical
Most physical systems are deterministic (confirmed by experiment)
>Matter is unconscious
Define "consciousness" rigorously
> Laws of Nature are fixed
Repeatable experimental results verify this
>Total amount of matter and energy is always the same
Verified by experiment
>Nature is purposeless
Again, define "purpose" rigorously
>Biological heredity is material
Experiments have confirmed this
>Memories are stored in your brain as material traces
This is a big area of research
>Your mind is inside your head
Define "mind" rigorously
>Psychic phenomena such as telepathy are impossible
Experimentally verified
>Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works
It's the only kind that is experimentally shown to work

Science is about experiment, repeatability, and rigorous statements. So far all of our experimental evidence confirms these statements. While groupthink and the politics of science are issues in the scientific community, all of these "dogmas" have sufficient evidence; meanwhile terms such as "mind" "consciousness" and "purpose" do not have rigorous definitions that could necessarily be confirmed or denied--therefore those terms are not compatible with the method of science.

>banned ted talk
>big TEDx logo in the back
how stupid do you think i am nigga

>>Science is about experiment, repeatability, and rigorous statements.
by complete strangers who demand to be paid....

>Define
define define

>So far all of our experimental evidence
>our

tell me about your experiements

any usual definition of define would end up being circular because define is in some way involved in defining the words you used.
So I see the define as some kind of an axiom: It's the assigning of meaning to words, the basis for speech

TEDx events aren't endorsed by TED, you know? Anyone can do them.

go test the shit yourself for free then if you don't trust anyone else