theres the ignore for a reason, why did you have to let me know you dont like what i post about? this is very inefficient use of your time man, use it to spread positivity
Muh positivity. Go chug your soylent
Because you are a highIQ poster when you post about looksmaxxing tbh so im surprised ur this retarded in other ways
im not very scientifically knowledgeable, i just find videos having to do with cool and out of this world theories interesting, but who knows, if dimension just means depth and detail, you could say that since they are in the same universe they are subject to the same laws, but maybe the laws we know are only applied to us 3d beings, as we are all we can prove
i dont recall posting about looksmaxing, im not even active on this site to where ppl remember me, ive just been feeling empty lately, but ive also been doing alot of research, and im just hoping to get people thinking, i know this site is very close minded in certain aspects, and im just hoping to help others while simultaneously helping myself, theres no reason for anyone to like what ive been posting, but no reason to dislike it either, even if it only helps me vent, thats enough, i mean this site is called "looksmax.me" people come here to help no one but themselves, guess im just doing the same
logic, reasoning, and objectivity? google's definition of science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." what does science have to do with logic and reasoning? idk much about science, but to me science is just proving shit thru evidence, therefore, if you can't provide evidence, then it's not science, how does science not being able to prove what happens after death for example, make the way we think about what happens after death flawed? science comes after, not before, outside the box thinking must be made, before trying to prove it with science, going by that logic, any theories made by scientists, or anyone for that matter, before being proved and considered "science" , are inherently wrong, which is flawed thinking, imo.
if science used logic, then it would say there's a god, or some sort of creator, because "every cell comes from an existing cell" which just tells you something had to make the first piece of the puzzle, which means if that god wasnt made by something else, then all cells dont come from existing cells, and that god just appeared out of now where. @Ocelot
All of what you said is just not true.
100% agree, like i stated, if anything science cant move (proof*) is automatically wrong, then that means we have been wrong about everything in this world, and we'll continue to be till the end of time, since science can never come first.
what do you mean by on a higher plane? are you saying we are multi-dimensional beings? imo, i think this makes sense, we live in a 3d world, but this 3d world is categorized by whats physical, by what we can see, i dont think thoughts can be categorized this way, as they dont take up any space, and have no shape or form, atleast not in this 3D place we live in
We need to observe something to confirm that it exists and what it does. Whatever definition you provided is based on reasoning. Observation and experiment are tools we use realise it.
When did I claim this? I merely said that you can't prove it right, and therefore propagating such ideas is incorrect.
We observe and make deductions, conclusions, and theories from the data we collect. That is science in it's purest form.
got2ex is abused deg@Tony thoughts?
ocelut is a crry sbhuman
keep creying for ocelut sleyer of foidlets
You are arguing with idiots. Cant believe that there are no likes on your post(except for mine). Tells you a lot about the user base of lowiqmaxx.me
science is flawed, there are loopholes our brain makes using the same logic that we apply to science, science's whole view of things is only based on whats been proven previously, and we assume and apply that thinking process to make theories about other things, but isn't that BLINDLY assuming that the same rules to something will apply to everything else?. how can science make it law that all existing cells come from pre-existing ones, without being able to track every cell back to the first one? How come they say the big bang led to everything, without being able to see it? arent we using the logic and knowledge we have today to prove something very old, and inexplicable? Science's logic is the same as human logic, (obv scientists are human), and going by logic, something has to come from something else, so how does saying there is a god, but you can't prove it, mean that our way of thinking is flawed? we are just using the logic that there has to be some sort of special thing that created the first "cell", or else it would be a never ending cycle, which makes no sense, because science clearly states, our world had a beginning. Science can't prove spirits, etc, but there are many people that claim to have seen and felt out of this world things, are they just making it up? how would their way of thinking be flawed because they felt something inexplicable that cant be proven, are you just gonna discard what they felt as not real just because you cant prove it?by this logic, you shouldnt categorize someone as crazy, unless you feel what they're feeling, or else you would just be taking their word/actions for it. why, without seeing, did we ever bring up other dimensions, why would you acknowledge that a certain drug has a certain effect, if you can't prove it, unless you take it yourself, if you've never took it yourself, you are just taking other peoples word for it, i might be wrong, but i dont think dreams can be proven, yet we know they are real because we all have them, why cant something be real just because you yourself havent experienced it? is love not real because i've never felt it? the mind is powerful, only reason religion and things like that exist is to fill in the holes that science just can't, using the same logic that science, and every human uses.
this is just bias, because what you believe, is in line with what he's stating, very idiotic of u
No. You don't understand the scientific method.
Yes, we make deductions and conclusions from DATA. Data that can be repeated with the same method Consistently. That is science. This is the fundamental Part that you’re leaving out.
no, you're making it, sound like science is this flexible thing using logic etc etc that is proven, yet using that same logic, if we make a statement that can't be proven by science, then that way of thinking is flawed? that makes 0 sense, science is simply some sht backed by some evidence. again, we can't actually prove that the big bang happened, or how long ago it happened, yet we use science from today, which is backed by evidence, so its "valid", to guess how the fuck this extremely complex world of ours started, and i guess we somehow have a "scientifically sense-making" theory . Science isnt flexible, its either proven or its not science. So lets just discard whats crossed thru everyones head at one point or another as flawed thinking, disregarding the fact that we have extremely limited knowledge and have been stuck on this rock for a very long time, looks like we are all just crazy, we shouldnt trust science either, looks like since we all think the same, our "logic" is self contradictory, and we just pick and choose what can be proven, and immediately discard anything that we think cant, and we'll just say it doesnt exist because the only "logic" we have some far cant make sense of it, like the universe is retarded and we have it figured out, and we know everything.
the scientific method, woah man you sure are smart if you know the scientific method, care to explain?
Reading your comment which is, frankly, nothing short of utter drivel, I should be stopping this conversation here but anyway here I am.
Demarcation problem. We don't know what realms fall under science and what don't. This is more of a semantic issue which really shouldn't be the topic. Philosophy has a lot of tie-ins with psychology which is the rigorous science. Any basement dweller can become a "philosopher" by talking about things we can't see or know about. Fuck, Deepak Chopra is a prime example. Literally just spouts "quantum" in whatever he speaks and suddenly it's the word of a knowledgeable man. J
true, i wish i was just a flat simple being, then i wouldnt be heightmogged
giga inel trait
over for inelcels
Nope. We know what fields are within the sciences and we know which ones are not. There is no demarcation problem.
I will respond tomorrow/a few hours later.
Great point. I failed to also consider that science depends on logical and presuppositions mathematics itself. Yet, something irks me about this argument. I find myself justifying this as a necessary "exception" because it just is that way. I find myself in a discussion often where people bring out the "science isn't everything" argument when trying to justify the existence of something (almost always God or religion-related matters).
Human biases also do not apply when it comes to proven, reproducable scientific laws. I mentioned that earlier. Sure there will be debate and disagreements about topics that need them, because we simply aren't 100% sure about what's right and what's wrong there. You don't see anyone debating the existence of the law of conservation of momentum. To a similar extent, this can be applied to things like vaccines. There are a few people claiming that they are the bane of modern medicine but them holding that view doesn't negate or lessen the science that went into it which says otherwise.
You do not see people debating the law of the conversion of momentum, sure. But you do have people debating the Big Bang. Or the cosmological constants. Or the biological functions of different species and purpose of biological functions.
