Does humanity deserve to live?

[Yukaphile]

Science is based on facts, but it is as much institutional as every other part of our society now. Come on, clearspira, don't tell me YOU trust TV-based celebrity scientists? No, no more than we should trust celebrity-based TV preachers. I think the money is more the guiding motivation, not a search for truth. It's why I want to learn to differentiate institutional science from philosophical science, the latter of which IS about examination, recording the data, and finding answers. Not obsession over where your next paycheck comes from. Scientists should be happy to be proven wrong, I think. It's about learning. And learning means making mistakes along the way. You gotta make mistakes before you can walk. That means falling over multiple times. It is my opinion too many scientists don't like being proven wrong these days. Especially those blasting from the political pulpit.

Why do I keep harping on the 6,000 years of recorded history figure? Look, you know how LONG it takes for our GALAXY to complete a revolution, spin completely around? 250 MILLION YEARS. That's a quarter of a billion years. Billion. With a B. And we want to think merely observing matter behaving a certain way in a very localized area of space-time, within a relatively SHORT cosmic timeframe, means we know so much about the universe? Human beings as a species are millions of years old, and it's only been so short a period we've recorded what we see and think and have learned over time. We know LITTLE. And it's time we accepted that. Especially with the time delay in between light measurements. That's just BARELY scratching the surface of all that's really out there. And if you want to deny that somehow, then that's everything wrong with modern society. No admission to our basic frailties, our vulnerabilities, and our fallibility. To admit how scared we are and how little we really do know. Mark my words, it is the height of arrogance to claim philosophy is dead and science killed it. Remember all the grandiose promises science made at the end of the eighties? Yeah, none of them have come to pass. No AI and no working model for consciousness yet. So much for progress. I hear they're connecting brains to the Internet now. Yeah, what do you want to bet that won't pan out either?

True courage requires admitting everything we think we know and love and believe could be 100% WRONG. I could be 100% wrong as I write this. Such is life. Such is the universe.

[McAvoy]

Science is based on facts, but it is as much institutional as every other part of our society now. Come on, clearspira, don't tell me YOU trust TV-based celebrity scientists? No, no more than we should trust celebrity-based TV preachers. I think the money is more the guiding motivation, not a search for truth. It's why I want to learn to differentiate institutional science from philosophical science, the latter of which IS about examination, recording the data, and finding answers. Not an obsession over where your next paycheck comes from.

You know that a large portion of us do not need to rely on talking heads to get our information right?

Like take for example, my own profession as an aircraft mechanic, will know instantly that flat Earthers arw full of shit. That we calibrate and fix and design for a world that is sphere? With all of of all known physics involved for it.

Guess what. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, but it took about 10,000 to 6,000 to get where we are at. Want to know why? Because it was written down. It was taught. And very specifically on the early days it was told down.

Scientists now can be incorrect in what we know now. That's always been a given in science. It is it's nature.

So what is your point? Tell us your point.

[Yukaphile]

My point is that I reject clearspira's notion that only oblivion awaits after death, especially with how little we know about the universe. We have theories. Many of which have yet to be proven. It was only a few years ago we finally saw a black hole for the first time. I find many atheists to be just as dogmatically hardcore and close-minded as the hardcore religious nuts convinced their god-given mission allows them to do whatever they want. And it is logical fallacy to claim that because we have zero evidence. Yeah, because as I said, WE'RE A YOUNG SPECIES. A species with potential, but still an infantile, puerile race who cannot look to the higher mysteries, grounded as we are into the materialistic mundane. I think the new wave of atheists are jaded idealists who don't want to be disappointed. Because despite what I believe, I could be wrong. More people need to admit to their ignorance. ALL we know could be wrong. All of it. That's my mark of equality to every other human user on this forum. I'm just as ignorant as you before the universe.

[Yukaphile]

This is why I kinda dismiss myself so much. Why I have no confidence and hate life. If everything I do is meaningless, and the spark of uniqueness and individuality I have is doomed to be temporary, then nothing matters. My existence is a mistake and I leave nothing to the mysterious wonders and beautiful magic of this universe. Life is a drag, huh? Just losing everyone you ever knew and loved.

[Yukaphile]

I would like to think it matters SOMEHOW. But it probably doesn't and won't.

[Frustration]

It's arrogant to dismiss philosophy when science has just BARELY, as a tiny baby step, started to explore the vast possibilities of the non-physical world in quantum mechanics.

You fail physics, forever. You should be forced to wear a placard that reads "I do not understand the basic meanings of words."

[Yukaphile]

Do you expect something more from a high-school dropout?

[Madner Kami]

Humility and a basic effort to understand what one doesn't understand. In other words: Less presumptions and strong opinions. More questions and willingness to admit being in the wrong instead.

[Riedquat]

My point is that I reject clearspira's notion that only oblivion awaits after death, especially with how little we know about the universe.

Why do you reject it? You can argue that our knowledge is incomplete or inaccurate, sure, but that's not reason to argue for greater plausibility of an alternative to it.

Don't fall for the appeal to ignorance trap.