Deconstructing The Myth Of Science - Part 2

"It's structured to cover up a lie. The most dangerous lies in the guise of
truth. Where, all that you say factually is true but it's part of a semantic
field which is in itself a lie." - Slavoj Zizek

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could
believe in them." - George Orwell

• Non-ideological nature of Leo's teachings : Leo clarifies that his teachings are not ideological or belief systems but are insights about reality that need deep personal contemplation and independent derivation to be truly understood.
• Anticipating objections : He plans to address objections not out of sequence but because he understands that the mind can react defensively and he preempts misunderstandings by emphasizing the importance of maintaining an open mind.
• Concerns of undermining science : Leo addresses concerns that questioning science may endorse pseudoscience or quackery. He acknowledges the possibility but stresses that the validity of challenging science isn't negated by potential misuse.
• Science as evolving and self-improving : Leo rebuts the idea that science self-improves without active critique and mindset shifts. He argues that science requires individuals to be willing to rethink its workings for real evolution to occur.
• Science's pursuit of truth : Leo confronts the defense that science merely aims at improving life rather than pursuing absolute truth. He finds this argument intellectually dishonest, as many scientists are indeed driven by the pursuit of truth, but some may retreat to practicality as a defense when the ability of science to reach ultimate truth is questioned.
• Pragmatic Defense of Science : Leo Gura criticizes the portrayal of science merely as a pragmatic tool for survival and manipulation, arguing that it should not be divorced from the pursuit of truth.
• Pragmatism and Truth : He clarifies that pragmatism as a philosophy suggests truth is based on utility, a notion that he finds problematic since it conflates truth with functionality.
• Limitations of Useful Falsehoods : Gura explains that the usefulness of certain methods or falsehoods, such as lies, for survival or manipulation does not equate to them being the truth.
• Utility versus Truth in Scientific Models : He points out that historically useful scientific theories, such as Newtonian mechanics and atomic theory, have been acknowledged as not true in an absolute sense despite their practical success.
• The Hypocrisy in Pragmatic Defenses : Gura argues that pragmatism cannot consistently defend scientific truths without also legitimizing unscientific beliefs from different cultures that prove to be practical in their contexts, which exposes a double standard.
• The Flaw in Pragmatic Justifications of Religion : He contrasts the pragmatic defense of scientific ideas with religious ideologies, noting that religious beliefs might serve pragmatic purposes but that does not render them true.
• Science Beyond Pragmatism : Gura emphasizes that science is more profound than mere practicality and that scientists are driven by the belief that they are uncovering deep universal truths, not just manipulative schemes.
• Preserving the Notion of Truth : He insists on the importance of separating truth from mere utility and practicality, pointing out that truth may exist independently from its practical implications.
• Deconstructing Pragmatism : Leo Gura argues that equating truth with survival or happiness leads to a slippery slope, implying that lies could also be considered true if they are useful which contradicts the real aspirations of science and individuals' perception of factual reality.
• Ego's equation of survival with truth : The ego can equate personal survival with truth leading to manipulation, deception, and lies since survival becomes the priority over factual accuracy or ethical considerations.
• Existence of Absolute Truth : Absolute truth is regarded as accessible through consciousness, suggesting an actual reality beyond the bounds of current scientific methods, which cannot fully grasp or explain it.
• Science's dilemma with Absolute Truth : Science faces a challenge where it must either acknowledge its limitations in capturing the entirety of the Absolute Truth or deny its existence completely to preserve its authority and credibility.
• Function of science in relation to Absolute Truth : Despite practical applications, the real value of science lies in its partial correspondence to the Absolute Truth, which is the grounding framework of science itself.
• Illusion created by practical success of science : The functionality of science in producing practical results often leads people to mistakenly equate working scientific models with absolute truth, ignoring the existence of many functional yet diverse worldviews and interpretations of nature.
• Science and interpretation of nature : Science is a collection of human-constructed mental schemes to explain phenomena, which can change and vary, indicating that scientific models are not necessarily true nor the only way to understand nature.
• Understanding culture and science as multiple models : Just as diverse cultures provide various methods of functioning in society, there are potentially thousands of different scientific models that could explain the same phenomena, each with trade-offs and limitations.
• Scientific observation and denial : Observations in science can be subjective, and what counts as legitimate evidence is relative to the standards set by the scientific community, which can ignore or contest data that doesn't fit established paradigms.
• Relativity and standards of scientific evidence : The scientific community's standards for what counts as valid evidence are arbitrary; nature does not need to meet these standards as they must adapt to the phenomena they aim to study.
• Challenges in proving non-material phenomena : Phenomena like ghosts, if they exist, might not be approachable with standard material methods, highlighting the limitations of traditional scientific approaches in explaining all aspects of reality.
• Questioning the objectivity of observational standards : Leo argues that the standards for what constitutes legitimate observational evidence—such as for ghosts, UFOs, or mystical experiences—are not objective but are biased by the scientific establishment’s preconceptions.
• Credible reports of unexplained phenomena : The existence of credible reports of phenomena like UFO sightings by authoritative figures, such as military personnel, challenges the dismissal of these occurrences as mere fabrications or delusions.
• Video footage of UFOs and observational denial : Leo points out that even with video footage of UFOs, people deny their legitimacy because it doesn't fit within their existing worldview. Anything outside of that limited worldview is not considered real unless one has a direct, undeniable experience.
• Obstacles in presenting evidence against science : Leo emphasizes that the issue isn't the lack of evidence showing scientific errors but rather the disbelief and denial people exhibit when such evidence is presented. It's not the evidence itself, but what is considered credible evidence, that poses a problem.
• Denial of paradigm-challenging scientific errors : He differentiates between internal paradigm errors that science readily admits and external paradigm errors that challenge foundational worldviews. The latter are usually dismissed because the collective mindset assumes existing worldviews as absolute.
• Misconceptions about postmodernism : Leo counters the accusation that his teachings resemble postmodernism, stating that while some ideas may overlap, his insights are independently developed and go beyond the scope of postmodernism.
• Criticism of the use of science by its critics : Addressing the criticism that questioning science is hypocritical if one uses scientific tools, Leo argues it is similar to wanting to improve a country's policies while living in it. Questioning does not equate to hypocrisy but to seeking reformation.
• Handling scientific anomalies : Leo introduces the problem of how science deals with anomalies, where contradictory data is often dismissed as noise or error without an objective standard to determine when enough anomalies necessitate a paradigm shift.
• Lack of objective criteria for anomalies : He reveals a lack of objective criteria to discern legitimate anomalies from noise in science, allowing for genuine anomalies that could disprove a theory to be easily dismissed.
• The recontextualization problem : Leo describes the 'recontextualization problem,' where the meaning of a scientific fact can drastically shift when seen in a different context. He suggests this can significantly alter interpretations of scientific theories, indicating the fluidity of scientific knowledge.
• Contextual Dynamics of Facts : Facts are not static or objective truths independent of context; they only make sense within a given context. A context-aware mind understands the relational nature of facts, whereas a context-unaware mind sees facts as independent and absolute.
• Problem of Recontextualization : The meaning of scientific facts can completely reverse when the context is expanded or altered. What appears true in one context can become the opposite in another, leading to significant epistemic challenges for science.

• Entanglement Problem in Science : Scientific observations and results are inherently entangled with the methods and instruments used in their collection, including human senses and perception. This interconnection means that data are not independent of the observing instruments.
• The Scientific Method's Limitations : The scientific method is not infallible or universally applicable, as the method itself influences the result. Each method has its limitations and biases, raising concerns about the validity and universality of scientific outcomes.
• Scientist's Bias in Experiments : The scientist and their experiment are interlinked; personal biases, beliefs, paradigms, emotions, and worldviews all influence scientific inquiry, challenging the claim of neutrality within the scientific process.
• Interpenetration of Reason and Emotion : Contrary to popular belief, reason and emotion are deeply intertwined in the scientific process. Emotions drive reason, affecting scientific investigations and undermining claims of pure rationality.
• Science Entangled with Perception : The entirety of science is contingent on the perception, consciousness, and nervous systems of the observers. Scientific models and results would vary with different sensory and neurological setups.
• Entanglement of Science with Survival : Survival and ego needs significantly influence the course of scientific investigations, contrary to the belief that science purely seeks abstract truths. Scientific institutions' survival needs also affect their direction of research.
• Culture's Influence on Science : Science and culture are deeply intertwined, with cultural beliefs and norms capable of corrupting scientific endeavors. The idea that science is solely about finding truth is challenged by the reality of cultural influence.
• Inherent Relativity and Bias in Science : Due to the discussed entanglements, all scientific claims are perspectival, relative, biased, and partial. Complete objectivity, neutrality, and absoluteness are foreclosed by these intricate interconnections within the framework of science.
• Quantum Entanglement Misconception : Clarifies that the concept of entanglement used in the discussion extends beyond the specific technical phenomena in quantum mechanics. The broader philosophical idea of entanglement signifies the fundamental interconnectedness of reality, arguing that if reality is one, then separating parts becomes impossible, making everything inherently entangled.
• Quotes from Renowned Scientists on the Nature of Reality : Leo cites quotes from Leonard Susskind, Werner Heisenberg, David Boehm, Max Planck, and John Archibald Wheeler to show support for the notion that reality is fundamentally entangled and participatory, which has a relativizing effect on all data and facts.

• Oneness and Quantum Entanglement : Leo argues that quantum entanglement illustrates the oneness of reality. He points out that some scientists recognize entanglement's macro effects but are still uncomfortable or unable to fully grasp the radical implications of oneness.
• Partiality of Scientific Observation : Using quotes from notable physicists, Leo emphasizes that observation in science is partial and tinged by the observer's methodology and biases. He argues that what we observe is not nature itself, but nature as exposed to our methods of questioning.
• Entanglement and the Limits of Observation : Leo contends that traditional materialist views of observation do not hold when considering deeper levels of reality, likening the study of reality to dissecting oneself, with all the associated emotional entanglement.
• Myth of Objective Science : Leo asserts that science cannot be objective as every aspect of the scientific method is partial and influenced by the observer's perspective, predispositions, and the instruments they use, leading to methodological biases that exclude portions of reality.
• Thought Experiment – VR Simulation : Leo uses a thought experiment comparing scientific study within a virtual reality simulation to highlight the limitations of considering philosophy, metaphysics, and epistemology as irrelevant to scientific inquiry, demonstrating the relativity of scientific truths.
• Relativity of Scientific Truths : He elaborates on the myriad factors that relativize science, including culture, society, era, language, paradigm, tools, neurology, perception, and consciousness, arguing that changes in these factors can turn scientific truths into falsehoods.
• Limits and Bias in Science : Leo finishes by asserting that scientific claims are inherently limited and biased, deeply entwined with the observer's framework, which leads to a disregard for elements outside of the observer’s self-imposed window of reality, challenging the notion of science as an objective pursuit of truth.
• The relativity of scientific beliefs : All scientific beliefs, including the rotation of the Earth or the atomic structure of matter, are relative and conditional; they depend on the context and our acceptance based on trust in scientific authority rather than direct testing and experience.
• Science as belief and authority : Leo challenges the notion that science is purely empirical, suggesting that 99% of it relies on belief in authority. People trust in scientific claims and peer validations without having personally verified or experienced them, creating a 'pyramid scheme of belief.'
• Example of beliefs in science : Leo illustrates with common beliefs, such as the Earth's rotation or the structure of matter as atoms, that most people accept without direct testing, relying on authority and technology to substantiate these claims.
• Problem of scientific overleveraging : Science has an 'overleveraging' issue analogous to the banking system where validation through personal experience is vastly outnumbered by the frequency of belief, creating a bubble of unchallenged scientific paradigms susceptible to collapse when confronted.
• Scientific indoctrination through education : Science education is described as a form of indoctrination, where children are taught scientific facts through memorization without exploring epistemology, metaphysics, or methodologies, creating a rigid worldview.
• Implications of scientific indoctrination : The formative years of education imprint a scientific paradigm that shapes our worldview, leading to difficulties in thinking outside this framework and criticizing foundational aspects of science.
• Peer review as a system of confirmation : Peer review in science is criticized for being a circular system that confirms existing beliefs, with peers often sharing the same paradigm and rarely challenging foundational assumptions or methodologies.
• Science as a social-cultural activity : Modern science relies on elements such as society, culture, bureaucracy, and consensus, with scientific authority depending on this collective agreement rather than an isolated pursuit of truth.
• Priority of institutional survival in science : Leo argues that the scientific consensus is built more on what benefits the survival of scientific institutions and bureaucracies than on unwavering pursuit of truth, with truth being a secondary concern.
• Critique of peer review defense : Leo denounces the common defense of scientific beliefs through peer review, contending that peer review reinforces existing beliefs and ignores significant issues.
• Circular Logic in Peer Review : Peer review in science is criticized for fostering groupthink as it operates within a closed loop of mutual methodological agreement among peers sharing the same biases and worldview, which does not challenge the fundamental methods or assumptions of scientific work.
• Question-Begging in Validating Truth : Leo emphasizes the futility of seeking validation for truth from others who are considered authoritative within one's preexisting scientific paradigm. He argues that true validation can only come from personal examination and testing, rather than relying on others' approval.
• Limitations of Academic Consensus : Scientific consensus is equated with orthodoxy, maintained by peer review systems consisting of individuals who share the same cultural and educational indoctrinations. This encourages conformity to existing paradigms rather than fostering revolutionary thought.
• Impact of Culture on Science : Science is deeply intertwined with culture, meaning that one can only understand science within the cultural context they are raised in. Changing scientific understanding thus requires cultural shifts, which Leo frames as a marketing problem due to the necessity of spreading new ideas through society.
• Slow Permeation of Scientific Ideas Into Culture : Leo notes that scientific truths can take decades or even centuries to become fully integrated into culture, stating that marketing and cultural acceptance are critical for the adoption of new scientific ideas, which often stand contrary to the immediate survival needs of the majority in society.
• Conservatism of Science : Science is characterized as being conservative, as it seeks to maintain a strict authority by only allowing ideas that meet rigorous standards. However, this approach can also inhibit the acceptance of new, valid ideas and limit a complete understanding of truth.
• Nature of Scientific Paradigm Shifts : Scientific breakthroughs face resistance from established norms and can take generations to be fully accepted, as culture and entrenched dogmas from one paradigm serve as barriers to the next. Once accepted, these new ideas are often regarded as obvious and the cycle of denying further novel discoveries continues.
• Persistence of Epistemic and Metaphysical Blunders : Historical cycles of scientific paradigms lead to continuous epistemic and metaphysical errors, as the contents of dogmas change, but the structure of belief, authority, and ideology remain constant, repeating mistakes across human history.
• Undermining of Materialism and Realism : Scientific discoveries from various fields have undermined the foundations of materialism and realism, yet the majority of people, including many scientists, do not fully comprehend the profound epistemic and metaphysical implications of these advancements.
• Historical Resistance to New Ideas in Science : Ignaz Semmelweis' introduction of antiseptic procedures demonstrates the staunch opposition to novel scientific ideas that contradict established beliefs. His findings, although drastically reducing mortality rates, were rejected and ridiculed by his medical peers. Semmelweis was ultimately committed to an asylum and died after mistreatment, showing how truth in science isn't always welcomed or accepted.

• Whitewashing of Scientific Mistakes : Science often fails to acknowledge its past mistakes and corrections are made only after the initial pioneers of new ideas face significant resistance and sometimes personal tragedy. This "whitewashing" distorts the reality of how science reacts to revolutionary ideas.
• Reluctance of Science to Evolve : Despite proclaimed willingness to advance, science historically resists self-evolution in practice. Many ideas that later became accepted faced initial denial and ridicule. Such resistance is masked by the notion that if one discovers the truth and proves it, the scientific community will readily accept it.
• Science's Expansion Through Culture Wars : The boundaries of science are not widened through passive agreement but through cultural and ideological battles. New theories and models that expand scientific understanding are often met with fear and resistance, as they threat established paradigms. These cultural wars are a necessary part of scientific evolution.
• Psychological Barriers in Accepting New Scientific Theories : Psychological factors like prejudices, biases, cultural norms, and survival concerns heavily influence the acceptance of scientific theories. Fear and ego prevent open-minded acceptance of revolutionary ideas, be it the Earth's shape, time's relativity, or the source of human evolution.
• Scientific Institutions and Survival Concerns : Scientists within academic institutions face pressures concerning reputation, career, and conformity to the institution’s established beliefs. This concern for professional survival limits the freedom to explore radical ideas and challenges to the scientific status quo.
• Institutional Priorities Over Truth : Major scientific institutions are primarily focused on maintaining their authority, legitimacy, and securing funding from donors, often at the expense of pursuing unbiased truth. To preserve their standing, these institutions avoid employing scientists who deviate too far from accepted paradigms.
• Academic Limitations on Scientific Truth : Academic institutions inherently restrict the scope of scientific exploration to their predefined parameters. Scientists are bound by unspoken agreements to align with the institution's paradigms, and straying from them can lead to career jeopardy.
• Issues with Modern Education System : The current education system, which should be illuminating students on truth, instead remains trapped in a mode of rote learning, memorization, and testing without teaching fundamentals like epistemology or metaphysics, thus perpetuating scientific indoctrination and limiting critical thinking.
• Funding Biases in Scientific Research : Modern science, embedded in late-stage capitalism, is heavily influenced by the pursuit of profits and immediate technological advances. This profit motive filters research topics, diverting attention away from non-practical areas, potentially stalling exploration into rich, unresearched domains of reality.
• Problem of Reductionism in Science : Science increasingly focuses on overspecialization, leading to a narrow and fragmented understanding of reality. This 'blinders on' approach prevents a holistic view, as experts in specific subfields fail to engage with knowledge outside their expertise.
• Consequences of Overspecialization : The compartmentalization of scientific fields creates artificial divides that don't reflect the interconnectivity of nature, resulting in ignorance and a piecemeal picture of reality. This hampers progress in understanding the true nature of reality, which is more than the sum of its parts.
• Lack of Interdisciplinary Communication : There's a significant gap in communication not only between different branches of science but also between science and other forms of knowledge like shamanism and mysticism. Overemphasis on specialization discourages scientists from considering insights from outside their immediate field.
• Reductionist Delusion : The materialist science bias of reductionism assumes by breaking down reality into smaller components, understanding will be reached. Leo challenges this notion as an unscientific and false premise, exemplified by the analogy of studying a blended frog and expecting to understand the entirety of the animal.
• Benefits of Independent Research : Independence from the constraints of academia allows for a broader spectrum of study across diverse disciplines. The freedom to explore wide-ranging theories fosters a more profound and comprehensive understanding of reality.
• Funding and Resources in Late Stage Capitalism : Criticizes the current scientific funding model that prioritizes technology and profit-driven research, affecting the capacity to conduct groundbreaking, independent research. Leo notes how the unequal distribution of resources limits independence and innovation.
• Promotion of Holism : The solution to the reductionism problem is promoting holism, an approach that is not financially rewarded compared to specialism. Despite holism being undervalued, it is seen as essential for a comprehensive understanding of nature.
• False Notion of Falsifiability : Challenges the belief within science that every theory must be falsifiable and possess predictive power. Leo suggests that certain truths or theories may not seem immediately useful but can become invaluable for future scientific advancements, thereby criticizing short-sighted dismissal based on immediate utility.
• The Infinity Problem in Science : Leo argues that science is in denial about the infinite nature of reality, preferring to treat it as finite. He states that finite methods cannot fully grasp the infinite, leading to an inherent incompleteness in the scientific method, hence why scientists must develop a more open and flexible approach toward studying nature.
• Infinite Nature of Reality : Leo Gura emphasizes the problem that scientists treat nature as finite because their methods cannot access infinity. He explains that the methods used to study nature are inherently finite, leading to a confirmation bias wherein scientists fail to recognize the infinite aspects of reality.
• Limitations of Proof : Gura discusses the limitations of proof, stating that proof is a finite notion and therefore cannot adequately capture the concept of infinity. According to him, proof is a smaller subset of truth, indicating that there will always be aspects of reality that are true but unprovable.
• Direct Consciousness of Infinity : He asserts that it is possible to demonstrate to oneself that reality is infinite, but doing so requires a conscious experience beyond peer review or formal proof. Gura suggests that through specific methods, one can become directly conscious of the infinite nature of reality.
• Intuitive Nature of Science : Gura argues that despite common perceptions, scientific discovery relies heavily on intuition and holistic pattern recognition, which cannot be formalized or explained through a mechanical process. He claims that the greatest scientific achievements have resulted from intuitive leaps of consciousness.
• Relativity of Proof and Intellectual Capacity : He emphasizes that the notion of proof is relative and depends on an individual's intellectual capacity to grasp insights and intuit truths. Gura explains that science does not exist for beings lacking this intellectual capacity, like donkeys, implying that our scientific understanding is subjective to our level of consciousness and neurology.
• Critique of Rationalist, Materialist, Realist Mindset : Gura critiques those restricted by a rationalist, materialist, and realist mindset, comparing the difficulty of explaining infinity to them to the impossibility of teaching arithmetic to a donkey. He suggests that cognitive development and consciousness awakenings are needed to comprehend infinity.
• Myth of Science : Underlying his critique is the narrative that science is often apologetically rationalized as objective and rigorous when in reality, intuition is central to its function. Gura compares this concept to a scene from Star Wars to illustrate the intuitive essence behind scientific breakthroughs.
• Commitment to Truth : Gura concludes by reaffirming his dedication to questioning every scientific assumption in the pursuit of truth. He expresses a willingness to discard all beliefs, regardless of their perceived sacredness, to uncover what remains after rigorous examination, believing that truth will withstand such scrutiny.
• Ubiquity of Bullshit : Lastly, he calls attention to the pervasive nature of misinformation or 'bullshit,' cautioning that even scientists are capable of self-deception and misleading others, often without malicious intent. This propensity to generate falsehoods is characteristic of the human condition and widespread across society.