Science vs religion vs logic

https://youtu.be/1TerTgDEgUE Phone Post 3.0

I stopped at :25.  Is his entire speech based on that strawman?  

"The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality."  

Well, I'm glad he has taken it upon himself to create something called the science delusion and then argues against it.    That is a rather blatant misrepresentation of science.  

Does he say anything of substance or is it all an argument against his made up definition of science?

Lol in.

Paul Hopkins -


excellent! i just downloade 3 of his books off this talk. science set free, the evolutionary mind and the physics of angels



 



vu op



Star Wars novels have more legit science. Phone Post 3.0

angryinch - 


I stopped at :25.  Is his entire speech based on that strawman?  



"The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality."  



Well, I'm glad he has taken it upon himself to create something called the science delusion and then argues against it.    That is a rather blatant misrepresentation of science.  



Does he say anything of substance or is it all an argument against his made up definition of science?


This squared.



angryinch -


I stopped at :25.  Is his entire speech based on that strawman?  



"The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality."  



Well, I'm glad he has taken it upon himself to create something called the science delusion and then argues against it.    That is a rather blatant misrepresentation of science.  



Does he say anything of substance or is it all an argument against his made up definition of science?

My thoughts exactly.

Stopped watching pretty early in. Phone Post 3.0

droplogic -
LFTM -
angryinch -


I stopped at :25.  Is his entire speech based on that strawman?  



"The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality."  



Well, I'm glad he has taken it upon himself to create something called the science delusion and then argues against it.    That is a rather blatant misrepresentation of science.  



Does he say anything of substance or is it all an argument against his made up definition of science?

My thoughts exactly.

Stopped watching pretty early in. Phone Post 3.0
Wait, so science understands the nature of reality? Phone Post 3.0
Does Science (which as a general term is very flawed) claim to? Phone Post 3.0

I was under the interpretation that science was a method, not a belief.

droplogic - 
LFTM -
angryinch -


I stopped at :25.  Is his entire speech based on that strawman?  



"The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality."  



Well, I'm glad he has taken it upon himself to create something called the science delusion and then argues against it.    That is a rather blatant misrepresentation of science.  



Does he say anything of substance or is it all an argument against his made up definition of science?

My thoughts exactly.

Stopped watching pretty early in. Phone Post 3.0
Wait, so science understands the nature of reality? Phone Post 3.0


"science" does not understand anything. 

droplogic - 
LFTM -
angryinch -


I stopped at :25.  Is his entire speech based on that strawman?  



"The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality."  



Well, I'm glad he has taken it upon himself to create something called the science delusion and then argues against it.    That is a rather blatant misrepresentation of science.  



Does he say anything of substance or is it all an argument against his made up definition of science?

My thoughts exactly.

Stopped watching pretty early in. Phone Post 3.0
Wait, so science understands the nature of reality? Phone Post 3.0


Science is a method applied in an attempt to gain understanding.  Science helps us to understand the nature of reality.

What a bunch of horse shit.



LOL. Bullshit spun in semi science terms with a posh accent.

droplogic - 
LFTM -
angryinch -


I stopped at :25.  Is his entire speech based on that strawman?  



"The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality."  



Well, I'm glad he has taken it upon himself to create something called the science delusion and then argues against it.    That is a rather blatant misrepresentation of science.  



Does he say anything of substance or is it all an argument against his made up definition of science?

My thoughts exactly.

Stopped watching pretty early in. Phone Post 3.0
Wait, so science understands the nature of reality? Phone Post 3.0

This can't be a serious question.

Can nothing even exist? Why is there something rather than nothing?

Jack Taufer - https://youtu.be/1TerTgDEgUE Phone Post 3.0
Awesome, thank you. Phone Post 3.0

He is not worth anyone's time, but he will be loved by morons who read books like "The Secret" and think Deepak Chopra is a real scientist.

FWIW, this presentation & another from Graham Hancock @ the same event scandalized TEd/TEDx, & led to more thorough guidelines for TEDx organizers, & also the withdrawal of TEDx' licensing for another woo-heavy event in Hollywood a few months later.

HotSteppa - He is not worth anyone's time, but he will be loved by morons who read books like "The Secret" and think Deepak Chopra is a real scientist.


That's pretty much what I thought after watching him speak for 25 seconds.