The science of joy and happiness

[MattMVS7]

Note To Reader: I am just like any other normal person wanting to discover the truth. I am not being selfish and am not trying to bother you or be nonsensical. I just really wish to discuss and find the answer to my theory here. So far, I haven't. People have just been dismissing my theory based upon their own personal opinions. But I need to discuss an actual valid reason as to why they reject my theory besides just from their own personal opinions.

There are many philosophies out there on how to live a happy/joyful life. But these are nothing scientific. They know nothing about science and how the brain really works (what our mental experiences really are). As a matter of fact, these philosophies say that you can live a joyful, happy life and enjoy your life while in a depressed and/or anhedonic state. But that is just nonsense and I will tell you why.

The term "rewarding experience" is a scientific term. It is defined as being our pleasant feelings/emotions (good moods) from our reward system since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. If there is a scientific version of something, then a different version of it would have to be fake. For example, since we have the scientific terms sight, hearing, smell, and taste, then a philosophical/moral version of sight, hearing, smell, and taste would be fake and would not give us sight, hearing, smell, or taste.

What we have "over here" is the term "rewarding experience" which is a scientific term in the world of science. But what we have "over there" are the terms happiness, joy, pleasure, and enjoyment which are outside the realm of science and in the realm of morality/philosophy (the world of our own personal created meanings in life).

So what I am going to do now here is bring what is "over there" to "over here." We all know that joy, pleasure, and happiness are always rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings. They are always rewarding to us. If you had disrewarding pain and misery such as depression and you said that your family and goals/dreams still brought you joy and happiness, then you would be having a rewarding mental experience in despite of your disrewarding pain and misery.

But if you did not experience any pleasant feelings/emotions in despite of your depression, then it would be false of you to say that you are having joy and happiness despite your depression. So since joy and happiness are synonymous with the scientific term "rewarding experience," then joy and happiness are also scientific terms as well. They belong "over here" in the realm of science. Also, as a side note, my descriptions of "over here" and "over there" are merely descriptions to make my explanation more effective and convenient.

This also applies to love, inspiration, etc. which are also always and can only be rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings. They are also scientific terms which means the philosophical/moral version of those things are false. As a matter of fact, I think there is a scientific version of everything and that the world of morality/philosophy (the world of our own personal created meanings) is false.

There is a scientific version of a lion. If you personally define yourself as a lion, then that would be false. That would not make you a lion. There is a scientific version of the sun, there is a scientific version of helium, etc. If you personally define anything else in life as being the sun or helium, then that would be false as well. It would not make those things actual helium or the sun.

So with all of this being said, I think there is even a scientific version of good and bad. Since having good meaning in one's life is always a rewarding mental experience for us and can only be a rewarding mental experience to us, then good is also a scientific term as well. It would be a synonym for our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. When, for example, your family has good meaning to you, then you are perceiving a rewarding experience towards them and towards helping them out. Even if you say that your life was nothing good and that helping them out is what matters, you are still perceiving good value and worth towards them and, thus, you are still perceiving a rewarding experience towards them.

If you had disrewarding pain and misery to win a game and earn a trophy, then the idea of the team, trophy, and the game would be rewarding to you despite your pain and misery. They would be a rewarding mental experience for you in despite of your pain and misery since they have good value and worth to you. Therefore, good also belongs in the realm of science as well. Bad also belongs in the realm of science. Bad would be a synonym for our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system.

The term "incentive" is also always and can only be a rewarding or a disrewarding experience for us as human beings. It can be disrewarding because you can have the incentive to run away from danger. It would be disrewarding since you would be experiencing an unpleasant feeling/emotion known as fear. Therefore, incentive is also a scientific term as well and our only incentive in life is either our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system or our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system.

Edited September 7, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Prometheus]

 

The term "rewarding experience" is a scientific term. It is defined as being our pleasant feelings/emotions (good moods) from our reward system since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. If there is a scientific version of something, then a different version of it would have to be fake. For example, since we have the scientific terms sight, hearing, smell, and taste, then a philosophical/moral version of sight, hearing, smell, and taste would be fake and would not give us sight, hearing, smell, or taste.

 

In what sense is it a scientific term? A word can have two meanings: if one of the terms is 'scientific' it doesn't make the other use of the term fake (whatever that means).

 

'Acceleration' has both an everyday meaning and what you would say is a scientific meaning. The everyday meaning is still perfectly valid, we just have to be clear to which we are referring.

[Strange]

So with all of this being said, I think there is even a scientific version of good and bad. Since having good meaning in one's life is always a rewarding mental experience for us and can only be a rewarding mental experience to us, then good is also a scientific term as well. It would be a synonym for our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system.

 

This is your personal choice for what "good" means. It is an opinion, no more and no less. The fact that it is your opinion does not make it "scientific" (quite the reverse, given the nonsense you spam forums with). It is, in fact, a pretty selfish and shallow definition of "good".

[MattMVS7]

 

In what sense is it a scientific term? A word can have two meanings: if one of the terms is 'scientific' it doesn't make the other use of the term fake (whatever that means).

 

'Acceleration' has both an everyday meaning and what you would say is a scientific meaning. The everyday meaning is still perfectly valid, we just have to be clear to which we are referring.

 

It is a scientific term in the sense that it is a mental experience like touch, smell, pain, sight, hearing, etc. Those other terms just mentioned are also scientific terms as well. But metaphorical meanings are delusional meanings that have no bearing whatsoever in reality. Therefore, the metaphorical version of good, bad, joy, love, happiness, etc. is the fake version of good, bad, joy, love, happiness, etc. I will explain more on this later on.

 

 

This is your personal choice for what "good" means. It is an opinion, no more and no less. The fact that it is your opinion does not make it "scientific" (quite the reverse, given the nonsense you spam forums with). It is, in fact, a pretty selfish and shallow definition of "good".

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think my definition of good is quite valid. Think about it. When, for example, your family has good meaning to you, then you are perceiving a rewarding experience towards them and towards helping them out. Even if you say that your life was nothing good and that helping them out is what matters, you are still perceiving good value and worth towards them and, thus, you are still perceiving a rewarding experience towards them. I have restated this because it was not included in my opening post. I later on edited it in into my opening post. But you might of missed it already which is the reason why I also included it here as well.

 

 

[Strange]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think my definition of good is quite valid.

 

You are wrong. It is a terrible definition. It presupposes that the only "good" is that which makes you feel good. This is a childish, selfish, shallow and generally stupid definition.

http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=good

Edited September 7, 2015 by Strange

[Prometheus]

 

It is a scientific term in the sense that it is a mental experience like touch, smell, pain, sight, hearing, etc. Those other terms just mentioned are also scientific terms as well. But metaphorical meanings are delusional meanings that have no bearing whatsoever in reality. Therefore, the metaphorical version of good, bad, joy, love, happiness, etc. is the fake version of good, bad, joy, love, happiness, etc. I will explain more on this later on.

 

Let's stick to the term sight for now as it is not emotive.

 

Sight is a mental experience. Agree.

 

Sight is a scientific term. In what sense? How does the scientific term sight differ from the everyday use of the term sight?

 

Is there a metaphorical meaning to the term sight too? I am not aware of such.

[Strange]

It is a scientific term in the sense that it is a mental experience like touch, smell, pain, sight, hearing, etc. Those other terms just mentioned are also scientific terms as well.

 

They are descriptions of subjective experiences. In what way are they "scientific"?

 

 

I will explain more on this later on.

 

You mean you will post the same repetitive, self-centred nonsense you have posted many times before?

[MattMVS7]

 

You are wrong. It is a terrible definition. It presupposes that the only "good" is that which makes you feel good. This is a childish, selfish, shallow and generally stupid definition.

http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=good

 

I respect your opinion. As a matter of fact, the reason why I kept discussing this theory of mine over and over again was because people really did not come right out and really explain to me how my theory is nonsense. All they said was that it was nonsense because it is my own personal opinion. I thought they were just brushing off and dismissing my theory based upon nothing more than their own personal opinion. So I take it that they do have an actual valid reason to think that my theory is wrong. You are saying that all definitions of good meaning in our lives are not rewarding experiences for us. That there are forms of good meaning that are not rewarding to us at all in which we do not perceive anything rewarding towards anything or anyone else. I am curious, please explain to me how this is possible. If you can explain this to me, I think this whole discussion will finally get somewhere and will come to a conclusion right here and now in the end.

 

 

 

Let's stick to the term sight for now as it is not emotive.

Sight is a mental experience. Agree.

Sight is a scientific term. In what sense? How does the scientific term sight differ from the everyday use of the term sight?

Is there a metaphorical meaning to the term sight too? I am not aware of such.

 

They are descriptions of subjective experiences. In what way are they "scientific"?

The everyday use of the term "sight" is the scientific version of sight. It is scientific in the sense that it applies to all human beings. Sight is always our mental experience of visualizing objects and this applies to all human beings. Since it applies to all human beings, then this is what makes it scientific.

 

You mean you will post the same repetitive, self-centred nonsense you have posted many times before?

There are new things for me to discuss as well (new arguments). This is not what we should call self-centered. This is a discussion like any other. It is a discussion in which someone comes onto this forum, has a theory/question, and wishes to learn. I wish to learn how my theory is false and I am having questions regarding the feedback of others here.

[Strange]

If you can explain this to me, I think this whole discussion will finally get somewhere and will come to a conclusion right here and now in the end.

 

Philosophers have been thinking about and debating the meaning of "good" (and "evil") for thousands of years. As you are ignorant of all this work, it looks like you have a lot of catching up to do.

Since it applies to all human beings, then this is what makes it scientific.

 

It doesn't apply to all human beings (some people don't have sight).

 

But are you saying that anything which all/most/some humans experience (dreams, hunger, emotions, sleep, irritable bowel syndrome, etc.) are all "scientific"? Even if, like sight, it is a purely subjective phenomenon.

 

This is a very odd definition of scientific. The usual meaning is related to creating mathematical models, making quantitative and testable predictions, performing experiments and making objective measurements to test those predictions, and rejecting ideas which are not supported by that evidence. How does that apply to sight?

Edited September 7, 2015 by Strange

[MattMVS7]

 

Philosophers have been thinking about and debating the meaning of "good" (and "evil") for thousands of years. As you are ignorant of all this work, it looks like you have a lot of catching up to do.

 

Stephen Hawking has said that philosophy is dead (fake). Science is what defines this entire universe and everything in it including our own mental experiences and our brains. My theory also states that philosophy is dead as well. I explained before how there is a scientific version of everything. There is a scientific version of a lion. If you personally define yourself as a lion, then that would be false. All personal created meanings in our lives including good and bad are all metaphorical meanings. They are not realistic.

[Strange]

Stephen Hawking has said that philosophy is dead (fake).

 

Citation needed. But so what? He is not a philosopher and he is wrong about that (if he said it).

 

Science is what defines this entire universe and everything in it including our own mental experiences and our brains.

 

There are a great many things not amenable to scientific investigation (which is why philosophy is not dead).

 

My theory also states that philosophy is dead as well.

 

Yet another reason why you are wrong.

 

I explained before how there is a scientific version of everything.

 

You explained nothing.

 

There is a scientific version of a lion.

 

How does the "scientific lion" differ from any other type of lion?

 

All personal created meanings in our lives including good and bad are all metaphorical meanings. They are not realistic.

 

So your personal definition of "good" is metaphorical and not realistic.

You should probably ask the mods to move this to Philosophy (or Speculations).

[MattMVS7]

It doesn't apply to all human beings (some people don't have sight).

But are you saying that anything which all/most/some humans experience (dreams, hunger, emotions, sleep, irritable bowel syndrome, etc.) are all "scientific"? Even if, like sight, it is a purely subjective phenomenon.

This is a very odd definition of scientific. The usual meaning is related to creating mathematical models, making quantitative and testable predictions, performing experiments and making objective measurements to test those predictions, and rejecting ideas which are not supported by that evidence. How does that apply to sight?It doesn't apply to all human beings (some people don't have sight).

But are you saying that anything which all/most/some humans experience (dreams, hunger, emotions, sleep, irritable bowel syndrome, etc.) are all "scientific"? Even if, like sight, it is a purely subjective phenomenon.

This is a very odd definition of scientific. The usual meaning is related to creating mathematical models, making quantitative and testable predictions, performing experiments and making objective measurements to test those predictions, and rejecting ideas which are not supported by that evidence. How does that apply to sight?

There is a scientific definition of a feline. Even though there are many different types of felines such as lions and tigers, feline is still a scientific term. So in that same sense, even though people see differently because some are colorblind, sight is still a scientific term. Feline is a scientific term since there are specific traits that apply all the time. Since these same traits apply to lions and tigers, then they are felines. The term "feline" is a scientific term that applies to them all and holds true for them all. Therefore, sight also has similar characteristics despite it being different for everyone. Therefore, sight is a scientific term that applies and holds true for everyone.

 

Citation needed. But so what? He is not a philosopher and he is wrong about that (if he said it).

Here is where he said this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

I don't think you should call the all-brilliant Stephen Hawking "wrong." You are nowhere near his level of intelligence to say such a thing.

 

How does the "scientific lion" differ from any other type of lion?

If you personally define yourself as a lion because you are a powerful and strong-willed courageous individual, then that is quite different from the scientific definition of a lion, obviously. The scientific version of a lion is that animal that roars and is ferocious. But that other version of a lion (the version you personally created) has no bearing whatsoever in reality. It does nothing more than puts a label of a lion upon you. But it does not change the actual scientific properties and change you into a lion. So in that same sense, our personal created version of joy, happiness, and rewarding experience does not change the scientific properties of our brains that yields our experience of thought over to an experience of joy, happiness, and rewarding experience.

 

 

 

So your personal definition of "good" is metaphorical and not realistic.

We don't know if there is a scientific version of good and bad yet. So you cannot say whether my definition is personal or is actually real yet.

Edited September 7, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Prometheus]

 

The everyday use of the term "sight" is the scientific version of sight. It is scientific in the sense that it applies to all human beings. Sight is always our mental experience of visualizing objects and this applies to all human beings. Since it applies to all human beings, then this is what makes it scientific.

 

So anything that applies to all human beings is scientific? Let's test the logic with a simple syllogism.

 

Anything that applies to all human beings is scientific.

Not all human beings have sight.

Therefore sight is not scientific.

 

Or

 

Anything that applies to all human beings is scientific.

All human beings have a concept of god(s) (whether they believe in it or not)

Therefore god(s) is scientific.

 

Is this correct?

[MattMVS7]

 

So anything that applies to all human beings is scientific? Let's test the logic with a simple syllogism.

 

Anything that applies to all human beings is scientific.

Not all human beings have sight.

Therefore sight is not scientific.

 

Or

 

Anything that applies to all human beings is scientific.

All human beings have a concept of god(s) (whether they believe in it or not)

Therefore god(s) is scientific.

 

Is this correct?

 

This is not what I mean. Read my previous post.

Edited September 7, 2015 by MattMVS7

[dimreepr]

 

Note To Reader: I am just like any other normal person wanting to discover the truth. I am not being selfish and am not trying to bother you or be nonsensical. I just really wish to discuss and find the answer to my theory here. So far, I haven't. People have just been dismissing my theory based upon their own personal opinions. But I need to discuss an actual valid reason as to why they reject my theory besides just from their own personal opinions.

There are many philosophies out there on how to live a happy/joyful life. But these are nothing scientific. They know nothing about science and how the brain really works (what our mental experiences really are). As a matter of fact, these philosophies say that you can live a joyful, happy life and enjoy your life while in a depressed and/or anhedonic state. But that is just nonsense and I will tell you why.

The term "rewarding experience" is a scientific term. It is defined as being our pleasant feelings/emotions (good moods) from our reward system since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. If there is a scientific version of something, then a different version of it would have to be fake. For example, since we have the scientific terms sight, hearing, smell, and taste, then a philosophical/moral version of sight, hearing, smell, and taste would be fake and would not give us sight, hearing, smell, or taste.

What we have "over here" is the term "rewarding experience" which is a scientific term in the world of science. But what we have "over there" are the terms happiness, joy, pleasure, and enjoyment which are outside the realm of science and in the realm of morality/philosophy (the world of our own personal created meanings in life).

So what I am going to do now here is bring what is "over there" to "over here." We all know that joy, pleasure, and happiness are always rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings. They are always rewarding to us. If you had disrewarding pain and misery such as depression and you said that your family and goals/dreams still brought you joy and happiness, then you would be having a rewarding mental experience in despite of your disrewarding pain and misery.

But if you did not experience any pleasant feelings/emotions in despite of your depression, then it would be false of you to say that you are having joy and happiness despite your depression. So since joy and happiness are synonymous with the scientific term "rewarding experience," then joy and happiness are also scientific terms as well. They belong "over here" in the realm of science. Also, as a side note, my descriptions of "over here" and "over there" are merely descriptions to make my explanation more effective and convenient.

This also applies to love, inspiration, etc. which are also always and can only be rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings. They are also scientific terms which means the philosophical/moral version of those things are false. As a matter of fact, I think there is a scientific version of everything and that the world of morality/philosophy (the world of our own personal created meanings) is false.

There is a scientific version of a lion. If you personally define yourself as a lion, then that would be false. That would not make you a lion. There is a scientific version of the sun, there is a scientific version of helium, etc. If you personally define anything else in life as being the sun or helium, then that would be false as well. It would not make those things actual helium or the sun.

So with all of this being said, I think there is even a scientific version of good and bad. Since having good meaning in one's life is always a rewarding mental experience for us and can only be a rewarding mental experience to us, then good is also a scientific term as well. It would be a synonym for our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. When, for example, your family has good meaning to you, then you are perceiving a rewarding experience towards them and towards helping them out. Even if you say that your life was nothing good and that helping them out is what matters, you are still perceiving good value and worth towards them and, thus, you are still perceiving a rewarding experience towards them.

If you had disrewarding pain and misery to win a game and earn a trophy, then the idea of the team, trophy, and the game would be rewarding to you despite your pain and misery. They would be a rewarding mental experience for you in despite of your pain and misery since they have good value and worth to you. Therefore, good also belongs in the realm of science as well. Bad also belongs in the realm of science. Bad would be a synonym for our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system.

The term "incentive" is also always and can only be a rewarding or a disrewarding experience for us as human beings. It can be disrewarding because you can have the incentive to run away from danger. It would be disrewarding since you would be experiencing an unpleasant feeling/emotion known as fear. Therefore, incentive is also a scientific term as well and our only incentive in life is either our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system or our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system.

 

 

 

 

Science can’t explain everything any more than I can explain how it feels to be happy or sad.

 

To understand that you have found the truth, first you need to know what truth you seek (the answer BTW is 42, who knows what the question is).

[MattMVS7]

 

 

 

Science can’t explain everything any more than I can explain how it feels to be happy or sad.

 

To understand that you have found the truth, first you need to know what truth you seek (the answer BTW is 42, who knows what the question is).

 

Actually, I think everything all comes down to science. Even moral and philosophical questions. For example, we once asked questions such as why is the sun so bright and we answered that through science. So go ahead and give me a question and I will try to bring it all down to science right here and now to demonstrate how there is a scientific version of everything and how science explains everything.

[dimreepr]

OK, how does it feel to be happy or angry or sad?

[MattMVS7]

OK, how does it feel to be happy or angry or sad?

 

A person who has never felt happy, angry, or sad would never know how that feels. So how we would find out how that feels would be through scientifically analyzing the brain. By scientifically analyzing the brain, we can also give a scientific idea of what mental experiences arise and what they would feel like. So that is how we would find out. We can't make this person know in terms of mental experience how happiness, sadness, or anger feels. But we can give him/her scientific information that he/she can read and get an idea of how it must feel.

[dimreepr]

To engender understanding, between humans, requires a mutual reference point; so anyone who lacks a mutual reference point, will lack understanding whatever the scientific explanation.

 

 

Edit/ do you, for instance, know how it feels to stand atop Everest?

Edited September 7, 2015 by dimreepr

[MattMVS7]

To engender understanding, between humans, requires a mutual reference point; so anyone who lacks a mutual reference point, will lack understanding whatever the scientific explanation.

 

Alright. But can you at least see where I am going with this? I am saying science explains everything. I have given you not only an explanation as to how science would explain how happiness, sadness, and anger would feel, but I have also given an explanation (my theory) here as to how science can also explain good and bad.

[Prometheus]

 

There is a scientific definition of a feline. Even though there are many different types of felines such as lions and tigers, feline is still a scientific term. So in that same sense, even though people see differently because some are colorblind, sight is still a scientific term. Feline is a scientific term since there are specific traits that apply all the time. Since these same traits apply to lions and tigers, then they are felines. The term "feline" is a scientific term that applies to them all and holds true for them all. Therefore, sight also has similar characteristics despite it being different for everyone. Therefore, sight is a scientific term that applies and holds true for everyone.

 

 

I agree there is a scientific term 'feline'.

 

However someone (Carl Linnaeus to be specific) didn't first define the species feline and then seek experimental evidence to confirm his classification. He just defined species in such a way as to be useful. We could, if we wish, redifine what it is to be a cat. Then some things which we call a cat will no longer be a cat. The reclassification would not change the 'science' behind cats.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Prometheus

[MattMVS7]

 

I agree there is a scientific term 'feline'.

 

However someone (Carl Linnaeus to be specific) didn't first define the species feline and then seek experimental evidence to confirm his classification. He just defined species in such a way as to be useful. We could, if we wish, redifine what it is to be a cat. Then some things which we call a cat will no longer be a cat. The reclassification would not change the 'science' behind cats.

 

But all you are doing here is redefining terms (words). That does nothing. It does not change the actual scientific properties of things. If, for example, you personally defined yourself as being a cat, then that is doing nothing more than just putting the label "cat" on you. It does not change your scientific properties and transform you into a cat. So in that same sense, personally defining a version of joy and happiness in our lives while we are down and depressed will not change anything here either. It will not change the scientific properties of our brains and transform our other brain functions besides our reward system into an experience of joy and happiness for us.

 

When we as human beings first invented the terms joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment, it meant a vibrant, vigorous, "alive," and transcending mind state. If we were to experience joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment, then this would mean that we would be in a vibrant, vigorous, and "alive" mental state since that is what the mental state of joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment is.

 

But as it turns out, our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us this mind state. Our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system is the only thing that can allow us to have joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment. It would be no different than how there is only one function of our brains that allows us to visualize objects and perceive sound which would be the functions of our brains that give us the mental experience of sight and hearing.

Edited September 7, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

 

This is not what I mean. Read my previous post.

 

People can only react to what you say. That was a perfect summary of your statements.

So go ahead and give me a question and I will try to bring it all down to science right here and now to demonstrate how there is a scientific version of everything and how science explains everything.

 

As you have no idea what science is, that is a fairly futile exercise.

I don't think you should call the all-brilliant Stephen Hawking "wrong." You are nowhere near his level of intelligence to say such a thing.

 

That is the fallacy of "argument from authority". So we can disregard your opinion on that.

The scientific version of a lion is that animal that roars and is ferocious. But that other version of a lion (the version you personally created) has no bearing whatsoever in reality. It does nothing more than puts a label of a lion upon you.

 

I think you need a new dictionary. The word you are looking for is "literal", not scientific.

 

We don't know if there is a scientific version of good and bad yet. So you cannot say whether my definition is personal or is actually real yet.

 

Your "definition" is just your personal opinion. Therefore not scientific. (Or even literal.)

But all you are doing here is redefining terms (words).

 

Oh, the irony.

[MattMVS7]

 

People can only react to what you say. That was a perfect summary of your statements.

 

As you have no idea what science is, that is a fairly futile exercise.

 

Actually, maybe they did give the proper summary. It is just this part that didn't add up quite right:

 

 

 

Anything that applies to all human beings is scientific.

Not all human beings have sight.

Therefore sight is not scientific.

Even though there are blind people, that does not make sight unscientific just as how you cannot make the scientific term "feline" unscientific.

 

 

Your "definition" is just your personal opinion. Therefore not scientific. (Or even literal.)

 

If, for example, Einstein came up with his theory of relativity, but did not explain it in a scientific way, then others would just deem it as nonsense and would say that it is just his own personal opinion. So maybe the same concept also applies here. Maybe I am just not intelligent enough to explain my theory in a convincing way like Einstein. So maybe my theory really is not just my personal opinion. Perhaps it really is true. So no, I am not just redefining terms. The scientific version of good and bad could really be real. Or maybe I am just doing nothing more than just redefining good and bad and that my theory is false. Who knows.

Edited September 7, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

Even though there are blind people, that does not make sight unscientific just as how you cannot make the scientific term "feline" unscientific.

 

Then you need to clarify what you mean. You said the word "sight" is scientific because everyone can see.

 

But not everyone can see, therefore by your own argument, the word "sight" is not scientific.

 

If this doesn't make sense, it is because you are posting nonsense (as usual).

 

If, for example, Einstein came up with his theory of relativity, but did not explain it in a scientific way, then others would just deem it as nonsense and would say that it is just his own personal opinion.

 

Firstly, he did explain it in a scientific way, so the argument is irrelevant.

 

Secondly, no one accepts the theory of relativity just because Einstein said it. They accept it because (a) it is a mathematical model that makes testable predictions, (b) all the evidence confirms it and © no evidence contradicts it.

 

To have your definition of "good" accepted as something other than your personal opinion, you need to do what Einstein did: create a mathematical model, produce testable predictions and then test them.

 

As you are not able to do any of those, your definition is not science.

 

So maybe the same concept also applies here.

 

Nope. You are just posting nonsense.

 

Maybe I am just not intelligent enough to explain my theory in a convincing way like Einstein.

 

Maybe. Also, you don't have a "theory", you have an opinion. The sort of opinion a particularly emotional 14 year old might come up with.

 

So maybe my theory really is not just my personal opinion. Perhaps it really is true. So no, I am not just redefining terms. The scientific version of good and bad could really be real. Or maybe I am just doing nothing more than just redefining good and bad and that my theory is false. Who knows.

 

You may be deluding yourself, but I doubt you are fooling anyone else.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Strange