Natural Discovery: Exemplified

Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
So I'm studying the life cycle of an onion by a process (vs. modern science) I call, the process of natural discovery, which is what science was, before molestation by modern device. Natural discovery, in my view, is of a higher order than science, as much as nature is of a higher order.

So my question is about this whitish gummy matter that's developing. Is it cellulose?20210110_142621.jpg
 
Mar 6, 2020
134
28
130
So I'm studying the life cycle of an onion by a process (vs. modern science) I call, the process of natural discovery, which is what science was, before molestation by modern device. Natural discovery, in my view, is of a higher order than science, as much as nature is of a higher order.

So my question is about this whitish gummy matter that's developing. Is it cellulose?View attachment 803
WHat's the difference between natural discovery and science? From what you've said, it's science without modern tools, which sound like a good way to get inaccurate results. Is there something I'm missing?
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
WHat's the difference between natural discovery and science? From what you've said, it's science without modern tools, which sound like a good way to get inaccurate results. Is there something I'm missing?
It's what science was before disownership of its parent, that being philosophy. It was the study of nature. It's become a disownership of nature; as it's of one service, to mass manufactures.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
That's what it is. It's interesting, the habits of fungal systems. I noticed when marking maple trees this year that a patchwork of alternate green, and gray, yeast-like fungal matter, always tends to associate with their bark. Then recently I discovered in online research, yeast tends to develop in association with sweet, such as nectar and pollens. It struck me since maples store a reserve of higher-sugar content water.
 
Mar 6, 2020
134
28
130
It's what science was before disownership of its parent, that being philosophy. It was the study of nature. It's become a disownership of nature; as it's of one service, to mass manufactures.
So science but you don't have anything do to with big companies. That's cool, big companies are doing a shoddy job protecting the environment, but it's still science.
 
Mar 6, 2020
134
28
130
Science, removed from modern science. I review what people write/say in the science community. But I step away, and make better judgment.
Science isn't to blame for the problems in the world. You mentioned how mass manufacturing is served by science, but science is used for everything. Just because corporate greed means that companies can't be bothered to pick up their own garbage doesn't discredit the scientific community.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
Science isn't to blame for the problems in the world. You mentioned how mass manufacturing is served by science, but science is used for everything. Just because corporate greed means that companies can't be bothered to pick up their own garbage doesn't discredit the scientific community.
Science, as it is, has lost touch with seeing by the natural eye. A lab, for example, is too sterile; opposite sanitary. Sterile environments are toward chemical and plastic. And always isolating units of material for study, from natural environments is serviceable only, to mass manufactures.
 
Mar 19, 2020
262
34
230
Science, as it is, has lost touch with seeing by the natural eye. A lab, for example, is too sterile; opposite sanitary. Sterile environments are toward chemical and plastic. And always isolating units of material for study, from natural environments is serviceable only, to mass manufactures.
Just because it requires finer measurements to be on the true frontier of science doesn't mean that it is wrong. There is no current point for the large hadron collider other than to explore. Sure, it is expensive and most people don't have access to it, but that doesn't make it evil. These fine measurements can never be made without these insturments. Does the average person not having a team of employed accountants make you wrong?

And why is mass manufacturing inherently evil to you? It has brought about an economy where less people are starving and makes goods cheaper for the average person. Without the mass manufacturing of insturments previously created and used by scientists you would not be able to talk to me here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeetsN123
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
Just because it requires finer measurements to be on the true frontier of science doesn't mean that it is wrong. There is no current point for the large hadron collider other than to explore. Sure, it is expensive and most people don't have access to it, but that doesn't make it evil. These fine measurements can never be made without these insturments. Does the average person not having a team of employed accountants make you wrong?

And why is mass manufacturing inherently evil to you? It has brought about an economy where less people are starving and makes goods cheaper for the average person. Without the mass manufacturing of insturments previously created and used by scientists you would not be able to talk to me here.
It's all waste. Yours or your neighbors grandchildren inherit what yours' and your neighbors' employers, and their suppliers and customers produce, which by that time is waste: concrete, plastic, chemical. The only fruitful production is better ground for ecology: gardens, sheep, goats.
 
Mar 6, 2020
134
28
130
It's all waste. Yours or your neighbors grandchildren inherit what yours' and your neighbors' employers, and their suppliers and customers produce, which by that time is waste: concrete, plastic, chemical. The only fruitful production is better ground for ecology: gardens, sheep, goats.
There's a balance wee need to strike between artificial and natural, but going to pre industrial ages would be destructive and impossible. In the past 200 years alone, life expectancies have skyrocketed, and death by disease has decreased greatly (until recently). We paid for this progress with pollution and climate change, but now there are new technologies to allow for technological expansion without taxing the environment further. The entirety of humanity's history is one of people finding better ways to do things than nature.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
There's a balance wee need to strike between artificial and natural, but going to pre industrial ages would be destructive and impossible. In the past 200 years alone, life expectancies have skyrocketed, and death by disease has decreased greatly (until recently). We paid for this progress with pollution and climate change, but now there are new technologies to allow for technological expansion without taxing the environment further. The entirety of humanity's history is one of people finding better ways to do things than nature.
Science people toy with natural elements like traders toy with the stock market. It's up, it's down. People have lived 80 years on average for most of human history. Science offers technologies for solutions the way economists and politicians offer money.

The only good economy is to take care, and enjoy the fruits of an appreciative earth. Only a fool disinherits the leverage of a seed, that fool being this modern generation.
 
Last edited:
Mar 6, 2020
134
28
130
Science people toy with natural elements like traders toy with the stock market. It's up, it's down. People have lived 80 years on average for most of human history. Science offers technologies for solutions the way economists and politicians offer money.

The only good economy is to take care, and enjoy the fruits of an appreciative earth. Only a fool disinherits the leverage of a seed, that fool being this modern generation.
Toying with natural elements as you call it is how the scientific advances of the past millennia have been made. The best way to learn is through trial and error experiments. Also, the 80 years on average thing isn't true. Even today the average life expectancy is closer to 70. 500 years ago, it was closer to 30 years. It's no surprise too, considering they had things like smallpox, bloodletting, extreme poverty, no knowledge of human health and bacteria, and less than ideal hygiene. Taking care of the earth is important, but reverting to those standards and forsaking the technology that saves lives is nowhere near an improvement.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
Toying with natural elements as you call it is how the scientific advances of the past millennia have been made. The best way to learn is through trial and error experiments. Also, the 80 years on average thing isn't true. Even today the average life expectancy is closer to 70. 500 years ago, it was closer to 30 years. It's no surprise too, considering they had things like smallpox, bloodletting, extreme poverty, no knowledge of human health and bacteria, and less than ideal hygiene. Taking care of the earth is important, but reverting to those standards and forsaking the technology that saves lives is nowhere near an improvement.
You people will trust histories insofar that they're convenient to you. You reject the classical, pre-classical, and ancient Hebrew histories altogether, for the sole sake of convenience, to you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts