Alot Of Things Will Cause Hair Loss But Almost Nothing Will Cause Hair Growth ?

[INT]

What is choice overload?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...e-stressing-us-out-dating-partners-monopolies

 

[Xenophon]

I never said that and I agree with you.



Nor did I say this. However, loss of power from religions went hand in hand with more accesible information, a better understandign of the world (due to science). I think it is hard to argue against those two things not being beneficial to our well-being.



This is highly debatable



I agree. Traditions have their role in social cohesion. Still, religions are not the only roots of tradition.



Why are we that amoral and disgusting according to you? And were we really that much more moral in our more Christian times? You are probably aware that our ancestors did some horrible things in the name of Christianity. Even in our current times, being a high profile Christen did not stop some Christian leaders from putting their hands in the underwear of young boys.

What we think of as science is a religious outworking, as is the university itself. Modernity began slowly maybe in the 1600s. Guys like Descartes and other philosophers were motivated by knowledge as metaphysics is the mother of all science insofar that refers to a 'way of knowing.'

There is an impulse to question prevailing dogmas and a realization that dogma itself seems to be a basic aspect of reality. To this day all strictly empirical and lab-based science is predicated on, or beholden to, much vaster theological assumptions pertaining to Darwinism and progressivism, both of which oddly carry a lot of Christian baggage. We cannot really jettison dogmas, in other words, but only ever replace them — think of various science content that is simply forbidden and it all basically compares with or even exceeds the dogmas of the Middle Ages.

Today something like 50% of 'peer reviewed papers' are outright false, junk. Peer review is not efficacious. One could assess that the decline of science we are seeing in the last century has a moral basis to some degree, as society doesn't take 'truth' seriously. On the other hand I think there's good reason to think our world picture is critically wrong in a lot of ways and this naturally plays into all modes of knowledge. Physics is flawed, philosophy and psychology are flawed and so forth. Making advances doesn't justify the paradigm itself however. It is clearly possible for an individual to have the wrong religion but to get correct answers in isolation.

Thus a society can be reasonably moral without being religious, or in spite of having the wrong religion. Technology is deceptive; we have these little toys but a lot of what we assume about the world and what we engage ourselves in is utterly ridiculous, morally and scientifically. M

paradoxically the idea that you can be gay or change your sex is a highly Christian concept, only it's an obvious perversion of that. These ideas at bottom assume the individual is special, that it has rights, can express itself without regard for the effects of its own so called happiness. Everyone clearly thinks they have a soul. Maybe they actually do.

 

[INT]

What we think of as science is a religious outworking, as is the university itself. Modernity began slowly maybe in the 1600s. Guys like Descartes and other philosophers were motivated by knowledge as metaphysics is the mother of all science insofar that refers to a 'way of knowing.'

There is an impulse to question prevailing dogmas and a realization that dogma itself seems to be a basic aspect of reality. To this day all strictly empirical and lab-based science is predicated on, or beholden to, much vaster theological assumptions pertaining to Darwinism and progressivism, both of which oddly carry a lot of Christian baggage. We cannot really jettison dogmas, in other words, but only ever replace them — think of various science content that is simply forbidden and it all basically compares with or even exceeds the dogmas of the Middle Ages.

Today something like 50% of 'peer reviewed papers' are outright false, junk. Peer review is not efficacious. One could assess that the decline of science we are seeing in the last century has a moral basis to some degree, as society doesn't take 'truth' seriously. On the other hand I think there's good reason to think our world picture is critically wrong in a lot of ways and this naturally plays into all modes of knowledge. Physics is flawed, philosophy and psychology are flawed and so forth. Making advances doesn't justify the paradigm itself however. It is clearly possible for an individual to have the wrong religion but to get correct answers in isolation.

Thus a society can be reasonably moral without being religious, or in spite of having the wrong religion. Technology is deceptive; we have these little toys but a lot of what we assume about the world and what we engage ourselves in is utterly ridiculous.

Science, or to be more specific, the scientific method is far from perfect. However, it is the best framework we currently have to find explanations that can help us to get closer to actual reality. There simply is no better alternative.

 

[Xenophon]

Science, or to be more specific, the scientific method is far from perfect. However, it is the best framework we currently have to find explanations that can help us to get closer to actual reality. There simply is no better alternative.

That's just what people repeat. That's what propagandists say. Science is limited and cannot justify or demonstrate its own efficacy. It is always predicated on other modes of knowledge and metaphysical truths.

In other words you can't look at a cell and extrapolate the empirical onto the whole of reality as we tried to do with fossils. What happens rather is that findings stack onto each other, each with unjustified assumptions built in, and people eventually have a kind of revelation. Now people think 'yeah I guess we evolved and there is probably no God or if there is we could never justify that belief because I mean the Bible wasn't peer reviewed.'

The scientific method is a type of logical process that assumes the reality of logic, and we use this tool to try to show that the world is in fact irrational, illogical, and undesigned. This is clearly daft. Science is objectively speaking only useful in a limited sense. Other types of science, such as physics, have similar built in assumptions about the nature of reality, and if those assumptions are incorrect then physics finds paradoxes and and runs into walls as it does.

 

[INT]

That's just what people repeat. That's what propagandists say. Science is limited and cannot justify or demonstrate its own efficacy. It is always predicated on other modes of knowledge and metaphysical truths.

In other words you can't look at a cell and extrapolate the empirical onto the whole of reality as we tried to do with fossils. What happens rather is that findings stack onto each other, each with unjustified assumptions built in, and people eventually have a kind of revelation. Now people think 'yeah I guess we evolved and there is probably no God or if there is we could never justify that belief because I mean the Bible wasn't peer reviewed.'

The scientific method is a type of logical process that assumes the reality of logic, and we use this tool to try to show that the world is in fact irrational, illogical, and undesigned. This is clearly daft. Science is objectively speaking only useful in a limited sense. Other types of science, such as physics, have similar built in assumptions about the nature of reality, and if those assumptions are incorrect then physics finds paradoxes and and runs into walls as it does.

What alternative do you propose? Nihilism is never the answer.

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

Science is limited and cannot justify or demonstrate its own efficacy.

It kinda demonstrates its own efficacy by providing the very means you are typing this relativistic nonsense with. If you have a better more reliable system to send a man to the moon with I am all ears.

 

[Xenophon]

What alternative do you propose? Nihilism is never the answer.

The modern world has been guided by pragmatism and nominalism. Pragmatic in that we assume that distributing goods is a 'good' and that a thing is true to the extent that it 'works.' This assumes a transcendent purpose behind things, namely that life on earth is progressing towards some end. But in the midst of this we formally and explicitly deny any external meaning beyond what individuals and societies construct for themselves – hence nominalism, wherein everything is a construction right down to words and biological sex. Economics is the theology of the time and it runs on these principles.

It is assumed that science helped us leave the dark ages, but the map of the universe we have now is not a 'fact' in a hard sense. Given the full implications of the Michelson-Morley experiment we can be sure that the older geocentric models are valid as the heliocentric. Space is just that, after all, space; there is no center without a point of reference, and a point of reference presupposes an observer or subject, man. Modern physics however tries to take man out of the picture entirely, as if the subject were 'in the way' of objective knowledge. But there is no 'the world' without man. Sounds a bit Biblical in my opinion.

Psychology is strictly empirical too. It grants the individual special status but lacks any means by which to ground that individual in a larger cosmological framework. As a result, the subjective is sanctified and transcendent truth and traditional moralities are more often seen as impediments to the individual's development. But there is no individual without a collective, just as there is no instance of a circle without a context for what a circle is in a higher reality. So there are contradictions everywhere, and this indicates that the modern world's assumptions are highly flawed.

When we look at a hair study, we clearly see that DHT is implicated in hairloss, but it's hardly the only thing. One simplistic approach to hairloss is to simply attack DHT systemically, thus keeping the hair follicles relatively free from its effects. In so doing we enact all kinds of secondary effects that are quite harmful. Here there is an analogy to the modern world picture as a whole. Nothing is truly in and of itself, rather all is connected — man to the world and the world to God. If God died, the world would forthwith cease to exist.

 

[INT]

The modern world has been guided by pragmatism and nominalism. Pragmatic in that we assume that distributing goods is a 'good' and that a thing is true to the extent that it 'works.' This assumes a transcendent purpose behind things, namely that life on earth is progressing towards some end. But in the midst of this we formally and explicitly deny any external meaning beyond what individuals and societies construct for themselves – hence nominalism, wherein everything is a construction right down to words and biological sex. Economics is the theology of the time and it runs on these principles.

It is assumed that science helped us leave the dark ages, but the map of the universe we have now is not a 'fact' in a hard sense. Given the full implications of the Michelson-Morley experiment we can be sure that the older geocentric models are valid as the heliocentric. Space is just that, after all, space; there is no center without a point of reference, and a point of reference presupposes an observer or subject, man. Modern physics however tries to take man out of the picture entirely, as if the subject were 'in the way' of objective knowledge. But there is no 'the world' without man. Sounds a bit Biblical in my opinion.

Psychology is strictly empirical too. It grants the individual special status but lacks any means by which to ground that individual in a larger cosmological framework. As a result, the subjective is sanctified and transcendent truth and traditional moralities are more often seen as impediments to the individual's development. But there is no individual without a collective, just as there is no instance of a circle without a context for what a circle is in a higher reality. So there are contradictions everywhere, and this indicates that the modern world's assumptions are highly flawed.

When we look at a hair study, we clearly see that DHT is implicated in hairloss, but it's hardly the only thing. One simplistic approach to hairloss is to simply attack DHT systemically, thus keeping the hair follicles relatively free from its effects. In so doing we enact all kinds of secondary effects that are quite harmful. Here there is an analogy to the modern world picture as a whole. Nothing is truly in and of itself, rather all is connected — man to the world and the world to God. If God died, the world would forthwith cease to exist.

I do not diagree with most of what you say bu you are a bit repetative. Fancy words do not mask that you are not really give an answer to my question. Everyone can give critique without proposing better alternatives.

 

[Xenophon]

It kinda demonstrates its own efficacy by providing the very means you are typing this relativistic nonsense with. If you have a better more reliable system to send a man to the moon with I am all ears.

You're not even grasping the conversation. Science doesn't allow language to happen. Science assumes abstract, linguistic truths however (our trust in language presupposes logic and metaphysical truths). And this is a big reason why science is clearly incomplete and not 'the only means by which we can know about the world.' That is what uneducated people with diplomas think, maybe, but it's objectively false. That was the very point of my criticisms in this thread — that science is one way of knowing. That's all it is. This has nothing necessarily to do with space travel.

If you meant science makes the internet happen, such that we can have this mode of conversation, that is also simplistic and doesn't relate to the points I'm making. The internet is a feat of engineering and math, but we can ask how and why engineering and math are possible. A world in which internet and iphones can operate is a world in which evolutionary naturalism cannot be the case. It must be a world in which principles of math simply exist, are eternal, and are 'discovered' — as opposed to being contrived by intrepid inventors and then used by society because 'they just work.' (The laws of physics were undoubtedly true before Newton was born.)

The scientistic worldview refuses to deal with these types of questions, and that is my main objection to scientism; it simply assumes that its own methodology is omnipotent and scoffs at philosophy of the sort in this post. If science has any efficacy at all, and it clearly does, that suggests deeper truths about reality.

For another example, consider the headline "Science says frogs can see in color." This sentence assumes 'frog' is a species and that character string represents that species. But there is no way to demonstrate that this is true by means of the scientific method; it simply assumes that words have definite meaning, and that species refers an essential form. But the scientific method does not have any criteria by which to deal with forms or qualities in a philosophical sense; and scientism considers the idea of 'forms' to be Platonic/Medieval nonsense. To this day, we don't have an empirical definition of species, and we cannot ever have that — species/form is a metaphysical, not scientific, concept, period.

Science even assumes morality (ethics). If you do an experiment and find that 'X is true,' you spontaneously and implicitly assign value to 'truth' as well as an ethical imperative. If there is no ethical entanglement there, then 'truth' has no value at all. Of course it is not possible to discover morality in the steps of the scientific method. That is obviously beyond its ken/purview.

I do not diagree with most of what you say bu you are a bit repetative. Fancy words do not mask that you are not really give an answer to my question. Everyone can give critique without proposing better alternatives.

You're not getting, like, a 'system' in this thread. In fact I would say looking for an 'alternative' in this way is the wrong way to go about things. I've been talking about vast concepts at the paradigmatic/cosmological level, and simply demonstrating some of the fallacious ways of thinking of the modern world. There's a lot there if you look at it. I'm not ideological or political. There is no system for man; that assumes man's problem is external to him, and that we can fix man by distributing better or doing more science, when I think it's primarily internal, a matter of the soul and intellect.

 

[INT]

You're not even grasping the conversation. Science doesn't allow language to happen; science assumes language however (language presupposes logic and metaphysical truth), and this is one big reason why science is clearly incomplete and not 'the only means by which we can know about the world.' That is what uneducated people with diplomas think, maybe, but it's objectively false. That was the very point of my criticisms in this thread, that science is one way of knowing. That's all it is. This criticism has nothing necessarily to do with space travel.



You're not getting, like, a 'system' in this thread. In fact I would say looking for an 'alternative' in this way is the wrong way to go about things. I've been talking about vast concepts at the paradigmatic/cosmological level, and simply demonstrating some of the fallacious ways of thinking of the modern world. There's a lot there if you look at it. I'm not ideological or political. There is no system for man; that assumes man's problem is external to him, and that we can fix man by distributing better or doing more science, when I think it's primarily internal, a matter of the soul and intellect.

LOL. Nice troll. You had me for a sec.

 

[INT]

You just proved my point. As the older, more religious Swedes who made the country prosperous die out, the younger degenerate Swedes will destroy the country. It will take a few generations to really bring the country down as even though the younger generation doesn't practice or believe they were still raised by people with Christian morals. Each generation will now get worse as the parent's become successively more permissive with each generation, and each generation becomes successively more degenerate.



The more things change the more they stay the same. Some of the problems we face are new, but at the core it's just the same old cycle that's been repeating for thousands of years. The Western world will either go back to religion, or it will be replaced by a religious culture. Scandinavians probably won't exist in a couple hundred years. Declining birth rates and extreme tolerance will see to that. It's ironic that those progressive and secular values which Scandinavians hold so dear are going to be the very reason they are displaced by a culture that holds the opposite values. Not all Islamists are violent though. You don't really see violence from Muslims in the South Pacific region, at least not more than what you see from atheistic antifa and anarchist types in America. The violence from Muslims is largely due to the poverty and destabilization of the M.E. as a result of low IQs in the region and geopolitical interference by foreign powers to keep it destabilized. The world is not as black and white as religion=peace or religion=violence. Amish and Hindus are very peaceful, but so are the Japanese and most secular Europeans. Muslims extremists are violent, but so are anarchists.

The only thing that is proven here is that whenever I provide facts and data, you provide opinions and speculations.

 

[INT]

You don't provide data. You're like a pothead linking to high times magazine for confirmation bias lol

It looks like you are the pothead here because you appear to have form of amnesia. Read back in this thread. At least your are not denying that you are merely posting speculations and assumptions so that is good.

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

You just proved my point. As the older, more religious Swedes who made the country prosperous die out, the younger degenerate Swedes will destroy the country. It will take a few generations to really bring the country down as even though the younger generation doesn't practice or believe they were still raised by people with Christian morals. Each generation will now get worse as the parent's become successively more permissive with each generation, and each generation becomes successively more degenerate.

'Christian morals' have always been a b**ch of the culture surrounding it. Our current morals are not Christian but derrived from the Enlightenment period. If Christian morals would have been the deciding factor then morals would never have changed throughout its 2000 year history because the content of the book did never change. According to Christianity you are supposed to stone your sister if she has premarital sex sorry but that doesn't sound so familiar to me.
And please this whole all our values are based on the ten commandments and religion t is the only way to keep people in check morally thing is such a meme completely unbased of reality. First of all countries with lower rates of religous people don't have higher crime rates, no it is the opposite. Second of all something basic like 'thou shall not murder' is just a very obvious requirement for a culture that wants to advance past the f*****g stone age and has been figured out by dozens of religions or seculiar ideologies (i.e. social contract etc.). Let me ask you this, was it allowed to murder and steal in 'atheist' Albania or Russia? No? Well how could they have ever come to this conclusion without religion, they must have no argument for it.
Secondly modern Christians are just as liberal and 'degenerate' as young Swedes. The Pope called the 'Arabic invasion of Europe' a 'good thing' and Christian priests (whether protestant or catholic) are known to hide and smuggle tons of refugees into the country against the laws of the seculiar state. Muh based Christianity my ***.

 

[INT]

You linked to a study on a site for athiests. Of course it's cherry picked confirmation bias

I could have posted this study from the UNITED NATIONS from any other source, I just picked this one because it gave a little more context beyond the data. Still, the source I posted provided exactly the same data as the UN did so dismissing this data because of the website it was posted on is just lazy from your side. Try a better argument.

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

You're not even grasping the conversation. Science doesn't allow language to happen. Science assumes abstract, linguistic truths however (our trust in language presupposes logic and metaphysical truths). And this is a big reason why science is clearly incomplete and not 'the only means by which we can know about the world.' That is what uneducated people with diplomas think, maybe, but it's objectively false. That was the very point of my criticisms in this thread — that science is one way of knowing. That's all it is. This has nothing necessarily to do with space travel.

If you meant science makes the internet happen, such that we can have this mode of conversation, that is also simplistic and doesn't relate to the points I'm making. The internet is a feat of engineering and math, but we can ask how and why engineering and math are possible. A world in which internet and iphones can operate is a world in which evolutionary naturalism cannot be the case. It must be a world in which principles of math simply exist, are eternal, and are 'discovered' — as opposed to being contrived by intrepid inventors and then used by society because 'they just work.' (The laws of physics were undoubtedly true before Newton was born.)

The scientistic worldview refuses to deal with these types of questions, and that is my main objection to scientism; it simply assumes that its own methodology is omnipotent and scoffs at philosophy of the sort in this post. If science has any efficacy at all, and it clearly does, that suggests deeper truths about reality.

For another example, consider the headline "Science says frogs can see in color." This sentence assumes 'frog' is a species and that character string represents that species. But there is no way to demonstrate that this is true by means of the scientific method; it simply assumes that words have definite meaning, and that species refers an essential form. But the scientific method does not have any criteria by which to deal with forms or qualities in a philosophical sense; and scientism considers the idea of 'forms' to be Platonic/Medieval nonsense. To this day, we don't have an empirical definition of species, and we cannot ever have that — species/form is a metaphysical, not scientific, concept, period.

Science even assumes morality (ethics). If you do an experiment and find that 'X is true,' you spontaneously and implicitly assign value to 'truth' as well as an ethical imperative. If there is no ethical entanglement there, then 'truth' has no value at all. Of course it is not possible to discover morality in the steps of the scientific method. That is obviously beyond its ken/purview.

This whole Nominalism angle is so 11th century buddy and it doesn't lead to anything it's a purely academic mental exercise. And you are doing it wrong you are not supposed to arrive at dogmatic views your own unbound relativism is leading that approach ad absurdum.
Furthermore species is a taxonomic rank within biology, it's by design a tool to insert man made order into a system that is more complex than that. Very different from the laws of physic.

 

[Bornwithacurse225]

I semi believe in fitness but doesn’t seem to work. I noticed people obsessed with diet and exercise being less bald (not talking about weight lifting muscle monster)

 

[karatekid]

I semi believe in fitness but doesn’t seem to work. I noticed people obsessed with diet and exercise being less bald (not talking about weight lifting muscle monster)

You got it wrong, its the other direction. People who look good and have good hair just want to maximize their potential for good look and do workout and diet. Balding people just say to themselves "why even to bother?... "

 

[INT]

You got it wrong, its the other direction. People who look good and have good hair just want to maximize their potential for good look and do workout and diet. Balding people just say to themselves "why even to bother?... "

This is unfortunately correct. It is easier to do the right thing if you have the wind in your back.

 

[Xenophon]

This whole Nominalism angle is so 11th century buddy and it doesn't lead to anything it's a purely academic mental exercise. And you are doing it wrong you are not supposed to arrive at dogmatic views your own unbound relativism is leading that approach ad absurdum.
Furthermore species is a taxonomic rank within biology, it's by design a tool to insert man made order into a system that is more complex than that. Very different from the laws of physic.

We still live in a more or less nominalist world, this is not really a controversial thing to say. Doesn't matter whether people go around calling themselves 'nominalists.' Don't get hung up on words; that's very tedious and low IQ. I am also not a relativist but a realist, and very obviously so.

This sentence doesn't make sense:

And you are doing it wrong you are not supposed to arrive at dogmatic views your own unbound relativism is leading that approach ad absurdum.

I am all for philosophical debate but so far no one has shown a good grasp of what I'm saying. I'm also getting a lot of butthurt with the 'big words' nonsense. Tf outta here with that.

 

[INT]

We still live in a more or less nominalist world, this is not really a controversial thing to say. Doesn't matter whether people go around calling themselves 'nominalists.' Don't get hung up on words; that's very tedious and low IQ. I am also not a relativist but a realist. This sentence doesn't make sense:

And you are doing it wrong you are not supposed to arrive at dogmatic views your own unbound relativism is leading that approach ad absurdum.

I am all for philosophical debate but so far no one has shown a good grasp of what I'm saying. I'm also getting a lot of butthurt with the 'big words' nonsense. Tf outta here with that.

No, we can see the thin air that is the way you choose to express yourself.