I assume we are talking about the issue with Newton's Laws. It's fine to give references to smart people who are familiar with the subject. I can find plenty of quotes to support my position. I am also capable of seeing for myself. This isn't really a matter of fact. It's a matter of the definition of the word "flawed." — T Clark

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/flawed
flawed: having or containing one or more faults, mistakes, or weaknesses

So for instance, Newton's laws assume that mass doesn't depend on velocity, that's a weakness. Newton's third law says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, that doesn't work for magnetic forces between charged particles, that's a weakness. Newton's law of gravitation isn't consistent with plenty of astronomical observations, that's a weakness. So Newton's laws are flawed.

That doesn't mean they don't work approximately in some situations, but then again I never claimed they didn't. However that doesn't make them 'right' or not flawed.

As I stated the last time we had this discussion, I've tried my best arguments and failed to convince you of my position. I don't see any reason to continue. — T Clark

Seeing how your arguments are flawed, they fail to convince me. Meanwhile you fail to point out the flaw in my argument, which I stated as concisely as possible again.

Seeing how your arguments are flawed, they fail to convince me. Meanwhile you fail to point out the flaw in my argument, which I stated as concisely as possible again. — leo

Saying that my arguments are flawed because they failed to convince you is ....arrogant certainly. I'll go further - laughable.

I made my best effort to point out the flaws in your argument last time we talked. I failed and gave up. I don't see any reason to try again.

Saying that my arguments are flawed because they failed to convince you is ....arrogant certainly. I'll go further - laughable. — T Clark

I said that they failed to convince me because they are flawed, not the other way around.

I made my best effort to point out the flaws in your argument last time we talked. I failed and gave up. I don't see any reason to try again. — T Clark

And I addressed every one of them. Here is my argument again, where is the flaw?

Seeing that observations do not match Einstein's general relativity is not detecting dark matter, it is assuming that the difference between observation and theory is due to invisible stuff rather than due to the theory being flawed. "But the theory is so well-tested!", yea plenty of well-tested theories were found to be flawed and replaced by other ones. Dozens of experiments have failed to detect dark matter, they're doing these experiments because they are looking for independent evidence for dark matter, because they have a tiny bit of integrity left, otherwise every time a theory doesn't work we could just invoke invisible stuff to make it work again, no need for Einstein if we invoke invisible stuff Newton's gravitation works just fine! — leo

I said that they failed to convince me because they are flawed, not the other way around. — leo

Yes, you are correct. Still arrogant. Still laughable.

And I addressed every one of them. Here is my argument again, where is the flaw? — leo

As I've said numerous times now, I'm not interested in going any further with this discussion. I see it as futile.

Yes, you are correct. Still arrogant. Still laughable. — T Clark

Is it arrogant to say an argument is flawed when we notice a flawed argument? You said my argument is flawed, so by that token you're arrogant too.

As I've said numerous times now, I'm not interested in going any further with this discussion. I see it as futile. — T Clark

Okay, I just wish you realized that there is something you don't understand about how dark matter was inferred. I have studied the subject for years, I presume you haven't, but maybe you'll say it's arrogant to say that too.

Galactic rotation curves that are observed do not match the ones predicted by theory. Either it's because there is invisible matter, or because the theory is flawed. The discrepancy between observation and theory is not a detection of invisible matter, because we don't know that the theory is not flawed. I can't make it simpler than that.

Is it arrogant to say an argument is flawed when we notice a flawed argument? You said my argument is flawed, so by that token you're arrogant too. — leo

I don't remember saying your argument was flawed.

Surely if scientists found philosophy useful for achieving their scientific goals and purposes, they would embrace it.

Thus, anyone whose opinion it is that scientists need philosophy, or would better able to achieve their goals, or would choose better goals, needs to present compelling arguments for those opinions.

I don't remember saying your argument was flawed. — T Clark

See:

I made my best effort to point out the flaws in your argument last time we talked. I failed and gave up. I don't see any reason to try again. — T Clark

Unless you want to argue that saying there are flaws in my argument is not saying that my argument is flawed.

Surely if scientists found philosophy useful for achieving their scientific goals and purposes, they would embrace it. — Brainglitch

Is that conclusion based on scientific research? If not why should anyone accept it?

Thus, anyone whose opinion it is that scientists need philosophy, or would better able to achieve their goals, or would choose better goals, needs to present compelling arguments for those opinions. — Brainglitch

Scientists have philosophies. The issue is how good is it? Could an investigation of philosophy improve some facet of their studies? Might it help them see ungrounded assumptions`?
All scientists have some ideas about epistemology and they likely have opinions, perhaps some not fleshed out in the least, about the affects of semantic issues on their work, how paradigms might inhibit areas of research, about the use of models and more. Like everyone else they have philosophies and not just about their professional work. But since they have not been trained, for the most part, in philosophy, it is more likely some of this is negatively affecting their work. Perhaps making them never consider certain lines of inquiry due to problematic assumptions. Does this mean they need a formal study of philosophy? No. Most have work and can probably get by or do fine if they don't do a formal study of philosophy.

You are correct.

There are intellectual underpinnings to science I would typically consider as part of philosophy. — T Clark

:up: Me too. I just think the philosophy we call "metaphysics" is different from this. Even Wikipedia's example mentions "truth", which is not really addressable by science. Accuracy, correctness, precision, and so forth - all of these are very much part of, and addressable by, science. But truth is too abstract. And so on, for other such vague and abstract concepts as metaphysics eats for breakfast. :smile:

I haven't convinced you with my best argument. I don't have anywhere else to go. I'll fall back on an unimpeachable source - Because Wikipedia says so. — T Clark

I can't argue with this! :wink:

Surely if scientists found philosophy useful for achieving their scientific goals and purposes, they would embrace it.

Thus, anyone whose opinion it is that scientists need philosophy, or would better able to achieve their goals, or would choose better goals, needs to present compelling arguments for those opinions. — Brainglitch

It's not what scientists find useful that's important. It's what makes good science, and that's not just for scientists to decide. People, non-scientists, make important decisions based on scientific results. People, non-scientists, pay for scientific investigations. People, non-scientists, must face the consequences of bad or poorly chosen science.

Scientists are not necessarily the best people, or at least not the only people, to decide how science should be practiced. They are not necessarily the best people to select "scientific goals and purposes." They tend to be narrowly focused on what is of interest to them or what has benefits for them. Many, most? don't think of the greater context of the work they do.

Galactic rotation curves that are observed do not match the ones predicted by theory. Either it's because there is invisible matter, or because the theory is flawed. The discrepancy between observation and theory is not a detection of invisible matter, because we don't know that the theory is not flawed. I can't make it simpler than that. — leo

I have studied the subject for years, — leo

Given that you have studied the subject for years, you are certainly aware that numerous hypotheses have been proposed to explain the discrepancy, and that most of these involve changes/enhancements to the existing theories of gravitation. However, every alternative hypothesis - at least up to now - has made predictions which are not matched by the data.

Currently, dark matter is the hypothesis which best matches the data, but it is still only a hypothesis - it is not established theory. If you could present an alternative explanation that successfully matches all the data and does not involve hypothetical invisible particles, you would go down in history along with Einstein.

You have my blessings to go for it!

numerous hypotheses have been proposed to explain the discrepancy, and that most of these involve changes/enhancements to the existing theories of gravitation. However, every alternative hypothesis - at least up to now - has made predictions which are not matched by the data.

Currently, dark matter is the hypothesis which best matches the data, but it is still only a hypothesis - it is not established theory. If you could present an alternative explanation that successfully matches all the data and does not involve hypothetical invisible particles — EricH

You agree that dark matter hasn't been detected, contrary to what some people on this forum say (that dark matter has been detected), and contrary to what many physicists/cosmologists say (that dark matter exists, that it's real, that it's a fact, ...)

The dark matter hypothesis doesn't successfully match all the data, there are plenty of problems with it, see here for instance https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3960.pdf (pages 12-34)

And it's arguable whether dark matter is the hypothesis that inherently best matches the data, after all a lot more efforts have been spent in researching and developing the dark matter hypothesis and attempting to make it fit with observations, than in developing alternative models, it's not an indication that alternative models wouldn't have been more successful if they had been worked on as thoroughly.

Also there is a lot of fine-tuning in the dark matter model, the dark matter distribution within a galaxy is inferred from observations of that galaxy, there are lots of degrees of freedom to make the model fit with observations, whereas there are no degrees of freedom in some alternative models which work well in many situations. The more degrees of freedom there are in the theory, the easier it is to make it fit with observations.

How much work has been done on a model, and how easy it is to fit the model with observations through fine-tuning, are two variables that have to be taken into account when we compare different models. For instance it's easy to come up with a model that successfully matches all the data while having a bunch of degrees of freedom.

Food, shelter, comfort, all of these things can be found in nature. We distribute these according to money. In nature, all of these are also unevenly distributed. Your problem with money is just the same problem we would have without money. — TogetherTurtle

I disagree that the problem I'm talking about would exist without money and bartering. The problem is not the uneven distribution in itself, it is that those who have the most resources actively act against those who have little resources, to prevent them from having more, in essence those who have little resources are enslaved to those who have more, they do not have the freedom to acquire them by themselves. In order to gain their freedom, they have to work much harder than they would otherwise, or they have to be lucky, or they have to be criminals, and even then they're still all enslaved to money.

In nature, what's working against you is the predators, but you don't have an army of predators enslaving you, you can fight them and win, or you can avoid them much more easily than you can avoid the whole of law enforcement and the military.

My point was that they literally believe that the greater good is serving themselves.

I think world leaders believe that people are foolish without their guidance, and so they attempt to stay in power. — TogetherTurtle

By definition if you only care about yourself you don't care about the benefit of others, you don't care about the greater good. I'm not talking about leaders who believe people are foolish without their guidance, I'm talking about people who actually don't care about hurting others for their own personal gain. You seem to believe such people don't exist, I disagree.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and I assure you those cave paintings weren't painted in a day either. That was likely the product of multiple lifetimes of free time. — TogetherTurtle

There is evidence that they did have a lot of free time. See the book Stone Age Economics for instance. There are some who say that agriculture was invented to fill the needs of a rising population which was itself the result of a lot of free time. It's surely not obvious at all that back then they had little free time, contrary to popular belief.

And why would people believe in you, when it is only in our nature to believe things that benefit us? Nobody ever gets the benefit of the doubt for this reason. — TogetherTurtle

The people who get their research funded are believed by whoever funds their research.

Imagine living in the city your whole life, and then being forced into the wilderness. How stressful would it be to not know which berries will kill you? How stressful would it be to encounter even a small animal without a means to protect yourself? How stressful would it for your shelter to collapse because you didn't know how to build a sturdy one?

People operate best when they are in familiar surroundings. People fear difference. That is the source of their fear. — TogetherTurtle

I've lived in the city most of my life and it's the city that stresses me out, not nature. I feel at home in nature, I enjoy trying to survive on my own. Many city people find the city stressful and feel the need to be connected to nature. You're basically saying that we adapt well to whatever environment we grow up in and find difference always stressful, I disagree.

Then you didn't address my other point, that they had to work much less to get food in nature than to get money to get food in the city. If your employer forces you to work 9 hours a day to give you your paycheck, you can't compress that time even if you become great at your job, whereas if you learn to hunt you can get food much more quickly.

Furthermore, I would add that these Amazonians did have a sort of civilization. Surely they organized their labor, some going to hunt while others cooked, no? That organization is the basis of civilization. — TogetherTurtle

Civilization is usually defined as "the stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced". Even if in their group some went to hunt and others cooked, that doesn't mean they were forced to work 9 hours a day to get food or cook it.

If you really believe you can live on your own somewhere, I think you should try it. There is unused land out there that no one checks on. In fact, I think in Alaska the government still just gives it out. — TogetherTurtle

I'm not a US resident, and in my country as far as I know there is no land the government gives freely. Many people successfully live on their own in the wild. Obviously it's easier to live in the wild when education is focused on living in the wild rather than on living in the city. But if you're a bed potato I can understand why you would find that to be unimaginable.

If you make it out there and make any scientific progress, I would like to know. Well, if you can connect to the internet. — TogetherTurtle

It would be possible to have some sort of internet in a world without money. People would simply build and take care of the infrastructures that they find useful. And research could be carried out in the plenty of free time that people would have.

The dark matter hypothesis doesn't successfully match all the data, there are plenty of problems with it, — leo

Agree - as would every scientist who is working in this area.

How much work has been done on a model, and how easy it is to with the model with observations through fine-tuning, are two variables that have to be taken into account when we compare different models. — leo

How much work has been done on a model is irrelevant. If person A spends 10 years working on a hypothesis and person B spends 10 minutes, the only thing that matters is which hypothesis better fits the data.

For instance it's easy to come up with a model that successfully matches all the data while having a bunch of degrees of freedom. — leo

Well dang it man! If it's easy, then why are you posting here? Go come up with that better model. Fame & fortune will be your reward! :smile:

But kidding aside, it sounds to me that your gripe is that the dark matter hypothesis has been over-hyped, and that more work/attention should be paid to the alternative models. That may be the case. It may be that dark matter will turn out to be analogous to the Copernican model - and that some brilliant person (or persons) will come up with a new model that neatly explains all the data. That would be very cool indeed!

OR - it may be the case that dark matter is the correct explanation and we just didn't fully understand it.

In the past, the forum has had active members who could speak to difficult scientific subjects knowledgeably. That has been missing for a while. I hope you will hang around.

How much work has been done on a model is irrelevant. If person A spends 10 years working on a hypothesis and person B spends 10 minutes, the only thing that matters is which hypothesis better fits the data. — EricH

Of course, but if person A spends 10 years working on hypothesis H1 and person B spends 10 minutes working on hypothesis H2, and H1 better fits the data than H2, it would be wrong to say that the only hypothesis worth developing is H1 because it better fits the data.

Well dang it man! If it's easy, then why are you posting here? Go come up with that better model. Fame & fortune will be your reward! :smile: — EricH

You know why it's easy? Because every time an observation doesn't fit the model, you can add a degree of freedom in the model to make it fit the observation.

Observations do not match the model? OK let's say there is invisible matter with simple properties that is responsible for the discrepancy, now the model fits the observations. New observations do not match predictions of the model? OK let's say the invisible matter has more complex properties that depend on several variables, and we can make the model fit the observations. Some new observations do not match predictions of that model? OK let's give even more degrees of freedom to the properties of that invisible matter, and the model fits all observations again. And so on and so forth, now our dark matter model fits all the data! We can also do that by having a gravitational model with a bunch of degrees of freedom but without dark matter.

And you know why the models that have a bunch of degrees of freedom and that successfully match all the data are not better models? Because the point of scientific models is the ability to predict. If every time an observation doesn't match the model you add a degree of freedom to make it fit the model, you have a complex model that fits all past observations but that isn't good to predict future observations.

It's like the epicycles of the Ptolemaic model, you can add more and more epicycles to make the model fit observations as precisely as you want. Does it mean it's a better model than one that can explain most planetary motions with a single equation that depends on two parameters? You can make successful new predictions with the latter model, not so much with the former.

But kidding aside, it sounds to me that your gripe is that the dark matter hypothesis has been over-hyped, and that more work/attention should be paid to the alternative models. — EricH

Indeed, the dark matter hypothesis is like a religion in some scientific circles, they don't treat it as a hypothesis they treat it as fact, I have personally interacted with some of these people (professional scientists), they don't see it as a hypothesis, they clearly say that dark matter exists. Every time there is an observation that is problematic they assume it will be solved, the problems pile up and at no point they even begin to think that, maybe, the dark matter idea is not the right path and, maybe, it could be worth it to seriously research other alternatives. And the problem with that of course is that we have a monolithic science that is stuck while it could be a much more fruitful enterprise if it was more open to alternative ideas.

Thankfully there are a few astrophysicists who are clearly aware of this state of affairs, here is an eye-opening interview with one of them https://medium.com/@aramis720/the-system-of-the-world-a-dialogue-with-prof-stacy-mcgaugh-fa1b3945f194

Some excerpts:

When I first became skeptical, I started asking my colleagues what would shake their faith; i.e., what would falsify [L]CDM? I almost never got a straight answer. One of the few I did get was from Simon White, who said the cusps had to be there. They’re not. Did this lead the field to abandon the paradigm? No, it just led to the invocation of complicated mechanisms that “fix” things. These are band aids that patch a superficial symptom without addressing the underlying malady.

The hard-core cosmologists are more convinced than ever that LCDM has to be right. It has obtained the status of a religion.

Once dark matter is confirmed in one’s mind as having been established to exist, it is incredibly hard to dislodge it. Should it turn out to be wrong, how do we tell? The concept of dark matter is not falsifiable. It cannot ever be excluded as a logical possibility. So once it is established as the preferred choice, how do we get out of that?

It is hard to question one’s own belief in dark matter. It was the hardest thing I ever did to wrap my head around the possibility that maybe I was wrong to believe that there had to be dark matter. I don’t see many of my colleagues engaging with this problem in a serious way.

I find it sad that you don't realize I speak on this subject knowledgeably, and that you don't realize your impression that I do not know what I am talking about stems from your own lack of understanding on this subject.

I find it sad that you don't realize I speak on this subject knowledgeably, and that you don't realize your impression that I do not know what I am talking about stems from your own lack of understanding on this subject. — leo

I don't see it that way.

Of course you don't. Meanwhile, you kept claiming that dark matter has been detected, even EricH disagrees with that. But I suppose you don't want to argue with him about that because he's wrong too and you're right.

I find this state of mind is quite fitting to the subject of this thread. Scientific circles have a bias against philosophy because they're dogmatic. And you don't realize that you are dogmatic about the existence of dark matter. It's not something you're even willing to begin to question, you're blind to everything I say about it, including to what some professional scientists say about it, like the one I quoted above. Maybe you can send him an email and discuss it with him, he may attempt to explain to you why dark matter hasn't been detected, but I suppose you'll tell him he's wrong because you're right.

It's common to be dismissed on scientific forums when we question dogmas of the prevalent paradigm, but I find it sad (or ironical) to be dismissed in the same way on a philosophy forum, on a thread that is precisely about the bias of scientists and science followers against philosophy.

I don't see it that way. And, yes, I am being passive-aggressive.

I know, all you see is "dark matter exists, so everything you say against that is wrong, ergo you're wrong, ergo you don't know what you are talking about".

I know, all you see is "dark matter exists, so everything you say against that is wrong, ergo you're wrong, ergo you don't know what you are talking about". — leo

I don't see it that way. I can keep this up all day.

I know, I just think it makes you look more and more dogmatic as you keep going, but I guess you don't see it that way?

I know, I just think it makes you look more and more dogmatic as you keep going, but I guess you don't see it that way? — leo

You are correct. I don't see it that way.

On the other hand, now is probably a good time for me to stop. I'll give you the last word if you'd like it.

On the other hand, now is probably a good time for me to stop. I'll give you the last word if you'd like it. — T Clark

I don't see it that way.

Thanks for the compliment - I do have a scientific background. I mostly just lurk - it's fun reading some of these discussions, but it takes a lot of my very limited time to write a post that gets the point across with as few words as possible.

The problem is not the uneven distribution in itself, it is that those who have the most resources actively act against those who have little resources, to prevent them from having more, in essence those who have little resources are enslaved to those who have more, they do not have the freedom to acquire them by themselves. In order to gain their freedom, they have to work much harder than they would otherwise, or they have to be lucky, or they have to be criminals, and even then they're still all enslaved to money. — leo

You act as if businessmen have no weaknesses. If there isn't a competitor somewhere, the problem is anti-monopoly laws where you live.

The one thing you can do to businesses is the one thing that hurts them most- leave. I highly doubt that most people are working the best paying job they can. Put in some applications and when the time comes, put in your two weeks. I've certainly done it before. The guy I picked up hours from last week certainly did. All you have to do is look around. Sure, you might still be enslaved to money, but nobody has any other choice, even those with all the money.

The only thing standing between the wealthy and poverty is wealth. If they stop doing what they're doing, they suffer. Their lives are significantly more extravagant, but they live in fear of losing that cash flow just as much as we do.

In nature, what's working against you is the predators, but you don't have an army of predators enslaving you, you can fight them and win, or you can avoid them much more easily than you can avoid the whole of law enforcement and the military. — leo

I would say oppression by predators is relatively equal to oppression by law. While predators don't enslave, they do kill at will. You can't have free time if you're dead. Any animal that is preyed upon typically doesn't have a fighting chance. If two evenly matched animals are fighting, it's over territory. This is because for an animal to be considered prey, it has to be a regular part of another animal's diet. You can't fight even fights on a daily basis and expect to live long.

Running expends immense energy and requires constant food. Like I said above, I wouldn't consider recovering from physical activity free time.

By definition if you only care about yourself you don't care about the benefit of others, you don't care about the greater good. I'm not talking about leaders who believe people are foolish without their guidance, I'm talking about people who actually don't care about hurting others for their own personal gain. You seem to believe such people don't exist, I disagree. — leo

These people consider their own personal gain the greater good. They believe that their position justifies their wealth and they use that position to gain the wealth they deserve. Whether they're right or wrong, they believe what they're doing is right. To them, hurting others is good if it meets this end. Nobody thinks that they're evil, or at least entirely evil. So no, I don't think that people hurt others without somehow justifying it in their mind, unless they're mentally ill or brain dead.

There is evidence that they did have a lot of free time. See the book Stone Age Economics for instance. There are some who say that agriculture was invented to fill the needs of a rising population which was itself the result of a lot of free time. It's surely not obvious at all that back then they had little free time, contrary to popular belief. — leo

I'm not one to rule out reading a book, so when I get around to it I'll let you know.

What I think to be likely is that what ancient people believe to be fun was in fact more work. People still hunt now because they think it's fun, but back then it was a necessary part of life, and it was something that people did all day. Fun work does not equal free time.

If I recall, the creation of agriculture is in most places considered to have likely been an accident. Someone dropping fruit somewhere near home and connecting the dots later on. These people didn't have the prior knowledge that we have now that seeds are what plants use to reproduce. If they did, agriculture would have happened sooner. It's something that you have to figure out. Even simple developments like spears took thousands of years and were also probably spurred on by accident.

Even the large population doesn't necessarily imply a lot of free time. I think looking at the logistics of reproduction proves that. One birth per 9 months per woman doesn't necessarily imply that there was a lot of time dedicated to making children. Especially when mortality rates in childbirth (for both child and mother) were so high, something that hasn't entirely gone away even today.

I don't know what else is provided as evidence of free time in stone age peoples. Maybe cave paintings, but we haven't found near enough of those to say that they had anywhere close to the amount of free time on their hands that we do now. In my free time I could paint more cave paintings in a year than there were made in thousands.

The people who get their research funded are believed by whoever funds their research. — leo

And they believe because those researchers promise wealth. It's an investment that those researchers are required to do good on.

I've lived in the city most of my life and it's the city that stresses me out, not nature. I feel at home in nature, I enjoy trying to survive on my own. Many city people find the city stressful and feel the need to be connected to nature. You're basically saying that we adapt well to whatever environment we grow up in and find difference always stressful, I disagree. — leo

Adaptation does not always mean happiness. You may not be happy in the city, but most city goers would likely die in the wild in a matter of days.

You say you like to try to survive on your own. I don't doubt this, but I would ask where you do this. A national park of some kind? It can't be on someone else's property because you seem to have a desire to avoid doing that.

National parks or campgrounds aren't really the wild. If you get lost or are in danger, people will be actively looking for you soon. You get to see the grass and start a fire or maybe see some animals, but you are very much still in the grasp of civilization. The park ranger is just up the road.

Maybe you do have some unwatched area of the world to truly explore, and that's great, but those people who find the city stressful only want a little less city, not all wilderness. They "feel connected to nature" in a place that isn't true nature.

The reason for this I think is that they've been told all their lives that nature is peaceful. The pseudo-wilderness that is these places only reinforces that notion.

What people want isn't primitive living, what they want is to escape to rebranded civilization. Somewhere they can feel like an outdoorsman without all of the actual stress and danger of being an outdoorsman. If people knew the reality of the wilderness as opposed to their view of peaceful "nature", they would stay in their homes.

Then you didn't address my other point, that they had to work much less to get food in nature than to get money to get food in the city. If your employer forces you to work 9 hours a day to give you your paycheck, you can't compress that time even if you become great at your job, whereas if you learn to hunt you can get food much more quickly. — leo

I don't know about you, but I can compress my work time. If I close quickly and well, I can get out of my job earlier. There is always a set amount of time you need to do a job, it's those time reliant things that make it quicker. I would assume those natives were working jobs relatively close in skill level to mine.

Also, typically (at least in the first world) people work 7-8 hours a day, only five days a week. It seems like a bit of a petty criticism, but that time does certainly add up. Especially with weekends, since if you have to hunt for your food, you have to do that every single day.

Of course, they could afford less food, but they had more of everything else. Imagine the first time they saw that they could just purchase a knife instead of taking all of the time to make one, or the first time they could just go buy a shirt instead of taking all day to make clothing. Creating tools and equipment without modern techniques is a painstaking process. Self made tools don't last as long either. That's just basic survival too, once they have all of the clothes and tools they need, they don't get as worn down from the rugged wilderness.

Of course, this all depends on the place they lived and at what time. Brazil I think you said? depending on the time period, they probably didn't have all of the modern necessities, but the problem was probably more just "civilized" people disrespecting their culture and looking down on them. I would hate going to cities if I associated them with that.

Civilization is usually defined as "the stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced". Even if in their group some went to hunt and others cooked, that doesn't mean they were forced to work 9 hours a day to get food or cook it. — leo

So civilization is ok if we do it in a way that benefits everyone? That sounds like what I was thinking. I think it isn't too far of a stretch to think that tribal living isn't the only way of life that can benefit everyone. Especially since it's hard to have tribes with large populations. A tribe of a million simply doesn't work.

I'm not a US resident, and in my country as far as I know there is no land the government gives freely. Many people successfully live on their own in the wild. Obviously it's easier to live in the wild when education is focused on living in the wild rather than on living in the city. But if you're a bed potato I can understand why you would find that to be unimaginable. — leo

I won't lie, I'm a bit of a sucker for the comforts of civilization. However, if it were all gone tomorrow and I had to work my fill, I don't think I would have a choice. I may be lazy, but I refuse to be a freeloader. I'll revert to a more primitive lifestyle, but only if absolutely necessary.

However, I can't help but notice that if I'm waking up before dawn to feed livestock, then going out to water crops, then scavenging for anything I can find to eat or kill, that's a majority of my day. Not to mention that if I'm doing that, I'm not actually preparing food for myself, so if I do have someone to do that for me, I need to bring home more food for them. Eventually, the sun is setting and I had no time to think about anything, let alone make paper so that I could write it down or use a rock to inscribe it into a tablet.

I think it unfortunate that you can't get even a small plot to live from. You seem like you might genuinely enjoy it. However, I cannot see under any circumstances you having time to do science, especially if you're starting from scratch.

It would be possible to have some sort of internet in a world without money. People would simply build and take care of the infrastructures that they find useful. And research could be carried out in the plenty of free time that people would have. — leo

If you are referring to a world without money where everyone does things for mutual benefit, that sounds like bartering. Mutual benefit is "If you want fish and I want eggs, then we trade what we believe is a equivalent amount of each", not "Hey, I want fish, can I have some? I know you don't like eggs, but you can have some of mine any time you want".

The problem with a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" sort of system is that eventually, you have to scratch the other person's back, and that is essentially bartering. And I believe above you denounced bartering.

And what if only one person finds and infrastructure useful? I think you find yourself in a similar situation. You think your science can be useful but nobody who can fund it agrees. Nobody will buy the microscopes or test tubes or whatever you need. The problem at its very core is that at least right now, nobody of importance believes in you.

But I think I believe in you. I don't know for certain about any scientific inquiry. I know that what we have now works a good amount of the time. If you can do better, you can make the world better.

The fact that I think you may be on to something is why I'm telling you where I think the solution is not. Instead of going against the grain in a world you find yourself born into, you have to use the very systems you despise to change those systems. Otherwise, you will have no impact.

Physicists are looked down on in philosophy forums too ... well, they’ve usually better things to attend to so its not common to find them on philosophy forums. On the other hand philosophers frequent science forums and expect to be treated as equals - they are not looked down on just in the wrong forum thinking they have something worthwhile to contribute.