In praise of science.
Humans have changed little, physically, in the last hundred thousand years. For all that time there was little change in human culture. But over the last three or four hundred years - much less than one percent of the time we have been around - change has been extraordinary. Our every day mundane activities would be magical to the vast majority of the human race. Light and heat at the flick of a switch; clean water at the turn of a tap; instant communication with folk across the world; traveling at incredible speed just to got o the local shop; injections that prevent disease.
What it was that made this difference might be an interesting topic; A TED talk I saw yesterday put it down to the types of explanations that we accept, arguing that it is down to the rejection of explanations that are too easily reinforced by ad hoc additions. I'd suggest it has to do with the introduction of self-checking conversations, the notion that we check what we say against the way things are.
But regardless of how it happened, the advent of science has had an extraordinarily, overwhelmingly positive impact on how we live.
This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are.
What it was that made this difference might be an interesting topic; A TED talk I saw yesterday put it down to the types of explanations that we accept, arguing that it is down to the rejection of explanations that are too easily reinforced by ad hoc additions. I'd suggest it has to do with the introduction of self-checking conversations, the notion that we check what we say against the way things are.
But regardless of how it happened, the advent of science has had an extraordinarily, overwhelmingly positive impact on how we live.
This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are.
Comments (846)
Science may well be good but it's got bad elements too. Wasn't science used to exterminate millions of people?
What you fishing for?
I tend to lean on pragmatism, is that an interesting fish?
I've used his TED talk with teenage kids, who have responded with astonishment; they hadn't thought of, or been exposed to, the simple facts that make science so important. Their diet has been one critical of the scientific view, the emphasis on negative consequences of scientific work. It was interesting to see their faces change as they realised there was some hope.
I like Pinker, and also science, democracy, and progress. But it has shadow side. Anecdotally, rates of suicide, substance addiction and sexual disease transmission are extremely high in many developed nations. I see that as a consequence of Durkheim's anomie, a sense of disconnection from those around you. The undergirding ties of kinship and culture are disssolved in the universal acid of consumerism. Life has no connection to nature and to cosmos. (I have to log out for the day, duty calls.)
But it helped increase the size of the human population with devastating effects on the environment.
Good for whom?
Well, it's good for me. I'd be dead several times without the medical benefits of science.
For you, you choose.
Is it good for coral reefs? No, they'll be totally gone in a few thousand years, because of the same change you noted in the OP.
Are you more important than coral?
Tell me, how is it that you know about the reefs?
I scuba dived around them in the Florida keys?
Climate science.
Deutsch proposes a variation on the detail of falsificationism. I'm not convinced. I rather think it's down to recursion, checking one's explanations.
Civilization and agriculture started 7,000ish years ago. That started an exponential increase in human population, which is now slowing and expected to slow more. Writing started 3,500ish years ago, which also started history. Historically, advances in human well-being are primarily due to improvements in nutrition.
None of that contradicts the value of science, but I think it indicates that giving science the credit for improvements is over-simplification. Seems to me that science is one of the things that comes along with population growth and population density growth. That traces back to agriculture.
We are in a period when technology has approached the capability to cause the extermination of all humans life. Possible self-inflicted technological mechanisms of our destruction have increased and continue to increase. They include nuclear weapons, environmental decay, genetic manipulations, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, using computers to write down the 9 billion names of God, and, of course, Facebook. I think there is a significant possibility that humanity will end within the next 100 years. I have no way to quantify that likelihood.
So, if it turns out that humans are exterminated by our own technological inventiveness, I think that will definitively answer to your question "no."
Now we should apply a similar method to questions of why to do things as we've done with these questions of how to do things.
I'll take up that challenge for just about any proposition you could name!
Quoting Banno
Science yes. But "science," or scientism, no. We've been told for a year to "believe the science" when in fact legitimate, distinguished professional scientists have been marginalized, deplatformed, cancelled, and fired for expressing opinions that the mainstream didn't like. For a year Fauci has been regarded as a saint; now it turns out that there's some evidence showing that he was the one who directed funding (indirectly, through shell organizations of course, for deniability) into the very gain-of-function research that may (I say may, no proof either way yet) have leaked out of a Chinese bioweapons lab.
In fact just to suggest that covid came out of a lab has been grounds for firing, deplatforming, cancelling, and marginalizing. Suddenly it's acceptable to express those thoughts.
So science, hell yes. I'm a big fan. But "science" as in a weapon to suppress legitimate dissenting opinion? That's bad. And lately we are seeing way too much of "science" and not nearly enough science.
See for example https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983156340/theory-that-covid-came-from-a-chinese-lab-takes-on-new-life-in-wake-of-who-repor. A year ago even a hint of a suggestion of this idea got reputable scientists fired. When science is politicized, it's not a good thing. It's a bad thing. And where exactly does one find non-politicized science these days when everything is politicized? Fauci says wear two masks, Rand Paul says it's just theater, two weeks later Fauci admits his own mask wearing is for "optics," proving Rand Paul correct. Then Fauci walks back his own statement again.
Rachel Walinsky, another politicized piece of work. A few weeks ago she gave tearful testimony about how "frightened" she was. Yesterday she's all, "You can take off your masks now." What changed? The science? Or is it that with an ongoing border crisis, a gas crisis, a brandy new war in the Middle East, and exploding inflation, the Biden administration just needed to change the subject? "Asking for a friend."
Politicized science is bad science and bad, period. And lately that's the only science we've got. I for one am tired of hearing, "Follow the science" whenever someone wants to shut someone else up.
Well, sure, you can dismiss all of them that way. Just put on your Trump hat.
But hey, it's their life, their choice, right. Besides, pollution is fun for children, innit!
Well you know it's a funny thing about that. Last year when reputable scientists suggested that covid might have escaped from a lab, they were marginalized and called Trump-lovers. Now that Trump's gone, it's suddenly ok to follow the actual evidence and consider the very real possibility that covid escaped from a lab. So the anti-Trump feelings of many people prevented them from doing actual science.
For example:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ex-new-york-times-health-reporter-lab-leak-coronavirus-theory-looking-stronger
So if people's Trump hatred caused them to overlook serious scientific information, who are the anti-science ones?
And if you don't like the Fox News link, here's a similar story from the NYT. Something for everyone. Myself, I read everything, from the right wing whackos to the left wing whackos. If you only read one side, you miss a lot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/science/virus-origins-lab-leak-scientists.html
I don't recall seeing any of that in Europe.
But there are distinct China haters who've been promoting the idea that the Chinese made the virus and let it out.
China hater = Trump lover?
You caught a boot.
These enemies of the open society have lost their credibility as a result of the mass murders that proved inevitable on the way to accomplish the alleged good. Not only were human dignity and fundamental rights eliminated, but at the same time a bad result was achieved in relation to the alleged good. Under communist regimes, on the way to a classless, exploitation-free society, more severe economic exploitation occurred than ever seen in a capitalist society. Under National Socialism, the path to the goal of a pure-blooded Volksgemeinschaft led these very people to the brink of ruin.
Nonetheless, today, we face new enemies of the open society from within our own societies. Again, they make knowledge claims that are both cognitive and moral. The difference is that they donāt operate with the mirage of an absolute good, but with deliberately stoked fear of threats, such as the spread of the coronavirus or climate change. These are undoubtedly serious challenges. But they are employed to set certain values absolute, such as health protection or climate protection.
An alliance of some scientists, politicians and business leaders claims to have the knowledge of how to steer society down to family and individual life in order to safeguard these values. Again, the issue is about a higher social good ā health protection, living conditions of future generations ā that is posed as overriding individual human dignity and basic rights."
https://www.aier.org/article/the-new-enemies-of-the-open-society/#:~:text=By%20contrast%2C%20according%20to%20Popper%2C%20the%20intellectual%20enemies,people%E2%80%99s%20lives%20in%20order%20to%20achieve%20this%20good.
Well I see you aren't going to bother defending science against accusations of climate change and nuclear weapons.
T-clark gave the right answer. Science didn't cause the changes in human life that have taken place over the last few centuries. Science itself is an effect of those changes
Science is just a tool. It's not good or bad.
No. It's not. And that's why Popper is wrong.
We're going to need a bigger boot.
Quoting baker
I think both these points go into an interesting direction. Just how do we morally balance a bunch of increases to comfort and quality of living to the predictable and predictably unpredictable long term effects?
Related to this, there is no reason to suppose that technology will increase linearly forever, or that there is not a point at which a society would conclude that more technology does more harm than good.
Personally I think that the amount of suffering that can plausibly be alleviated by technology in the near future, not least the suffering related to aging and death by disease and old age, easily justifies continued progress. Getting off this planet is also rather important if we care about the long term survival of the human species (though why exactly we should care isn't easy to answer).
But there is definitely room for an interesting discussion here, I think.
Quiet a few, as was expected.
Given my understanding of human nature, I doubt this is possible.
Quoting Echarmion
I think there are technological processes that may end human life in the "near future." If we put a value on human life, which we both do, that puts your justification in question. It is unlikely I will be here to see what happens next, but my children may.
The info I can access has exponential growth starting not earlier than around 1200CE. Before that the curve looks pretty straight.
I found information here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151221193940.htm#:~:text=While%20the%20world's%20human%20population,was%20just%200.04%20percent%20annually.
that supports your position. It says:
[i]Prehistoric human populations of hunter-gatherers in a region of North America grew at the same rate as farming societies in Europe, according to a new radiocarbon analysis involving researchers from the University of Wyoming and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
The findings challenge the commonly held view that the advent of agriculture 10,000-12,000 years ago accelerated human population growth. The research is reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Our analysis shows that transitioning farming societies experienced the same rate of growth as contemporaneous foraging societies," says Robert Kelly, University of Wyoming professor of anthropology and co-author of the PNAS paper. "The same rate of growth measured for populations dwelling in a range of environments, and practicing a variety of subsistence strategies, suggests that the global climate and/or other biological factors -- not adaptability to local environment or subsistence practices -- regulated long-term growth of the human population for most of the past 12,000 years."[/i]
"`Yes,' he murmured, `it was a good play; I will have it performed again.'"
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief.[/i][/quote]
Is it?
Science as in Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss is still ok, but is missing quite a bit.
Yeah, maybe. Then again...
There's a distinction between knowing stuff and doing stuff.
Science falls on the side of knowing stuff. Sure, what you know will be used poorly; but even in the face of that I'm not disincline to say that knowing stuff is worthwhile in that it opens up more options for what we can do, as well as allowing us to better understand the consequences for what we do.
There'd be an argument, should the world end, that we might have been better not finding out the stuff that led to our demise; that our end is payback for the hubris of science.
There'd be another argument claiming that the science is neutral, and our demise is the result of failure to progress morally and socially.
There'd be yet another argument that if we had done more science, so that we better understood our plight, we might have been able to avoid it.
Three distinct narratives. Which to choose?
I think the problem is, what do we want?
What's that then?
As in, if you what to claim that there is good science and bad science, we might listen better if you can tell us how to differentiate them.
I don't see much here with which one might engage.
Is it worth pursuing this? Do you not think science might have been written all in the first person? Why not?
What do you think?
Did you miss 2020? "Science" is a political word used to silence legitimate dissent and the actual scientific method. American science is now Lysenkoism.
Then it's not science.
Quite possibly not. Trump drove a certain segment of the US population insane.
Quoting baker
One need not be a "China hater" to hold that opinion. Although as it turns out, it was the Americans who paid for the Chinese research.
Quoting baker
Or just someone who cares about the plight of the Uighurs. You know. Concentration camps, organ harvesting, and suchlike. Perhaps you've heard there's a move afoot to boycott the 2022 Chinese Olympics. Nancy Pelosi is one of the leading proponents. Not exactly a Trump lover. Care to revise your remark?
Yes ok I do take your point. I love science and hate scientism and fake, politicized science. So if I criticize the latter, I haven't actually said anything at all about the former, which is your point.
But if the word "science" has become equated in the public mind with fake, politicized science, isn't that a problem? When Fauci and Walensky tell us they're "following the science" as they lurch from one politicized lie to the next, it's cold comfort to think about Galileo and Maxwell. Which is my point, even as I understand yours.
Quoting fishfry
Cheers.
It's Trumps fault?
Quoting fishfry
To wit.
What?
What's he supposed to have done?
My rhetorical question about the Bertrand Russell essay - that was an influential essay, at the time, and characterises a lot of 20th century polemics about the 'scientific vision of the world'.
I repeated what you said. "He was obligated to do the best he could while working for a lunatic." That's TDS. That's the literal definition. Fauci has been a hack, a political apparatchik for forty years. Wrong on AIDS, wrong on SARS, wrong in the hearts of his countrymen. He only became a saint in the mind of the Trump-hating public because of exactly the the attitude that you expressed.
Quoting Banno
I gave an example in this thread. Or was it a different thread? He said we should all wear two masks. Rand Paul accused him of doing it for show. Fauci said it was "science." Few weeks later, Fauci admitted it was for show, for "optics," his word. This has been going on a long time.
I could enumerate many other political flipflops in the name of "science." And not to mention that the funding for the gain-of-function research that (most likely) escaped from a lab and caused the covid pandemic has now been traced to none other than Fauci. It's like a movie where the kindly old authority figure turns out to be the arch villain. Give it some more time. Facts are getting out and public opinion is beginning to turn. Give this all another few months. I'm willing to wait. I can't explain all this to you now any more than I could have a year ago, except that today some of this information is beginning to leak into the MSM.
The first day I heard about the wet markets back in early 2020 was in an article that mentioned "Oh by the way there's a bioweapons lab a mile away." The plot twist was obvious to me that day and to many others, whose voices were suppressed. The suppression is starting to lift and the truth is going to be known. Give it time. And click around. Try not to get blindsided by the lies and propaganda.
Quoting fishfry
...looks to be crap to me. But again, even if true, it would show bad management, not bad science.
If what Fauci's been doing is what you call science, then I'm against it.
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/
Quoting Banno
Disingenuous much? He said he did it because of the science, denied in front of Congress that it was political, then admitted that it was. You call that science? Then I'm against science. That's exactly the kind of science I'm against and now I see that you are totally for it. You don't even know what science is if you think the US response to covid has been about science.
Here in Australia, we also 'followed the science' - less than a thousand deaths, infections under control in every state and territory, albeit at large costs in public money. But when the Government said, stay home, wear masks, by and large everyone did, and it worked.
As has been the vilification of legitimate dissent all year long.
The use of hydrocarbon energy is leading to global warming, which wouldn't have happened without engineering, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.
As I said, science is a tool. It's neither bad not good.
Nuh. Knowing stuff is good. Science is about knowing stuff.
In the OP, you gave science credit for:
Quoting Banno
If science caused that stuff, science is causing global warming.
The missing piece is that all of that and science as well are the result of capitalism (among other material causes).
And I said you're wrong. Wanna know why you're wrong?
This was an interesting convo. I hadn't read the rest of the thread and just grabbed on to your challenge to say something bad about science. Now I happen to be a big fan of science, so I used the opportunity to rail against the fake, politicized science of the past year. And when you said that you saw nothing to respond to or talk about, I noted that you are right, I wasn't talking about science, but rather fake, politicized science.
But then on further conversation, it turns out that you actually think the fake, politicized science of the past year is actually science. In which case my earlier remarks were perfectly on point; and it turns out that you think science is worshipping some political hack and deplatforming actual scientists who dissent. I'm afraid you are sadly in tune with the ethos of the day.
Thanks for the chat.
...Ah, so we can blame the economists!
I did? Odd, 'cause that ain't what I wrote.
Banking. Before we had money and banking, life tended to be relatively stagnant.
Virtual money puts human life into overdrive
Always
Science is not just a tool. It's also an understanding of reality; quite at odds with an ideological understanding of reality. For example, scientifically - the world is a single planetary environment, and humankind is a single species.
In ideology, the world is made up of nation states - existing as sovereign entities, like the world were a jigsaw puzzle made of nation state shaped pieces. In ideology, people are divided into religious and ethnic groups.
Science used as a tool by nation states - justifies, among other things, creating nuclear weapons.
There's no good reason to create nuclear weapons if you accept we're all the same species living on the same planet. There's no good scientific reason to continue using fossil fuels. There's no good scientific reason to fish the oceans to extinction, cut down the forests, or dump plastic in the oceans. All this is science used as a tool - without regard to science as an understanding of reality. .
Using science as a tool of ideology is why we have applied the wrong technologies, and so are headed for extinction. A scientific understanding of reality should be the basis for the application of technology - not partisan political and economic interest.
Ok.
Nice. :cool:
I'd imagine you could fish out some instances where certain scientific discoveries have led to a worse state of human affairs, but it would be an extreme minority view to suggest that science is an overall bad thing, and there'd be a real irony in them posting that opinion here, considering such can only be accomplished with a computer, an internet, and all the underlying technology.
No objections even here:
https://dallincrump.medium.com/what-the-amish-are-teaching-me-about-how-to-use-technology-aa8bd1816260#:~:text=The%20Amish%20don't%20believe,shed%20somewhere%20on%20their%20property).
I think that you are right to see science as a tool rather than as end in itself. It involves investigations based on values rather than being embraced as a reality in its own right. It seems to me that while we may turn to science to seek solutions to problems, especially the climate crisis, it was the pursuit of science, as a way of triumphing over nature and ecology, which may have contributed to the problems which humanity are facing.
Science is extremely important, but perhaps it has been placed on a pedestool. The wording of this thread is interesting and I wonder whether it was done intentionally, with the idea of 'praise' being given to science. The idea of praise was often given to God, in the hands of religious believers. Could it be that God has been dethroned, but with science replacing the idea of the transcendent?
But, the question is whether science will be more helpful in sorting out the mess we are in, especially climate change. Science can formulate and provide evidence, but that is interrelated to the political agendas which are override the use of this knowledge.
To clarify, science does create problems, huge ones - nuclear power (radioactive fallout), the internal combustion engine (global warming), plastics (pollution), so and so forth - but it's science itself that discovers these are a major headahce with long-lasting negative effects on the health of humans and in a wider context, the global ecosystem. Reminds me of a movie someone told me she'd seen - about a murder mystery in which the detective is himself the murderer. This particular TV trope goes by the name Hired To Hunt Yourself
Aramis:Ā The King has ordered me to seek out the secret general of the Jesuits and to kill him.
Porthos:Ā You should let the secret general worry about that.
Aramis:Ā Problem is that, ah... I am he.
āĀ The Man in the Iron MaskĀ (1998)
I am a bit surprised that you think that what is important is whether Banno is winning to be the essential issue. Surely, science and all other methods of investigation, and of knowledge, as serving humanity, are far more important than proclaiming Banno as the ultimate expert. Personally, I think that we need to go beyond egos, and praise, and look to what works in the development and use of ideas and knowledge.
Guilty as charged! He is winning though!
I don't wish to derail the thread, and I have absolutely no bad feelings towards Banno, but I do wonder what you mean by winning? Is it about arguments being more creditable? I would be surprised really if anyone, including the most evangelical religious believers, were completely opposed to science.
However, I must admit that I was a bit surprsised to discover recently that one of my closest friends still believes that Adam and Eve were literal people. So if I ever have a party, I wish that Banno, you and others could be present, for some lively discussion.
So it's no accident that something helpful like vaccines came out if it. Most biologists are either working for big pharma, or teaching biology.
Science may have been a hobby for the nobility in times past, but those times are pretty much past.
The LHC may be an exception. Why did they build that? Science for science's sake?
It's not whether you win or lose. It's how you play the game.
I was wrong about population increase being caused by civilization, but that was not the comment I was responding to. You wrote:
Quoting Banno
I responded:
Quoting T Clark
As I noted, that doesn't necessarily contradict what you wrote, but it gives a different perspective.
The response to the pandemic is the first time I've seen government use science in public to develop policy to address an urgent problem on a short-term basis. Since it was in public, and since it had a serious impact on our way of life, it was subject to political decision making. That's the way things are supposed to work. Politics is often confusing, misleading, and subject to special interests, especially these days. That certainly was the case this time.
As ugly as it got, I have been impressed with how well science-based policy making worked in the US.
Science is not good. Science and technology advance much faster than does our process of evolution. (Biologically and sociologically) Inevitably science will advance faster than we can adapt to it. An example would be the way science has effected the way we communicate...science/tech has greatly changed the way we do it. Socially and biologically we arenāt adapted to it. Thatās why it (social media especially) has such a detrimental on our mental health and well being.
Because science will always evolve faster than our societies, our biology and our understanding of science it will inevitably cause conflict and destruction when it interacts with human biology/society, science is NOT good. There will be a grace period where we enjoy itās benefits, especially the siren call of medical technology, but the science will advance beyond our societies and biology quickly and with exponentially increasing speed until it destroys us.
It will always evolve past our ability to understand and utilize it. Some examples of what I mean:
-We invent nuclear weapons before we figured out how to get along.
-we make it easier to soapbox and spread (mis) information before we have adapted socially enough to do it responsibly.
-we invent ways to cross vast distances quickly but lack the evolution of culture/foreign policy to do that without destroying the cultures and the places we land.
You can even see where science cusses internal problems within science. The cross vast distances point illustrates this...we had the science to get across the ocean but not the science to stop the spread of disease that wiped out 90% of the native population.
So not only is science bad as it interacts with other things it also results in disaster entirely within its own paradigm.
Science is bad because we can never use it properly (it advances faster than our ability to use it properly does) and will inevitably lead to the destruction of all humans. It only seems like science is good because we are enjoying the benefits that will inevitable turn to poison and kill us.
Iāll end with an analogy:
Science to humans is like chocolate to the dog. Itās so tasty and delicious until the dog dies from it. The sweet taste of chocolate disguising itās poisonous nature.
People are crucially involved and we can only hope to capture those things which we have the cognitive capacity to map out or describe. In this respect, and trivially too, we can only do science in as far as it's the type of phenomenon human beings can recognize.
I've often seen vaccines used as an example of the problems with capitalist science. In general, vaccine development is not as profitable for pharmaceutical companies as a new improved erectile dysfunction medication. [irony]Which, of course, is as it should be.[/irony] For that reason, it doesn't get much attention unless the government gets involved. The Covid 19 vaccine appears to be a special case.
True. The science to do it was in place. It took funding to make it happen. And it means that going forward, vaccines will take months to make instead of years. That this seems kind of trivial to us is a testament to the size of the technological explosion that took pace in the 20th C.
Btw, measles is back because people aren't vaccinating their kids. If covid-19 is a lion, measles is King Kong.
Again, the fact that most people don't know that, and many doctors have never seen measles, shows us where we are.
I agree.
Assuming this analysis of science is correct, does it follow that science is bad?
For one, the notion of humanity without science is incongruous. While our technological society is historically contingent, the basic ability to understand the world in a methodical way clearly isn't. You could have a human society that intentionally does not advance technology, but this runs into a second problem:
Humanity is doomed regardless. There is no practical way to avoid the destruction of humanity that we know of today, and there certainly isn't one if technology stops before interplanetary colonisation. So, at best, we're delaying it's demise.
And then the question is, what's the price we're willing to pay for that delay? You're calling it a grace period, but it means real, tangible benefits for a lot of real people? How do we even begin to weigh these against future risks?
One definition of wisdom is knowledge of knowledge. This can mean, as it does in Plato's Charmides, knowledge of what you know and don't know (the irony is intentional), but it can also mean the knowledge of how best to use and control our knowledge. Good or bad, the only way forward is through knowledge.
So, science just informs, which happens to be good, because it can inform ethics. (y)
The two play different roles, yes?
Out at the edges of stabilized models, it's clearer that scientific results are tentative/provisional in principle.
And so it takes more science for us to smarten up more (assuming we can), as long as we don't mentally replace reality with the models.
What we do with it, is another matter, though doing away with ignorance and errors seems good enough, after all, what we don't know can still harm or help us. (y)
Science being informative sure has transformed societies/lives over time.
(n) science deniers.
Incidentally, in my adventures, I've found that "scientism" more often than not is the (misused) go-to buzzword when people wish to shun objections to poorly justified assertions, or someone whining when their dear-held belief has been found wanting. (n)
Same way we do with all future risk assessment. In this case we know that science is the tasty poison that will eventually kill us. So we weigh the benefits against total destruction. Total destruction trumps those benefits and shows us that science is bad.
Does it? This is a serious question. Why do we care about the ultimate survival of humanity? For one, as long as we don't figure out a way to get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics, total destruction will happen anyways. For another, future humans aren't actual people. They're potentials. Their moral standing seems questionable. How is it to be measured?
That's not my position. Give your specs a once over with a j-cloth, and you'll see I argued:
Quoting counterpunch
Your error is easily remedied. I'll simply change 'you are right' to 'one is right' - and read it as disagreement.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Not exactly. Imagine that, in 1635, instead of putting Galileo on trial for heresy, the Church had welcomed Galileo's scientific proof as the method by which to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation.
Science would have been invested with moral authority, and integrated into politics over the past 400 years. Instead, science suspect of heresy was stripped of moral authority, and pimped out to government and industry - to serve ideological ends. i.e. Trump digs coal.
Were science valued as an understanding of reality, "Trump digs coal" would be an impossibility, and so would many other things, like nuclear and biological weapons, burning forests, landfill. Ideologically, all this makes sense. Scientifically, it does not.
Do you see?
change has accelerated. I disagree that one can lift out science from among all of the modalities of cultural
creativity ( the arts, poetry, politics, music , philosophy) and give it sole credit from this acceleration. All cultural
modes of an era are inseparably intertwined and thus all are equally , reciprocally responsible for intellectual development.
Anyone who was following the WHO alongside, say, scientists like Yaneer Bar Yam, or statisticians like Nassim Taleb, saw a different story when it comes to COVID-19 and science. In the early days, WHO repeatedly claimed that directives for COVID-19 ought to be "evidence-based". This is why they took a very conservative stance in the beginning and claimed, for example, that travel bans were not necessary to fight the virus. But as Taleb pointed out some time ago:
"...evidence follows, does not precede, rare impactful events and waiting for the accident before putting the seat belt on, or evidence of fire before buying insurance would make the perpetrator exit the gene pool."
To this day, it boggles my mind that nobody who was in a position of power got their warning. And the story followed the same path for mask wearing.
All this to say science is good. Though, when scientists do their jobs poorly or don't realize that modelling under extreme uncertainty is not going to give us the answers we need in time, the results can be deadly.
Here's another one. Anyone spot the irony in Bill Gates' involvement in the COVID-19 response and his company releasing genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment?. We're really good at science but when we are horrible decision makers, the science starts to hurt.
Sure, if you donāt care about the survival of humanity then science isnāt bad according to my argument.
Also, just because total destruction will happen anyways in billions of years doesnāt mean we should not care about being destroyed now. Thatās fallacious, like saying there is no point to living because you eventually die.
Obviously I'm not just talking about what I care about in an emotional sense. This is a philosophy forum, I'm asking how to address the problem from the perspective of moral philosophy.
Quoting DingoJones
The difference to me is that I'm already alive and I want to keep being alive. This doesn't apply in the same way to potential future generations. And it's not just about having or not having future generations. It's about whether or not the advantages to actual people outweigh the drawbacks for potential people.
Right, and if the survival of humanity isnāt important to your moral philosophy then my argument wouldnāt apply. Iām not knocking that perspective Iām just conceding that my argument requires that you care about humanities survival.
Quoting Echarmion
Iām not sure how to respond to that. Iām not really concerned with future generations or drawbacks for potential people I was talking about survival of the species.
Survival of the species is good, science is bad because it will ensure our species will not survive.
We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.
I don't agree with his "this is the answer" part.
The thing is, it really bothers me that I cannot find a good argument for why it should matter. It seems like it clearly should matter, but it's hard for me to figure out exactly why.
Well thatās another topic but caring doesnāt seem the sort of thing you need a good argument for. You either care or you donāt, and whether or not you should care about something has no bearing on if you actually do.
You may well be right. What I was commenting on was the well-documented villification of public health officials that occured in the USA, particularly under the previous president. Also the fact that attempting to 'follow the science' doesn't mean you have a playbook or script as to what that entails, and so, if there are changes of policy or failures, it doesn't mean that 'science is wrong'.
I will be winning when this thread continues without my intervention. That's when I will know the point has been well-made and is bothersome.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I can fix that...
Quoting counterpunch
I say, following Kant, that science is the understanding, not of reality as such, but of phenomena, of how things appear to us, and discovery of the patterns and principles (i.e. 'laws') that underlie them and can be used to make predictions.
But science excludes some factors from consideration so as to arrive at a precise causal link between cause and effect, or between prediction, measurement and outcome. It concentrates on just those factors which are amenable to precise measurement and scientific prediction - the factors that came to be known as 'primary attributes' in the science of Galileo. Whereas factors include meaning, intentionality, and purpose are regarded as of a secondary (and implicitly derivative) status. They are 'bracketed out', so to speak, or regarded as implicitly being derived from the factors and principles which govern the doings of the objects of physics. Which is precisely the origin of modern physicalism (and so, naturalism).
This leads to the tacit but widespread attitude that science 'proves' or 'shows' that the universe, as such, is devoid of meaning, purpose or intention (as per the Bertrand Russell passage quoted upthread) - the challenge being that if you claim this is not so, it's up to you to show it. Which, of course, is impossible, because the kind of demonstration required is just the kind that assumes the secondary or derived reality of the very attributes you wish to show.
That, anyway, was the picture up until about the mid-twentieth century, although it's changed considerably since. But physicalism of that kind is still prevalent in English-speaking philosophy, perhaps less so in continental. I don't know if it says anything about science as such, but it does say something about the presumed authority of science as arbiter or umpire of reality, in my view.
The rapid growth of science and technology, along with population, is mostly down to fossil fuels; i.e. it would not have happened without all that very cheap energy.
Mere science, as in investigating and learning how things work, is in itself a good thing. As others have noted, it is the politicization and capitalization of science that is pernicious.
But this is merely stating the obvious; there is for us no "reality as such"; at least there is nothing " as such" that could ever be discovered by humans, because anything discovered by humans is not what you would define as "as such".
So the LHC is set up to examine primary attributes such as solidity, figure, extension, motion. There's a quaint truth in that.
But this -
Quoting Wayfarer
...the problem with science is that it does what it says on the label? There is a mystery called "reality" that Kant's philosophical machinations render ineffable, so that his followers can criticise science for not being able to do what they themselves think impossible. That's not a problem for science, but for whatever else it was you expected from it...
What if "reality" is exactly what science is dealing with? Don't play the giddy word game in which we can have no knowledge of the thing in itself. Instead pretend that what we do have knowledge of is exactly what is real. After all, that's a difference that makes not difference, but has the advantage of shorting out nonsense like Quoting Janus
That is, @Wayfarer is right, but just says it wrong.
With that, I'll throw the puffer fish back into the sea; but doubtless it will return.
Right, there is no reality that science is dealing with other than what @Wayfarer would term "reality for us". That just is the only reality, there is no other, no "as such" other than in our fevered metaphysical imaginations.
Is that feverishly imagined "reality in itself" really as toxic as puffer fish, though? Or can it be enjoyed, properly prepared, as a delicacy, just as the puffer fish is in Japan?
There is no contradiction in saying science studies reality, but that it does not reach thing in themselves. It needn't even come from Kant, Russell says something similar.
Or to state it differently, I don't see why this would be a problem. Unless you have something specific in mind.
You profess admiration for Wittgenstein, I wonder what you make of this interpretation of his work, by Ray Monk, his biographer, and whether you can see any connection with what I said
Presumably, according to you, in vain.
Why, I agree with it! Indeed, see the thread I started about his student: Midgley vs Dawkins, Nietzsche, Hobbes, Mackie, Rand, Singer..., who took this theme to heart.
Do you think this somehow incompatible with what I argued here? Take care, because I am saying you are right, and if you show that I am wrong, you may pull down your own foundation.
Of course there isn't - the thing-in-itself is a locutionary pretzel, like the little man who wasn't there. It closes itself of from any discussion, not just science.
There isn't much to say about it, true.
But it has has epistemic consequences, if it exists.
All good things, including science, prove to be bad things after a while.
1. agriculture instead of nomad life. Lots of food; no starvation... Good. Running out of arable land... wars over land... bad. Hierarchical societies got created... good for 1 king and bad for millions of serfs.
2. Medical science. Penicillin. Good not to get crippled, or die, due to illness. Bad to have to do with the population explosion.
3. Slave trade to America. Good, cheap, cheerful labour. Bad about a hundered-two hundred years later, when age-old unfair biasses are challenged and defended.
4. Viet Nam war. Good: stop the spread of communism. Bad: hot bed for the beginning of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and also a nation-sweeping drug culture that puts thousands to death and into prison, not mentioning the mind blow.
5. I forgot this one.
6. Industrial revolution.
7. Philosophy.
8. Pleasure and pain.
9. Life.
Fair enough.
Not at all! You have forgotten all about religion and the arts, not to mention science; many of the greatest works of the human imagination would not have existed without the notion of the noumenon, and the attempt to imagine the unimaginable.
Not at all. The Midgley thread is explicitly about the very thing you claim I forgot.
It's just that I would insist on doing it well. The stuff that talks of the ineffable is literal nonsense - as can be seen plainly in much of theology.
Thanks - but in all fairness, that is sometimes a difficult thing to discern.
I will always stand by Kant's differentiation of phenomena and noumena, because it is the central problem of philosophy, that being 'appearance and reality', and philosophy only ever consists of seeking new ways to re-frame it. It's not 'fuzziness' or 'mystical thinking' but extremely clear-eyed, indeed to deny it is to loose all sight of the boundary between science and philosophy proper.
[quote=Emrys Westacott, The Continuing Relevance of Immaneul Kant; https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/11/the-continuing-relevance-of-immanuel-kant.html] According to Kant, the very nature of science means that it is limited to certain kinds of understanding and explanation, and these will never satisfy us completely. For as he says in the first sentence of the Critique, human reason has this peculiarity: it is driven by its very nature to pose questions that it is incapable of answering. Now hardheaded types may dismiss out of hand as not worth asking any questions that don't admit of scientific answers. This, one imagines, is Mr. Spock's position, and possibly such an attitude will one day take over completely. But I suspect Kant is right on this matter for two reasons.
One reason is that in our search for explanations we find it hard to be content with brute contingency. If we ask, āWhy did this happen?ā we will not be satisfied with the answer, āIt just did.ā If we ask, āWhy are things this way?ā we expect more than, āThat's just the way things are.ā Yet however deep science penetrates into the origin of things or the nature of things, it never seems to eliminate that element of contingency, and it is hard to see how it ever can. Leibniz's question, āWhy is there something rather than nothing?ā will always be waiting.
A second reason, which I suspect is related to the first, is that some questions we pose probably can't be answered, yet we ask them anyway because they express an abiding sense of wonder, mystery, concern, gratitude or despair over the conditions of our existence. Why am I this particular subject of experience? Why am I alive now and not at some other time? What should I do with my life? Why do I love this person, and why is our love so important? Such thoughts may take the form of questions, but they are really expressions of amazement and perplexity. The feelings expressed fuel religion, poetry, music, and the other arts. They also often accompany experiences we think of as especially valuable or profound: for instance, being present at a birth or a death, feeling great love, witnessing heroism, or encountering overwhelming natural beauty.[/quote]
Quoting Banno
Perhaps you were indulging yourself in a little hyperbole then?
I would say that what has happened is the problem has been dissipated, but that you mistook the solution for another rendering. Quoting Wayfarer
...you say that like it were a bad thing. Quoting Emrys Westacott, The Continuing Relevance of Kant
And yet philosophers keep trying, when the only appropriate response is silence.
Or music.
Or poetry, or art, or architecture, or philosophy as an exercise of the imagination, or even sometimes as a stimulus to scientific investigation, as Popper, distancing himself from the Positivists of the Vienna School, acknowledged.
But what if we evolved to be able to sense extra dimensions or some such. Could we get closer to knowing reality that way?
No, not philosophy. As soon as it makes the attempt it becomes nonsense. And if it succeeds it is no longer philosophy.
I don't think that's actually a logical imperative. It's one solution to a problem.
I didn't suggest it is. I was asking about a gradient or spectrum. Is there some reason to rule that out?
...after the Enlightenment only natural philosophers, i.e. scientists, became important to the ppl. Before then they lived in blessed autonomy, studying the stars and the earth only with the intention of knowing for themselves alone how the world works and is arranged by nature; afterwards, having made a pact with the devil so to speak and sold their souls, they were forced to make vaccines...and atomic bombs.
In other words, the modern scientist, as opposed to the ancient one, is ambiguous: does he study these things out of disinterested desire for knowledge, or because his country needs that knowledge to placate its citizenry or overcome another country? Hitler drove the Jewish scientists out of Germany to America, where they collaborated to produce the atomic bomb, which we used to stop fascism. But those same scientists, whatever their political leanings, did not use the same intellectual rigor they employed in their atomic science when they chose what to do when they saw their ppl being oppressed and exterminated...
...this introduced a disparity between a Democritus and a Socrates that didnāt exist in ancient times. A Russian scientist relies upon his peers in other countries to gain the knowledge he needs in order to make a bomb or vaccine. This makes him cosmopolitan. But what he does with that bomb or vaccine depends upon the regime under which he labors, which makes him part of an autocracy. The Enlightenmentās merging of science and society produced both benefit to each...but also a compromise of both the formerās and latterās aims.
Personally, I reject the idea that there is any "in itself" that could not, at least in principle, become a 'for us'. We can easily imagine that there is an ineffable, but what could it mean for us in rationally discursive terms, when to mean something in those terms would entail rendering the ineffable effable, and thus dissolving the distinction?
Poetry, mysticism, religion go the closest to invoking the ineffable, but they cannot render it effable in rationally discursive terms.
That's the result when you teach only criticism. Before criticism, you have to learn what the actual idea is and how it explains issues. By only teaching criticism you make people negative and hopeless.
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
How about a method?
Wouldnāt the method be the tool?
Whether we could tell that we're evolving toward increased knowledge is a separate issue.
Quoting Janus
The in-itself is not about ineffability. It's that we don't apparently learn that, for instance, physical objects have spacial and temporal extension.
So the idea is that we're sort of projecting an environment for the things we encounter.
This is an interesting related idea, though: IIT theory of consciousness.
The detective is the murderer! There's not much you can do about the murders without compromising the investigation. So, you may fault science all you want, you'll still need it to fix the problems. I consider that a win for science.
Quoting Banno
:lol:
@Jack Cummins I was just thinking about how science seems to operate. There's a lot of cases in the scientific world in which discoveries/inventions in one are turn out to be critical to discoveries/inventions in other areas as well e.g. CT scans and MRIs used in medicine began life in physics. This sometimes gives us the impression that the sciences are a well-coordinated system of ideas, working synergistically, complementing each other, like an orchestra playing music with a unity of purpose. This would be an ideal scenario, but alas, such is not always true - plastics, the internal combustion engine, pesticides, to name a few of the major sources of pollution are unmistakable signs that the orchestra of science needs more work than we thought it did.
I don't understand what you are saying here, frank.The idea of the in itself, per Kant, is the idea that there must be things in themselves (noumena) which appear to us as temporal phenomena. As far as I understand it, Kant claimed that, because space and times are the "pure forms of intuition", they cannot be predicated of things in themselves. And the same must be said of all his twelve categories of judgement, as they are only relevant to experience.
So the upshot of the idea of the thing in itself is that we can say nothing about it ( except that we can say nothing about it and that nothing we say could be relevant to it, since the relevant context of anything said is experience, and, by definition, things in themselves are not within the ambit of experience.
Quoting frank
I don't see how this follows; the idea seems incoherent, because it cannot be me or you or any individual projecting an environment which is patently independent of individuals; which means that the idea that it is projected could only make sense if a collective mind were posited. But the idea of a collective mind is purely speculative and could never be confirmed or falsified by experience.
Quoting frank
I'll check it out, thanks.
Quoting ssu
My tool is not a method. :wink:
:100:
Yes. Science gives us models to frame reality. Reality as it appears to human beings, which appear to include aspects of reality that are mind-independent.
But it doesn't go beyond. It can't. Science only goes so far as the phenomenon we study impinges itself on our mode of cognition. But it's still a representation. By postulating things in themselves, we put in a framework that signals "beyond here we cannot venture", in part because we are the creatures we are, and in part because we cannot exhaust nature.
Quoting Janus
This notion that the idea of the in-itself is rendered valueless by virtue of its absence from ordinary conversation is an apparently clever nugget, but pretty far off point.
The argument for the thing-in-itself is about apriori knowledge. Yes, it ends up being ineffable, but that's just incidental.
This sounds somewhat puffer-fishish.
Cudworth postulated things in themselves before Kant and Chomsky thinks Cudworth ideas are more interesting than Kant, he doesn't think "things in themselves" are an empty idea.
Kant was a Newtonian which is why he postulated space and time to be a priori. He didn't just postulate things in themselves for the fun of it or trying to be obscure.
On the other hand Schopenhauer was a Kantian and built on that system. One of the portraits hanging in Einstein's office in Berlin were of Faraday, Maxwell and Schopenhauer. He apparently did not think it silly that Schopenhauer built the system he did.
But if it's pufferfish to you, then fine.
And they are Australian, so of course they are deadly.
They are also known as blowfish.
I prefer to tangle with Box Jellyfish. Pointless and painful, I'm told. :wink:
But different strokes...
Would really like to believe that but...did you ever win a prize, a medal, a certificate, or the like for "...how you play the game..."?
I haven't said anything like that " the in-itself is rendered valueless by virtue of its absence from ordinary conversation".
And Kant's argument is not really about a priori knowledge, but asserts the logically analytic entailment that if there are appearances, then there must be "something" that appears.
What about a method? I wish to discuss science as an understanding of reality - relative to a religious, political and economic ideological understanding of reality. Do they describe different things?
I'm not suggesting that a scientific understanding of reality is anything more/or less than a description of reality. But it is not a description of mere perceived phenomena.
There are many things in science we cannot perceive directly - and further, science works. Applying scientific principles, we create technologies that function within a causal reality, and the closer the technology approximates the scientific principle, the better the technology works. For example:
"It was not until the 1920s that AndrƩ Chapelon began to apply the theories of Thermodynamics to the design of steam locomotives, with immediate and dramatic results. Unfortunately his work remained poorly understood in most steam locomotive design offices around the world and it was only in the 1950s that Livio Dante Porta took up the mantle and continued the work that Chapelon had started."
https://www.advanced-steam.org/ufaqs/thermodynamics/
Thermodynamics must describe something real. It's not subjectively constructed. It's valid knowledge of an objectively existing reality, that; when applied to locomotive design, resulted in better functioning engines.
Kant is a prime example of philosophy confirming the position of the Church - that science is suspect of heresy; leading to the promotion of subjectivity/spirituality - over objectivity/the mundane.
"Oliver Bullied is often quoted as saying: āThermodynamics never sold a single locomotiveā (or words to that effect) when commenting on Chapelonās contemporary locomotive developments in France. Whether true or apocryphal, the remark exemplifies the lack of understanding of Thermodynamics that was widely prevalent within the locomotive engineering fraternity of his day."
Human development is retarded by religious/subjectivist anti-science attitudes. We are headed for extinction, and people like you are unwilling to admit you're in the wrong, because this terrifies you:
"science 'proves' or 'shows' that the universe, as such, is devoid of meaning, purpose or intention."
How can that be so when you are in the universe, and clearly it is your meaning, intention or purpose to crap on science until the sky catches fire?
Quoting Banno
Iām not claiming that there is āgood scienceā and ābad scienceā - only that the āgoodā or ābadā of science is where aspects of the scientific method (such as formulating both the question and conclusion/explanation) are excluded from the responsibility of āscienceā.
Quoting Banno
Science is part of understanding, not simply āknowing stuffā for the sake of it. To isolate āscienceā from its real world application - relegated to blindly producing āoptions for what we can doā - is a fairly recent development: one, maybe two centuries old. Personally, I believe that science is as responsible for the choice of narrative as it is for the knowledge. But the distinction between theoretical and experimental sciences, the call to Shut Up and Calculate, or the business structures of Big Pharma, are just some ways that āscientistsā distance themselves from such responsibilities.
At the 1634 trial of Galileo, the Church decried science as heresy - divorcing science as a tool, from science as an understanding of reality. We used the tools, but did not observe science as an understanding of reality. So it's not that:
Quoting Possibility
...but that a scientific understanding of reality is afforded no moral authority relative to the religious, political and economic ideological architecture of society.
Quoting Banno
It's not the hubris of science, but a lack of modesty by the Church. If science is valid knowledge of reality, and reality is Created by God, then science is valid knowledge of Creation, and the Church declared the word of God heresy. That's why the world is going to Hell. We worship an old book about Creation, rather than the Creation itself.
You speak of the need to orchestrate science definitely there is a need for it to come up with some solutions to problems it creates, like pollution and damage to ecology. Really, I think that any approach which sees science as completely positive is extremely one sided. Do we assume that nuclear weapons are completely beneficial?
I think that praising science may be a bit premature because if humanity continues in the direction it is going, in using resources as it had done future generations, and other life forms are likely to suffer, and mass destruction through nuclear weapons presents a potential threat.So, while it appears that science has won on this site, I don't think it is nearly as simple in reality. Even beyond ecology, many of the solutions create problems as well as solving them. The most obvious is the way in which many forms of medication have side effects. This usually does not mean that we would not want to take medication, but often, newer drugs are being created to have lesser side effects.
I think that part of the reason why the tone on this thread is extremely positive towards science is because a lot of people in the world feel that science in the form of vaccines are being used to overcome the pandemic. I am certainly willing to have the vaccine and hope that it provides a solution globally. However, it is not straightforward, or completely clear that the vaccine has solved the problem, with potential mutations. I believe that the battle is not over in any definitive way, and it could be with us for many years to come potentially.
I am sure that science will win on this thread, but it doesn't mean it has won completely in the world. I am not against science, but I see it as mixture of potential for benefit or harm, with a lot of unanswered questions about the future.
Previously, I explained to you that nuclear weapons are science mis-applied for ideological reasons; and that there's no reason grounded in a scientific understanding of reality to create nuclear weapons.
Was there a good reason you'd ignored this? Or are your reasons for ignoring this, your own convenience?
I do agree that with you that nuclear weapons are science mis- applied for political reasons. I was not ignoring what you said, but just trying to write a very short summary of potential problems of science. I believe that, in reality, the topic could be so extensive really, especially where the political aspects of science come in.
You quite clearly blame science for nuclear weapons, and the climate and ecological crisis. But if science is "just a tool" how can science be to blame?
(Are you Amish? Then you shouldn't be using a computer!)
Arguably, you have a point where you say:
Quoting Jack Cummins
But how does that not translate, in your head - for the need to regulate the development and application of technology with regard to a scientific understanding of reality?
These are a few of my favourite themes. Of course we evolved, but through reason and language we escape from biological determinism. Never make the mistake of thinking that reason can be understood through the lens of biological evolution.
Quoting counterpunch
Nobody who knows the least thing about Kant would ever make that claim.
Quoting Wayfarer
"Kant was born on 22 April 1724 into a Prussian German family of Lutheran Protestant faith in Kƶnigsberg, East Prussia. Baptized Emanuel, he later changed the spelling of his name to Immanuel after learning Hebrew. He was brought up in a Pietist household that stressed religious devotion, humility, and a literal interpretation of the Bible."
Philosophically, Kant is a subjectivist. Subjectivity maintains the priority of the subjective/spiritual, over the mundane/objective.
I cannot copy and paste from this link, but it's incorrect that nobody thinks this. See:
Immanuel Kant, Subjectivism, and Human Geography: A Preliminary Investigation
D. N. Livingstone and R. T. Harrison
https://www.jstor.org/stable/622294?seq=1
I am not Amish, whoever he is. I think that I made it clear that I am not actually against science per se. Of course, I use computers and I am starting to spend more and more time on my phone.
I think that it is true to say that it is about the need for application and regulations of technology, but I don't have complete confidence in many world leaders in doing this. I am sure the approaches vary so much throughout the world. As it is now, I fear that we are on the brink of seeing catastrophic events and effects in the world, as a result of the misuse of science. Climate change is accelerating to such an extent, and from my reading of this, it could mean that conditions become unbearable in some Third World countries. It is also so hard to predict or picture how life will be in our countries in two to three centuries time, and on a much larger scale.
On this site, most of us are from developed nations Many are from the USA, and I am from England. I believe that it is too easy to see things from the narrow confines of our lives, rather than from a more global perspective, and with a view to future generations. I am not an antinatalist but can see that kind of critique as pointing to a possible future which may be extremely difficult for many people, especially when petroleum resources are diminished. I know from some posts that you have written you are concerned for science to be able to address the environmental issues. I do agree with you basically, but I think that it is going to take a lot of work to ensure that science works to resolve the problems which have been created.
I believe that it is likely that scientists probably come from various political angles. Also, funding of science is probably dependent on structures which are interconnected to power structures. I am definitely in favour of addressing ecological threats, but I think that it is very complicated and I feel that the future of the human race is very precarious. Rather just sit back and praise science, it may be that we need to see how we can progress to try to avert some of the hazards which are linked to the way science has progressed, to try to safeguard future humanity and other lifeforms.
The Amish are a religious sect in the US that forgoes the use of modern technology. They are admirable people in many ways - very hardworking and innovative. Famed for barn raising. If everyone lived as they do, sustainability wouldn't be an issue. But of course that's unrealistic.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Me either, and I've just read the report of yesterday's G7 climate conference.
https://www.g7uk.org/g7-climate-and-environment-ministers-communique/
I hate to appear ungrateful for what does seem like serious progress on these issues, but 'net zero by 2050' is not going to be enough. The 420ppm of carbon already in the atmosphere is consistent with 2'C temp rise by 2100. With the addition of approx 3 ppm per year, that's 510 ppm by 2050, consistent with 5'C average global temperature rise by 2100 - if we reach net zero.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The danger is that equatorial forest like the Amazon and Congo dry out and catch fire, like California and Australia last year. Game over. A further danger is that methane deposits in ocean sediments are released, and catch fire - like methane from defrosting Russian arctic tundra is on fire. Game over. Every year the probability these scenarios will occur is increased. We need to positively extract carbon from the atmosphere - not just emit less, or none of it. That's not enough.
Exactly, and of which there are but two members of such āenvironmentā......space and time.
The Kantian āan sichā of the full āding an sichā, is that which is not ever encountered by us. āIn itselfā makes explicit ānot usā, and it is quite obvious we can say nothing of that of which we are necessarily excluded.
āāāā-
Quoting frank
Correct. We cannot say whether or not space and time are properties of objects. But of course, the common metaphysical rejoinder is, that they are. To which Kant argues, if such is the case, in order for us to experience anything whatsoever, we are forced to grant ā....two self-subsisting nonentities, infinite and eternal, which exist (yet without there being anything real) for the purpose of containing in themselves everything that is real...ā, an absurdity.
āāāāā
Quoting frank
No, it isnāt. It is about the limit of human experience, or, which is the same thing, a posteriori knowledge. The purpose of the first critique is to expose the natural excesses of pure reason, and to set the proper boundaries for it, in accordance with a particular speculative theory.
āāāā-
Quoting counterpunch
This is catastrophically false. Or, in the interest of proper dialectic, I have no familiarity with anything Kantian that sustains such an assertion, and would certainly appreciate citations in support of it. While it is the case Kant belonged to a religious civil society, and his benefactor was indeed a religious individual, Kant himself had no such overt inclinations, at least as witnessed in his metaphysics and most certainly not in his moral philosophy.
The church may well have thought science to be suspect of heresy; Kant, on the other hand, was a Newtonian first, and an era-specific theoretical ānatural philosopherā in his own right, second, re: nebula theory, plate tectonics, refutation of absolute space and time, so can hardly be said to confirm science as heretical.
Sapere aude.
My thoughts also. It seems to me the whole point of the physical sciences is to increase the human population. However, it appears that this virus was created by science so perhaps this is a counter-example.
Our levels of over-population and ongoing destruction of our ecosystem would be unachievable without the material sciences and technology So every silver lining has a cloud... . .
As for whether we should praise science,this will depend on what you're calling science. If you mean the scientific method then okay. If you mean the modern scientific mindset then this deserves vilification. If you mean the science of Yoga then okay. If you mean the science of scientific consciousness studies then we're back to derision and vilification.
So much depends on what you're calling 'science'. .
No. It is more of a by product in some limited areas pertinent to human health.
That's a disastrously naĆÆve thing to say.
Kant is subjectivist. Subjectivism supports the Church's position on science - and this obvious on the face of it; that the spiritual and the subjective are alike, and are opposed to the objective and the mundane. Science is objective knowledge. By emphasising the subjective, Kant undermines the the objective, and thereby science.
The fact that:
Quoting Mww
...is neither here nor there. Kant is wrong, because subjectivism is wrong.
Subjectivism was only conceived of by Descartes after Galileo was put on trial for the heresy of proving the earth orbits the sun. And his argument in Mediations, for the foundational subjectivist principle - cogito ergo sum, is a skeptical argument. His method of doubt is unreasonable. Descartes imagines an evil demon is deceiving him - and thereby dispenses with the object world.
In reality, we see the world as it really is. Our senses are limited, but accurate to reality, and this must be so - because otherwise we could not have survived our evolutionary history. An ape ancestor swinging through the forest canopy, that saw the next branch further away, or closer than it actually is - would plummet to its death. That so, empiricism and objectivity are valid of reality, and prior to subjectivity.
ignorantia iuris nocet
The proponents of scientism define science to be so different from political or economic investigations. Yet one can be objective, trying to observe reality without any personal or ideological agenda and do this from the viewpoint of politics, economy, even looking at the religious aspects using the same methods as in scientific research.
Yea, ok. I mispoke. I took Janus to be saying that if we talk about it, we're conjuring it, so it's not ineffable anymore.
I was trying to explain that the idea, whether one accepts it or not, is not something so ineffable one can't even mention it. That's ridiculous.
Do you know much about the IIT theory of consciousness?
I'm not a proponent of scientism, in that, I don't argue that science can establish values. I maintain that morality is a sense - like humour or aesthetics; and that, contrary to Hume's is/ought dichotomy, we rightfully prioritise scientific facts in terms of this innate moral sense.
Your values and my values may be quite different; such that, we can look at the same list of facts, and prioritise them differently, to reach different conclusions about what we 'ought' to do.
This is why Popper is wrong; in Enemies of an Open Society, where he argues that accepting science as truth would lead to dictatorship. We would not be forced to "make our representations conform" to science as truth, because our representations are in terms of our values, in terms of which we understand the facts.
Why would we assume a limit for human experience? Isn't it that noting the apriori status of knowledge of time and space seemed to indicate that those are purely native ideas? We can't see beyond our own projection.
:rofl:
I got a bit confused because I had not come across the Arnish and I have known a guy called Anish. I would imagine it is very difficult to manage without technology. I would miss playing CDs too much, and I couldn't manage without a mobile phone, as most things are dependent on them for most of the things we do. I use mine to read and write on this site. If my phone went wrong I would be rather lost until I got it fixed or got a new one.
No, he is not, at least insofar as he undermines the objective. He undermines pure reasonās, and thereby the transcendental subjectās, proclivity for over-estimating the objective. He doesnāt limit the objective, he only exposes the human limit for understanding it.
Quoting counterpunch
Correct, but we donāt care about what we see, as much we wish to be certain about our knowledge of what we see. It makes no difference to us whatās out there, we care only about how it relates to us.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't speak teenage girl. Could you explain what's amusing you?
Is it that Jack hasn't heard of the Amish?
Because that's no cause for mockery, is it?
You should not seek to make it embarrassing to learn things!
:100: :up:
While I'm not going to disagree with you since you're right of course (double-edged swords are the norm), the fact that everything (actions, thoughts, words, etc.) is like that - comes with both pros and cons - kinda makes it meaningless to say that science has a "...potential for benefit or harm..."
Do you think Banno, the OP, doesn't know that? The OP in my humble opinion is highlighting the fact that unlike the others, science has an inbuilt course-correction mechanism i.e. it detects its own flaws and autocorrects them. This particular highly-desirable feature seems unique to science, its self-improvement at its finest. That is, in my humbld opinion, Banno's message.
Quoting counterpunch
Sorry Jack Cummins. No offense intended.
It's what Odin learned when he drank from the well of wisdom. The medal was the hole in his face where he pulled out his right eye to pay the well keeper.
Which just goes to show, it's all fun and games until somebody...
Because we are forced to admit the impossible. In the human cognitive system, for every conception, the negation of it is given immediately. It follows that because some experiences are possible, there are necessarily some experiences that are impossible. Given a speculative theory in which the possibility of experience of objects is predicated on space and time, that which is not so predicated, or not known to be so predicated in accordance with that same theory, will be impossible as an experience.
ā....It is a matter of indifference, whether I say, "I may in the progress of experience discover stars, at a hundred times greater distance than the most distant of those now visible," or, "Stars at this distance may be met in space, although no one has, or ever will discover them."....ā
That there is no limit to human thought a priori is not to be aligned with the limit for experience, which is itself never merely a priori, but only conditioned by it.
āāāā-
Quoting frank
No, canāt say I do. From my well-worn armchair, consciousness doesnāt warrant a theory of its own, it being already a constituent of pure reason, which has an established theory. Iād be interested in having a nutshell thrown my way, if youāre so inclined.
1) what Kant was doing with the apriori
2) IIT theory
later.
loses an eye :rofl:
Who isn't?
"Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant's doctrine is found throughout his Critique of Pure Reason (1781). Kant argues that the conscious subject cognizes the objects of experience not as they are in themselves, but only the way they appear to us under the conditions of our sensibility. Thus Kant's doctrine restricts the scope of our cognition to appearances given to our sensibility and denies that we can possess cognition of things as they are in themselves, i.e. things as they are independently of how we experience them through our cognitive faculties."
Yes, he is!
Quoting Mww
Spoken like a true subjectivist!
I admit to confusion, but I think that many try to form definitive answers, and, really, I feel that their approach is more of a philosophical danger, as I have named it.
'Science should be at the centre of all policy making'
By Prof Ruth Morgan
University College London
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56994449
Well, we are human beings. Not Gods.
What other realistic scenario exists?
Quoting Manuel
You could be a Dog!
Pretty sure politically correct subjectivists would support your assertion of canine identity!
Let's hope that the scientists address the problems before it is too late. But, I don't think that we should sing any hymns of praise for them until there is a certain amount of evidence that the ideas are being put into practice with substantive effects.
Ok?
If I were a dog, I wouldn't be able to write dogs don't have language.
They seem to lack a science forming faculty as well. But maybe they're hiding the secrets to a unified ToE.
...in this day and age. It's downright surreal; surrounded by technological miracles, standing on the edge of extinction from climate change, and an academic has to write to the BBC to point out that science is important. And you still begrudge science the least little credit, until its solves all the problems anti science religious philosophers have caused by shitting on science for the past 400 years. Unbelievable! Do you not understand this is your fault?
I have already said that I am not against science and really I am not sure of the point the thread is even trying to make, because it is not as if it is being opposed by loads of evangelists who are trying to argue that evolution is false.
On this site, there seems to be a big divide between those who believe in God and those who are atheists. However, I don't think that this would simply be about those who believe in God being against science and atheists favouring science. The relationship between science and religion is complex. Of course, some religious believers were opposed to science. Also, religious ideas have often contributed to political ideologies, but these probably incorporated science. We all use science everyday in most aspects of life, in ways we take for granted.
But science is such an umbrella term, and I don't really feel that we need to praise science because it does not require us to do so, like we were taught to revere and worship God. But, I appreciate medical science and a lot of comforts connected to technological progress.
The problem with science is that it is done with the purpose of solving the problem of suffering -- and then it doesn't deliver, it just makes people oblivious to suffering, or implies or even declares people to be the actual problem (the good old "no man, no problem").
Science is, basically, putting lipstick on a pig.
There is a lot of knowledge that is completely useless, depending on one's time and circumstance.
Does knowing what the halflife of plutonium is in any way help a person to make wise career choices, for example?
Quoting Banno
You look like a true believer, so that nothing could convince you otherwise.
So thatās your notion of what constitutes subjectivism, such that Kant is a proponent of it? Are we then to say any rational being is a subjectivist? Apparently, then, any being in possession of cognitive faculties is subjectivist? Much to broad a brush, to apply a lumpy paint, methinks.
This is actually what he said, as opposed to what somebody else said he said:
ā....It would be unjust to accuse us of holding the long-decried theory of empirical idealism **, which, while admitting the reality of space, denies, or at least doubts, the existence of bodies extended in it, and thus leaves us without a sufficient criterion of reality and illusion. (...)
Transcendental idealism allows that the objects of external intuitionāas intuited in space, and all changes in timeāas represented by the internal sense, are real. For, as space is the form of that intuition which we call external, and, without objects in space, no empirical representation could be given us, we can and ought to regard extended bodies in it as real. The case is the same with representations in time. But time and space, with all phenomena therein, are not in themselves things. They are nothing but representations and cannot exist out of and apart from the mind. Nay, the sensuous internal intuition of the mind (as the object of consciousness), the determination of which is represented by the succession of different states in time, is not the real, proper self, as it exists in itselfānot the transcendental subjectābut only a phenomenon, which is presented to the sensibility of this, to us, unknown being. This internal phenomenon cannot be admitted to be a self-subsisting thing; for its condition is time, and time cannot be the condition of a thing in itself. But the empirical truth of phenomena in space and time is guaranteed beyond the possibility of doubt, and sufficiently distinguished from the illusion of dreams or fancyāalthough both have a proper and thorough connection in an experience according to empirical laws....ā
(** re: Berkeley and his dogmatic subjectivism)
Will a subjectivist, as you mean it, grant āthe objects of external intuition (....) are realā? And that we āought to regard extended bodies...as realā?
Correct me if Iām wrong, but if subjectivism absolutely requires a phenomenal subject, and such phenomenal subject ācannot be admitted to be a self-subsisting thingā, then what is it that makes Kant a subjectivist?
If you must attribute to Kant some -ist that he does not himself endorse, perhaps ācognitive representationalistā might better suit the need.
(Insert thanks, appreciate it thingy here)
Sure!
I like Kant. But compared to you, I wouldn't dare provide even a bare bones description of what I think he's articulating. I'd be massively embarrassed in mere seconds. So I'll stick to Schopenhauer, Chomsky and what I believe to be true based on things I've read and thought about myself, which can be called roughly "Kantian".
So yes, I think you are correct in this topic. And I think such a philosophy shouldn't even be controversial in general, it should be obvious. But, if it were, we wouldn't be arguing philosophy. And that's not realistic. :wink:
You have my attention! What exactly do you mean by "philosophical dangers"?
Well, ya know.....as with any theory, it all depends on oneās initial position. Used to be, pre-Enlightenment, either top-down, in that the external holds sway, or bottom-up, in that the internal holds sway, and oneās personal philosophy was taken from which was favored.
The Kantian paradigm shift occurred when the two were, not so much combined, as taken as equally necessary in their own right, which served to, for all practical purposes, dismiss both Hume-ian top-down empiricism (all are things in themselves) and Berkeley-ian bottom-up subjectivism (none are things in themselves).
The missing ground for the possibility of that equality, was the theoretical/logical proof for the validity of pure a priori cognitions, as the only means for humans to bridge the gap between what is known, and what is merely thought, for both are inarguably resident in the human rational system.
āāāā-
Quoting Manuel
All well and good; it is the way of the common understanding, which is just about everybody. Metaphysical reductionism asks, nonetheless.....if a thing is true why merely believe it, and, if a mere belief, on what ground can it be true, this first brought to light, of course, by the Socratic dialogues and dialectical arguments in general. Usually partaken by those with nothing better to do. (Grin)
Sure. But that path of reductionism just leads to ever smaller relations of units of stuff. If that provides a satisfactory answer to those that use such methods, well good for them. It doesn't seem like a very coherent idea to doubt the given in such a manner that it is eventually denied. But what's the basis for the denial if not the given itself? But then there's no reason to trust anything, it seems to me. That's problematic.
As Galen Strawson points out, by quoting Democritus:
"The Intellect speaks first: There seems to be colour, there seems to be sweetness, there seems to be bitterness. But really there are only atoms and the void. But then The Senses reply: Poor Intellect, do you hope to defeat us while from us you borrow your evidence? Your victory is your defeat."
Having nothing better to do can be entertaining, at the very least. :grimace:
HA!!! True dat, amigo.
Yeah...the bane of idealism, even Kantās: seemings. Canāt empirically prove āem, canāt rationally get rid of āem. Nature of the beast.
Just because we canāt prove doesnāt mean we canāt trust, and then have to doubt. Both radical skepticism and metaphysical reductionism have logical boundaries, after all.
Quoting Manuel
Smaller units of stuff implies empirical reductionism, right? For that reason, I stipulated metaphysical reductionism, which pertains to ever smaller units of conception. Prime example......A = A. The logical laws. In Aristotle and Kant, among others perhaps, there are also the categories. Gotta start somewhere and the irreducible offers the least possibility for contradiction.
Quoting Manuel
Absolutely. Pretty silly, aināt it?
Galen looks too much like Art Garfunkel. Makes me think heās going to sing. He also rejects free will, so thereās two strikes. Good quote, though. Quite apropos.
I began using the term philosophical danger during discussion with you on one of your threads and I think that you saw it like a movie, often with a girl going somewhere she should not go. You also spoke of cats' 9 lives and wondering if you had used yours. I wonder how many lives we have on the forum and whether there are threads where we should not go. I also see dangers as being related to untying philosophical knots, and like being in a Celtic maze or labyrinth.
What is the problem with seemings in Kant? I've read some of him, but I don't recall thinking to myself that this was a problem for his philosophy, unless his thought is confused with Berkeley's
Aren't seemings simultaneously given and (partially or in some important aspects) a priori? I have to continue reading C.I. Lewis on this topic, it's interesting...
Quoting Mww
Yes. That's the kind that is fashionable nowadays, the empirical one: Dennett, Churchland(s) and (heaven forbid this lunacy) Rosenberg. The latter literally believes "there is nothing but fermions and bosons"... :roll:
Quoting Mww
He does. But it's one of those debates that don't seem fruitful to me. I mean, I think it exists but if others deny it, whatever.
But I understand others who find it interesting. That's the nature of philosophy.
The problem of seemings is in people generally, not Kant specifically. For Kantian idealism to deal with seemings, or, which for all intents and purposes is the same thing, feelings, takes a different approach than epistemology. Thatās all Iām saying.
Banno invited people to disagree with the proposition that science is good - and here you are, saying science is the cause of climate change and nuclear weapons. I explain to you that this is a science as an ideological whore; stripped of moral authority as truth, initially by the Church, and then subjectivist philosophy - starting with Descartes, while Galileo was on trial for heresy, he withdrew publication of 'The World' on physics, and wrote Meditations on First Philosophy. He then got a cushy job in the Royal Court of Queen Christina of Sweden.
(It didn't go at all well, but still - title bump for towing the Church's anti science line, while Galileo narrowly escaped being executed and excommunicated, and merely suffered threats of torture, denunciation of his works, and ten years house arrest.)
You're very polite. I think you've got it, and then, two pages later it's the same again.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The left are notoriously atheistic; but the left are subjectivist, and refuse to notice that subjectivism is a synonym for the spiritual, conceived of in defence of the Church's anti science position. (I'm not atheist BTW - I'm agnostic. Unlike Dawkins, I don't conflate religion and God. I think there's a prima facie case for the existence of God - no proof either way, but it remains a valid question.)
Quoting Jack Cummins
Safe bet, softly spoken. How reasonable you appear - until one considers the excluded middle; here, that political authority is justified with reference to religious authority. The Divine Right of Kings remained in force as Galileo languished in purgatory; and science used for political ends slowly turned the world to Hell. We're not quite there yet, but it's coming Jack - will you not, now in all reasonableness accept that science has not been afforded its due?
Quoting Jack Cummins
This faint praise you offer from illegitimately occupied high ground is no praise at all. Science is not just a tool to use at your convenience. It's also an authoritative understanding of reality, that religious subjectivists have decried as heresy, and undermined and downplayed for 400 years, and used as a tool to achieve their own ends, until the human species is threatened with extinction. So here, where you say:
Quoting Jack Cummins
Why turn to science to save you if it's not true? Have you tried praying for a solution to climate change? Surely, God will save you. Or, better yet, because reality is subjectively constructed, if we all just ignore climate change, subjectively, it won't exist!
If you turn to science to save you because, actually, you know it is true - why not accept that? I'm not asking for hymns of praise. Just stop victim blaming science for the injury religious subjectivists have inflicted upon it, and thereby, the world.
This alone ought be enough for any scientifically literate person to reject Kant.
I'll ride along with that, and go back to the discussion I had with @frank:Quoting Banno
I'll maintain that science has until now been overwhelmingly for the betterment of humanity; while at the same time agreeing that it has brought with it immense difficulty. Further, science is vital to our continued flourishing. We know of global warming only because of the efforts of scientists, especially over the last fifty years; those same scientists who are being ignored by policy makers.
Your question of whether I blame science for nuclear weapons and climate change is interesting. I don't think I do. It probably comes down to blaming humanity, whether it is for developments in religion or science.
I think sure that I go back into loops at times, after I appear to have already moved on in thinking. If I look at what I have written and edit it, I sometimes notice certain tangents. This happens more if I am writing under time pressure and in several threads in one day. But, I do think I was have some inconsistencies in my thinking and part of the reason why I engage in philosophy is to try to smooth these out, and I see it as an ongoing process.
I come from a religious background, which I have questioned, but I am not an actual atheist. I keep an open mind. You speak of the whole question of turning to religion or science and that is interesting because I do have friends who are religious and tell me to pray. I remember last year when the pandemic began that one of my friends said that we are at the end times, as described by the Bible. I think that there are a lot of people who do believe that we are. While I am not religious, I grew up thinking we were and, at times, I do notice such ideas coming into my head. But, generally my outlook does incorporate science, but I try to be take a wide multidisciplinary approach.
One thought which I have just thought is whether Banno, or other writers on this site are taking science to be mainly the physical sciences, or to include the social sciences too? I am not sure that it matters entirely, although if the social sciences are included that means more of a critical analysis perspective.
I am glad this was noted.
FIrst, can I distance myself from @counterpunch, please? Keep us seperate.
Social science does well when it adopts what MadFool called the "inbuilt course-correction mechanism" of science, but has an unfortunate additional problem of recursion: the social theory becomes a part of the very thing it seeks to study. Perhaps the clearest examples are in economics, were for example the Kensian description of the economy was adopted by policy makers, making it near impossible to seperate the experiment from the theory being tested; numerous other examples might be found - critical theory being another such.
Improvements in our understanding of the maths of complexity and chaos hint at ways to work within such self-reflexive frameworks.
Did I misunderstand?
Quoting Jack Cummins
This is where I came in - to explain that science is not to blame, because nuclear weapons and climate change are the consequence of science as a tool - divorced from science as an understanding of reality, stripped of the moral authority it rightfully owns, and misused.
I've been thinking about this particular subject for many many years, and I accept that your immediate thoughts on it are almost certain to be less well formed. You fear philosophical dangers, but they're based in 400 years of philosophy that's constructed those dangers. I assure you Jack, these are illusory. You fear nihilism - but Nietzsche was wrong. Primitive man was not an amoral brute - fooled by the weak. If he were, his tribe could not have survived. Further, nihilism upholds no value that requires you accept nihilism. Morality is fundamentally a sense, ingrained into the human organism by evolution in a tribal context. Religion, politics, economics, law, philosophy etc; are expressions of that innate moral sense. They stand, albeit on a more rational (and democratic) basis.
Sure. Makes sense.
Yeah, well......as long as itās only āought to beā......
Science doesnāt correct itself. Scientists correct themselves and science follows.
Of course, the same goes for science.
It's free anesthesia whose ingredients may include leeway around the issue of facts. That leeway is protected though. There's nothing you can do about it.
How do you imagine that works? I would have thought that, when it comes to the existence of God, free will and immortality, there are no facts, since facts are obtainable only in the empirical domain. If there are no metaphysical facts and where there are no empirical facts, then there would be no need for "leeway" around "the issue of (nonexistent) facts", I would have thought.
Well, there you have it.
But faith, not so much.
Faith here, following Augustin, as belief despite the facts.
Indeed, that is the antithesis of science, since it debars self-correction of one's erroneous beliefs.
This is a very common misunderstanding of the situation: in the religious context it is more properly a case of faith in the absence of, rather than despite, the facts, since there are none.
The pregnant lady whose husband is in the ICU due to gun shot wound glances at the G-man at the desk waiting for his discharge. She doesn't care about the self-correction angle
I work In a hospital, man. I got an endless supply of these. Opium of the masses.
Religion also provides social cohesion. It's been doing that for a looooong time.
You mean Bosom Of Abraham by Elvis Presley?
Well you rock my soul
Down in the bosom of Abraham
Rock, rock, rock down in the bosom of Abraham
You rock my soul down in the bosom of Abraham
Hmmm hmm oh yeah
Oh Lordy, Lordy
Ooooh rock my soul
Why don't you rock my soul?
Won't you rock my soul?
Down in the bosom of Abraham
Rock, rock, rock down in the bosom of Abraham
You rock my soul
Well the rich man lives
Where there's glory and honor
He lives so well
Won't you praise the Lord?
Children, when he dies
Where there's glory and honor
I'm home in heaven
Won't you praise the Lord?
Why don't your rock my soul?
Down in the bosom of Abraham
Rock, rock, rock down in the bosom of Abraham
You rock my soul
Down in the bosom of Abraham
Hmm hmm, oh yeah
Once again boys
Ooooh rock my soul
Why don't you rock my soul?
:ok:
The Red Zones Of Philosophy (Philosophical Dangers)
I don't know if this makes any kind of sense or even whether this has any significant philosophical meaning but much of the 5 or so years I've been participating in this forum and the old one can be summarized in one word, confusion. A couple of weeks ago I experienced an epiphany of sorts - I (finally) became aware of my confusion and it was oddly, satisfying. All this time I had been living under the dark cloud of befuddlement at its extreme and realizing that I was befuddled, bewildered, confused, and also baffled was a liberating experience for me.
[quote=Socrates]I know that I know nothing[/quote]
Quoting Janus
Faith is action in the absence of certainty, and is a key aspect of the scientific method. Without it, no experiments would ever be conducted. There is a common misunderstanding that faith is the absence of doubt, but this is not the case. Faith always carries with it the possibility of doubt, too often ignored, isolated or excluded in pursuing an illusion of certainty. Science does this too, but where the scientific method ensures ongoing critique and correction of erroneous beliefs in light of this ever-present doubt, institutionalisation in both religious and scientific structures serve to protect and preserve tradition by concealing doubt and uncertainty. I think language is a key problem area here.
On time?
I'd say you massively underestimate the population effect - but it's a complex issue.
Abraham's sacrifice of his son is the paradigm of faith in God. It is also the paradigm of everything that is wrong with such faith, the willingness to sacrifice everything.
Although, there are signs that the global population growth rate is going down. here
That would solve a lot of problems. And it's largely due to science and engineering.
True.
The story of Abraham sacrificing his son was an illustration of faith in an early (mis)understanding of God. Itās not about sacrifice (thatās just the cultural context) and itās not about God - itās about having the courage not only to act in the absence of certainty, but to continually critique and correct erroneous beliefs in the light of an ever-present doubt.
I've always figured the story of Abraham was meant to warn against human sacrifice.
The Phoenicians were known for engaging in it (although some historians doubt that it happened as much as the Phoenicians allowed people to believe.)
The Hebrews were horrified by the idea of child sacrifice. Maybe the part about the test of faith was added later to a story which originally emphasized the angel's arrest of Abraham's hand and the presentation of the sheep that Abraham sacrificed instead.
There is in the story no indication of a misunderstanding:
Abram hid what he was about to do from Isaac and his servants.
Quoting Possibility
It is not about God, it is about faith in God, and it is god who told him to do this.
Quoting Possibility
Some see this as exemplary, but others look at this example and recoil. It is not simply a matter of the absence of certainty. It is contrary to what we hold most dear. It is shocking and disturbing that he would have obeyed. Are you not certain that it would have been wrong to do this?
And yet their patriarch would have sacrificed his own son, and they still hold this up as a great example of faith.
Quoting frank
Rewriting the story is evasive. If you include the part about the angel staying his hand, you can't get rid of the part where he will obey and sacrifice his son.
This is often regarded as a story about faith, but it is more precisely about fear and obedience:
Quoting Fooloso4
We too readily assume that what is written as what āGod saidā is in fact what God actually said, as if the words were Godās actual words. Given that we have yet to confirm this is even possible (and much reason to doubt), why do we accept this without question?
The simple fact that what is apparently commanded here is not what transpired, despite Abram following it to the letter, is indication enough for me that Abraham misunderstood what (if anything) was asked of him.
Quoting Fooloso4
No, it is about faith in what we think God is. And it is what Abraham thought was God who seemed to him to communicate this request. It was also what Abraham thought was God who intervened and provided an alternative sacrifice, apparently justifying the error as a test.
Certainty is a dangerous thing.
Quoting Fooloso4
I am not Abraham. It would have been wrong for me to do this, knowing what I know. But what is wrong for Abraham is to put his own fears and desires ahead of his relation to an infinitely significant existence, of which he was aware beyond conception. Itās only disturbing when we assume the command was beyond doubt. Abraham never assumed this.
Genesis is clearly a mash-up old Sumerian stories. Maybe we just haven't found the original Abraham and Isaac story in the archeological record yet.
I was suggesting that the original story may have been.
If I am to discuss a story I take the story as it is written. If I read in a book:"Harry said" then I can safely say that according to the book this is what Harry said. If the book is a novel then the question of whether or not it was actually said goes no further. If the book purports to be historically accurate then whether Harry said this or if there even is a Harry comes into question. I do not read Genesis as history, and so the question of whether God said this goes no further than the story. I do, however, read it as a story about belief and faith.
Quoting Possibility
To me it is an indication that he did not want Abram to carry out the command. The story says nothing about a misunderstanding. But if I grant that it was a misunderstanding this still points to the danger. Many horrendous things are done because it is believed that this is God's will. In order to distinguish between what should and should not be done as a matter of faith we must turn to reason.
Quoting Possibility
Perhaps that is true of some "we", but in the Jewish tradition God is ineffable. Faith is a matter of keeping His commandments.
Quoting Possibility
Since God says that Abram loved his son (22:2), "your son, your only son" (22:12) his desire would be to keep him alive. His proper relationship with God should be one of fear (22:12)
Quoting Possibility
We are given no indication that he doubted, but even if he did, he was going to carry out the commandment.
Since we have strayed from the topic I will leave it here.
That may be. But this is the story that has been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years.
True.
I agree with you that there is no certainty, other than the tautological. You seem to be saying that we have faith in the experimental method, and in our own abilities to rationally understand, and that these things we cannot be certain of. If that is what you are saying I agree, but although faith operates in the absence of certainty, I would still maintain that there is a distinction between believing and acting in the absence of empirical evidence, and believing and acting on the basis of empirical evidence. Of course a Christian can claim that the bible constitutes evidence, but it seems clear that it cannot constitute what could be counted as empirical evidence.
No, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son is the paradigm of faith in one's own imagination. It is entirely devoid of any rational conception of a God. It is faith in voices in the head, in hallucination, delusion and psychosis. Of course Abraham could have no conception of those things, but he came good in the end.
That is correct, his is not a God of reason, but of will. He is in this way similar to Job's God and the God of Ecclesiastes. A God whose will cannot be understood by humans.
How is faith is a rational conception of God different from faith in rational conception, that is, faith in reason?
So back in the day, if you went to war with your neighbor, you were pitting yourself against their gods. Nobody wants to have a philosophy professor for their primary deity because that would attract attack.
This is supposedly the reason the Phoenicians were happy that everyone thought they did child sacrifice: because only a bad-ass god would require that.
Well, that's a different view to that espoused by others.
So what we have is that acting in the absence of certainty is rational, even inevitable, and perhaps praiseworthy. Cool, I won't disagree.
But nevertheless, believing in the face of contrary facts is not rational, and not praiseworthy. But unfortunately common. Would you agree to that?
Abraham showed himself to be willing to commit a heinous act at the command of his god. A god of whom he had direct evidence in the form of burning bushes and such. He wasn't acting on uncertainty. He chose to do what was wrong, as an act of submissions to authority. The lesson we are suppose to take form this is that one ought do as on is told.
I'm not keen on it.
Good point. Having a god who is to be feared can work in your favor, but you really have to be careful, his anger can turn against you.
So maybe the story of Abraham and Isaac is not about faith at all, but about fear.
Christians generally prefer a god of love, but given what happened to Jesus in the hands of the Romans, he does not look like a good choice to lead you into battle either.
Apologetics.
You're getting your stories mixed-up but I agree.
I think it's traditionally taken by Jews and Christians as an allegory. Fundamentalists take it literally.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes. Things changed. Jesus was the sacrifice.
A different blowfish.
An indication of my level of interest.
Right, but the question is what does the allegory mean?
Quoting frank
From the story of Abraham: "your son, your only son".
Yeah, I was going to comment that you were probably not a fan.
My view: it is part of our intellectual, spiritual, and cultural history.
If one reads Descartes' Meditations in light of the Genesis story of knowledge and the tower of Babel, what Descartes was up to takes on a whole new meaning. A topic for another thread.
It could be about obedience or a foreshadowing of the crucifixion.
I'm not sure I did say that there is a difference. My main point was that faith is belief, not in spite of the (empirical) evidence (the implication being that there is empirical evidence against the belief), but despite the lack of evidence either way.
About an authorās perspective on belief and faith, read in the context of a culture that equates worship with living sacrifice - understanding āGodā in exploring the threshold between life and death. Itās a mythical journey that Abraham takes here. The question of whether he ought to make the journey is irrelevant - as a long-dead ancestor heās a character in a story, a heuristic device, not a moral being in the world.
Quoting Fooloso4
Agreed. It is reason that Abraham brings to the relationship.
Quoting Fooloso4
Iām not defending a particular tradition. I think most religious and atheistic traditions misinterpret faith within an illusion of certainty.
Quoting Fooloso4
Says who? The amount of times the words ādo not be afraidā is attributed directly to āGodā would dispute this.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, we are - Abraham said āGod will provide the offeringā. This is no less certain than the implied intention derived from his actions. Be mindful of āreasonableā assumptions - the point here in understanding faith is to recognise the lack of certainty either way.
My point in pursuing this is to show that faith is neither exclusive to religion, nor the absence of either doubt nor reason, but certainty. It may be slightly tangential, but how we respond to uncertainty is nevertheless important to understand in this discussion āin praise of scienceā.
A problem occurs when one's faith in reason is given the absolute authority of God. As if any conclusions that they have arrived at rigorously are true. I am not accusing you of this, but speaking generally. Those doing philosophy often fall into the trap of assuming truth based on reason alone.even if they do not involve the authority of God. They mistake argument for evidence.
Personally, I think faith in our own abilities to rationally understand everything is as misplaced as faith in the bible, but thatās another discussion. Suffice to say that the bible no more counts as empirical evidence than our current level of rational understanding.
I agree that there is a distinction between acting in the absence and acting on the basis of empirical evidence. The first requires faith, the second does not. But we rarely trouble our conscious thoughts with believing and acting on the basis of empirical evidence, do we?
I don't buy it. But I am not going to argue the point.
Quoting Possibility
But the story is such that what one takes from it the that one should blindly and unquestionably obey what God commands.
Quoting Possibility
If he brought reason to the relationship he would have baulked and challenged God. He actually did this later when God was ready to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah.
Quoting Possibility
I provided the reference. Proverbs says "wisdom is fear of the Lord".
Quoting Possibility
He says this to Isaac who is about to be slaughtered. The angel stopped him from doing what he was about to do and would have done if not stopped.
Nor I.
@Possibility, again, would you agree that acting in the absence of certainty is rational, even inevitable, and perhaps praiseworthy; but nevertheless, believing in the face of contrary facts is not rational, and not praiseworthy?
Yes, Iād agree to that - and actively involved in the cultural structures of both science and religion, unfortunately.
Perhaps raising it will amount to throwing the religious blowfish back.
Here's a transcript: https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_is_the_world_getting_better_or_worse_a_look_at_the_numbers/transcript?language=en
Yes, the application of science has brought about much that is unwanted. Nevertheless, science is our best understanding of what is going on, and hence our best chance at ameliorating negative results lies not in rejecting science but in following it.
I hope you would allow that people of good will could see the politicized science of the past year very differently.
I see science like I see a gun: It's a useful tool in the hands of people who have my sense of morality, and a horrible curse in the hands of everyone else. So, science is neither good nor bad. It just is. That's why I like to see STEM follow Liberal Arts; not lead it, and definitely not going it alone.
A very 'Mercan view. Elsewhere guns are generally considered bad, or at best a necessary evil.
Here's the thing: Science is not neutral; rather it is the information needed to work out what to do next.
Everywhere else is illogical. Besides, it's not a popularity contest. It's an inanimate object.
Quoting Banno
If science is the information needed to work out what to do next, then it is neutral. Like actionable intelligence, like the gun, needed information is just a thing, as is unneeded information, or wrong information. It all boils down to the people using or failing to use it.
Thatās not my takeaway, but then Iām not putting reason aside in my interpretation. I donāt believe that āGod commandsā anything - we are only ever interpreting from a limited perspective.
Quoting Fooloso4
With Sodom (which was discussed significantly before Isaac, not after) he neither baulked nor challenged, but respectfully questioned, simulated and hypothesised - conscious that he may not yet have all the facts. And there was no place in this discussion for his own fears, desires or personal opinions. Take away the mythical element, and isnāt this reason? And does it always need to be verbalised?
Quoting Fooloso4
Different author. Much later cultural context. And āfearā here is deference - to the infinite significance of an existence/understanding beyond your own. Take away the personification, and there is nothing irrational or unreasonable about this kind of fear.
...cautiously, mindful of the qualitative and affective limitations we set in pursuit of illusions of certainty.
...that just doesn't work. If it is going to help decide between our options, then it cannot be neutral towards them If it is neutral it cannot help us make a decision.
Quoting James Riley
Other places do not give guns to children, nor have regular mass shootings in schools.
That does work. Information is not going to help decide. People help themselves to information and then people decide. People use information. Information is a tool and nothing by itself.
Quoting Banno
'Merica doesn't give guns to children either. And I've never seen a gun carry out a mass shooting.
That is in line much of the rhetoric from the gun lobby.
Cheers. Bye.
That's got to be argumentum ad sumptin', right?
If Hitler says one apple plus one apple makes for two apples, is he wrong?
Bye.
There is no point in human experience at which information exists unaffected, except as meaningless noise. How do you think we distinguish between needed and unneeded information? If science is needed information, how can it then be neutral?
Science is our limited capacity to reliably describe the ongoing distribution of attention and effort within a system, of which the observer is always the missing aspect.
Being affected does not render the inanimate animate. Nor does that render the inanimate meaningless. But it is people that make for the meaning, not the inanimate.
Quoting Possibility
Does the inanimate distinguish, or is it "we" who distinguish? You said "we distinguish." That is correct.
Quoting Possibility
Science doesn't care. Science doesn't decide if it is needed. We decide if science is needed, not science.
Quoting Possibility
The operative words in that sentence are "our", "describe" "distribution" "attention" "effort" "observer". That's us, not science. Science is inanimate. It is nothing and does not even exist without us. It is a tool that we use. Like logic. Like religion. Like a gun. Like a car. I honestly don't understand what the difficulty is here.
This position is entirely consistent with religious belief, but I do suppose it matters which religious belief we're referencing. Some do believe the world is getting better, cite the same data as you and Pinker, and even believe it headed toward perfection:
First I referred you to the Amish, now to the Hasidic:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2752144/jewish/What-Makes-You-Think-the-World-Is-Getting-Better.htm
https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/4405247/jewish/Chapter-29-Where-is-our-World-Heading.htm
Recently watched a very measured lecture on science by Susan Haack - Science, Yes; Scientism, No. Do you rate her?
Was it a vid worth the time?
Edit: this might be interesting: SIX SIGNS OF SCIENTISM
Nice.
Oh, so it's up to me to save them?
Excellent essay, says all that needs to be said, I think.
Quoting Janus
Not peer-reviewed scientific journal studies, but it does purport to contain witness testimony, and for those who accept its premisses, it presents a coherent worldview, notwithstanding that it doesnāt meet the criteria of scientific empiricism. Besides, we all believe more than we can plausibly prove or know for certain.
Considering that we'd probably need a global government and the ability to transition off of hydrocarbon fuel, that's some happy optimism you've got there. Good for you.
I though the vid was good. I'll check this out too. Cheers.
Hey, I didn't say it would work. Just that it was your best chance.
:rofl:
It's too early to comment.
Poetry denial is a huge problem in science!
Poetry used to get people laid, right? Ask Byron... If Homer was real I suspect he never went to bed alone...
Is anyone on this plane a poet?
I'm a doctor!
I need a poet, dammit!
It's a wonderful piece. Succinct and lucid.
Oddly anachronistic example toward the end.
"Sometimes, the resistance is foolish. I read, for
example, that some prominent Indian social scientists favor the traditional custom
of variolation ā inoculation with human smallpox matter, accompanied by prayers
to the goddess smallpox ā over the modern scientific practice of vaccination using
cowpox vaccine, which is much less likely to cause smallpox in the patient. This,
in my view, is worse than silly."
Smallpox was eradicated by 1978. This essay was published 2009.
Ah but thatās only one of the four Fās. Bet it didnāt help at all with the other three. Although I guess if you were good enough at it, might help with feeding.
It's a perfectly decent essay. But I didn't like it - because in my view, accusations of scientism are an attempt to put science back in a box that it shouldn't be in, in the first place.
Ha. I'd say it's likely to go down big time and soon leaving few survivors, and all due to science engineering.
Quoting Tom Storm
Piling on!
Modern science, based on the hypothetico-deductive methodology described by Galileo in 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' - has been under constant attack for 400 years.
This essay begins, "science is a good thing" - but then the six criteria of scientism make it quite clear this faint praise holds, only insofar as we allow. And science shouldn't criticise, less yet exclude "other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific."
So, tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination - these are all equal methods of enquiry to scientific method, are they?
If you say, no - they're not, you've committed the grave sin of scientism. I do not accept that kind of cultural/epistemic relativism is valid.
It's a well written essay. It adequately expresses a view. But I don't agree with that view, no!
I think our relationship to science is mistaken, and that accusations of 'scientism' justify that mistaken relationship.
Proponents of scientism will never acknowledge there could be such a thing, in my experience.
Quoting FrancisRay
I'd say, that we face a climate and ecological crisis as a consequence of the misuse of science and engineering by a culture that deprived science of any moral worth, and turned it out barefoot, onto the streets - to hawk its wares to government and industry.
It's the difference between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality. We used the tools, but stuck with the same old ideological understanding of reality. Consequently, we applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons.
Applying the right technologies for the right reasons, now - we can still save ourselves, but it requires we look beyond partisan ideological interests, to science as an understanding of reality. If we do that, it's fairly simple.
Magma heat energy used to produce electrical power, can meet and exceed current global energy demand, and be be used to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate sea water to irrigate land, recycle all our waste - which is not possible, either with fossil fuels or renewables like wind and solar.
Could you write this same sentence again, a different way, as it's impossible to parse.
You may not agree with this sentence but thereās nothing the matter with the syntax. @FrancisRay seems to be able to interpret it.
I don't understand your sentence. 'Proponents of scientism' is ambiguous.
Do you mean those committing the sin of scientism?
Or those who believe scientism is a valid critique of science in society?
Secondly, "such a thing" - as what?
You could have been far more clear. Instead extra effort all round because you're too lazy to write proper sentences.
I would keep the emotive term 'sin' out of it. I think the Haack article does a good job of explaining what 'scientism' is and what is the problem with it. Rather than refer to that article for a definition, though, I'll provide some detail from the Wikipedia entry on that topic, which describes it as:
Where I think you tend towards scientism is in statements like:
Quoting counterpunch
When you say 'science as an understanding of reality', you're proposing it as an alternative to 'partisan ideological interests', and thereby presenting science itself as a kind of ideology, or as something that trumps ideology.
Furthermore the proposed solution to global energy problems:
Quoting counterpunch
May indeed be a great solution to energy problems, but it is what is described in philosophical terms a matter of techn?, 'what can be made'. Again, nothing the matter with it, but there are other elements to the problems of energy production, notably politics - getting people behind such a solution.
Questions regarding 'the nature of reality' are problems of epist?m?, 'what can be known', rather than techn?, 'what can be made'.
I'm not suggesting science as an ideology per se, not least because global (scientific) government would not be politically legitimate. It would be too distant from local interests to command trust. People wouldn't identify with it. It would be alien to all. Rather, I think the reason we have the knowledge and technology to solve the climate and ecological crisis - but don't apply it, is the ubiquity and exclusive authority of ideological bases of analysis - and what I'm trying to do is get people to look beyond the battlements of ideology to a scientific understanding of reality, because in those terms, it's a relatively simple problem to solve.
Then it's too early for praise.
I'd say the physical sciences are what we need to look beyond, since they fall short of telling us anything much about the nature of reality. The real investigation is metaphysics, for this can tell us a lot.
The problem for me is not science but the way it's used. This is an easy criticism in the middle of a global pandemic that seems to have been engineered by scientists. I'd cite the weaponizing of viruses as a typical example of what's wrong with our use of science. It's a great method, which is why it is so dangerous when combined with arrogance, hubris and money.
Just to put a cat among the pigeons I'll venture that the way to save the world is to stop funding science. But there are ideological issues to overcome. Look at how Bill Gates wants to save the world by employing more and more science and technology! This is an ideological position, not a scientific result or forecast, and it seems quite close to scientism. Perhaps it should be called geekism..
I put much of the problem down to a failure to study metaphysics, but can't put the case properly here.
A hint, maybe: misplaced concreteness. The treatment of general conceptions, in this case, information, as an actual thing. Information, in and of itself, can never help anyone decide anything at all, but only that which the information is about, may. Information without the human cognition of its object, is empty.
People like to say....well, the information was always out there, just waiting or us to find it. Which is just the lazy over-simplification of why everything possible to know, isnāt.
Well iām that case I agree with you.
:up: I think I understand. It would be nice to put science to use trying to figure out why our society produces people like Adam Lanza. Maybe the "social sciences" could help us.
You've got two competing categories here: How does the world work versus how should I live my life. The first is a how question, the latter an ought question. As much as science might provide us explanations for how our world works, it doesn't begin to explain how we ought to live in it.
The two have competing epistemologies. Science gathers data and analyzes it and follows the scientific method. We "know" something when the conditions of that method have been met. The ought questions rely upon introspection and wisdom, relying upon ancient texts and time honored traditions. We "know" something when we've satisfied ourselves our decisions comport to that wisdom.
The conflict arises when the religionists use their sacred texts to answer the how questions and then insist they know the world was created in 6 days and evolution never occurred or when the scientists suggest they've found the meaning of life, which typically is summarized as there really isn't one.
I have pointed to some religions that have struck a balance and have figured out a way to work science into their belief system. It is possible, of course, for someone devoted to science to do the same, which is to find a place for religion within his belief system. The point being, there ought be no conflict if each stays within its lane and we can therefore ask ourselves whether a particular scientific discovery ought enter our lives or not without coming off as anti-scientific.
That's interesting. Knowledge of global warming had been around for decades before the world in general became interested.
Which makes me wonder: what is the mindset that pays attention to science? What cultural conditions reinforce that mindset? What conditions diminish it?
I think there might be something about rightism that closes down that mindset. That would be ironic since they want to see Nature as the all-purpose protector of health and well-being.
Not so fast. On your front page, you have a list of essays that suggest we do not agree:
"Essays of interest
The Cultural Impact of Empiricism Jacques Maritain
Science, Materialism and False Consciousness Bas van Fraasen.
The Blind Spot of Science is the Neglect of Lived Experience
Does Reason Know what it is Missing? Stanley Fish
Anything but Human Richard Polt
It Ain't Necessarily So, Antony Gottlieb"
The reason we can and should look beyond ideology to science is because it is "necessarily so" - the same for you as for me. That's what makes science trustworthy and authoritative; a level playing field upon which all can meet, and it is the reason for solving the climate problem in the particular way described, rather than (failing to solve it) any other. Philosophically, we absolutely do not agree.
I agree, that after 400 years of anti-science abuse that brings us to the brink of extinction, adopting science as an ideology would be damaging. But rightfully, science should have been recognised as the means to establish truth, and scientific knowledge incorporated into politics, economics and culture over the past 400 years. Technology should have been developed and applied in accord with a scientific understanding of reality - and the fact that it wasn't is why we are faced with threats to our very existence.
If we want a sustainable future, however, we have to get there from here - from where we are now, with the minimal disruption possible. It's science that condescends to agree.
True enough; the observed changes in Nature became known as global warming, when the information contained by those changes became understood. Some are interested, but, e.g., The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, says, not enough.
I hesitate to agree the world in general is interested. Or, perhaps, interested enough to do anything significant about it. Some merely blame the cyclic nature of Nature herself, some say they canāt see it from their house, so neglect their due diligence.
Still, it is the case, that while a bucketful of ants wonāt effect a scale, a dump truck full of them certainly will, all things considered.
āāāāāāā
Quoting frank
Hmmmm....good question. The mind that pays attention to science, is the mind that judges a validity in it? I mean, the microwave oven benefits me immensely, but it was a completely accidental discovery, hardly scientific, which suggests mere benefit canāt be the sole arbiter for paying attention to science. Maybe its products, but the discipline in itself.
I agree in part, but while ancient texts may help with regard to thoughtfulness, technological problems require technological solutions. We cannot say what we ought to do if we do not have a proper understanding of the science involved.
Quoting Hanover
The lanes are not clearly marked. Religious groups have restricted the use of contraceptives to control population growth and the spread of disease. There has been opposition to medical research and technologies that make use embryonic stem cells.
The problem isn't that the lanes aren't clearly marked. The problem is that people won't stay in their lanes.
I was thinking of antennas. In spite of antenna theory, which is science, antennas were often designed according to whatever worked. That's the difference between engineering and science.
A significant part of the population and their influential leaders do not mark the lanes in the same way you do. Who has the right of way at the intersection of science, religion, and politics?
Antennas are fascinating. Iāve worked on transmitters from .25w UHF to 2Mw VLF, where inserting a fluorescent stick bulb in the radiation field lights it up. Makes the Boy Scout tour group all giddy in amazement.
Difference, indeed.
I don't doubt your good will at all.
From what I've seen in your posts, you and I have a very different understanding of how science and science-based policy making are supposed to work.
I think this highlights the main problem here - and bear with me, because this is an initial observation and will not be well articulated. A āscientific understanding of realityā is not beyond the battlements of ideology at all - it is simply ignorant of it. What you describe sounds like a relatively simple solution because it fails to recognise the ideological bases of analysis that convert what we know, think and feel into what we do. Humanity does not act from reasoning, but from a system-wide distribution of energy parsed as attention and effort, that is largely determined by affect and ideology - despite how rational we think we are. Any understanding of reality will need to understand and align with this system in order to change how humanity acts on a large scale.
Except a āscientific understanding of realityā has deliberately excluded the affected or ideological observer. So it cannot understand this aspect of reality, much less align with it.
Wow. Are you a ham radio operator?
Technology has obvious benefits,but not all technology.
Weapons and excessive automation of services is not the best of inventions.
Science as an ideology is a dud. The amount of appeals to science these days is ludicrous. Science has become the new dictator,the new religion. Science has almost zero to say on the human condition and little to say on values and morality,except evolutionary psychology and social sciences,both of which are terrible.
Give me art,common sense and religion instead of dogmatic materialism.
Ideally, the Church would have embraced Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and so imbued science with divine authority, such that science would have been developed and integrated into theology, philosophy, politics, economics and culture over the past 400 years. That's not what happened.
Instead, science was decried as heresy, developed only slowly, and so was deprived of implication beyond that which was useful to ideology. Government and industry applied technology for power and profit, without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. i.e. Trump digs coal. Natural enough for a vote grubbing politician I suppose, but philosophically incorrect - as demonstrated by the climate and ecological crisis threatening extinction.
Clearly, science is the injured party. Clearly, science has the answers. The fact the ideologue cannot see the answers from where they are is not the fault of science. It's a failure on the part of ideologues to evolve in relation to the progress of knowledge - from 'less and worse' knowledge, toward 'more and better' over time. Religious faith is written in stone, and that stone is dumped into the river of knowledge to dam the flow.
Now, this is where it gets complicated, because we cannot rewrite the past 400 years of history. We cannot tear it all down and start again. If we want a sustainable future, we have to get there from here. The ideal is off the table. But that doesn't mean we cannot learn from what should have happened, but didn't. We can "look beyond the ideological battlements" - to the ideal, and on that basis do that which is scientifically necessary to a sustainable future.
We can do this precisely because the implications of science can legitimately be limited to that which is necessary to survival, staring with magma energy - which is the only source of energy large, constant and concentrated enough to meet our needs. If we don't harness magma energy, we cannot survive; and so it is the existential necessity to which we can agree, not science as an ideology per se.
Limitless clean energy from magma will allow us to account for the externalities of capitalism, without internalising those externalities to the economy. This means we don't need to pay more and have less, stop this and tax that to gain environmental benefits. We can encompass the externalities of capitalism within a magma energy bubble - internalising them, without contradicting our ideological motives - by using that energy for carbon capture and sequestration, desalination and irrigation, total recycling, hydrogen fuel production and so forth.
I've been thinking about this for years, and it is very complex. You are at the right observatory, but looking down the wrong end of the telescope. While on the one hand, philosophically, science is true - and religious political and economic ideology is merely conventional; politically, the implications of science are limited to that which is necessary to survival, starting with magma energy; because if we don't apply magma energy, all further implication is moot anyhow. We will inevitably become extinct. Once we have applied magma energy technology, and have limitless clean energy at our disposal - the equation is changed, and any further implications of science need then be viewed from that perspective.
Shortly after my last post to you, I ran across a video of a woman being tased for refusing to put on a mask. Just yesterday, Fauci finally admitted that covid might have a lab origin. This morning The Federalist ran a long piece about how sensible independent thought regarding the origin of covid was systematically suppressed.
Most of what comes from our authorities these days is absolute bullshit. I can't understand the mindset of people who uncritically accept everything without question.
This piece lacks credibility:
First of all, it may be widely accepted by readers of the Federalist, but it is not widely accepted by those who have the expertise and information to have an informed opinion. Second, there is at this point no reason to issue a correction, there is not conclusive evidence that it did come from a lab. Third, Fauci did issue an update. He said he is no longer convinced that it could not have come from a lab and thinks that more investigation is needed.
I found nothing in the article about "systematic suppression" of the origins of the virus.
Both you and whoever wrote this piece seem to not understand how science works. Did Tom Cotton have sufficient evidence to declare in February 2020 that the virus came from a lab? Without such evidence his claim was irresponsible. Fauci's response is both reasonable and responsible. Follow the evidence.
This is what Politifact has posted on its website:
The story has not been "retracted". That makes it seem as if Politifact now says that it did originate in lab. It too is waiting on the evidence.
Quoting fishfry
That seems to be exactly what you are doing.
Nahhh....long-time communications specialist in Uncle Samās Canoe Club, back when it was a whole lot more fun.....and risky.....being a hippie than a sailor. Culture clash writ large.
Untrue. She was asked put on mask and refused, then she was asked to leave, and refused. She was arrested for criminal trespass; she resisted arrest, fought the police officer, and was tased. She created the situation, and deserved everything she got.
You'd have made a good German. And if she deserved everything she got. didn't George Floyd? Or is your violent authoritarianism one-sided?
I see that you saw the same video I did. I can't fathom the kind of human being that would see that video and say "she deserved what she got." People like you frighten me.
You'd have made a good racist! I think perhaps you mean Nazi.
Quoting fishfry
George Floyd's choices created the situation. If he'd complied he wouldn't have died. The jury decided the police officers actions were disproportionate - and I accept that, but it remains, he could have got in the car, and he'd still be alive.
And you'd have make a piss-poor philosopher. Was she tased to death?
Introspection? What one ought do is decided by interacting with other people, not by navel-gazing.
You're being misled by your focus on the subjective, again.
I agreed with you in that case - that of amelioration of climate change. Not on the issue that is being discussed but I canāt see the point in discussing it.
Quoting Susan Haack
Is that a question? You can talk to me directly!
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/131210177.pdf
I could go through each of the six signs in turn, but number six, I think - is the one upon which the others hinge - and after all, brevity is the soul of wit!
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry
besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as
poetry or art.
Or religion! And the fact is, it's religion that has denigrated science for 400 years.
Here's an inarticulate little fish. Should this be read as an argument? "Science has almost zero to say on the human condition and little to say on values and morality", therefor "science as an ideology is a dud"...? What is "Science as an ideology" - is that what @counterpunch is advocating?
You haven't shared with us what exactly you think is problematic with point six.
Did I miss anything?
Quoting Banno
May I direct your attention to this thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541344
I think it describes the piece of the puzzle you're missing, and will either confuse you utterly, or give you an indication where I'm coming from.
I'm not up for that right now, but maybe tomorrow. Good night all.
It doesn't confuse me, but then, it's a single paragraph about a thousand years of intellectual history. As such, it's rather lacking in detail, but I certainly see where it's coming from.
@counterpunch buys into the pop story of Catholic anti-scientific practice. It's partly right, of course, but the story is much more complicated. He rejects the Haack article without providing any critique.
Counterpunch advocates scientism.
I don't understand the kind of human being who can watch a video like that and conclude that "she got what she deserved." I will agree with you that she should have just either left or put on her effing mask. I'll grant you that. But what I'm questioning is the emotional response to that video of "she got what she deserved." You're lacking in basic human decency.
And for the record, I'm a piss-poor philosopher.
I think you know what I meant. The "good Germans" we heard so much about, as in "Where were the good Germans?" Now that I've seen the past few years in the US, I understand better where they were.
Quoting counterpunch
Well then we're all in agreement. Personally I don't resist cops, I comply and act polite. That's because when I was young and foolish, I sassed off to a cop and got a night in the Oakland, CA city jail for my troubles. Got my Ph.D. in the criminal justice system that night. Now that I'm old and foolish, I'm polite to cops.
Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire article. I do not agree that it's "widely accepted," nor is it known. Only that finally, after a year, people are starting to admit the possibility.
Quoting Fooloso4
Science works by saying, "Let's keep an open mind and look at the facts." Not, "Let's decide on one conclusion in spite of available facts, and deplatform and smear anyone who dares to differ." That's anti-science, and that is what happened over the past year.
Quoting Fooloso4
Fauci is a political hack who changed his mind and flipflopped with the wind. Fauci is anti-science.
Quoting Fooloso4
A year ago, when people suggested a lab origin, they were deplatformed, fired from their scientific jobs, and labeled conspiracy theorists. That's politics, not science. Comrade Lysenko would be proud.
No need to say anything further, that speaks volumes.
I read in the weekend papers that the Lab Escape theory is being re-considered. If that turns out to be the case, then so be it, although presumably it might have serious ramifications for China.
Quoting Banno
The only alternatives to science are
Quoting counterpunch
So - you're either pro-science, or you're relegated to pagan superstition. They're your choices.
Gosh without that, China would be a wonderful country. Or as I like to say: Uyghur please!
But you are making my point for me exactly. A year ago if you espoused the lab leak theory nobody said, "We should keep an open mind and wait for the evidence." THAT would be science. On the contrary, reputable scientists lost their jobs, got banned from social media, got labeled conspiracy theorists. And now that even Dr. Fauci finally admits that the lab leak might be true, all you can say is that it might be bad for China.
Tell me, a year ago when you read that it started in a wet market and "Oh by the way there's a bioweapons lab a mile away but pay no attention," what exactly was your thought process at the time? Were you unaware that every developed country in the world conducts bioweapons research? The only thing I didn't know about it was that the US actually funds China's bioweapons research. Now that's shocking, but then again, maybe not so shocking.
Quoting Wayfarer
You make my point for me. Smearing, deplatforming calling people conspiracy theorists, is anti-science.
I agree and admitted as much a couple of days ago. I'm all for science, and wholeheartedly against the WORD "science" being used as a synonym for "shut up and do what you're told, which is the opposite of what we told you yesterday." That's not science, but lately it's being PRESENTED as science, and more than one person in this thread has DEFENDED it as science. As for example claiming that Dr. Fauci has been doing science, when he does nothing but politics. And that's not a criticism, because Fauci is a career bureaucrat and not a scientist. People should understand that. If you want to say he's been a good bureaucrat, you might almost have a case. If you say he's been doing science, the facts are against you.
[quote=Wikipedia;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci ]Anthony Stephen Fauci is an American physician-scientist and immunologist who serves as the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the chief medical advisor to the president.
As a physician with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has served the American public health sector in various capacities for more than 50 years, and has acted as an advisor to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan.[1] He became director of the NIAID in 1984 and has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immunodeficiency diseases, both as a research scientist and as the head of the NIAID.[2] From 1983 to 2002, Fauci was one of the world's most frequently-cited scientists across all scientific journals.[/quote]
You know Wikipedia is user-edited, right? So you can go right in there and set the record straight. Let us know when done.
Meanwhile, we should get back to the topic at hand.
I see. Thank you for your service. :up:
I am criticizing those who in the past year constantly called policy by the name of science. As in "follow the science," when they really meant, "Shut up and follow the latest contradictory policy." But surely if you say, "What do you think of apple pie," I'm entitled to say that I love apple pie but hate apple pie laced with rat poison. What we've been treated to over the past year is science laced with rat poison.
So what kind of answer are you looking for? I like science. Is that ok? And I deplore its misuse. Is that not ok to say?
Last year was nothing compared to what it could have been. Next organism might be much worse. COVID-19 was a lucky test run.
Unfortunately we learned that large swaths of America didn't evolve due to the test run, which is weird. Cultural flaw revealed, I guess.
Nice to see you admit it was a test run. A test run of man-made bioweapon, a test run of media-induced hysteria as a means of social control.
[Former assertion not definitively proven; latter is perfectly obvious and will become more so as time goes on].
Quoting frank
Or perhaps the globalists are being revealed as the evil madmen and women that they are, and the public is starting to wise up. Or didn't you get the memo about Bill Gates? He was hanging around with child predator Epstein in the hopes Epstein could get him a Nobel prize. The bloom is off THAT rose, it's fair to say.
Eh, we're all in this together. There's nothing new under the sun.
I did not say she got what she deserved. I questioned your comparison to what happened to a man who was killed by having his neck kneeled on for over nine minutes.
Quoting fishfry
Then why make claims about what you didn't read?
Quoting fishfry
And why do you think that is?
Quoting fishfry
In addition to not bothering to read the article you linked to it seems you have not bothered to find out the facts either.
Quoting fishfry
It was the political hack who was elected President who suppressed the facts and forced Fauci to play by his rules. He is not anti-science and has the credentials to prove it.
Quoting fishfry
What evidence did they have? What did Tom Cotton know? You admit that the origin is unknown. What someone "suggests" in this situation is irresponsible without solid evidence. That evidence is, by your own admission, not available.
At trial it was revealed that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's upper back and not his neck; and that Floyd was complaining about not being able to breathe before cops even laid a hand on him; and that Floyd had three times the fatal dose of fentanyl in him; and that his dope dealer, sitting next to him in the car and subject to prosecution if he admitted giving Floyd a fatal dose of drugs, took the Fifth and refused to testify.
Calling Chauvin's trial a kangaroo court is an insult to marsupials from the family Macropodidae. Not that Chauvin was officer of the year, by all accounts he was a bad cop. But if you believe in fair, impartial justice, this was a bad day all around.
I do apologize if I confused your response with someone else's. Someone said she got what she deserved. Well as Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven to the Kid, who said of a guy he'd just shot to death, "He had it comin'": "Kid, we ALL have it comin'."
Quoting Fooloso4
Don't believe I did. My claim was that people deplatformed and smeared anyone who even dared to suggest the possibility a lab origin for covid, The article claimed to delineate the process by which that happened. I confess I have a bad habit of posting links I don't read. Perhaps from now on I should include a disclaimer when I do that.
Quoting Fooloso4
Because Trump is no longer president, so they don't feel the need to irrationally object to everything anyone says that Trump might have agreed with. TDS killed people because it make liberals totally irrational. If Trump said the sky is blue the New York Times would deny it. That was a problem for the past several years.
Quoting Fooloso4
I'm painfully aware of the facts of censorship of reputable scientists who dared to oppose the MSM orthodoxy. I wonder why you're seemingly defending it.
Quoting Fooloso4
Fauci's credentials are that he's a career bureaucrat who never practiced medicine. He's no scientist and surely you know that. And say what you will about Trump, you can't call him a political hack. He's the anti-politician. One of his worst weaknesses was that he knew nothing of politics and how things get done in Washington. Trump was an anti-politician who had never run for elective office in his life. You can't call him a political hack. That's your TDS talking. You killed people with that malady.
Quoting Fooloso4
What's wrong with saying, "Let's keep an open mind and find out," as opposed to smearing him as a conspiracy theorist when, in the end, he's probably going to turn out to be right? Reputable scientists lost their jobs and got deplatformed for stating their opinion.
The first article I ever read about covid identified the wet market in Wuhan as the source, and then said that there just happens to be a bioweapons research facility a mile from there. At that moment I was a proponent of the lab leak hypothesis, because it makes more sense than bat soup. Every developed nation in the world is doing bioweapons research and it's inevitable for the occasional bug to escape. The most benign explanation is an accidental lab leak. In the worst case, it was a deliberate trial run for a global bioweapon. You still hanging on to the bat soup theory? Not even Fauci believes that anymore.
For the majority of the past year your man Trump was in office. You know, the guy who tried to get the National Weather Service to back up his claims about the path of a hurricane to make him look less stupid than he is.
Quoting fishfry
What evidence do you have of that? Again, you hear part of something and make up your own story or blindly believe conspiracy theories as if the are "alternative facts". Even if it came from a lab that does mean it was deliberately released as a test run of a bio-weapon.
If I can recall that far back, my other choice was Hillary. I'd do it again. That doesn't make Trump "my man." It only means that millions of people who voted for Obama twice, couldn't stomach voting for Hillary. I was one of those millions. You could look up the numbers. Hillary doesn't call Trump supporters a basket of deplorables, she wins. She goes to Wisoconsin, she wins. She's even slightly less of a corrupt warmonger, she wins. She couldn't do or be any of that because she's Hillary. She managed to be the only person in the country who couldn't beat a guy like Trump.
Subsequently, the party I'd been a member of all my life, the Dems, went all-in for Russiagate hysteria and Muellergate and Ukrainegate and are now completely off the rails. I'm not the only former liberal who feels this way.
Quoting Fooloso4
I took the trouble to admit that this is not proven. So why do you pretend to have not seen me do that? It's certainly a possibility. Every government in the world that can afford a bioweapons lab is doing the research.
I am not going to continue playing a part in another of your political rants, conspiracy theories, and alternatives to facts.
Perhaps you will have the decency to allow this thread to get back on topic.
Forbes magazine is a mainstream periodical, hardly a hotbed of conspiracy theories. They explored the question. Did Covid-19 Come From A Lab? Was It Deliberate Bioterrorism? A Biodefense Expert Explores The Clues
The title of the thread is Science. If you are not aware that every advanced country in the world is engaged in bioweapons research, conducted by scientists, actual scientists, I do hope you will take the trouble to educate yourself. And if not you, perhaps other readers will. We don't know the origin of covid. Bat soup seems very unlikely at this point. It was most likely either an accidental leak from a bioweapons lab -- one partially funded indirectly by Dr. Fauci himself -- or a deliberate leak. The latter remains a possibility until it's ruled out. And you can't rule anything out scientifically by calling ideas you find unpleasant, conspiracy theories.
What exactly do you think gain of function research is? They take a naturally occurring disease, and they try to figure out how to make it easier to pass from one human to the next. Why? Because they are either planning to use it as an offensive weapon; or they need to study it to defend against the other guys doing it. In either case it's the same thing.
Here, read and learn. Science is about having an open mind. And very very sadly, science is about bioweapons research these days. When we say science, we're not talking James Clerk Maxwell anymore.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/
For the record, there are no smoking guns. Only questions. Questions you smear as conspiracy theories, but that reputable scientists are asking.
@banno, This is a better response to your question. Can I say something bad about science? Yes, the US government spends a lot of money figuring out how to kill people with bioengineered viruses. That's science and it's evil. Perhaps a necessary evil, in the sense that our adversaries are doing the research and we have to know enough to defend ourselves. But this is what science has come to. Newton at Woolsthorpe during the plague year, it ain't.
Science is used for evil, and most scientists do not know and/or care (or they would not be scientists).
:up: :100: :clap:
Yep.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Nuh.
Your list of big ticket items is propaganda and artificial intelligence. Sure, scary.
Ah,another who can't tell the difference between technology and the theoretical ideology knows as science. Strawman thread.
Beavers have technology,but no textbooks on quarks.
Science in the main tries to claim its the only route to knowledge. I know that's not your/ wittys position,but nonetheless in practice you try to silence alternative thought. And your kneejerk fear of religion leads you Dawkins like ignorance of what religion is pointing to and
the actual original religious method. Which method is banno?
Beliefs based on empirical observations can be confirmed or dis-confirmed by investigation to the satisfaction of any unbiased observer; the extraordinary claims made in the bible cannot, the existence of God cannot. It is a valid distinction.
It's true that we all believe more than we can actually prove or know for certain; and the truth status of scientific theories (as opposed to simple empirical observations) cannot be confirmed or dis-confirmed by observation. The point is that we have specific criteria for assessing theories: whether or not what they predict is observed. No such criteria exist when it comes to religious belief and theology. So, again, there is a real difference there.
It was terrible for the Germans after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles demanded huge reparations, while at the same time annexed the Saaland, which was Germany's main access to coal for industrial and domestic fuel. At the same time Germans had democracy forced on them - and it was proportional representation, which led to a proliferation of political parties, and weak, indecisive government. It's easy to see how Germany fell prey to the Nazi regime.
Quoting fishfry
When all this kicked off, I looked up the statistics on Arrest Related Deaths - and apparently, there are around 10 million arrests per year, and around 1000 end in the death of the suspect. That's 0.01%. Of those, 32% are black - which may immediately seem disproportionate, given that black people are only 13% of the US population. However, when you look more closely, it turns out that black people commit a lot more crime - and so make up a larger proportion of arrests than their numbers in the population would suggest. I was on twitter at the time - and shared these statistics, and was banned from twitter for doing so.
But wait, because the plot thickens. Data on arrest related deaths was collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2003-2012, whereupon the Obama administration shut it down, the year before BLM was formed in 2013. So, this kicking off in the weeks leading up to the Presidential election looks mighty suspicious. One has to ask why Obama would shut down data collection on the race of arrest related deaths if it was such a huge issue that forming BLM was necessary. About 300 black people die every year - which is plenty of fuel for a social media narrative, while statistically, there's no evidence of racism on the part of police, and every indication of extraordinary professionalism.
tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination
ā counterpunch
Quoting Wayfarer
If you say so. Personally, I was responding to the argument made in the article on signs of scientism, which reads:
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry
besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as
poetry or art.
So then, other kinds of inquiry such as tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination? Are you denying the legitimacy of these forms of inquiry?
"The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang."
By Colin Schultz
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
OCTOBER 28, 2014
Yesterday, Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, said that Darwinian evolution is real, and so is the Big Bang..."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/
******
Georges LemaƮtre first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, which he called the "primeval atom".
******
Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859.
*****
On February 24 1616 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.
******
"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...."
ā?Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) ā November 4, 1992
*****
Quoting Banno
Which part?
Quoting Banno
No, I don't reject the article. It adequately expresses a view, but it's a view I disagree with - because I reject the concept of scientism as an attempt to put science back in a box in which it doesn't belong in the first place - a box formed (in large part) by 400 years of religious anti-science propaganda.
[quote=Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre ] By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that LemaƮtre's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[35] However, LemaƮtre resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[36][37][16] LemaƮtre and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[38] LemaƮtre was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion,[38] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.[39][/quote]
If there was a reason for posting that wikipedia entry on LemaƮtre, I'm missing it. Perhaps you could explain - maybe when you respond to the post I wrote to you, above?
The fact that you take it to mean that, only confirms what I said previously - that proponents of scientism will generally fail to recognise what it means. Daniel Dennett says the same: 'Scientism: I don't know anybody who is guilty of it. Scientism is a strawman used by people who object to science 'poking its nose into places it shouldn't be.'
I think we're done, Counterpunch - we're plainly just talking past one another.
I've addressed your remarks directly. I've addressed the article directly. I've addressed the concept of scientism directly. If I'm talking past you it's because you're ducking out of the way.
It was a response to your mentioning of the fact that LeMaitre published his thesis in 1927. What was the point you were making with that reference? That it took until 2014 for the Catholic Church to recognise his theory?
So, I posted that paragraph on LeMaitre to make some further points: first, LeMaitre was and remained a devout Catholic all his life, he didnāt see any conflict between science and religion. Secondly, that the then Pope actually started to refer to the theory as support for the idea of ācreation from nothingā in the 1950s- something which LeMaitre enlisted the Popeās science advisor to caution him against. (Incidentally when LeMaitreās theory first started to circulate, there was a lot of scientific pushback because it sounded too mystical. I mean, itās very much like ācreation from nothingā, is it not?)
So I think that somewhat blurs your cut-and-dried, hard-and-fast distinction between religion and science, donāt it? I mean, if LeMaitre was āreligiousā how could he come up with something like that? When, according to you, he should have been studying chicken entrails or casting Ouija boards? Wouldnāt it be quite impossible to be a Catholic and a scientist, if what you say was true?
(See also the list of Catholic clergy scientists.)
I agree that faith is not the absence of doubt or reason, but it is held in the absence of what we would count as evidence (i.e. empirical evidence). That said, empirical evidence does not amount (always at least) to certainty, so it could be said that all substantive (as opposed to tautological) belief is held in the absence of certainty.
One response to uncertainty (lack of definitive evidence or proof) is to suspend judgement entirely. Another response is to adopt provisional hypotheses. And another is to believe despite the absence of evidence; and this last is to have faith.
People won't even do it literally, in traffic or in waiting lines. What hope is there for them staying in their lanes in any other way?
How???
Sketch out how what one ought do is decided by interacting with other people!
Sample situation: You're a kid in school and another boy is bullying you and demands your lunch money.
How do you decide, based on interacting with other people, what the right course of action is??
Well, then, if you're such a proponent of the just world hypothesis, then you must never criticize anyone or anything or object to anything. Everything is happening exactly as it sould be happening and everyone gets what they deserve, right?
No need for magma.
Quoting fishfry
Meh, it's convenient to think of others as "uncritically accepting everything without question", innit? Makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside!
Quoting Wayfarer
I was responding to banno - who dismissed the idea that the Church has a problem with science; and I'm showing that this has been a problem for 400 years.
In that context, I don't think it matters a jot what religion Lemaitre was, or what the Pope may or may not have thought in 1950 - if in 2014, nearly a century after Lemaitre, 160 years after Darwin, the Pope had to declare evolution and big bang are real.
Those details are irrelevant to the point that there's an anti-science tendency, going right back to Galileo - in 1616, who "practically invented the experimental method" and that's still playing out in 2014. This then supports my comment that 'scientism is an attempt to put science back in a box in which it doesn't belong in the first place.'
I'm not making hard and fast distinctions of any kind. I think it's crazy that religion and science should be in conflict, and believe this conflict has brought us to the brink of extinction because it deprived science of any moral implication as valid knowledge of Creation; and allowed government and industry to use science as a tool - without acknowledging the meaningful implications of science as an understanding of reality. I'm saying we are headed for extinction because we used scientific tools in service to religious, political and economic ideological ends - unreformed, in relation to a scientific understanding of reality.
I stand accused of scientism, via Susan Haack's essay, that you argued: "says all that needs to be said." I disagree - with her and with you. For me, the idea of scientism implies that our relationship to science is fine, that there's no problem, and if you think there is a problem - then that's scientism.
Well, no - it's a perfectly appropriate regard for the means to establish valid knowledge of reality - and the body of knowledge thus established, particularly when - in face of the existential threat of climate change, we have politicians able to say things like: "Trump digs coal" - and not be recognised immediately, and dismissed as a raving lunatic.
Leaving aside for the moment that the use of hormonal contraceptives (which are generally preferred) makes STI's have a field day 24/7, 365 days/year --
The use of contraceptives also made human life into something optional and expendable, most literally so. Without the use of contraceptives, human birth has an element that is beyond human control, and this gives it an inherent value, makes it as objectively existing as mountains and oceans. Without this element, humans become a commodity. Just another thing to be produced at will, or not.
Quoting Banno
See what you've gone and done!
Edit: But OK: How does our bullied kid decide what to do in regard to the bully?? Hopefully with care, with a great deal of support, and with time.
https://m.timesofindia.com/home/science/scientists-appear-to-have-located-the-conscience/articleshow/29632772.cms
That's not to say my conscience can't be defective andl yields objectively incorrect answers.
Forgive me if this is wrong. You seem to be saying that science has been strategically deprived of spirituality (you use the word religion).
As a consequence of this, science is robbed of its capacity to integrate our understanding of facts and our understanding of... god?
How would science work better in your view?
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying something like: If a police officer is going to arrest you - that's not your time to protest. Your time to protest will come later. The arrest is going to happen, and you can make it easy, or you can make it hard, but it's still going to happen. She made it hard, she refused to wear a mask, she resisted arrest - and she got tased. You said, she got tased for not wearing a mask. That's not true, is it? She got tased for resisting arrest.
IOW, with "introspection and wisdom, relying upon ancient texts and time honored traditions".
Except that that time never comes.
I said that? Where? In your mind?
It is wrong, and I forgive you easily. It's a complex argument with many moving pieces. I can quite understand how would not pick it up right away. Thanks for trying.
*Human beings evolve as hunter gatherers.
*Hunter gatherer tribes join together by worshipping the same God.
*Religion requires faith to uphold moral laws attributed to God.
*Galileo shows religion to be incorrect, using scientific method.
*Church puts Galileo on trial for heresy.
*Descartes wets his subjective pants!
*Philosophy wears Descartes subjectively wet pants for 400 years.
During which time:
*Science used to drive industrial revolution.
*Science used to drive military/economic expansion.
*Religious and subjectivist philosophy continues to attack science.
*Mary Shelley writes Frankenstein.
*Mad scientists defeated by flag waving God loving hero on page, stage and silver screen.
*Nuclear weapons.
*Fossil fuels.
*Oceans full of plastic.
*Climate change ignored for 70 years.
I'm not sure I understand properly the nature of the split between scientific technology and religion. Are you arguing that science is driven by crass material gain and disrespect for nature and this would not have happened if religion had not opposed it?
Quoting Tom Storm
I studied sociology and politics at university, and got into philosophy via political theory. I read Rousseau's "Inquiry into the Causes and Nature of Inequality between Men" - which starts with a crawling apologetic to the Church for even daring to think in rational terms. It's a brilliant piece of writing - that foreshadows evolution, and explains the origin of money and much else besides.
I was already concerned with climate change, and then read "Energy for Survival - the alternative to extinction" by Wilson Clark. It's an encyclopaedic survey of energy technologies published in the 1970's.
If I were to cite another influential book, I'd have to go with Daniel Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' - and I've often quoted this passage:
āThe fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that mightāhope against hopeāhave weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge. New discoveries may conceivably lead to dramatic, even 'revolutionary' shifts in the Darwinian theory, but the hope that it will be 'refuted' by some shattering breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to a geocentric vision and discard Copernicus.ā
? Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
Quoting Tom Storm
Not exactly, because Galileo was right. It moves! Descartes however, wet his pants - and concocted a skeptical argument for subjectivism to flatter the Church's emphasis of the spiritual over the mundane, and got a nice little title bump with an appointment to the Royal Court of Queen Christina of Sweden. Galileo meanwhile, was threatened with torture, excommunication, execution - and only by the skin of his teeth got away with house arrest for the rest of his life.
Effectively, science as an understanding of reality, was divorced from science as a tool - and we used the tools without regard to science as an understanding of reality. The religious, political and economic ideological architecture of society; wherein political authority was justified with reference to the Divine Right of Kings - a religious law dating back to the year 700 AD, remained - unreformed in relation to a emerging scientific understanding of reality. Consequently, we remained ideologically primitive - and so applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons. Like monkeys with machine guns; that can't end well!
Descartes' doubt gave him the cover to doubt the authority of the Church.
Descartes method of doubt is skeptical doubt. It's not reasonable to dispense with the object world by imagining some demon is deceiving him. Taking into consideration also, that he withdrew a work on physics, entitled 'The World' from publication while Galileo was on trial, clearly Descartes wrote in fear of the Church - whom, were burning people alive for heresy through to 1792, 60 years into the industrial revolution. Darwin was attacked in 1859. Craig Venter was attacked for "playing God" in 2008, for creating artificial life.
If Descartes doubted the authority of the Church, he was very quiet about it, and no-one heard him.
You misunderstood my point.The Church was the final authority on all matters philosophical and scientific. To challenge this authority was to risk the fate of Galileo. Descartes begins by doubting everything, which means doubting the teachings of the Church. He replaces the authority of the Church with the authority of the thinking self and reason
What does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?
Quoting fishfry
First - No, he did not admit that Covid might have a lab origin. He became open to the possibility based on new evidence. Second - In terms of how the pandemic has been handled here, what difference does it make where it came from?
Quoting fishfry
Again, what difference does it make in terms of our pandemic response? Also, "The Federalist" is a knee-jerk right-wing rag. They've spread misinformation about Covid from the start and promoted the stolen election lie.
Quoting fishfry
As I wrote previously, I've been impressed by how well the US responded to the pandemic, even given the jerky start and all the zig-zags. A lot of those missteps came from right-wing political sources like "The Federalist." I think you are a reverse conspiracy theorist. It's not that people are conspiring to do bad things, it's that people are conspiring not to do good things.
@Banno, did you get that? How would you respond?
I misunderstood your point? I can live with that - because you're wrong, and offer no evidence, or even argument that you're right. You are simply making assertions I know to be false. Subjectivism and spirituality are synonyms; and Meditations blows white smoke up the Church's chimney!
No argument needed. If he begins by doubting everything that includes doubting the Church. Of course he makes it appear otherwise.
From the Second Meditation:
This is his Archimedean point. The one thing that is fixed and immovable, the one thing certain and indubitable, he exists and is a thinking thing. It is not the Church or God but the thinking self that is the starting point from which all that is certain and indubitable follows.
True, although he seemed to be trying to hand the authority of reason to the church. He was obviously addressing his philosophical ideas to them.
At the time, the authority the church was being undermined by the existence of the Protestants and their rich middle-class backers. The Church was changing into something more conservative than it had been previously. The Church had protected knowledge through chaotic medieval times, but now they were being tossed aside, and they were fighting back
It's unfortunate that this ugly picture of them has eclipsed their former place of honor.
I posted something right before yours that addresses this. He is trying to appease the Church. The authority is the self that thinks.
Quoting frank
Right. They had the authority to ban his writings and lock him up.
Quoting Fooloso4
Typically subjectivist. Believe whatever you like. No evidence required.
From Meditation IV:
2. For, in the first place, I discover that it is impossible for him ever to deceive me, for in all fraud and deceit there is a certain imperfection: and although it may seem that the ability to deceive is a mark of subtlety or power, yet the will testifies without doubt of malice and weakness; and such, accordingly, cannot be found in God.
This is Descartes rescuing his "certain truth" that he exist, from the oblivion of solipsism with reference to God. This goes on and on, unceasingly, page after page, right through to the end of Meditations V:
16. And thus I very clearly see that the certitude and truth of all science depends on the knowledge alone of the true God...
Your assertion is quite simply false.
http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations/8.htm
He's basically right. Descartes was a mathematician. The Church could dictate what math problems could be examined and which ones not.
He was offering them a more enlightened view.
More enlightened in what sense? More enlightened than what? Your opinion means nothing without supporting evidence. It's just assertion, based in 400 years of anti-science propaganda - extensive evidence for which I've provided above.
I disagree that science continues to be āthe injured partyā(ābut they started it!ā), and I also disagree that science has the answer - it simply has a plausible theory, a way forward. Science has claimed ālimitless clean energyā before and been wrong, and has claimed āthe solutionā before and caused irreparable damage, so anything that sounds too good to be true and relies on claims of singularity or infinity needs to be recognised as an ideology: an affected (positive/negative) spin from a limited perspective on available data. The āanswerā will not come until science takes moral responsibility for conclusions drawn from research data, and agrees to work with the ideologue through ethics, arts, humanities, metaphysics and communications - not pander to prevalent ideology, but help to critically examine and restructure our ideological motives so that we are more self-aware and sceptical consumers of information.
When science claims to be āneutralā information, then itās indistinguishable from fake news, and all science can do is add to the noise. Instead, science is responsible for presenting āneededā information - rendered as a system-wide distribution of attention and effort in relation to time. A way forward. Not the only way forward, nor the ābestā by any and all standards, let alone the objective truth. And the more narrowly defined its system, the more ignorant its claim.
Quoting counterpunch
This is a case in point. Youāre talking about survival of humanity in our current state of energy consumption. Itās a tantalisingly simple solution for a very limited problem, but is it the right one? For you, yes, it probably seems ideal, and will allow you to continue consuming energy with impunity or this horrible sense that weāre hastening our extinction, or at least our discomfort. But what about the next generation, or the one after that? How much do we really know about the relationship between magma energy and gravity or solar orbital structures? Or even between magma energy and meteorological patterns? The urgency with which we āneedā a solution, its perceived significance or the potential it appears to offer has too often come back to bite us in the ass. How do we allocate sufficient attention and effort to understand beyond the immediate need for survival to the bigger ecological picture?
But apparently the eventual ābiteā wonāt be scienceās fault - it will be humanityās fault for choosing the easy fix without considering the broader implications that scientists currently dismiss as ānot scienceā because they canāt yet be empirically tested. And youāll be long dead by then and wonāt give a ratās.
In a dynamic system built on a limited relation to both energy and time (and it IS limited), simply unlocking additional sources only hastens self-destruction - but it just depends on how narrowly you choose to perceive the system. But what do I know? Iām not a scientist.
Yeah, especially when he cut up live animals.
/s
This is well put.
Only the last of these three options can be acted upon. You cannot act on entirely suspended judgement. Provisional hypotheses enable you to run controlled experiments, but you still need to make a prediction - this requires faith, and is the only way to achieve empirical evidence, let alone certainty.
It is not subjectivist. It reasonably follows from the claim that he is going to doubt everything that he will doubt the Church's authority.
Quoting counterpunch
These are assumptions and certainly are not indubitable.
Quoting counterpunch
He cannot rescue his certain truth by appeal to something that is not a certain truth. He has already rejected this route:
Descartes took his motto from Ovid:
You are not able to see through his rhetoric. You are not alone. But even in his own time not everyone was fooled.
.
Quoting baker
Sad but true but as Voltaire said, "Le meglio ĆØ l'inimico del bene"
[quote=Confucius] Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without[/quote]
I don't question the objectivity of morals, but it doesn't follow that introspection, meaning reliance upon my own internal processes, cannot be a means of its detection. If morality requires empathy, particularly my treating others as I'd want myself treated, some amount of reflection upon what would suit me needs to occur. I'd also say that regardless of the empirical evidence I use to determine morality, at some point I have to process that internally.
Subjectivity would suggest my morality is not your morality, yet both moralities are of equal standing. That's not been asserted.
I don't agree; lack of action is a kind of action, and in any case suspension of judgement does not entail that one would have no ideas that could be followed; followed without judging them true or false or even likely to be true or false, but just to see where they lead. Action can be based merely on desire to do something, and of course there will always be expectation. But I would draw a distinction between expectation, which is found also in animals and judgement or belief self-consciously held.
Provisional hypotheses yield predictions based on drawing analogies (abductive reasoning) with what has been observed in the past. You might argue that one would be relying upon what others have recorded, which is true, and that one would be relying upon faith in the truth of what they have recorded, but that would be false. Anything and everything can be provisionally accepted without committing to any judgement as to its truth.
Having said that, I am not arguing that people always or even very often suspend judgement like that, but I am just pointing to what is possible not what is common. To anticipate another possible objection, it's also true that in everything we must have faith in our memories; we have to act on the basis of what they give us, but this is not any kind of consciously adopted faith, which is what I have been concerned with; it is entirely instinctive; even animals do it.
Quoting Banno
Pontification as substitute for critique is also appalling; makes you look like a pompous ass.
Didn't you ask for responses from people who disagree with the proposition that science is good? Did you expect them to be intellectually rigorous?
History is instructive. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed. I would say doomed to repeat it, but time is short. We are facing threats to our very existence; and in my view, that's a consequence of a mistake the Church made 400 years ago, that we have carried forth unconsciously - until "Trump digs coal." To expect an apology of the Church is about as realistic as expecting an apology from Trump. I don't imagine either of them care in the least what I say. But that doesn't mean I cannot learn from their errors.
Quoting Possibility
Oh? So what? See how that works!
Quoting Possibility
I don't recall anyone claiming limitless clean energy before - except perhaps nuclear fusion, which has always been, and remains about 30 years away. Other than eating up funding for an idea that cannot possibly work in earth gravity - see the Pauli Exclusion Principle, I don't know what irreparable damage they have done. With regard to magma energy - 'limitless' is ever so slightly poetic. There is in fact a finite amount of energy in a big ball of molten rock - 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around. Does "effectively limitless" work better for you?
Quoting Possibility
My proposal is designed to solve the problem in the least disruptive way possible; and it's important to understand that this occurs at the most scientifically fundamental level; as the first step in a systematic approach to sustainability - because, if we are to secure a prosperous sustainable future, it needs to be objective with regard to all legitimate vested interests. Comprehension of science as an understanding of reality - (not just a tool, but a worldview) is integral to the political agreement necessary to develop and apply this technology. I do not expect people to abandon their ideological identities and purposes; indeed, these proposals are designed that they don't have to.
This is the problem with the left wing approach to sustainability. You require changes right across the board to achieve environmental benefits; at huge cost, for little gain. You require the consumer to know how everything they consume is produced. That cognitive burden is impossible to bear. I say attack the problem from the supply side - and starting with limitless.... effectively limitless clean energy, produce more and better. The man on the street need hardly notice.
Quoting Possibility
Science is fake news everybody. Oh no - that's terrible. Everything's gonna stop working!
... ... ... no, still working. You must be wrong! Phew!
I imagined planes dropping from the skies - because aerofoils stopped providing lift. But nope, still up there, so - the science of aerodynamics must be true, right? If that's true, then physics must be true - and the earth is still a big ball of molten rock.
Quoting Possibility
A left wing, pay more - have less, carbon tax this - stop that, green approach to sustainability implies dictatorial government imposing poverty. People won't vote for poverty. "It's the economy, stupid." So democracy will have to go, and capitalism. Totalitarian communist government will have to hold back the starving masses from resources forever after to eek out our existence. If that's what you prefer, over a prosperous sustainable future - powered by limit ...effectively limitless clean energy, then wind and solar are for you!
(I should probably mention that because wind and solar are intermittent, you'll need to maintain a full fossil fuel generating capacity alongside your windmills, that last 25 years tops, and then need replacing at a cost of Ā£200 million each. The UK needs about 15,000 windmills to meet current energy demand, so as to reach net zero by 2050.)
Quoting Possibility
I have absolutely no idea what this means. Science is wide open to relevant information. That's how it works. If someone developed a scientific theory based on partial information they'd be wasting their time. It would be killed at the peer review stage. I'm gonna go ahead and guess you're not particularly familiar with science.
Quoting Possibility
No, this is incorrect. As a matter of physical fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. With effectively limitless clean energy we can extract carbon from the atmosphere, desalinate sea water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle all our waste - and so on, allowing for much greater prosperity while simultaneously protecting the climate, sensitive natural habitat and natural water sources. Given the energy we can make the deserts bloom and leave the forests alone. Drilling close to magma pockets in the earth's crust, can give us that energy in near limitless quantities.
But here's something else about the present virus outbreak that is quite astonishing. Within months of the outbreak we have access to not just one, but several, vaccinations sufficiently efficacious and safe for mass distribution, greatly reducing the potential toll in death and disability.
These include vaccines that use entirely new technologies.
This is not an issue of mere possibility. It is something to celebrate.
And no understanding of the lack of scientific research protocols that have gone into the current "vaccines".
A useful idiot and gatekeeper.
A true believer in the god of science.
Probably has no idea of the validity of covid tests or the numerous medical academics who disagree totally with lockdowns and the medical response.
To say nothing of the real reason for this pandemic.
Cherry picking just like the fundie Christians.
In praise of DNA!
No, you're confused; the unity you've achieved is that of the braying ass.
The above assertion or conclusion doesn't come with an explanation of what do you mean by "positive". Upon deeper exploration you may find what you consider positive isn't all that positive.
If your comparison is based on previous civilizations and societies then also your comparison is moot, since there seems to be a gap or an amnesia of facts/knowledge. There are tons of archaeological and other kinds of evidence (pointing to a quality of science) that cannot be replicated even today.
I am surprised you have ignored the following comment:
Quoting Shawn
See your company above.
This :point: Quoting baker
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting baker
Speaking for myself, I'd say we need to look at science's 1) course correction mechanism and 2) timing of the course correction mechanism's activation. To be fair, baker's right, the timing seems off as a lot of damage has already been done and many of the branches of science directly or indirectly involved in mitigating science's impact on health and environment are in their infancy or adolescence. However, we must give the devil his due - science at least has a course correction or self-righting mechanism (srimech).
āI think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened," said the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a fact-checking symposium on May 11.
Environmental Science, Solar Power, Low emission vehilces, Electric vehicles, and so on
In the post I talked about science being recursive; it refers back to itself. The course correction I have in mind is the way science looks very hard for errors in the descriptions it produces, and rectifies them over time. Scientists go out of their way to find problems in the science with which they are involved.
You seem to have something else in mind.
I can think of some obvious examples where this would never occur with the current understanding of science. One is multiverse and many worlds nonsense. The other is, whether evolution develops to some end, like higher awareness. Both those question are beyond the scope of science, but involve issues contested by scientists. And I canāt see any way they could be subject to correction or even investigation from within the current paradigmatic views of science. Theyāre where current science bleeds into crap metaphysics, in my opinion.
I went looking for mention of this in the English language Chinese news - found none, of course.
I'm more in mind of the detail found in the minutia of academic papers. Most scientists are more bottle washer than Nobel Laureate.
It seems we were talking about two entirely different issues. What I had in mind was how many scientific achievements (discoveries/inventions) seem to have side-effects, you know, harmful consequences like diseases and environmental damage and how these can be offset by nothing else but taking a scientific approach to these problems. The bad news is science causes problems, big and small; the good news is only science can solve them. That sums up what I meant by course-correction mechanisms that are part and parcel of the scientific enterprise.
As for how science improves its descriptions of reality, all I can say is there is constant pressure being exerted on any scientific description of reality (hypotheses and theories) that takes the form of experiments that serve a dual purpose, one to confirm and the other to disprove a given hypothesis/theory. This confirm/disprove cycle defines the scientific spirit and with it science asymptotically approaches the truth. This is course-correction at its best in my humble opinion.
:up:
...whatever that is.
Yep, science does bad things. But it does much more good than bad.
Well, no; that's not what one sees. Planes fly. Computers compute. Engines provide power.
The stuff works.
And it works more reliably than virgin sacrifices or praying to the Saints.
Now if you can't agree to that, there's not much more can be said.
News flash; Religion ain't going away.
News flash 2; Many scientists are religious.
News flash 3; science to many people doesn't offer adequate answers to life. @Banno
:up: It's just one way of looking at science. There definitely are other and better perspectives around.
(Being There reference...anyone? Peter Sellers?)
It's a brilliant film, about a simple-minded man who accidentally works his way up to being a presidential candidate.
Also some of the tracking, using old methods (back to the 1800s?) and new tech.
Learning more about spreading, now including some focus on aerosols.
ā¢ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-embracing-the-science-on-airborne-transmission-is-key-to-preventing/
ā¢ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210511123622.htm
Of course you would think that!
In any case they are not my company, but yours, since this is your thread.
BTW I think you are overly certain about the efficacy and safety of the vaccines.I am not claiming that they are not efficacious or safe, just that it is way too early to tell, and that there is way too much vested interest behind the official narrative to justify any attitude but caution.
They're not the only two alternatives, but I'll let it go.
//edit// what I mean to say is that science is no gaurantor of wisdom. It is wise to apply the scientific method, but it is not always applied wisely, and wisdom is not something intrinsic to it.
One would think so, to look around the comments here.
For an alternative account take a look at this passage from here:
[i]4. The US role in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[2] From June 2014 to May 2019, Daszakās EcoHealth Alliance had a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, to do gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Whether or not SARS2 is the product of that research, it seems a questionable policy to farm out high-risk research to foreign labs using minimal safety precautions. And if the SARS2 virus did indeed escape from the Wuhan institute, then the NIH will find itself in the terrible position of having funded a disastrous experiment that led to the death of more than 3 million worldwide, including more than half a million of its own citizens.
The responsibility of the NIAID and NIH is even more acute because for the first three years of the grant to EcoHealth Alliance there was a moratorium on funding gain-of-function research. When the moratorium expired in 2017, it didnāt just vanish but was replaced by a reporting system, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework, which required agencies to report for review any dangerous gain-of-function work they wished to fund.
The moratorium, referred to officially as a āpause,ā specifically barred funding any gain-of-function research that increased the pathogenicity of the flu, MERS or SARS viruses. It defined gain-of-function very simply and broadly as āresearch that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.ā
But then a footnote on p.2 of the moratorium document states that ā[a]n exception from the research pause may be obtained if the head of the USG funding agency determines that the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.ā
This seemed to mean that either the director of the NIAID, Anthony Fauci, or the director of the NIH, Francis Collins, or maybe both, would have invoked the exemption in order to keep the money flowing to Shiās gain-of-function research, and later to avoid notifying the federal reporting system of her research.
āUnfortunately, the NIAID Director and the NIH Director exploited this loophole to issue exemptions to projects subject to the Pause āpreposterously asserting the exempted research was āurgently necessary to protect public health or national securityāāthereby nullifying the Pause,ā Dr. Richard Ebright said in an interview with Independent Science News.
But itās not so clear that the NIH thought it necessary to invoke any loopholes. Fauci told a Senate hearing on May 11 that āthe NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.ā
This was a surprising statement in view of all the evidence about Shiās experiments with enhancing coronaviruses and the language of the moratorium statute defining gain-of-function as āany research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.ā
The explanation may be one of definition. Daszakās EcoHealth Alliance, for one, believes that the term gain-of-function applies only to enhancements of viruses that infect humans, not to animal viruses. āSo gain-of-function research refers specifically to the manipulation of human viruses so as to be either more easily transmissible or to cause worse infection or be easier to spread,ā an Alliance official told The Dispatch Fact Check.
If the NIH shares the EcoHealth Alliance view that āgain of functionā applies only to human viruses, that would explain why Fauci could assure the Senate it had never funded such research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But the legal basis of such a definition is unclear, and it differs from that of the moratorium language which was presumably applicable.
Definitions aside, the bottom line is that the National Institutes of Health was supporting research of a kind that could have generated the SARS2 virus, in an unsupervised foreign lab that was doing work in BSL2 biosafety conditions.
In conclusion. If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isnāt this more widely known? As may now be obvious, there are many people who have reason not to talk about it. The list is led, of course, by the Chinese authorities. But virologists in the United States and Europe have no great interest in igniting a public debate about the gain-of-function experiments that their community has been pursuing for years.
Nor have other scientists stepped forward to raise the issue. Government research funds are distributed on the advice of committees of scientific experts drawn from universities. Anyone who rocks the boat by raising awkward political issues runs the risk that their grant will not be renewed and their research career will be ended.[/i]
Mounting evidence suggests COVID vaccines do reduce transmission.
Science Brief: Background Rationale and Evidence for Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People
Coronavirus spread slowed by vaccines, study suggests
...but we should go with Janus' gut feeling, shouldn't we.
I haven't said that the vaccines are not efficacious or safe; so this is a strawman statement. I am obviously more cautious than you are in assessing the accuracy, relevance and veracity of the data to be found in articles you have no more hope than I do, due to lack of actual experience and expertise, in critically assessing.
Including yours.
Incidentally as weāre on the topic, I was fortuitously offered a COVID jab when I went to a medical center on other business in late April. Accepted it without a momentās hesitation, second shot booked for July. I for one have no doubt about the safety and efficacy of them.
SO... not at all?
Must fact check the interwebs articles.
I canāt disagree with you here. Iām not talking about any commitment, though - just acknowledging a dimensionally structural difference between action, prediction and idea.
The line between action and lack of action (wu-wei) is conceptual, as is the line between expectation and judgement, even between faith and doubt. Where we draw them is based on the distinction of consciousness, which is uncertain - ideologically, probabilistically or provisionally determined by conceptual structures.
I think we need to recognise the implications of this in terms of science, logic and religion. Statements structured within one limited conceptual system do not readily convert to another without loss of information. Theories or claims isolated from their progress through scientific or logical methodology lack a sense of the provisional certainty structured within these systems. Likewise, statements of faith isolated from certain metaphysical structures of ātruthā (as constructed by religious discourse) rarely have any standing outside of it, and are designed to resist predictability or empirical testing. This is about how we bracket out uncertainty using language.
Personally, what Iām looking for is a methodological device or discourse that doesnāt need to āswitch gaugesā, but rather enables us to navigate between these human systems of provisional or ideological certainty without loss of information. Or at least to recognise and account for the limitations of each approach within a broader methodology.
I think this is where philosophy needs to be right now - in the dimensional space of uncertainty that dissolves the boundaries between science, logic and religion. Arguing for the benevolence of āscienceā seems important right now, but itās not the role of philosophy to throw its support behind a particular system here. It only demonstrates a weakness in oneās understanding, a resistance to information that threatens their own sense of provisional certainty.
I'm not too much of a historian but I do know the Germans got screwed at Versailles and that led to the rise of Hitler etc. I didn't mean to get into the historical nuances of the phrase "good German" and I see your point.
Quoting counterpunch
You can get in a lot of trouble these days for pointing that out, but it's true. A set of facts that can be spun many ways.
Quoting counterpunch
I'm in agreement. Obama was a race hustler who made race relations far worse than before he became president. I'm an old MLK-style liberal (content of character etc.) appalled by what's become of race relations. I have no idea where it's going, whether the present moment will die out or get worse.
No longer recall the specifics, but something about support for authoritarianism along with my dislike of police thuggery in the name of conformance to mask laws that don't actually have much impact on public health in the first place.
Quoting T Clark
He finally admitted it after a year denying it, and there has been no new evidence. The evidence was there all along, as were the many reputable scientists pointing that out all year. All that's changed is that the MSM can no longer keep a lid on the truth.
And what difference it makes is that in 2014, the US outlawed gain-of-function research, only to re-authorize it in 2017. And if in the end it turns out that Fauci was the one who paid the Chinese to conduct that research, that is a hell of a news story. And a case can already be made. Money is fungible. We know he gave money to EcoHealth Alliance, and they gave money to the Chinese, and they spent some of it on GOF research that may have led to a covid lab leak. That's a news story and it matters. It matters a lot if in the end, the US is paying the Chinese to do bioweapons research that either accidentally or deliberately had such a profound effect on us. I'm a little puzzled as how you can even ask the question of "what difference does it make." Isn't that what Hillary said about a dead ambassador? Is this the story you're going with?
Quoting T Clark
In terms of the response, not much difference at all. In terms of preventing the next similar incident, it makes all the difference in the world. Every advanced country in the world is doing bioweapons research, either for offensive purposes, which nobody admits to, or for defensive purposes, which they all claim. "The other guys might do it so we have to learn about it."
I regard it as naive and childish in the extreme for anyone to be in denial about bioweapons research, and to claim we shouldn't be asking these questions about who is funding it and what the consequences might be for humanity. If THIS pandemic came from bat soup, the next one will be an accidental lab leak, and the one after that will be a deliberate lab leak. And if you don't know that, I urge you to do your homework.
Maybe start here. Chinese scientists discussed weaponising coronavirus in 2015: Media report.
BEIJING: Chinese military scientists allegedly investigated weaponising coronaviruses five years before the COVID-19 pandemic and may have predicted a World War III fought with biological weapons, according to media reports referring to documents obtained by the US State Department.
"What difference does it make," indeed.
Quoting T Clark
Can't counter the facts, so slime the publisher. Sadly, the information they print isn't being reported by Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper. If it was, I'd link it. The Federalist has a conservative take on the news, but I would not call them a knee-jerk right-wing rag, unless you also admitted that by the same criterion, the NYT is a knee-jerk left-wing rag.
Quoting T Clark
Panic and hysteria are never appropriate responses. The US government did a terrible job responding to the pandemic. I believe that my opinion will be vindicated over the next few years as people get perspective, but the jury's still out at the moment. I do believe that the sudden realization that it may well have been a lab leak, after a year of suppressing and deplatforming and smearing credible advocates of that position, supports my conclusion and not yours.
Quoting T Clark
Is that someone who thinks Caesar was stabbed by a lone knifeman and that 9/11 was done by a lone planeman? I am not sure how to take that but it strikes me as funny.
Quoting T Clark
The US response to covid was driven by panic, confusion, and hysteria. Trump derangement syndrome had a lot to do with it. This is already becoming clear. as the Washington Post just admitted the other day.
John Kass wrote a piece about this. The Wuhan Story That Finally Has Legs, Now That Trump Is Gone
The NY Post reported that the Biden admin actually shut down an investigation into the lab leak hypothesis, and NOW they have been forced to start it up again. Biden shut down Wuhan inquiry out of spite ā and is now forced to reverse course
Finally, here's an article documenting the US government's restoration of GOF research in 2017
[url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08837-7]US government lifts ban on risky pathogen research
[/url] [i]The National Institutes of Health will again fund research that makes viruses more dangerous.
[/i]
This is very important in a thread about the goodness of science. In the old days if you were a bright young biology postdoc, you'd go into curing cancer or heart disease or otherwise finding ways to alleviate human suffering. Now? You follow the government grant money and devote your knowledge and skill to figuring out more clever ways to weaponize diseases. @Banno, any opinion?
To sum up, the question of whether covid came from bat soup or was accidentally or perhaps deliberately released from a Chinese bioweapons lab partially funded by American taxpayer dollars controlled by Dr. Fauci, is a question that goes directly to the heart of the goodness of science. This GOF research was outlawed in the US in 2014. Scientists and others who follow these issues knew all about this stuff years ago. It didn't just come into existence because people started getting sick in 2019.
Bioweapons research goes back to the great German chemist Fritz Haber, who did brilliant work on synthesizing nitrogen in order to make fertilizers that now feed billions of people; and who then, in WWI, invented nerve gas and personally went out to the battlefields to deploy it. His wife committed suicide, in part because of her opposition to his war work.
Now that's science. It can feed you or gas you to death. It can cure your disease, or give you a disease that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Science is a double-edged sword.
Saying 1) that we can rewind the clock of causality billions of years is the same logic as saying 2) "we know this can power the sun so it does. There is no metaphysics necessity to either statement. If you studied the wind patterns in a room to determine where certain papers flew to this doesn't rule out all kinds of factors that could have brought the papers to their place and put the wind into its structure. It's impossible to rule out unknown forces to create a theory of everything
Geez, no fair responding to my posts from deep in the past. I've probably changed my mind since then.
Quoting fishfry
I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond in any detail. Here is a summary from Newsweek that summarizes Fauci's comments on the origin. His comments seem straightforward and reasonable to me. Of course Newsweek is part of the "MSM."
Quoting fishfry
That's what matters to me. That's where the science has made a difference.
Quoting fishfry
Agreed. I am skeptical of your contention that there is any intended coverup.
Quoting fishfry
I repeat - they endorsed and promoted the stolen election story. They denied the seriousness of the Covid pandemic. Nuff said.
Quoting fishfry
I do not consider the NYT an unbiased source of information on the political ramifications of this issue and others.
Quoting fishfry
What you call "panic and hysteria" I call a reasonable and fairly effective response to the situation. To the extent it wasn't, that was caused by political interference by the Republican Party in general and Donald Trump in particular.
Quoting fishfry
I read the article and found it unconvincing. The fact that you seem to find the origin story more important than the response story does not make sense to me.
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
I was commenting on several specific comments you made about the Covid response, not on the value of science. In my previous posts I have expressed concerns about the possible consequences of scientific "progress."
Is that "de-platforming"? I hope so.
Quoting Banno
If you believe that those who peer review the articles in politically or economically contentious areas of science are free from bias, then you are more gullible than I thought. What you should always ask yourself is whether there is likely to be any significant vested interest motivating the views being presented. That's why I tryst climate science because there is far more benefit to vested interests in denying, than there is in affirming, it. When it comes to the vaccines, well you only have to consider how many new billionaires have reportedly joined the club on account of them. Of course this doesn't mean they are not effective or that they are dangerous, but they certainly haven't gone through the usual rigours of testing that is standard practice with vaccines; so if you trust them you are making a leap of faith, and should be able to admit that if you are intellectually honest.
Quoting frank
Sure, it's good to check the facts as much as it possible to get unbiased information and to be able to be reasonably assured that it is in fact unbiased. I was not presenting the article I quoted from as gospel, but merely as an alternative view. As to fact-checking; who fact-checks the fact-checkers?
Quoting Wayfarer
Don't worry, you'll probably be fine.
You're going to have to engage with the science, though, if you wish to have an opinion on anything from climate change through to viruses. Deliberately ignoring any science with political import would be absurd. It's not hard to see that the stuff Fishfry is using is very fringe; he's obviously spinning it. Go to WHO or Nature or some such and you can quickly get a sense of the consensus, or if there is none of the issues that are ate stake.
Just look how most of the virologists fell into line to suggest that it was completely absurd to suggest that the virus could have been (partly at least) engineered in a lab and escaped. they did that at a time when there was no clear evidence either way, and as good scientists they should have suspended judgement until more evidence became available. I think the same goes for the safety and efficacy of the vaccines; it is simply not plausible that there is enough evidence yet available to be able to form a sound rational judgement.
Labeling fishfry's opinions as "fringe" is just a convenient way of dismissing what he's saying without having to provide cogent arguments against it.
Sure - I think you can engage with the science.
Quoting Janus
Make up your mind - do you examine the science or not? You are ale to judge stuff when it agrees with you, but not when it doesn't?
No stress but, there's a distinction between German and Nazi worth keeping in mind - particularly given that our democracies, in the US and the UK - are so polarised by populism right now, and the economic consequences of brexit and covid, are yet to fully impact the balance sheet. Could be a tricky few years ahead.
Quoting fishfry
It's the difference between statistical fact and a social media narrative. There's 350 million Americans, and 10 million arrests per year, 0.01% of which end in a fatality - but if two black people die in the same week, that's incontrovertible proof by twitter standards, that the police are Nazis, and there are plenty of people willing to exploit that correlation for political ends.
Quoting fishfry
It's not a one way street. There are real racists, who hated that President Obama was black. I too judge people by the content of their character, and from this side of the pond, he seemed like a good President. I don't know of good reasons to criticise him, but if there were - that's what's wrong with political correctness. You can't call out a black person for being an asshole, without appearing to be attacking them based on skin colour.
Here, the Labour Party - which is like your Democrats, only more so, have been absolutely decimated at the ballot box; largely because they've turned their back on the white working class majority - they were established to represent, and thrown themselves into political correctness with abandon, leaving the majority unrepresented. I honestly think the Conservatives are having to damage their own political prospects, just to keep democracy alive. How else can one explain Dominic Cummings - turning on his own? A sudden fit of conscience? lol.
Would you guys please get back on topic? There's plenty of places to discuss race and god; this is a thread about science. At least make some attempt to relate the discussion to the OP, perhaps?
What I meant was that, as non-scientists, we are not really able to engage with the science in a truly informed way, unless we are prepared to spend countless hours researching every angle, as a very good science journalist would; and they don't all agree with one another.
Quoting Banno
But I haven't presented any opinion, but merely alternative views to the official narrative; neither of which I subscribe to because I am not confident I possess sufficient evidence to judge, or even that there is sufficient evidence such that anyone could rationally judge.
Of course you can - there are many reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Look at the ones that have been cited here - take a real look at their worth. You'll see a trend.
Quoting Janus
And yet judge you must. So what to do?
Yes, certainly. Test tube. My sincere apologies. Bunsen burner. On topic from now on. E=Mc2. Or at the very least, a pretence of such.
I don't have to judge; I can suspend judgement for the time being as to the origin of the virus and Fauci's involvement or lack thereof. Same goes for the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines.
If Covid was rampant I would make a risk assessment, and given that short-term ill-effects and death associated with the vaccines seem to be far less prevalent than short-term ill-effects and death associated with Covid, I would probably take the jab if I felt sufficiently at risk of catching Covid, As to possible long-term effects of both vaccines and Covid, it is too early to tell.
I don't understand. My posts have been all about science including the response to the pandemic in particular. I don't see how that is off topic at all. I went back and checked all my posts in this thread for the last 3 days and couldn't find anything about race or god. Did I miss one?
Banno is getting off on being a dick-tator. My post was chiefly about the difference between statistical fact and social media narrative; as it played out with regard to a particular political/racial example. Apparently, examples are off topic. Explanation of the religious roots of anti-scientism - off topic.
We are required to shout:
"Nuclear weapons!"
"Antibiotics!"
...at eachother, over and over again!
Oh, the wit of the forums! Such elegant humour!
off topic!
Thanks, I do try.
Just saying your deceptively simple question is in fact a huge and complex subject area that plays out right across society and the world, past and future, left and right, religious and secular - you've opened a can o' worms, and then go 'ewww, worms!'
Yes. It's such simplistic dogma, people are being infantilized. Science deals in numbers. But politicians and some scientists who speak in favor of vaccination, and then one's actual doctor use a higly idealized, dogmatic, simplistic narrative. As in, "Repeat after me: The vaccine is safe and effective! The vaccine is safe and effective! Anyone who doesn't fall in line with our hysteria is a science denier and antivaxxer and should be punished in every imaginable way!"
There's no room for detail, no room for nuance, it's supposed to be just black and white, hysterically so: if you're not hysterically with us, you're hysterically against us!
Praising science is founded on philosophy, a philosophy that is new to humanity. Billions of years can erase so much that we think what appears to have happened did. You have a deficient philosophical world view. Why even praise science when it can only make us comfortable
You wrote this:
Quoting Banno
I responded this:
Quoting T Clark
I haven't seen a reply from you yet.
@Banno is wonderful. [irony]I don't care what [s]everybody[/s] anybody says.[/irony]
It's liars all the way down.
When we're trying to use science to develop policy, especially in an urgent situation like the pandemic, there comes a time when you have to make a decision. When that happens, the right choice is generally to follow the scientific consensus, even if it is imperfect.
'Injecting doubt': How hard-core COVID vaccine deniers could impact the 'moveable middle' (Sharon Kirkey, Edmonton Examiner, May 2021)
In a way, the doubling down, entrenchment, aggression seems to be a form of backfire effect.
I don't think you were banned for pointing out that black people commit a lot more crime. I think you were banned because so many people who raise that point refuse to have a credible discussion about why black people commit a lot more crime. There are two generally understood reasons posited: 1. Black people commit a lot more crime because they are victims of the left, liberal policies, Democrats, and Obama; 2. Blacks are inferior. No reasonable person would go down either road and thus, it's easier, smarter, and wiser to just ban the offender.
As I have argued before, if one is truly interested in a scientific analysis of a socially-touchy situation, and if they feel oppressed, or cancelled by ostracization, or consequences, in their pursuit of truth, they can proceed through a process of elimination. In the instant case, rather than pointing fingers and blaming the left for not treating people the way in which the right would treat them, and which treatment would make people good, honorable, upstanding, righteous citizens like those on the right; or, rather than arguing blacks are inferior, the logical choice would be to engage the oppositional left on their case; i.e. Disprove the reasons which the left posits for why black people commit a lot more crime.
There are many ways in which this could be done. For instance, the seeker of truth could subject him/herself to what black people have gone through and then see if they can bootstrap themselves out of it using white, non-criminal ways. That, of course, would be difficult due to the compounding growth for whites one way, and compounding loss for blacks the other way, but it could give some insight.
On the other hand, if the scientist was afraid to go down, subjecting himself to similar treatment, or could not find volunteers to do so, he/she could go the other direction by bringing black people up and see how that faired. The difficulty, of course, would be the compounding down (lack of equal treatment can compound down with lack of education, interest in education, no father, believing what you are told about yourself, crime as a way out, etc.). The scientist would have to overcome all that.
The other think the scientist would have to look out for is the anecdotal outlier. You know, some white criminal who grew up with it all, or the black success story who thrived despite the odds. After all, we are talking the social sciences here, and the norm. As scientists, we know how fundamentally stupid it is to run to a Chicago Welfare Queen as a stand in for black people, or even a Ben Carson for that matter. We wouldn't go to Dillon Klebold or Donald Trump for science on the matter of whites.
But if it turned out that the process of elimination did not work, then maybe the hypothesis that black people are inferior, or that the left is keeping them down, would shift the burden back to the left.
Imagine if, after the Civil War, this happened: All former slave-owning real and personal properties were given to former slaves; All children of former slave-owners were taken from their families and removed to a school in Carlisle, PA for re-education; All wives and old men of former slave-owners were shipped off to distant Reservations to become dependent wards of the government; All former slave-owning men were forced into indentured servitude under their former slaves for a period of years; All proven sympathizers of slavery and/or former slave-owners were subject to the same treatment; All those who resisted were hung.
Is the fact such did not occur, evidence of white privilege? I suspect we would not have people flying the Stars and Bars in the shadow of the First Amendment, nor would we still have statues glorifying Traitors? Racists would still be under the fridge and no one would be left to take pride in their treasonous, racist ancestors? Then blacks would have owned land (not forty acres and a stupid mule that were subsequently taken by Jim Crow). They would have plantations that became subdivisions and cities, lesser flight to the northern factories and poverty towns where they commit more crime than white people. They'd be more integrated and educated, etc.
So maybe the right has a point. Maybe the left did create all these contemporary problems by not killing all the racists when we had the chance. Stupid left, with their magnanimity in victory, and their exhaustion from war, taking a gentle stab at carpet bagging and then going home, just to let the enemy back in.
Hmm. I'll have to rethink that.
Add gravity into it all, and we're getting more into causation.
And with those two, you've taken a small step towards modeling the Solar system.
Given such (overwhelmingly) established characterizations of (celestial) mechanics, you'd have to get into some heavy-duty skepticism to deny the scientific consensus (heck, you might be converging on solipsism).
As an aside, I've noticed a few people out there going down this sort of denial, only to turn around and declare that a Jewish carpenter supernaturally walked on water a couple thousand years ago in the Middle East. Weird.
That'll be because I haven't replied.
Of course this is generally true. Most people don't want to think for themselves; and they should and inevitably will, follow the official line, which ideally ought to be based on the best science. In an emergency coordinated action is needed, and the tendency of the majority to follow is necessary to achieve that. But it does not follow that everyone ought to believe the official narrative. People who want to think for themselves can make up their own minds, and it won't be a problem for coordinated action, because they are a tiny minority.
Quoting frank
Of course it's not; the mere facts of probability and human diversity suggest there will be varied degrees of truth and accuracy across reports: in other words there will be mistakes, there will be lies and there will be honest reports; the difficulty lies in deciding which is which when you have no direct experience of what is being reported. Then you have to rely on your intuition about what is likely to be true and what is probably not. And of course your intuitions could be wrong.You can therefore afford to suspend judgement until and unless the situation forces you to make a choice as to which way to go.
...because it can make us comfortable?
I like my reverse-cycle heater.
How does dragon-theory explain how it works, let alone how to make one? It doesn't. What you are suggesting is rubbish.
ANd yet, here you are typing on your device to the waiting world, thanks to science.
And when you look a the numbers, it turns out that vaccines afe safe.
Sure it is. It's an important and curious question. I just want you to focus on the contents of the can and stop playing with the can opener.
More engineering than science, but yes, cell phones are great.
Then in amongst your liars are people doing great stuff.
That was a sarcastoid directed at Janus, who asked me who fact checks fact checkers.
For the record, I've been partially vaccinated, and I fully accept that the vaccine is safe and effective.
Are you going to?
Scientific thinking is very prominent, but any number of actions can produce a pattern that seems to indicate one specific series. We are all solipsists in that we know the world from our perspective. The world could have started at my birth as Bertrand Russell did or may have said. Science makes people give up personal thinking for "group think". I remember back to my first experiences of consciousness and free will and see his I've seen science make things. They know about Banno's heaters. But they don't know billions of years ago for the same reason we can't trust ancient history as being as reliable as modern history
any number of actions can produce a pattern, but one can infer the cause of a pattern and test for recurrences - quite formally, using Bayesian statistics, if needed. SO we can rationally choose between causes for a given pattern.
We are social creatures, relying on both information and conventions in all our deliberations; past the age of a few years we are able to understand that the world appears different to others. Absurdly, Solipsism has to be learned.
Group think relies on seeking agreement despite the facts. Science is explicitly configured so that this is as far as possible avoided. One can achieve prominence in science by finding things that are wrong.
Quoting Gregory What?
If you find a document from ancient times that says Jesus rose from the dead, we can infer that there were many factors from back then that could taint the authority of the witness. Modern history we can test better. The further we go in history the less we know and this applies to all the sciences that deals with the past
That is, the analogy with historical documents does not aply to scientific hypotheses from past events.
It does apply. All kinds of dark matters and many worlds and all that stuff could have hidden the true origin of the universe
My last remark is to repeat that scientists analyze rays from the sun and infer what's inside it. But it could be an unknown substance inside that gives off rays similar to what a small man made sun would do. As scientist travel the past in their minds, they cannot be certain they know all the factors that lead to the few traces we have of years past
Quoting Gregory
You attempted to show that any scientific inference about what happened in the past was no better than conjecture.
Now you have adjusted your position, saying scientists cannot be certain.
Sure, science is the best inference from the available evidence, not certainty. It's good to see you modifying your position.
Quoting Banno
I gave up as well.
(Wasn't that English is my 2nd language after all.)
@Gregory, you're not really saying much here.
If you raise doubt about substantially well-established models, then you'll need something substantial, a "what if dragons" ain't that.
If you promote substantial belief, then you'll need relevant and proportional justification.
To take on your newest analogy, you suggest that inferences as to the cause of cancer have a firmer footing than inferences about events in the past because the cause might be misattributed. This ignores the fact that the cause of a cancer might also be misattributed. Was it the drinking that cause the liver cancer, or was it that X-ray she had?
There's a basic flaw in your position that stems from your use of analogies.
Quoting Gregory Actually, what you are saying is pretty clear, just wrong.
Except for that bit about "see his I've seen science make things." That was odd. Should it have been "since then I have seen science make things"? Autocorrect is an embuggerance.
It's a shame you have not changed your view. That would be a plus, in my view.
No scientific claim is infallible but the past is far more opaque than the present.
No, it isn't. Despite what the Bellman said, saying it three times does not render it true.
Yes I mistype sometimes and autocorrect does a poor job. My point about solipsism was that we shouldn't have a doubt about others' existence but instead be existentially connected to time
Whatever that means.
Solipsism is self-defeating.
And off-topic.
I mistype often.
I think a philosophy of time will necessarily consider the past more doubtful than the present
Good for you. I think flowers look fantastic in the front garden. So what?
If all you are doing is presenting bits of autobiography, why should we be attentive to your posts?
The account given by science, from big bang through star and planet formation, abiogenesis, evolution, geological change - it's extraordinary! It's brilliant - in the literal sense of shining brightly on who and what we are. And we built it ourselves, using our little ape minds. This must count amongst the greatest achievements of humanity.
But Gregory has a differing opinion. So much for Gregory.
All my posts had a point. You and debate tactics, gee. You debate, you don't try to dialogue
Quoting Banno
That's your opinion. You can't prove it's better than another philosophical view point. You argue "it's science, not philosophy", right? Well this discussion shows that your belief in the formation of the universe is based on philosophy. I accept science in how it operates in the present but not necessarily in what it says about different ages
Rubbish. I've presented direct criticism of your supposed arguments. You have failed to address them. This is a philosophy forum - what did you expect? Your argument was fallacious, your conclusion wrong, but now you would pretend that the critique was just rhetoric.
Quoting Gregory
No, it's not just my opinion - that's were it differs from what you have written. It's a story built up piece by piece, detail on detail, by innumerable people from across the world working to put together the facts.
And all you can do is chant the mantra "It's your opinion!".
False. You said Quoting Banno
I did not do that at all. I was talking about existentialism in response to the solipsist comment. And I clarified this before your remark.
Hume wrote:
"The great subverter of Pyrrhonism or the excessive principles of skepticism is action, and employment, and the occupations of common life. These principles may flourish and triumph in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to refute them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real objects, which actuate our passions and sentiments, are put in opposition to the more powerful principles of our nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined skeptic in the same condition as other mortals." (Hume 1974:425)
He is indeed right in that when we say "there is no causality" we are not saying anything different from "an elephant can appear out of nowhere". We know life only from first person knowledge. Heidegger's Being and Time provides an excellent way to understand time in relation to existentialism. We know time and we can know that time becomes more opaque in the past. Philosophy can't do away with "the presence of the real objects" but it doesn't have to accept that scientists know in detail a causal series that goes back over 14 billions to an exact micro-second. The whole idea can be rejected solely for being ridiculous on the face of it
Not cosmology. Have good day
Relevance?
Quoting Gregory
Indeed, I am.
It is a fundamental assumption of all science that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in our universe, have been the same since the universe began, and will be the same forever. This is no secret, it has been stated explicitly time and again. You are calling that into question. That's fine as far as it goes. Problem is, it seems to be working pretty well so far.
If you take this fundamental assumption away, you are no longer talking science. People aren't going to give you any credence unless you provide some reason to take your skepticism seriously - some reason that the assumption is wrong. I doubt you can do that.
Iām not sure thatās the case...āeverywhere in the universeā? āwill be the same foreverā?
Arenāt both of those disproven by quantum mechanics? How does science account for variables of what is surely a vast amount of knowledge we do NOT posses about the way the laws of physics work?
So... where is it that Quantum mechanics no longer works?
The Principle of Relativity states simply that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.
But folk seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around this.
I wish I could properly respond but Iāve gotten the distinct impression you address me only to fuck with me. Youāll eject, and ignore me as it suits you. Your prerogative, but fool me once shame on you, fool me 8 times shame on me again...lucky number 9 though so Iām afraid not this time sir. :wink:
Well, there are those who think the speed of light changes over time, and that at least some of what we understand as scientific laws are 'habits of nature' that aren't necessarily fixed for all time. But I agree that as a pragmatic principle, they might as well be, and that furthermore it's not within the scope of science to understand why they are the way they are. (Although this hasn't stopped some from trying, by positing meta-laws which govern the emergence of the laws we observe.)
But in a philosophical sense, I think it's important to acknowledge that science doesn't explain scientific laws. It discovers them and exploits them but it doesn't know why f=ma or e=mc[sup]2[/sup].So to therefore claim that science understands 'why the universe is the way it is', is an over-reach, in my view.
Interesting that David Hume was familiar with Pyrrho at all. Interesting essay on that topic here (subtitled David Hume, the Buddha, and a search for the Eastern roots of the Western Enlightenment.)
What is the speed of light outside the universe? We know its speed within it, but if the universe turns inside out the speed of light changes. So the laws may not be the same for future eternity.
I'll respond without trying to fool you even once. As I said, this is an assumption. It underlies all of science. It hasn't been proven and can't really be. You skepticism is an instance of Hume's problem of induction. How do we know that induction is valid? We know it inductively by observing it's effectiveness. Ditto with the Principle of Relativity. We know it because that's how it's worked so far.
Coincidentally, I've just started reading a science fiction book, "The Three Body Problem." In it, physicists discover a violation of the principle. That's as far as I've gotten so far. Please - no spoilers.
I don't know what, if anything, is going on outside our universe. My formulation of the Principle of Relativity specifically indicated it deals with what is going on in this universe. The one where we live that started expanding about 14 billion years ago.
Quoting Gregory
I don't know what "the universe turns inside out" means.
I'd class the Principle of Relativity as a grammatical rule; that is, if we find a violation, then that means we've made a mistake - like finding both bishops on Black squares.
I'm not sure if that's different from what I'm saying or not.
Regardless, that the speed of light is constant for any observer is a consequence of the laws of physics being the same for any observer.
Quoting T Clark
Nor I.
Can you source this? What is it you are referring to?
https://www.space.com/universe-expanding-fast-new-physics.html
https://www.space.com/39815-hubble-suggests-universe-expanding-faster-study.html
Physicists also say that light is mass-less but still they can weigh it. They also say a tightened string has more MASS than a relaxed one and that most molecules and atoms weigh less than the sum of their parts. Rather strange philosophical assumptions are needed to make sense of all this. There are certainly a lot of paradoxes in modern science to say the least.. Fortunately, the eternity of whatever arises mysticism in us coincides with all time and reality.
Think we will leave it there. Folk seem to think I am kicking a puppy. I'll just say it seems you have misunderstood the physics.
Einstein knew that space expands faster than light latter in his life. They had shown it. I was questioning the idea that they can logically follow the expansion back to a singularity.
Quoting Banno
This is to say perhaps that science, with its method that uncovers (and creates) reproducibility, predictability, constancy, universality, has led to discoveries and innovation that improved our comfort and efficiency, impacted other practices, helped ease suffering etc. But the knowledge of science, has also, since the enlightenment, become a standard, created the concept of a fact, what is factual.
The advent of the kind of certain knowledge which science offers created a cultural blindness when the criteria of its judgment was transposed as the measure of every other rationale. We have bad science, but also the damage done in the name of science. Our culture has internalized the need for certainty and will only accept external justification; as if to remove ourselves as knowers. The inability to receive each thing for itself, in the ways it makes itself known, has withered our human judgment. The immediacy of empiricism and the solidity of science have led to the reification of fact which gives us a false confidence in a "soft" field like economics and a distrust of the methods of mastered experience like, say, psychotherapy. We are so taken with the power imbued to fact we are astonished when another refuses to agree or acknowledge the value we have unreflectively given them.
Quoting Banno
So here maybe we could say the talk posits that progress has come from our rejection of the quality of the reinforcement of our explanations. Another way to say that might be that with a justification not created out of thin air but through a method, such as science's, our explanations have the continuity and validity that created the very concept of progress. Unfortunately, I don't believe our culture has benefitted from scientific progress. The expectation that we merely need to explain ourselves in the image of factual knowledge, underestimates the breadth of human culture. I do think there is something to what @Banno adds, if it is in a way not to value what we take facts to express or support, but to judge our selfs, our expressions, even our desire to express ourselves, and not against a standard, but in acceptance or aversion to the status quo, the context. Here there is the possibility not of progress, but of growth.
Ok, I understand that foundational value of assuming the reliability of of certain laws of physics. Like axioms but so far infallibly reliable.
Does science actually operate under the assumption that the laws of physics will always be the same everywhere and always though?
I thought that science would be open to them changing or operating differently somewhere in the universe, wherever the method takes them. Are you saying that it is necessary for science to assume that anything contradicting those foundational assumptions is erroneous and they should try and find data that supports those foundational assumptions? (That question isnāt meant to be rhetorical or baiting, This isnāt my area so Iām sincerely asking...maybe these foundational assumptions are that important.)
I mentioned quantum mechanics because our understanding of physics breaks down the quantum level, and perhaps naively I thought of the quantum level as somewhere in the universe as well. That would contradict the portions I quoted of yours wouldnāt it?
I think it's cultural. Celebration of the criminal in black culture - particularly music, relates in turn to history, and the need to retain pride in face of persecution. Criminality was one of the few ways out of the ghetto. I'd like to think that's changed for those with the ability, but for those without it continues to serve as an excuse for fecklessness, encouraging criminality in young black men. Referencing Grand Theft Auto - I remember them mocking the guy assigned a job on release slinging burgers; ripping him about his hairnet. The pride invested in the criminal identity is a disadvantage to black people in my view. But then this raises the question of belonging to the societies they find themselves in - and it's thus in general terms I support the values political correctness purports to aspire to, it's just that I don't believe political correctness is honest, and cite twitter banning for stating facts - in contradiction to a media narrative inciting black people to further self inflicted injury, as evidence.
This is from Einstein's original paper on Special Relativity:
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ālight medium,ā suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the āPrinciple of Relativityā)
Quoting DingoJones
Identified scientific laws have changed over the years as we've gained more knowledge. New laws are generated, e.g. the old Laws of Conservation of Matter and Conservation of Energy had to be revised following Special Relativity, which showed that matter and energy are the same thing. It became Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. That has always happened and will continue. The Principle of Relativity doesn't say that laws won't change. It says that whatever new laws are developed, they will apply everywhere.
Quoting DingoJones
I don't think this has anything to do with quantum mechanics. QM is just one more of those laws that apply everywhere.
Ok, thanks. :up:
First off, your statement has nothing to do with the Problem of Induction as described by Hume.
What you have described is the Reverse Principle of Relativity - we can never know anything because everything changes everywhere and always. As I noted, you're welcome to that assumption, but it takes you outside of science. You have to play the science game by the science rules. As in the common example, God could have created the universe complete as we find it three seconds ago. In order to go about our business in the world, we assume that didn't happen.
How much of Hume have you read? He wrote that causality applies within the universe but not necessarily to the universe as a whole. I used this logic in a slightly different way in saying we can reverse causality to find origin in the universe within a certain scope but not necessarily to the universe at large.
Also, God could not have created the universe 3 seconds ago because I infallibly remember the universe existing since as far back as my memories go (age 3). So the universe from my perspective has certainly existed for 32 years, and possibly for much longer
True. When they talk about where the big bang came from, they're expanding the meaning of "universe".
I was mistaken. Since we had been talking about Hume's problem of induction, I assumed that's what you were referring.
Quoting Gregory
The obvious answer is that God could have created your memories along with all the rest of the universe.
From the point of view of the Principle of Relativity, the universe we are talking about is the expanding space in which we live. It was created, according to widely accepted theory, during a big bang that happened about 14 billion years ago. We cannot, and may never be able to, know if there is anything beyond those limits.
They speculate anyway. Watch more PBS Space Time on the YouTube.
Whether or not something exists outside our local space-time continuum, everything I've said about the Principle of Relativity relates this one here. The one where we live. If other continua exist outside this one, they may have very different laws and parameters.
That's not obvious. It sounds like your more a skeptic than I am
Quoting T Clark
The one we live IN. That is key. Do you appreciate how old 14 billions years is and how big trillions of light years of space is? There are things that are too old and too big for us to know anything about. That's my view and I think i have a good intuition of time and how causality can change over epochs. There are few things that I can say I know them for sure, but other writers on this forum think cosmology as understood nowadays is very highly reliable. I'm not convinced that is the case. One billion years can erase billions of traces of the casual series
Or a bowl of Frosted Flakes. Or Silvester Stallone's back pocket. Or Kankakee Illinois.
This whole idea has been around for a long time. I didn't come up with it. The idea of God changing our memories has always been part of it.
Quoting Gregory
Whatever you believe, however skeptical you are, no matter how much you don't like it, science is explicitly and definitively built on the foundation of the Principle of Relativity. Those of us who accept and use the scientific method are fish swimming in the water of relativity. Perhaps you are the wise fisherman on the shore watching us in amusement as we swim around in our wrong-headedness.
In this review, Neil Ormerod talks of the 'anxiety over contingency':
[quote=Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss; https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-metaphysical-muddle-of-lawrence-krauss-why-science-cant-get-/10100010]Various claims have been made that somehow science can come up with a theory which is so good that it must be true - a "theory of everything" in which all the loose ends are tied up, no free variables remain. The two main contenders for this are theories of the multiverse and theories of quantum gravitation. While they are not unrelated, they do have distinctive features.
...
In metaphysical terms, both the theory of a multiverse and the "theory of everything" are seeking to move beyond contingency to necessity, to formulate what would in traditional terms be called "necessary" being. This approach is an attempt to bypass the traditional response which would identify such a necessary being with God. But the simple fact is that no mathematical formula creates anything. In itself, it is the creation of the mind that conceives it. It may help explain what exists, but it does not create the thing it explains.
The anxiety over contingency is nonetheless a valid anxiety because without some necessary being - such as God - the drive towards the intelligibility of the universe, which is the foundational drive of science, hits a brick wall with existence itself, which remains radically unintelligible, without explanation, unless it is related in some way to necessary being.
This, of course, is not a proof that such a being exists, but it does indicate why the notion of a divine being arises in relation to the problem of contingency; it also indicates the vacuous nature of the question, "Who made God?" Necessary being is self-explanatory; it needs no further explanation, no "maker" to explain it. It also shows why God's existence or non-existence can never be a scientific question. Scientific method is predicated on the need for empirical verification, which means it can only deal with contingent being, not necessary being. We can never get to God, or get rid of God, as the conclusion of a scientific argument.[/quote]
Quoting Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss
This is exactly right - the universe is ultimately radically unintelligible and without explanation. I'm cool with that.
(I would prefer āmeasureā to ādiscoverā but Iāll let it go.)
That's quite funny. I just finished the book where he says that. An Outline of Philosophy. It was extremely good even beyond comments of that type. I liked it better than his Human Knowledge
It's interesting that based on (for him) new physics, he describes the world in terms of events, not things.
Actually I should mention, back in those days - late 70's - I gained entry to University as an adult entrant on the basis of a written exam, a large part of which was a comprehension test on, of all things, a long passage from Bertrand Russell's Mysticism and Logic. It was right up my street, and very much the core of what I then went on to study (not that any of the lecturers had any interest in such esoterica).
Yes. His philosophy was very much based on science. He says in this book "matter has become as ghostly as anything in a spiritualist sƩance."
Nevertheless, I wish more philosophers at that time in the history of physics would have written about the subject and its implications for philosophy at large. Not many of them did that, so far as I know. Though some of the founders of QM did. Still, Russell did pretty good work, but I do agree with you that he goes a bit too far into science for my tastes.
Which is why, although he can be obscure to the extreme, I've always liked Whitehead quite a bit. Even more than Russell in some aspects.
I can speculate a bit based on what we've talked about, but it's never been to clear to me how much science should play a role, say, in metaphysics. I think it should have a significant role to play, but I wouldn't base an entire ontology or a worldview on the scientific image...
It's the other way around - metaphysics plays a role in science. It sets the ground rules. The scientific method is metaphysics. The Principle of Relativity we've been talking about is metaphysics.
The relationship between science and mathematics is one that perplexes me. This is an interesting quote. It has set me thinking.
Well yes, that's true actually. What I should have said is that I don't think that science is the whole of metaphysics. I'm using science extremely narrowly here meaning physics basically.
But I think the whole of science includes much more than physics. One such domain where we know very little is in psychology which includes our conception of the world, our perceptions too. These latter aspects can be called "philosophical", without too much controversy I'd think, although parts of perception and common-sense conceptions can be studied empirically.
Then there's the topic of monism, pluralism, dualism, idealism, physicalism and so on. At this point we just call these topics "metaphysical" ones, because I don't think these can be settled by empirical demonstrations.
Quoting T Clark
If you find that quote interesting, you might want to take a look at his An Outline of Philosophy, where he says this and plenty more. I thought it was quite good and pleasant to read.
I've spent a lot of time thinking and writing about the differences between science and metaphysics. I think it's an important distinction that is sometimes hard to keep straight. I sometimes have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to these types of discussions. I think I jumped on you a bit.
I think what I wrote is important, but it does go both ways. I strongly resist the idea that quantum mechanics has any metaphysical implications. It's physics. That's hard for me to maintain sometimes, given how much it has changed the way people think about the world. It's probably true that keeping the distinctions clear and definite has become something of an ideology for me. I probably need to work on that.
In my understanding, scientific statements have truth values, they are either true or false, while metaphysical statements do not. I get a lot of my thinking on this subject from Collingwood's "Essay on Metaphysics." If we let the distinction between physics and metaphysics become too porous, we get the unending arguments about the nature of reality we have here.
Quoting Manuel
I agree. I find this frustrating in discussions of consciousness. That's another place where the distinction between science and philosophy can get lost. On the forum we see a lot of seems-to-me theories about consciousness that don't take the results of lots of fairly recent work into consideration.
Quoting Manuel
I don't think they can be settled at all in any global sense. My party line on metaphysical conceptions is that they are not true or false, they are more or less useful in different situations.
Quoting Manuel
I haven't had much luck with Russell in the past. I'll take another look.
It's not clear to me either. I've worked on this topic and have spoken with esteemed figures too, due to the work I was doing. I think "metaphysics" depends on were you are coming from. I suspect Sellar's distinction between the "manifest image" (ordinary everyday life) and the "scientific image" is crucial here.
For Strawson "metaphysics" is about the nature of the world, but part of it is a-priori. But as he says, some a-priori facts are facts about reality, just as much as empirical demonstrations are matters of fact. But not everything in metaphysics can be settled, far from it.
For Chomsky, "metaphysics" should be re-interpreted in the manner of Ralph Cudworth namely how the world interacts with our cognitive faculties.
So you are far from alone here. The way you use it is legitimate too. At least Schopenhauer and maybe even Kant would agree with you, which is not bad company necessarily.
Quoting T Clark
Sure. The only issue is that some of the scientific work here, say, Hoffman's work on vision and how the eye works, leaves entirely open all options. But I agree that looking at empirical experiments can be useful.
As I said, in my understanding metaphysical statements cannot be true or false. They are useful or not useful in a particular situation. Here are a list of issues I think are metaphysical:
It is not my intention to go into these subjects any deeper here. I think they are off-topic a bit.
Based on a case study of one? With possibly no tests for further covid infection? That's bad science.
Quoting Banno
Not for those who had serious side effects or who died from it.
I don't agree with this. Science is pragmatics, not metaphysics. It's like phenomenology; if you want to understand how things are and how they work, then you have to "go back to the things themselves", as Husserl says. Bracket our biases and simply look and try to understand things in the way they are given to us.
Quoting T Clark
This makes no sense to me. If a statement is propositional and coherent, then it should be truth-apt. Can you give an example of a coherent metaphysical statement that is not truth-apt?
Apparently, persons apart from myself have received vaccines, and by all reports, it's been effective and safe.
People occasionally end up in the hospital struggling with side effects of the Pfizer vaccine.
It's important for people to know the risks.
Do the numbers. Overwhelmingly you are better off being vaccinated. Even more so when we are all vaccinated.
The risks from being vaccinated are demonstrably far smaller than the risks associated with getting the disease.
I put anti-vax on the same footing as young-earth creationism and climate change denial. In that sense, I'm not the least 'anti-science'.
The unfortunate part about invisible enemies is, we can't prove accessory before or after the fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a mere preponderance of the evidence. So you are right: it's up to the individual. If only we could prove it was him that caught it and passed it on to kill another, then we could make him pay. But we can't. And selfish, inconsiderate people know this, and they feel even more vindicated when there are so many of them. Oh well. That's why the U.S. and other "free" countries have the highest death toll. That's why variants proliferate. That's why variants may render vaccines worthless.
For a young woman, the risk of death by COVID19 is a tiny bit bigger than the risk of death by vaccine.
It's just super basic medical ethics. Tell patients what their risks are. The notion that there is no risk associated with the AZ vaccine is simply wrong.
For a start you live in a city and I don't. And then everyone will not follow my example, which means that objection is irrelevant.
Bollocks. Hogwash. Utter nonsense. You have no facts to back that up. I'm not even going to bother arguing it.
5 in 200,000 is not a personal risk. It's the community's risk and it isn't small. It's only acceptable in the face of a pandemic.
I was vaccinated last December without knowing what the risks might be. I'm a frontline healthcare worker.
You're wrong. Look it up.
It is, but the consequences of that decision go beyond the individual.
In any case the consequences that are likely to result from me personally not accepting the vaccine are negligible.
:100:
As I indicated, the scientific method is metaphysics. It establishes the rules by which science is performed. Science is the systematic study of the world following procedures consistent with the scientific method.
Quoting Janus
Einstein's principle of relativity from his first paper on Special Relativity is a good example:
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ālight medium,ā suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the āPrinciple of Relativityā)
Society. Otherwise, I could kill you with impunity.
But I do like your optimistic view of the upside. 99% reduction would be a good thing, I reckon.
What I would find interesting is a test on the individuals who don't want to vax: We start offering them money, or chances for money, and see how long they stuck to their guns. LOL! We're all cold, calculating students of science and the numbers and the odds, Covid vs vaccine, hmmm? We decide to not vax because, well, we ran the numbers. And we're smart like that. But wait, $1k? $10k? $100k? A million? Give me some of that action!
In other words, fuck my fellow man, it's all about me and has nothing to do with the risks of a vaccine.
This is just a repeated assertion of your position without any accompanying argument for that position.
Are you claiming that the assertions in the quoted example are neither true nor false?
I generally agree with what you say. But the issue of right of refusal vaccination has not been put to the vote. so it is as yet unknown whether the majority of any society would mandate vaccination.
Also, you seem to be alluding to the well-attested fact that people are constitutionally incapable of viscerally caring about more than some fairly small number of people; namely those who matter personally to them.
You asked "should" not "does". So yeah, I agree.
Quoting Janus
I try not to allude, but maybe I did. I think we agree on the well-attested fact. I use myself as a case in point on your other thread.
P.S. When I choose to refrain from investing the time and resources into making myself an expert on a given area, I tend to default to those who have. I've done the calculation of odds vs inconvenience and decided that is a risk worth taking. So, scientce says vax, I vax. Case by case, mind you.
Do you agree that the scientific method is made up of the rules by which science is practiced? Do you agree that the provisions of the scientific method have no truth value? Are not true or false? Do you agree that the scientific method is metaphysics?
Quoting Janus
Yes. They are presented without justification or proof in Einstein's paper. He calls them a "conjecture."
Sure, rules are not true or false, but insofar as they are presented as propositions they are, as far as I can tell. Also I understand rules as being methodologies, not metaphysics.
Quoting T Clark
Justification and and proof are two things, truth is another. Conjectures are truth-apt it seems to me.
Over all agree I would prefer to (and luckily do) live in a scientific based modern age than the barbarism of past societies. But I would like to make note that science, and technology as a whole, is a double edged sword.
Iāll reduce it simply to humanities ability to exploit energy or the natural power of the environment. At its most basic, civilisation correlated with a continuous increase in our capacity to harness energy and process it in all its forms: kinetic, nuclear, thermal and electro-magnetic etc.
Until the industrial revolution our capacity to harness energy was very much restricted to physical labour. The mechanisation of human life with machines (most notably steam engines) was the first huge step in tapping into the power of nature.
So it stands that āwith great power comes great responsibilityā. We are finally seeing the two sides of this with man-made adversity/issues such as climate change, pollution and all the impacts of population explosion and globalisation (most recently the ripeness of human density for pandemics) something that didnāt afflict isolated tribes to such a degree.
Science generates developments and new techs and they always come with a string of benefits and a string of side effects or negative complications.
However is we take human survival as the ultimate indicator of our control of the environment then it is clear - science has brought forth safety security and the capacity to self actualise despite the things we messed up along the way.
Our first tools were sticks and stones, then fire, then ploughs and domestic animal labour, followed by engines and now computers and a massive capability to innovate and adapt rapidly. Science is remarkable but it has to be taken with a healthy respect and not seen as the ultimatum. It is only a tool to seek answers but it is not ātheā answer. It never will be.
See, this is the hysteria I'm talking about. Making stuff up like that, black-and-white thinking.
Either you're hysterically with us, or you're hysterically against us!!!!
Fuck you for this.
Millennia of philosophy down the drain.
Quoting Banno
While I don't wish that upon either of you, I'd still like to see how you'd do, what you'd say if you were the ones ending up with the negative side-effects of the vaccine, and with all the associated costs. Such as having suffered a stroke and ending up homeless because you couldn't pay the medical bills.
What the two of you are doing here is scientism -- an unwarranted optimism in the power of scientific solutions, and a public reviling and misrepresenting of anyone who doesn't fall in line with that optimism.
Mind you, I will get vaccinated, as the national plan here foresees. But share in your unwarranted optimism about science I will not.
Oh, indeed.
But a look around the posts here shows an antipathy that you might agree is pathological.
Plagues, historically, have been proportionally far worse than the present situation, often killing far greater percentages than Covid-19. That we have a vaccine that works is an extraordinary vindication of the understanding that science provides. That we have several... we should be singing the praises of science from the rooftops. Millions of lives have been saved by applying science here.
But that's not what happened. Instead we have an abject failure to recognise the benefits, a wilful emphasis on every negative.
Comment?
Some of the wonders of science you cite in the OP are also causes of the evils: fossil fuel burning cars and planes and power plants that enable those conveniences.
While the scientific community has its share of loons, crooks and shills, the overwhelming consensus to use science for good and to avert evil is disproportionate to the prevalence of similar views in the lay community, and diametrically opposed to the views of corporations that own and profit from the harmful technologies that apply scientific knowledge and the elites that legislate those usages.
In part by setting itself standards, in (greater) part by an egalitarian attitude toward facts, science incorporates ethics, and that is manifest in the peculiarly ethical character of the scientific community. They do not, in the whole, pick and choose: they know how a combustion engine works, and that it's operation is damaging to the planet. Exxon Mobil picks and chooses.
For me, the measure of science as a good is less in how quickly you can get to the shop and more in how urgently the community asks you to walk instead.
To those that vie that science has a dark side, it certainly does. Nazi scientists attempting to build an atomic bomb to better impose the will of the fuhrer on the world are a tough sell, but then many probably had little choice. Context is important. Science under a totalitarian state has a different ethical character to that preferred and approached by academic institutions in the free world. Similarly, most of the scientists developing vaccines would probably prefer them to be freely available, but they got the best and most useful jobs they could and accept unfair compromises. Again, the ethical character of corporate science is not that of independent academia (though the former impinges on the latter ever more greatly as right-wing governments cut funding to the knowledge-imparting, more ethical academic institutions they resent).
Whether science leads to, or even aims for, good is context-dependent. However science itself has a preferred context: freedom from state interference; freedom from capitalism; international in scope and practice; apolitical; responsive. In short, a context that mirrors scientific standards. The scientific community would have had no problem with burning fossil fuels, until it discovered the harm. That we construct conspiracy theories, fund anti-science, spend millions on propaganda, elect corporate stooges that promise never to do anything to protect the environment "at the expense of the... consumer", and carry on doing the harm ourselves does not speak ill of science, but of the context in which science is performed and exploited. If science in your country has a dark side, you have to question why your country that yields that sort of science. Because, you know, Einstein _was_ important for building the A bomb, but Nazism was too and actually wanted it.
The way to build a better scientific community is to keep it well funded so that the world, rather than the corporate world, owns the knowledge coming out of it, and keep it free from political interference, which means using your vote ethically and not to elect anti-scientific, energy-company--blowing shit-for-brains.
Here's a bit of an argument from left field, and one I don't know I entirely stand behind, but devil's advocate et al...
a. Growth and flourishing is good.
b. We need some adversity to be able to grow to our full potential (Disputable to what extend maybe, but generally a case could be made I think, based on scientific findings even)
c. Sciences makes life generally easier by making the world predictable and making all kinds of technologies possible that make life easier.
(a + b + c) Science stunts our growth and flourishing, therefor science is bad.
One word for all hardcore science fans out there - contradiction. If it ever happens that we find one (a contradiction), all bets are off.
Suppose a contradiction is observed in reality (wave-particle duality? Schrodinger's cat?). That would immediately close off all avenues to a theory of everything (TOE) because a TOE must entail the contradiction but if it does, it's necessarily false.
1.TOE -> Contradiction
2. ~Contradiction [Contradictions are false]
Ergo,
3. ~TOE [the proposed TOE is false]
A coupla ways to handle the situation,
a) The contradiction is not a true contradiction i.e. for instance, the wave-particle duality isn't one or Schrodinger's cat isn't both dead and alive, etc.
One reason why ancient philosophers failed to find the TRUTH seems to be the difficulty posed by so-called opposites. They couldn't understand, lacked the tools to make sense of reality e.g. that hot and cold were actually heat energy at varying levels. The apparent contradiction heat-cold prevented philosophers back then from constructing what would've been a TOE (the TRUTH) albeit just the first and therefore necessarily flawed. This fact, if it's one, is reflected in Lao Tzu's teachings which, whatever else it might be, discourages, frowns upon, has a dim view of generalization, the core essence of what a TOE should be.
b) Adopt alternative logics like paraconsistent logic and dialetheism of which I know too little about to comment sensibly.
Cheers!
Indeed, the post above is a mad rant.
Here's some more considered thoughts:
Divisive COVID ālab leakā debate prompts dire warnings from researchers
Please take the ranting to the thread on Covid-19.
It is sometimes a call for ignorance to shut up when good authority speaks.
Nevertheless, I answer in this way:
"Yes, I believe the science. The science tells me to ask questions and to value evidence over authority. It tells me that hypotheses are subject to constant revision. It tells me that even widely accepted theories can be overthrown. It tells me that there are seldom knock-down answers to complicated questions. That's what I believe and that is why simply counting scientists in favour of a particular view tells us something but does not necessarily tell us everything. Every one of those scientists will also tell us that the mere fact of a lot of people believing something does not in itself make it true. Or false."
Others here have supposed that science is bad precisely because it throws us unsolvable problems. Unfortunately some choose the virus as their example; and hence insist on an unnatural origin to fit their imaginings. That's whey I pointed out the extraordinary fact that effective vaccine was developed so very quickly.
Global warming and environmental degradation would suit their purposes much better.
So my answer to your argument - thanks for presenting it - is the one I presented earlier. It may be that science causes us great difficulty; but then, the only way we have to approach the problems arrising is more science.
Ah, so you've met Scott Morrison, then.
I'm assuming that those who think science is mostly a good thing took a look at the title of this thread and thought "well, duh' and moved on to other topics. So we are left with those who see need to point out the evils of our new High Priests. It would be a simple thing to equate this rejection of science with lack of scientific literacy; posting a picture of a child surrounded by rubbish, for example, as if that were about science devoid of the many other issues that face us.
Here's a microcosm of the problem. The Murray-Darling river basin flows through about a million square kilometres of Australia, making it one of the largest basins in the world. But of course it doesn't rain much here, so the rivers themselves are relatively small. An authority was created to try to work out an equitable way to share the water that does fall, and has failed miserably. They took scientific analysis of the historical flow and used it as the prediction for future flow, ignoring the science that pointed out that climate change would mean less water in the basin.
So they shared out more water than they had.
Then they went back and claimed that the science had misled them, so questioning the viability of the science itself.
That is, science was misused for private purposes then blamed when things fell through, giving a pretext for less reliance on the science
The danger is that it is when science is most needed that it is rejected.
Precisely my point. You can do unethical science quite easily, as totalitarian states and corporations attest. Just take the bits you want and ignore or lie about the rest. That's not a measure of science, but of totalitarian states and corporations.
Just contra @baker; and chastising @fishfry for perhaps being too selective in the examples he considers.
On consideration, the posters here have been overwhelmingly in praise of science, but concerned about consequent social and environmental issues.
That's sensible.
I wonder why you won't engage with the substantive point I've made against the praise of science. Here's a piece that I just ran across an hour ago by Thomas Frank, publisher of The Baffler, and a writer of impeccable leftist credentials for years.
His article is If the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis is true, expect a political earthquake. In this article, he makes many of the same points I've made. He links a NYT article from last year: [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/opinion/coronavirus-science.html]Coronavirus Is What You Get When You Ignore Science
Scientists are all we have left. Pray for them[/url].
This is, in retrospect, the worst kind of scientism, the antithesis of science. It turns out that the scientists were involved in subverting a US government law outlawing GOF research, funding that research, saying that if a pandemic happened it would be worth it anyway.
Now you can only have one of two responses: (1) This is not science. In which case I'd note that you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy, and that sadly this IS what science has come to; or (2) Agree that some science should be condemned and not praised. Which frankly, I'm sure you actually agree with.
Instead, from the beginning, you've tried to claim my remarks were off topic. This I cannot understand.
Of course I agree that my recent remarks on China were off topic, but that was because someone addressed me with an off topic remark that I could not allow to stand without rebuttal.
But the basic fact remains. Science has gone off the rails lately. You either concede the point, or try to make the claim that what Fauci does has not been science, and that "Follow the science" has not been science. Simply continuing to claim that my response is off-topic does not sit well with me.
But even in the most recent example of its goods, the production of a vaccine, the goods have been distributed unevenly. Looking at the world here, not locally.
Many of the goods of science are like that.
I suspect one would reply to this by saying that this isn't against science as such but rather the current application of science, or to relegate this contention to a specifically political problem.
But I don't think science can be separated from politics. It is a thoroughly political(-economic) entity. It gets by on funding both from the government and the private sector -- so even in a more non-theoretic sense, science really is a political-economic entity!
Well good :) The data we're concerned about is, of course, scientific data. If science is telling you you're destroying the planet and you ignore it, you can't blame science for the planet being spoiled.
...but many do.
Why must we all get worked up about negatives?
I think itās human nature to be perfectly frank. When confronted with a fearful or life-threatening situation (be it war, pandemics, a natural disaster, etc) the degree of distrust amongst us as a collective goes up.
You need only look at the volatility of the market to see it. Uncertainty leads to volatility.
Itās bound to.
When in the āfight or flight modeā every decision, every choice or path we could take has to be analysed in depth and the pros and cons weighed. Itās self preservation and that is an inherently āselfishā process - it doesnāt lend itself to thinking about what other people think or trusting other peoples motives especially if they are also āfighting for survivalā.
So the sad truth is that no matter how golden the fruit is that you offer to someone, a small percentage will still point to the only blemish and say itās poison. Sometimes (Probably more often then not, that small group lose out. And sometimes they are the last men standing.)
Besides nations donāt require that all people be vaccinated only around 70% or so. So thereās no reason to force the small few who donāt want it to conform/ mandatorily vaccinate.
In all honesty, I think that a cultural artefact mostly confined to 'merican myth. Watching the various disasters unfold elsewhere one sees communities working for the common wealth.
Indeed.
Science is a method of approach for acquiring knowledge about stuff. Science is neither good or bad. How science is used is another matter altogether. It can be used for horrible ends, but need not be. I, for one, agree with Banno in that in the big picture, science has been instrumental in marvelous things, and a marked improvement in the overall quality of human lives.
To begin with, this is exactly what you asked for in this thread: Reasons against science.
What did you expect???
After 22 pages...?
'Science is a good thing'
-> Science is the best thing that has ever happened to humankind. :strong: We'd literally be living in clay huts with a life expectancy of 40 years max and infant mortality rates up to 50% without science... no offense Chad and Niger, you'll catch up soon :victory:
Science even enables us to find new solutions for the environmental problems it is creating due to its high speed development. Governance simply cannot catch up fast enough with all the new stuff.
Do you blame the politicians of the 50s and 60s for not having put regulations on all those new synthetic materials, for not realizing we had once again stolen fire from the gods and had begun creating compounds that do not occur in nature?
Compounds that god did not create in the entire universe?
That we had become the agents that god needed to create first in order to create such compound materials?
They should have. People should have. Now the shit has hit the fan, but science will come again to the rescue and help to clean up the pollution. That is why science is the best thing that has ever happened on this planet (or in the universe?)
Quoting Banno
You're holding it against people for actually replying to the bloody OP quest, which was, to remind you:
Quoting Banno
Well, both Keats and Mozart defied that infant mortality rate, and produced some of the best music and poetry known to man, though neither lived beyond the age of 35. You can argue that science is good based on the prosperity of the masses, but if the higher accomplishments of the soul are compromised by its success, better observers might begin to wonder whether it was worth it: are we better off living in a world that is safe and healthy, comfortable and secure and wealthy? or was the science we employed in order to obtain that world part and parcel of a philosophical/political scheme that also succeeded in diminishing the artistic/aesthetic potential of mankind?
After all, unless you havenāt noticed, we no longer produce Beethovens or Mozarts, Keatses or Dantes, Raphaels or Rembrandts. The generations that fed off that cultural richness died in the last century. Are we better off because we now lead longer, more comfortable and secure lives, when those lives are spent playing checkers in retirement homes? where weāre visited occasionally by sons and daughters who we know donāt care much for us, are just waiting for us to die so they donāt have to come see us anymore?
For my part I prefer a world less secure in which I am not guaranteed longevity and comfort, but in which I am free to pursue the good and beautiful with danger and discomfort and awareness of my mortality. The world we now have, bestowed upon us by science, is a world indeed full of longevity and comfort and security; but it is bereft of goodness and beauty. We seem to have as though made a pact with the devil: āSign here and I will give you good hope of eternal life without fear of injury or disease...but your soul shall eat of the cursed ground all the days of your life...thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and it shall eat the herb of the fieldā.
This wasteland of the soul is what I fear we have received in exchange for a prosperous bodily existence. I know all the counter-arguments: ābut more ppl than ever before have access to the greatest cultural achievements of man through the internetā. This seems impressive until you realize that the contemporary soul is unable to digest the fodder: the soul itself has been transformed by philosophy to recognize only the base concerns of the body, and to delight only in its barbaric emanations. Beethoven and Mozart are accessible to all; whose soul is moved by them?
Is it that Mozart survived childhood, against the odds, and somehow this makes his work of greater value?
Why would that be so?
Quoting Todd Martin
One pictures oneself as one of the survivors, not one of the many who died in childhood. Those who dies are not free to pursue the good and beautiful.
Apparently, you'd don't know the counter argument that science is the word of God - decoded by man; yet denied and decried as heresy by the Church, and so misused and abused by government and industry... including the philosophy industry.
The "wasteland of the soul" you describe is a consequence of the fact religion chose an antithetical relationship to science, and yet science is true. As the two diverge, the one claiming to be the source of all things spiritual, moral, aesthetic - appears falsified by contrast to the demonstrable truths of science.
Philosophy has failed to come to terms with this. Even here, you build upon the same religious dichotomy between the spiritual and the mundane; rather than seeking to reconcile subject and object, fact and value, truth and beauty, you construe science as some Faustian bargain. But if your deal was with the devil, he was wearing vestments and a mitre - not a lab coat!
You can still have gore and grand purposes in a star trek style.
Neanderthals didn't have all the fun.
You have not established a causal relation or shown that science and art are incompatible.
Quoting Todd Martind
And this is exactly what is wrong with your post. It says a lot about you but nothing about music after Beethoven or literature after Keats.
Some interesting thoughts. You may want to check the comments section on youtube for Mozart's piano concertos. But that same comment section reveals also what technology has taken away from us, namely the ability to eloquently express our thoughts and feelings in writing, and this deterioration in linguistic abilities and modes of expression results of course in a change of the soul, I completely agree with you here. As for genius, surely there are now more people alive as brilliant as Mozart or Einstein, than there were in their own age. Let history decide who will be considered the geniuses of our age with hindsight, which breakthroughs of science and technology, and which works of art will be considered milestones in human achievements, and which not.
So, to keep an open mind, we have to allow that science is not always a good thing, especially when it crushes the spirit each of us has in us by denying its very existence.
Anyway, I thought I'd take a different approach to this thread...
I don't know of any science that directly refutes the existence of 'the spirit each of us has in us.' I do know of a 400 year old religious and philosophical tradition of anti-science scare stories; that continue even unto this day as assumptions like yours.
I am aware that many scientists are atheist, but then the Church declared science heresy from 1635 onward - and so set the condition of that relationship, and the subsequent philosophical environment within which science developed - robbed of moral authority as valid knowledge of "Creation."
An impartial observer, I propose - might reasonably expect science, as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation - to be recognised as spiritually significant and morally integrated into society on an ongoing basis. But instead, science was deprived of the moral worth that follows normatively and naturally from its truth value.
It's a position philosophy has done its very best to justify, and it's that anti-science philosophical abuse that crushes the spirit - for it accords science only cold, clinical, mechanistic implications, reserving "the spirit" to ideological definition, not allowing spirit to evolve in true relation to reality.
The consequent misapplication of technology, you seem to assume is rightful - as a basis for claiming that:
Quoting Hanover
..sure, not in the hands of ideologues who have no regard for the understanding of reality science describes, even as they employ its tools toward their own ends, science is at the very least as dangerous as it is helpful, but developed and applied in regard to a scientific understanding of reality/Creation, recognised as spiritually significant and morally integrated into society, I think science would have been a good thing.
I make no causal connection b/w his survival and the quality of his music. My point is that, despite the fact that many more ppl died young in olden times, nevertheless, those who did survive enjoyed a richer culture, and I question the validity of the argument that science is undeniably good simply because it increases physical prosperity and longevity.
Quoting Banno
But neither are the many survivors today free for this pursuit; not because they are dead, but because the culture is dead they were supposed to survive in order to enjoy. The very idea of the good and beautiful, along with that of the soul, has disappeared. Itās like the old adage, āwhat good is it to gain the whole world, yet lose your soul?ā
Quoting counterpunch
I think science and religion are natural enemies. The recognition that there is a natural order discoverable by reason, and the authority of text revealed to man by god must necessarily collide, which was always the source of the persecutions of philosophers by the civil/religious authorities.
Quoting counterpunch
The fault lies with science, not religion; and I mean by āscienceā what used to be meant by āphilosophyā, ie, the pursuit of the truth about nature according to reasonāincluding the nature of man, of his soul. That bold innovation of Machiavelli and his numerous disciples, the Enlightenmentāwas really just a power-grab: an attempt to wrest authority away from the pontiffs and prelates and rulers who bowed to them and place it in the hands of philosophers, that they no longer suffer persecution, and this was successfully accomplished by focusing manās attention on his material as opposed to spiritual prosperity. It was this goal of philosophy that conduced to the division in philosophy b/w it and science in the modern sense, ie, āhardā science, the sort that is demonstrable and easily adaptable to material prosperity.
Quoting counterpunch
The modern scientist casts an ambiguous shadow: does he really only want to understand rerum naturam as the disinterested theoretician, or is he the benefactor of mankind, the technician discovering things that can be used to increase our material prosperity? Everything lies in the motive, for it is not obvious that everything he discovers has practical applicationāespecially in the realm of the soul. Aristotleās lover of ābeautiful and useless thingsā is not to the modern taste.
Quoting Fooloso4
O Morosophos, once upon a time, depictors of the human body cared little of anatomical accuracy, but cared much about conveying in their works the spirit or soul encapsulated within the body they portrayed. After the Enlightenment, artists began studying anatomy in order to better represent the human body, its exact musculature, dissecting corpses...this change in itself is an indication of the alteration that philosophy (science) exacted upon aesthetics: more emphasis on physical exactitude, at the cost of psychic representation. Only compare Rembrandt with David.
Quoting TheArchitectOfTheGods
Potentially as brilliant, I would sayā but there is something youāre not taking into account here, O ArchitectwnTwnThewn: though more ppl survive and live long lives now through the beneficence of science, and though they are as smart and crafty as any of the ancients, those artists and thinkers of yore lived in a day when the cultural/philosophic soil was more fertile...
...one is reminded of the parable of Jesus concerning the seed which was scattered among the thorns, which choked it, and in the fertile ground, where it grew up tall and strong: it doesnāt matter so much how many seeds you plant as where you plant them.
But we have the Beatles, the Rolling of the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Deep Purple, and Emerson, Lake and Palmer. We also have Messi, Ronaldo, and Ronaldhino. We have Terry Fox, Diana the Dead Princess, Janos von Neumann and Ho Si Mah. We have Chong E Ti, we have Cheung Chiu, and Chang Cheung Ching. Not to mention Chang Chang Chung Ching Chog, the world leader if
Your romantic notions of a golden age of scientific ignorance are at odds with historical facts.
Michelangelo lived 1475-1564, David was sculpted between 1501 and 1504. Rembrandt lived from 1606- 1669. It seems likely that what you are calling the Enlightenment was actually the Scientific Revolution which preceded it.
According to your theory the anatomically exact David would have been created after the work of Rembrandt, but it was created about 100 years before Rembrandt was born.
A conflict between faith and reason as means to authoritative truth was the basis upon which the Church took offence to science, but that doesn't show that it was necessary. From as early as 1274, St Thomas Aquinas was talking about how faith and reason cannot ultimately be in conflict. I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me the philosophical groundwork was there in the cannon of Catholic doctrine - that could have bridged the apparent divide.
As the two [religion and science] diverge, the one claiming to be the source of all things spiritual, moral, aesthetic - appears falsified by contrast to the demonstrable truths of science.
ā counterpunch
Quoting Todd Martin
I have read this six times and still don't know what it means. I completely reject the idea of Machiavelli as a figurehead of the Enlightenment. His major work, the Prince - was advice to monarchy on how to retain power. While diabolically clever, there's nothing particularly enlightened about it.
Quoting Todd Martin
I presume, if I understood the previous paragraph, I'd understand this one, but again, your meaning is slipping by me. Let me get this straight - Machivelli masterminded a power grab against the Church by advising monarchy on how to retain power, that somehow distracted people from spiritual matters, and this led the Church to put Galileo on trial for heresy, and that's why science sucks? No. I'm still not getting it!
That richer culture was available to only a small minority of people, of course. Now, thanks to science, it is virtually ubiquitous (pun intended).
Also the violin, in all its variants, the piano, the pipe organ - all the instruments that come together for your romantic self-indulgence - are the product of science; they were once novel.
Most tellingly you offer no criteria by which we might measure the "richness" of a culture. I am writing to you, instantly, from the other side of the world. We both have access to the entire catalogue of music of choice. We have access to critique, history, analysis.
I don't see anything of substance in your comment.
Perhaps, but science has been a great deal less influential than technology. The relation of the two to each other is not as simple as is usually assumed.
Technology is often serendipitous discovery based on existing culturally cumulative advances which then motivates science. Which comes first can be a chicken-egg problem.
Nevertheless, both are double-edged swords with many gains in personal comforts, conveniences, and pleasures all with the possibility of being wiped out by human enabled devastating social, international and environmental catastrophes.
It's a good thing for all of us that CERN guessed right prior to producing antiparticles.
[quote=Bhikkhu Bodhi]The underlying historical cause of this phenomenon seems to lie in an unbalanced development of the human mind in the West, beginning around the time of the European Renaissance. This development gave increasing importance to the rational, manipulative and dominative capacities of the mind at the expense of its intuitive, comprehensive, sympathetic and integrative capacities. The rise to dominance of the rational, manipulative facets of human consciousness led to a fixation upon those aspects of the world that are amenable to control by this type of consciousness ā the world that could be conquered, comprehended and exploited in terms of fixed quantitative units. This fixation did not stop merely with the pragmatic efficiency of such a point of view, but became converted into a theoretical standpoint, a standpoint claiming validity. In effect, this means that the material world, as defined by modern science, became the founding stratum of reality, while mechanistic physics, its methodological counterpart, became a paradigm for understanding all other types of natural phenomena, biological, psychological and social.
The early founders of the Scientific Revolution in the seventeenth century ā such as Galileo, Boyle, Descartes and Newton ā were deeply religious men, for whom the belief in the wise and benign Creator was the premise behind their investigations into lawfulness of nature. However, while they remained loyal to the theistic premises of Christian faith, the drift of their thought severely attenuated the organic connection between the divine and the natural order, a connection so central to the premodern world view. They retained God only as the remote Creator and law-giver of Nature and sanctioned moral values as the expression of the Divine Will, the laws decreed for man by his Maker. In their thought a sharp dualism emerged between the transcendent sphere and the empirical world. The realm of "hard facts" ultimately consisted of units of senseless matter governed by mechanical laws, while ethics, values and ideals were removed from the realm of facts and assigned to the sphere of an interior subjectivity.
It was only a matter of time until, in the trail of the so-called Enlightenment, a wave of thinkers appeared who overturned the dualistic thesis central to this world view in favor of the straightforward materialism. This development was a following through of the reductionistic methodology to its final logical consequences. Once sense perception was hailed as the key to knowledge and quantification came to be regarded as the criterion of actuality, the logical next step was to suspend entirely the belief in a supernatural order and all it implied. Hence finally an uncompromising version of mechanistic materialism prevailed, whose axioms became the pillars of the new world view. Matter is now the only ultimate reality, and divine principle of any sort dismissed as sheer imagination.[/quote]
Quoting counterpunch
The significant divide begins when science begins to question, even repudiate, the more central articles of faith.
You know it cuts both ways. The vocal atheists of popular culture all weaponise evolutionary theory to āproveā or āshowā that God doesnāt exist. So how are the religious supposed to react to that? āOh, I guess youāre right. I guess what Iāve seen up until now as the whole foundation of my life is really just a delusion, a by-product of my evolved simian brain.ā I donāt think so.
Biologist Richard Lewontin summed it up very nicely in his infamous review of Carl Saganās last book, The Demon-Haunted World:
How does it cut both ways? Galileo proved the earth orbits the sun. The bishops in charge of the trial would not even look through a telescope. Are you suggesting they were right not to do so?
Helpful!
Yes, yes, and erm, not really!
Is there a point coming along soon?
I recognise that religion is important to people - but it's not true in the way that science is true. Science has more claim to be the word of God than the politics of primitive people. Science establishes true knowledge of reality. If reality is Created, then it's true knowledge of Creation i.e. the word of God. The Church could have adopted that position. It was provided for by St Thomas Aquinas view that rational and spiritual knowledge cannot be in conflict. But that's not what happened. The Church made a mistake in making a heresy of science. As a direct consequence the human species is faced with extinction. And you're telling me your feewings is hurty? And you demand I defend the conduct and arguments of rabid atheists - who to my mind, are every bit as faithful as you are! I accept what can be known, first, and keep an open mind as to other things like the existence of God. So why are you putting this on me?
Your comprehension is poor!
Neither philosophy (logic) nor science (the world) can do that. Personal faith is independent of both and also of whichever religious dogma (culture).
You are probably right, but his argument is still weak. Not only Michelangelo's David, but the Greek sculptures show attention to anatomy.
Aristotle dissected animals. Galen dissected animals. It was not, as he claimed, something that started during the Enlightenment.
Yes, I have no argument there!
If the goal is the development of new knowledge, then science is clearly a good thing. If the goal is enhancement of the human experience, or the survival of humanity, then the question becomes more complicated.
Part of the problem may be in the question. As others have commented, science is just a tool, it is neither good or bad in itself.
Hammers are a common carpentry tool. Are we pro-hammer or anti-hammer? This is not a very useful way to consider hammers.
Does this help? What is our relationship with science? What is the quality of that relationship? Is it simplistic, or sophisticated, etc?
The premise "knowing stuff is good" would seem to be based on the assumption that we are mature enough to successfully manage any amount of knowledge, and thus power.
A premise "knowing some stuff is good" seems very reasonable. To expand on that without limit seems reasonably questioned.
I donāt know enough about this; but I suspect that it was Machiavelliās suggestion that Fortune can be overcomeāat odds with ancient philosophyās belief that She cannot, but must be accepted on Her own termsāthat resulted in the Enlightenment.
The scheme of the Enlightenment philosophers was roughly this: if they could persuade the rulers to leave them alone to pursue their studies āof the things under the earth and in the heavensā as they wished, free of persecution, the philosophers promised them that their discoveriesāthose of the nascent āScientific Revolutionā, as @Fooloso4 has mentionedāwould benefit mankind by offering protection against disease, famine, death from violence, etc, and āease their estateā generally through the application of the results of that science. This was at odds with with the ancient attitude toward philosophy, exemplified by Archimedes who, according to Plutarch, destroyed all his manuscripts describing his practical discoveries, machines of war, etc, as being beneath the dignity of publication and posterity because of their practical as opposed to theoretical nature.
Simply put, the philosophers said to the rulers, āHarken to us and quit listening to the Pope. He may appeal to the ppl by talking about heaven and hell, but the truth is everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. We know how to keep ppl from dying and make their lives easier here on earth, and if you leave us alone, weāll do our deep thinking, and what we discover will benefit not only them, but also you, because you were wise enough to neither kill nor exile us as former unenlightened rulers did, but instead left us alone to practice our philosophy; and that will endear you to the ppl and cause them to support you against the church and the noblesā.
In other words, the philosophers became transigent, willing to compromise with the arbitrary rule of tyrants by buying them off. This their ancient kin were either unable or unwilling to do: unable, because science had not progressed far enoughāthough I suspect that it had: Archimedesā war machines were quite impressiveāunwilling, because they did not believe that Fortune could be overcome...
...the Enlightenment philosophersā announcement that Fortune could indeed be overcome was good news to both the ppl in general, and to the rulers whose rule could now be based on the favor of the ppl (as opposed to cow towing to the priests and noblemen). By contrast, Platoās appeal to the aristocracy in his writings in response to Socratesā unjust execution involved no quid pro quo: it was rather a rhetorical appeal to that class in order to establish his preceptor among the heroes; to make Socrates the new Achilles in their eyes.
Not a bad deal, is it?
A surgeon's keen scalpel can neatly cut out a tumor; taken to the jugular, it's a different story. :up:
That said, science is the poster boy of the rational, no-nonsense mindset that prevails in the West and now also in the East. In that sense, science must be considered good, right?
Quoting Wayfarer
Insofar as that occurred, it is a bad deal.
I don't suppose I can induce you to understand, but there's a difference between an ideological understanding of reality, and a scientific understanding of reality.
A scientific understanding of reality was supressed by accusations of heresy, even while science as a tool, was used to drive the industrial revolution.
That's the mistake we're still making today.
The G7 are meeting now, to discuss climate change - and seem to think that, having admitted the bare fact of climate change, they can and should then act on that bare fact - as their ideological interests dictate!
The consequence is sub optimal technologies, that won't meet our energy needs; that imply authoritarian government imposing green poverty as a matter of policy, and so set a course for economic, political and environmental failure.
Looking at the problem in terms of a scientific understanding of reality, this is completely unnecessary. There's limitless amounts of clean energy available from the massive heat energy of the earth itself, that might be used to extract and sequester atmospheric carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate sea-water to irrigate land, recycle, and so on.
Using science as a tool, while supressing science as an understanding of reality to maintain religious, political and economic ideology - unreformed in relation to truth, is a very bad deal indeed. Monkeys with machine guns, bad!
To me, the simplistic nature of the question is a problem. Debating whether science is good or bad is like debating whether religion is good or bad, or whether human beings are good or bad.
I do think our relationship with science can be labeled good or bad, just as a relationship with religion or human beings can be. I would say our relationship with science is not in a very healthy state. It's too much like the relationship 12th century Catholics had with the Church.
We imagine a great divide between religion and science, a topic of incessant fascination on philosophy forums. What I see is that much the same mindset we used to aim at religion has just been redirected at science. Science is the highest ranking authority, science will provide the answers, science will lead us to the promised land, science is the one true way, scientists are the new holy clergy etc.
We're like children who want to believe their parents are kind and all powerful etc, so that we the children will be safe. When our first set of parents gets divorced and discredited, we aim the same needs and desires at the new parents. A better plan would be to grow up, and realize that all parents have their pros and cons.
That is certainly a very common view. I think it misses something. I would argue that the average person knows and cares little for science and often fears it (atom bombs/climate change/whatever). Over the years there's been a plethora of news articles about why people ignore or hate science. Increasingly we are hearing that science is the source (not solution) of all our problems, - climate change, pollution, technology and the loss of personal liberty.
Yes, science is the source of climate change and pollution, int the sense that, without it they would not have existed. Science is the source of technology, which is the source of consumerism, pollution, global warming, environmental degradation, soil destruction tion, aquifer destruction, over-fishing of the oceans etc, etc.
Science is also the source of increasingly effective technologies that can be used to diminish personal liberty.
Quoting Janus
You haven't got to the root of the problem. Science is not just a tool that can be used for good or ill. Science is also an understanding of reality.
Science as an understanding of reality was suppressed - even while science as a tool was used to drive the industrial revolution. That - ideological mis-application of technology is the cause of climate change and pollution, and the proof of this is that, scientifically and technologically, climate change and pollution are not necessary!
We used the tools without reading the instructions. That's the problem. If we put the science out front, we can follow along very profitably, but if profit leads the way, we cannot secure the future.
If we were to edit that claim to read our relationship with science, then the claim has some merit.
Blaming science would be like blaming a hammer for someone's bashed in head. Science is a tool for developing new knowledge. It works. It's us that doesn't work so well.
Our use of science is the source of technology. We typically seek power to edit our environment, which usually requires knowledge. Science is good at developing new knowledge. The source of technology is our desire to edit our environment.
The salient point is people disparage science and aren't interested in the subject - I find that interesting in a so called science obsessed society.
By Dulcie Lee & Joseph Lee
BBC News
Published 1 hour ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57456641
Again with the same green commie fallacy that sustainability requires sacrifice - imposed by authoritarian government. Malthusians to a man!
Malthus was wrong. Just as we invented tractors and fertilizers, and food production far outpaced population growth, by applying the right energy technology we can transcend the limits to growth equation.
Harnessing (effectively) limitless clean energy from magma, we can defeat climate change; not merely mitigate it, but overcome it - and allow for a favourable balance between environmental sustainability and human welfare, going forward from where we are.
There's no need for authoritarian governments imposing energy poverty to reduce demand if economic activity were based on plentiful clean energy. It's there, the big ball of molten rock beneath our feet contains limitless high grade clean energy, surely not impossible to harness in face of this global existential threat.
Burn less coal - and make us pay more for energy for the sake of that sacrifice! That's the height of their ideologically limited ambitions!
I really, really do understand that. I make a living as a technical writer, Iāve worked for and with many engineers and software developers. Iām not a rustic peasant, nor an ideologue intent on dragging the world back into medievalism. I really do understand that science and technology are critical to almost every facet of modern life. I comprehend that, understand it, fully appreciate it.
As regards scientific understanding of reality - science comprises hypotheses and models, which inform and guide technology and further scientific discovery. But as many here have already pointed out, science can be used for good or ill. The decision how to use science, what to research with it, is not itself a scientific question, it is guided by many factors, including curiosity, intuition, patronage, politics, and convention among many other things. Many working scientists are employed by industry for commercial, military and industrial ends. Hopefully they are generally working for positive ends, but thereās no scientific criteria for judging those. That rests on value judgement.
And whether science sees things as they truly are - that is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Youāll be aware that there are huge controversies over the interpretation of quantum physics, there are enormous anomalies in physical cosmology, and many unsolved questions and profound conundrums in many fields of science. Some will be solved, some might be insoluble, but that is really not the point. The āscientific worldviewā now is vastly different to the āscientific worldviewā of 1920 and it will probably be vastly different again in 2120. Science is not arriving at complete enlightenment about the nature of reality anytime soon, and maybe never. Not that this actually matters from a practical point of view, many things can be done in its absence. But you canāt simply assume that it is has an intrinsically privileged point of view. So much remains a question of interpretation, of what the empirical facts mean, and that again is not a matter for science per se.
Knowledge development feeds back on itself, leading to an accelerating rate of knowledge development. As example, once we learned how to build computers we could then use the computers to enhance research in to many other topics. AI will presumably further accelerate the knowledge development process.
It seems important to reflect on what acceleration entails. It seems to mean that we will be developing ever more knowledge at an ever faster pace. And, ever more knowledge at an ever faster pace will often translate in to ever more power delivered at an ever faster pace.
Such a process promises to bring ever more benefits at an ever faster pace, further adding to the many proven benefits we've already received, so naturally this is an appealing prospect.
So what's the problem?
An embrace of such an accelerating knowledge development process would seem to be built upon a typically unexamined assumption that human beings are capable of successfully managing ever more power delivered at an ever faster pace, seemingly without limit.
Is it true that human beings can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate? Any amount of power? Any rate? If not, then doesn't an ever accelerating knowledge explosion present a significant challenge to our future?
============
Here's a concrete example to illustrate. As you likely know, Jennifer Doudna recently won the Nobel Prize for her work on developing CRISPR, technology which makes gene editing considerably easier, and thus more accessible to more people. One of her often stated goals is to "democratize" CRISPR, that is, make it widely available.
While CRISPR is probably still too complex to be universally accessible, the stated purpose of the project is to make it ever more accessible to ever more people.
Doudna's team allowed me to play the role of philosopher on their Facebook page, and politely challenge this game plan, almost daily for about a month. And then without warning all my posts vanished.
https://www.facebook.com/igisci/?ref=page_internal
Point being, here's a leading scientist with a game plan that seems ripe for challenge, and yet challenge is not really allowed. I politely asked them to engage the challenges, and they politely declined, in spite of their repeated statements regarding the importance of dialog with the public.
Doudna has good intentions. She's definitely not evil, and need not be demonized. And the Nobel Committee concluded she is an excellent scientist, which I see no reason to question.
But in spite of good intentions and great scientific skill, is she in reality a lousy philosopher? Is her relationship with science in need of serious repair?
QUESTION: Do you want millions of Trump voters cooking up new life forms in their garage workshops? That's not possible today, but that's what's coming, as led by science experts. Sound like a good plan to you?
Yes, it's science.
But is it reason?
I disagree: science is the understanding of certain aspects of reality. Those understandings are not infallible and are always subject to the possibility of falsification.
That's not exactly how I'd put it, but I don't disagree.
I think you have gotten to the root here, Mr. Contrapuncte. Allow me approach this situation from a linguistic perspective...
...the understanding of reality according to reason was an invention (and I use that term in the Roman sense of a ādiscoveryā) of the ancient Greeks, who didnāt call it āscienceā, of course, but rather, āphilosophyā. Later, when a distinction was made between, say, a Thales and a Socrates, the term ānatural philosopherā was used to describe the former. The most important thing these various philosophers had in common was that they conducted their studies with the pure motive of, as you say Counterpunch, understanding reality...for themselves and their own personal gratification, not necessarily in order to help others.
The terms āscienceā and āscientistā, Roman terms, I suspect came into vogue and replaced āphilosophyā and āphilosopherā, Greek ones, during the Enlightenment, when Latin was the cosmopolitan language of the learned. This indicated that the natural philosopher had replaced the philosopher as the paradigm of the thinker. Philosophy eventually became relegated to āthe humanitiesā, a conglomerate of disciplines that are supposed to elevate and enrich the human soul, but which got placed on the back-burner in favor of the āhardā sciences, those that could faithfully predict outcomes and that could conduce to the material prosperity of the plebs. When science did venture out into the arena of the things of the soul, it did not get named according to its blood ancestry, as āphilosophyā, but according to its Latinized version, the āsocialā SCIENCES.
The Enlightenment project which appealed to the masses over the heads of the kings and barons and priests and taught us the prejudice that all men are created equal not only compromised the ppl by conducing to a depreciation of high culture, it also divided the thinkers, the very ones who initiated this project, into separate camps, into āscientistsā and āphilosophersā who have arguably different motives.
Laughable.
To truly understand human nature, one must have what I would call the ādisabled experienceā. It's the bungled and botched who know where it's at. Chinless numbskulls be damned.
However, as the 20th C European philosophers discerned, the sense in which modern science frames the question of āwhat is real?ā has a distinguishing characteristic. That is the division of phenomena into the realms of primary and secondary attributes, on the one hand, and the division of subject from object, on the other. The implications of this division are articulated in Husserlās posthumously-published book The Crisis of the European Sciences, but the theme is carried further in later phenomenological literature. The criticism here is that science is no longer concerned with the philosophical question of the nature of being or human existence, but with the manipulation and mastery of nature for human purposes (whilst at the same time denying the reality of purpose in a transcendent or teleological sense.)
I think the point about this, as that these divisions are so thoroughly embedded in our culture, that we tend to look through them. Itās very difficult to look at them. Already earlier in this thread, some have insisted that there can be no such thing as āscientismā, on the grounds that science is simply the unclouded perception of reality. The only problem can ever be not understanding this fact, or failing to recognise its truth. And thatās because the scientific mindset is dominant in secular culture - this is where science has become todayās religion. Not because it is like religion in substance, but because it occupies the role of āarbiter of realityā in the way that religion did previously. But the philosophical criticism of scientism is something outside this philosophyās terms of reference.
Quoting Todd Martin
The term āscientistā came into vogue around the 1830ās in the salon of Charles Babbage, who is credited, along with Ada Lovelace, with being the original inventor of what was to become the computer. (Source - Walter Isaacson, The Innovators.)
Yes, agreed. To call science a religion is to bend the word religion too far. But it seems completely fair to claim our relationship with science is quite similar to the relationship we've long had with religion. I came up with the phrase "science clergy" not to describe scientists so much as our relationship with them. The term applies to scientists too, to the degree they share that relationship.
Dawkins comes to mind here, but there are many examples across the net, in my experience. Dawkins assumes that because he is an expert in some narrow field of technical study, he is also an expert on reason, and religion, and probably many other things. That is, he's not content to just be a great scientist, he apparently wishes to promote himself beyond that to some kind of High Ranking Authority, with a capital "A". That is, much the same role the clergy used to inhabit when they were the only educated people in the culture.
Science does what we ask it to do, it develops new knowledge. So in that sense, "science is a good thing". A tool that works, I don't see a problem here.
Our relationship with science seems something else entirely.
You say you understand, but the point is not that:
"science and technology are critical to almost every facet of modern life."
The point is that there's a difference between an ideological understanding of reality, and a scientific understanding of reality.
Do you understand that?
Quoting Wayfarer
No, you do not! Immediately, you reduce science to a loose collection of tools to use for your own ends! And that is the very reason we are threatened with extinction. Using science as a tool with no regard to the understanding of reality science describes, allows science to be used for ill.
We can argue about the objective fact/ subjective value - is/ought nature of sustainability if you like, but we hardly need to derive moral order from fact to prioritise applying clean energy technology over burning coal, for instance!
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, you can assume science has an intrinsically privileged point of view, and you do so all the time!
To suggest that science can only be valid knowledge if it is a complete description of reality is incorrect. As a matter of methodology, all scientific knowledge is held to be provisional in lieu of the possibility of further evidence - that may as yet, be unaccounted for. That's only good and proper. However, to imply therefore that science doesn't know anything, or that scientific knowledge claims are uncertain, is to misunderstand.
I ask that you compare a scientific understanding of reality, with an ideological understanding of reality. One is factual, the other conventional. In one, the world is made up of sovereign nation states in political and economic competition. God, flags and money. This is the reality you see; and it's on this basis we develop and apply technologies - and what I'm saying is, an ideological worldview excludes possibilities that exist, only if one adopts a scientific worldview.
The world described by science is a single planetary environment; occupied by human beings, who are all members of the same species, and presumably, have a common interest in sustainability! The earth is a big ball of molten rock that we could tap into, to meet all our energy needs, and more!
Of course scientific knowledge is incomplete, that is a given and wasn't the point I was making at all. Science is an incomplete understanding of certain aspects of reality. Within its ambit it has no serious competitors. I wasn't suggesting that science doesn't know anything.
I am not supporting any ideological worldviews; quite the contrary, as you should know if you read my posts. The claim that science can (potentially) explain everything is an ideological worldview; realistically science can explain what it can explain and cannot explain what it cannot explain.
With all due respect, you have not grasped my meaning - and the points you make are irrelevant and increasingly confused. If you are unable to grasp the idea of a scientific understanding of reality, to compare to the world as described by religious, political and economic ideologies, then there's little point continuing while talking at crossed purposes. Thanks for your interest.
Is this the life that science promised us when we were lead out of the dark ages into the light of technology? that we would, in the twenty-first century, have to worry about how to provide energy for their bodily existences to the masses? Sustainability!...one wonders if what we have is worth sustaining.
Isnāt human life supposed to be something elevated, something ethereal, something more than mere existence? āwe are all members of the same speciesā, you say, and indeed that is true, but isnāt it also true that we all derive from different cultures? I suppose you would pejoratively describe these different cultures as āideologiesā...at least insofar as they interfere with the goal of modern science to provide all human beings around the globe with the things necessary for their material comfort. The problem is that the higher ideals of a particular culture often contradict the lower goals of that science.
The problem with scienceāafter it became a political party as opposed to a private enterpriseāis that it lost its interest in the higher things of the soul. Music, poetry, philosophy herself, became relegated to the dustbin of history, because they just didnāt matter anymore: all that mattered was that the material wealth and comfort of all everywhere be secured.
The problem with this is that human life is more than just its own sustenance. Yes indeed, our lives must be sustainedābut only if there is something they are worth being sustained for. There is something more than just the material prosperity of man, and it is precisely this that modern science has nothing about which to say.
My question is, what can we tap into to meet all the energy needs of our souls? For it is these that are flagging while we worry about the sustainability of the resources that provide energy to our bodies. But I forget: the distinction b/w body and soul has long been discredited and forgotten. The latter, under Rousseauās influence, became the self in modern psychology, an indeterminate and ineffable thing; or was subsumed under the heading of the former as the brain: a mere organ of the body which, however, can be manipulated through drugs and shocks to behave properly.
Yes, I understand that too, and I addressed it.
Further down you say
Quoting counterpunch
So, what does āa scientific understanding of realityā mean, given that it must of necessity be āincompleteā? It means that itās not āan understanding of realityā as such. It is, as you also say, a method for testing hypotheses and conjectures. Itās an attitude, a way of finding out. I think as soon as it claims to be an understanding of reality, then it is speculative philosophy. Do you see how you're shifting back and forth here? In one place, science is 'the correct understanding of reality' - and that itself is an ideological statement. Then you say 'well, it's a way of testing hypotheses' - which is true. But it's not 'a scientific understanding of reality' - it's an attitude, and a method. You're subtly conflating the two all the time in your posts.
Quoting counterpunch
It's not a loose collection of tools, but a method - scientific method.
I agree that geothermal energy is likely important, but this thread is not about that issue.
Susan Haack (interview) on science:
[i]There is no āScientific Method,ā I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only:
The inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists.
The special tools and techniques gradually developed by scientists over the centuries (instruments of observation, the calculus, statistical techniques, models and metaphors, computers and computer programs, social helps such as peer-review, etc., etc.); which, being often local, and always evolving, are not used by all AND:
The involvement in scientific work of many people, who may be thousands of miles, or centuries, apart.
Together, this is what explains how the sciences have managed to get more evidence, appraise its worth better, keep people honest, encourage creativity, and so on; and hence, their successes.[/i]
Imagine now that you conclude from this success that you should next teach the child how to fly an airplane. Rational?
This is where we are with science today. We've had great success in recent centuries, and have concluded from that that we therefore can manage any amount of knowledge and power delivered at any rate.
Jennifer Doudna won the Nobel Prize for making gene editing easier. She wants to "democratize" gene editing by making it available to all. She's being celebrated as a hero. So we can now look forward to a coming world where millions of folks will be cooking up new life forms in their garage workshops, and releasing their creations in to the environment to see what happens.
But Doudna is not the villain here. She's just sincerely serving the widely agreed upon science worshiping cultural consensus within which she resides.
I really don't think that's true. Can you cite anything in support?
The point you addressed, and I quote, that "science is important to every facet of modern life" - is not my point at all. You mis-characterise my argument to make things easier for yourself, responding to your own straw man ideas of my argument, rather than what I am saying.
Quoting Wayfarer
The world understood via the lens of physics, chemistry and biology, as opposed to the world understood via the lens of God, flags and money.
Quoting Wayfarer
I do not accept that. Science has a very good understanding of the world we inhabit - and remaining questions about the big bang, and/or quantum mechanics, do not imply that what science knows is false.
Quoting Wayfarer
You cannot use the fact that scientific knowledge improves over time to argue that it must always be false. Consider the sequence the Bible, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein. Even the Bible acknowledges that there are heavenly bodies in motion. It doesn't know which are moving, but nonetheless, says something true about reality. Copernicus ideas are more valid, and Galileo again improves upon Copernicus, etc. Consequently, the scientific worldview of today is not vastly different to that of the 1920's, because they describe the same thing. And that's why Khun's incommensurability theory is wrong. The object is commensurable.
Quoting Wayfarer
No, I'm not. When I say 'a scientific understanding of reality' it is to point to the natural world, objectively apprehended; to compare to an ideological understanding of reality: i.e. God, flags and money. It's not to suggest that science can locate every particle in the universe, and tell us how fast its moving, in what direction.
Quoting Wayfarer
This thread is about people who disagree with the contention: science is good. You are one of those people. I am not one of those people.
I am explaining why you're wrong; and why a scientific worldview is the best guide to the application of technology - (as opposed to God flags and money) in relation to assertions that science is responsible for climate change, nuclear weapons, and so forth.
It's people like you, who have religious convictions they cannot challenge, by thinking of what a scientific understanding of reality implies - who are responsible for the misapplication of technology threatening human existence. You needn't worry. Even if face of evolution, religion actually fares quite well - not because it's true so much as that it has served an important purpose for a long time!
Are you familiar with CRISPR? You seem very educated, so I thought you might be.
Quick summary for those who need it, CRISPR is new Nobel Prize winning technology whose primary contribution is to make gene editing substantially easier. Jennifer Doudna and her team at IGI...
https://innovativegenomics.org/
https://www.facebook.com/igisci/
...have consistently stated that one of their goals is to "democratize" this technology, that is, make it widely available to all. As example, basic CRISPR kits are already being sold on Amazon.
Her thinking seems to be that:
1) The more people using this technology the more benefits we'll see.
2) Engaging the public in doing science themselves is the best way to educate people out of resistance to science.
To my best understanding, CRISPR is still complicated enough that it's not yet a tool appropriate for the average citizen. However, there are already gene hacking hobbyists showing up on Reddit and other such places.
What I'm pointing to here is the direction gene editing technology is heading. As example, when I was a kid only the largest organizations had computers, which were primitive by today's standards. Fast forward to the current moment, and pretty close to everyone has a powerful computer in their pocket which they use routinely for just about everything.
I'm just reporting it is the specific goal of leading scientists in the field to make gene editing ever easier, and to share this technology with anyone who wants it. And although there is some questioning and concern, generally speaking these experts are being applauded by the wider culture beyond the scientific community.
Doudna recently received the Nobel Prize for her work on CRISPR, so there is extensive media coverage of her work available online, which is why I know about it.
To me, the underlying bigger picture question is....
Can human beings successfully manage ANY amount of power delivered at ANY rate?
To put this in context, Doudna claims engagement with the public is very important in almost all her interviews, but her team does not wish to use their social media accounts to socially engage the public.
I have no personal beef with Doudna, as I see her as a person of good intentions. But it's experiences like this that have caused me to coin the term "science clergy".
No kidding. I have not said anything about religious conviction, you resort to that because your own dogmas are being challenged.
Quoting Foghorn
Yes, I know what CRISPR is, and who Jennifter Doudna is, as she won the Nobel last year. I agree that such technologies are fraught with perils but it's an exagerration to say that it allows people to 'cook up new life forms'. I daresay the social media accounts of scientific celebrities attract a lot of attention, and that their public engagement is in practice pretty limited.
I also agree this actually might be something pretty invidious. You're right in saying it should be more discussed. I would have thought such technology ought to require some kind of licensing.
It's an exaggeration NOW, as I disclaimed above. Please note that my comments address the direction in which this technology is headed.
And, CRISPR is just a currently discussed example of the overall trend being driven by science. The knowledge explosion is accelerating. What that means is that ever more, ever greater powers will become available to ever more people at an ever faster pace.
Again, the bottom line big picture question we face is....
Can human beings successfully manage ANY amount of power delivered at ANY rate?
If we conclude no, and then observe a near unanimous agreement among experts that science should proceed forward at the fastest rate we can afford....
We arrive at a very different relationship with authority.
Which seems an interesting investigation for philosophers to engage.
Your determined incomprehension is not a challenge to my ideas. It's merely annoying. Sustainability is my only dogma. I believe humankind should survive. Applying technology in relation to a scientific understanding of reality, rather than for the sake of God, flags and money, is how sustainability is achieved. I know you are an anti-science God botherer from previous discussions. You'd be one of those people attacking Craig Venter in 2008, as 'playing God' for creating artificial life in the lab.
This seems a wildly inaccurate characterization of Wayfayer's writing. You're just sinking your own ship with this kind of talk.
To which the obvious answer is āyesā. I get that youāre making a polemical point, but, for example, youāre utilising the power of your computer and the Internet to make your point.
Go make me a tiny wookie!
I think the idea behind the widespread distribution of CRISPR is the democratic distribution of the technology. I presume that this is the reasoning behind it. I also had a brief look around for info on that, and learned that Jennifer Doudna is widely engaged in discussions of the ethics of the technology. I also am aware that Walter Isaacsonās last book was about her, which I might well buy - Iāve read his previous three books (on Einstein, Steve Jobs, and The Innovators). Heās one of my favourite non-fiction authors.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Code-Breaker-Jennifer-Doudna-Editing/dp/1760859893/
Yes, that's it. Well intentioned madness.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, but imho, her thinking is muddled. She continually talks about "effective governance" while at the same time talking about "democratizing CRISPR". These two goals are in direct conflict with each other. The more people who have such tools, the harder such tools will be to govern.
Quoting Wayfarer
I haven't read the book, so you may be able to further inform us on that. What I could tell from interviews, reviews, videos etc, Isaacson is basically a Doudna cheerleader. At least in all the interviews I watched I never saw him ask an inconvenient question. His job is to sell books. And you can't do that if you can't access the subjects. And you can't access the subjects if you ask too many inconvenient questions.
I asked some inconvenient questions in an appropriate manner in the appropriate place. I was erased.
The basic equation I see is:
1) All these people have good intentions.
2) Many impressive benefits will flow from gene editing technology.
3) None of that is going to matter if we crash the food chain, or otherwise commit fundamental FUBAR with this technology.
It's the scale of such technologies that we should focus on. As the scale of power grows, the room for error shrinks. If we plot that line forward in time, sooner or later we run in to big trouble.
No, apologies, but I'm making a literal point. The obvious answer is no. Human beings can not successfully manage ANY amount of power delivered at ANY rate. Unless you are asserting that human beings are gods, which I know you aren't saying.
This is the simplest thing really.
1) Everyone takes it to be an obvious given that the powers made available to children should be restricted due to their limited maturity, experience and judgement etc.
2) On the day the children turn 18 we then assume that they can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate, and thus embrace the ever accelerating knowledge explosion.
Here's the logic failure. We assume, typically without any questioning, that because adults can handle more than children, therefore they can handle anything.
And what's fascinating is, the best educated, most intelligent and accomplished high ranking leaders of our culture are happy to make this logic error, because they don't recognize it as a logic error.
We pride ourselves on having dethroned the religious clergy. It's time to perform the same operation on the science clergy.
I really wouldnāt waste too much time stewing over that. I suspect that their Facebook site gets an awful lot of commentary, the subject is a controversy magnet. I have an interest in philosophy of physics, but nothing I could post on their sites would probably ever see the light of day. It might seem undemocratic but itās more likely āthe economy of eyeballsā.
Quoting Foghorn
Again - not so. I am not licensed to, say, export plutonium, or access the central banking system's computer. There are thousands of things I'm not permitted to do. You're falling into flights of rhetorical fancy.
Witness the current "corona fiasco" and science used to justify political interference in all aspects of human life.
When a clergy interferes with human freedom it has to be Ignored!
Not stewing, reporting. It's relevant to the issue of our relationship with science, and scientist's relationship with reason.
Quoting Wayfarer
It doesn't actually, which I found surprising too. I had the community section of their Facebook page largely to myself for about a month. I spent the whole time talking to myself, there was no engagement from anybody. I did see however that my posts were being moderated, as I suspect all posts were. They approved all my posts, until the day they erased them all.
Yes, you are not allowed to handle plutonium. Nor am I. But the North Korean psychopaths are. Any power given to the good guys is also given to the bad guys, and probably a bunch of stupid guys too.
Respectfully, you're missing the point, perhaps because I'm making it poorly.
An accelerating knowledge explosion leads to 1) ever more 2) ever larger powers being made available to 3) ever more people at an 4) ever faster pace. That is the nature of acceleration, more and more, faster and faster.
As example, consider the history of computing. A power once available only to experts, now available to pretty much everyone.
What I'm asking you to do is plot the exponential nature of knowledge development against the incremental (at best) nature of human maturity development. Should you graph that relationship
in your intelligent well educated mind, you will see the lines diverge from one another at an ever quickening pace.
That divergence is unsustainable. No one can predict how that will end, only that it sooner or later will.
Only it's not simple, because your conclusion is a need to "dethrone the science clergy" whatever that means. Whereas, to my mind, your Pandora's Box argument, speaks eloquently for the science based regulation of technology. i.e. making decisions about which technologies to apply on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality - rather than, religious political and economic ideology.
Ok, but science is not a machine. It's run by human beings. And so declaring management "science based" does not automatically remove that management from the kinds of emotional agendas which rightly concern you.
As example, quite a few scientists willingly volunteered to develop the atomic bomb, even though at least some of them were clear minded enough to understand that doing so would present an existential threat to civilization. They weren't evil, they were just human. They were born to do science, they had a natural talent for science, they wished to use their talents just as anyone would, and so they placed
their personal self interest above the interest of civilization, while rationalizing this choice by various methods. That is, they acted like human beings.
Slapping "science based" on the regulation process doesn't remove the human element, because scientists too have religious, political and economic agendas which they pursue, just like everybody else.
The term "science clergy" is admittedly vague. It's really more of a trolling word designed to stimulate conversation. The fact that I have to explain what the phrase means reveals it's limitations.
I don't mean science is a religion. I mean we have a tendency to relate to science much as we used to relate to religion. You know, science as a "one true way" and so on.
Science is not many things! It is however, an increasingly coherent and valid understanding of reality, to compare to religious, political and economic ideological descriptions of reality.
Quoting Foghorn
The nuclear bomb was developed because the US feared Germany would develop it first. Not because scientists thought it would be a spiffing idea. But because nations in ideological competition use science for ideological ends, with no regard to a scientific understanding of reality. Again, your example shows a need to accept a scientific understanding of reality, and apply technology accordingly.
Quoting Foghorn
That's not correct. One doctor can tell if another doctor has treated a patient with regard to the best scientific/medical knowledge. A Morbidity and Mortality Conference - is a venue in which doctors gather to assess the treatment of a deceased patient, and they determine whether anything done was wrong in relation to the medical science. It does not preclude some 'all too human' Harold Shipman type - using medical knowledge to murder people, but saying it's not possible to regulate technology with regard to a scientific understanding of reality, is false.
That is the problem which I am attempting to describe. :-) Seriously, the fact that science works so well is what presents the existential threat.
Quoting counterpunch
This is a common, and flawed, defense. The nuclear bomb was developed because a group of scientists, the only people capable of creating the bomb, willingly decided to build a bomb. I'm not trying to demonize these people. I'm just pointing out that scientists are human, and capable of questionable decisions, just like the rest of us.
Quoting counterpunch
So you don't accept that scientists are human beings? :-) Are they incapable of error in your opinion?
Please recall. A scientific understanding of reality is led by scientists. And scientists are human beings. And human beings are significantly FUBAR.
Is it? Please show me an example, and explain in what ways it is flawed. And could you do so without emojis? I'm not a teenage girl!
I already did that by demonstrating that scientists too are capable of making questionable decisions.
Scientists are people. People tend to be FUBAR.
Quoting counterpunch
You're not??? Really? Rats!! Look at all this time I've wasted! No smilies for you!
Because mostly, what there is is actually scientism, not science. And many people rightly recognize it as such, and disparage it.
Somehow, science doesn't seem to have the power to undo scientism.
*facepalm*
Basically, would you agree with something like this:
As more people survive past childhood and live well into their 70's, human life and culture have become cheap, flat, superficial, lacking deeper meaning and value; lacking opportunity for true heroism and grit; commodities that are only meant to be consumed and then discarded.
--?
Western civilization according to Spengler aims at the infinite. It's characteristic nature is "will to power". It wasn't until the early 20 the century, philosophers realized that it will all come to an end. Our fields of knowledge will be exhausted and our arts will simply be a recombination of historical art forms. Western civilization will die in the next 200 years and a Cesarean form of government will take control over it. Just as the Islamic Civilization died after the siege of Baghdad, the Gothic civilization will also die.
The destruction of traditions , low birth rate, all time high depression, poor economy, immigration, racial tensions, late capitalism are all symptoms of a collapse
Yes, I would agree with all that, Mr. Baker. But I would emend āinto their 70sā to read āinto their 80s and even 90s.ā I live with a woman in her late 80s who shows little sign of slowing down anytime soon. I work for a local nonagenarian couple: he is 95, ran to the opposite side of his ship to avoid incoming Kamikaze in the South Pacific; she is 90 and works her garden every day, lifts the other side of a heavy piece of furniture to move it whithersoever we will, feeds me lunch and takes up whatever tasks her invalid husband can no longer perform. The 80s and 90s are the new 70s and 80s...
...but what is an extra decade added onto an already long life? This was one of Socratesā calculations when he chose to die at the ripe young age of 70. I was told by @Fooloso4 that this opinion of both Xenophon and Allan Bloomāthat Socrates calculated his old age as a part of the reason he chose to dieāwas ānot to be taken at face valueā, ie, that it was part of some esoteric teaching; I pointed out to him, however, that 70 years were considered to be the āyears of a manā in the Old Testament. But I failed to point out to him that, of the two contemporary philosopher-authors of Socrates, Xenophon is the least esoteric.
Bloom writes, āXenophon tells how Socrates responded to Antiphon, the Sophist, who was trying to attract his companions or students away from him by claiming Socratesā life was not a happy one, particularly because of his great poverty...
āāAntiphon, as another man gets great pleasure from a good horse, or a dog, or a bird, I get even more pleasure from good friends. And if I have something good I teach it to them, and I introduce them to others who will be useful to them with respect to virtue. And together with my friends I go through the treasures of the wise men of old which they left behind written in books, and we peruse them. If we see something good, we pick it out and hold it to be a great profit, if we are able to prove useful to one another.āā
āXenophon comments, āWhen I heard this, I held Socrates to be really happy...ā (Memorabilia, I 6).
āHow naive! It is a naĆÆvetĆ© we would do well to recover. But, oh, the difficulty of it! Rousseau understood this very well:
āāOur bombastic lapidary style is good only for inflating dwarfs. The ancients showed men as they are naturally, and one saw that they were men. Xenophon, honoring the memory of some warriors who were killed during the retreat of the ten thousand, says, āThey died irreproachable in war and in friendship.ā That is all. But consider what must have filled the authorās heart in writing this short and simple eulogy. Wow unto him who does not find that entrancing!āā
āRousseauās observation is even more appropriate to this passage, the only one in the writings of Xenophon, who had experienced so much and seen so many illustrious men in action, where he calls a man happy.ā
Along with ācheap, flat, superficial, lacking deeper meaning and valueā, I would add ācoarse, vulgar and ostentatiousā...
... I used to be a skilled roller-skater in the artistic style, 3-turns, spins on either foot, one-turn leaps, etc. I once visited an out-of-town rink and found there a fellow who was jealous of my skills. I suppose he was considered to be the local prodigy, and to do me one better, performed a backwards flip in which he landed safely upon his skates, followed by acclamation and applause of his friends. But despite this stunt, his style was rough and coarse and lacked general skill and subtlety. He seems to me to be a paradigm of the modern artist.
But as the commentaries by Bloom's teacher Leo Strauss show, Xenophon was deeply ironic. that is to say, he cannot not simply be taken at face value. But Strauss said:
To get below the surface you have to be able to see the surface.
A funny story told by Seth Benardete a friend of Bloom's and fellow student of Strauss:
He was heading home after a conference with Stanley Rosen and Allan Bloom in the car. Bloom spotted some deer by the side of the road. They stopped the car. Bloom wanted to get out to see them. He asked: "Do you think they'll attack if I got out and approach them?" And Rosen said: "I don't think they've read Closing of the American Mind".
Quoting Wittgenstein
Aims at displacing God with science, more like it.
Quoting Todd Martin
(Ms., I think. :yikes: )
However, this thirst for mathematics discernible in every field might be overdoing it a bit. Granted physics has worked its way up to the top of pecking order precisely because it's mathematical to the extent of being a dependent rather than a patron so to speak. There's so much more to science than just fancy arithmetic and geometry. What's non-mathematical about science, to me, is what it has in common with philosophy - clear language, logical rigor, to name a few. We could focus on this non-mathematical side to science too you know.
If Spengler is right, what makes you believe the infinite is unachievable? If I had a few tens of billions to spend, I'd drill for magma energy - close to magma pockets in the earth's crust, line the bore holes with pipes, and pump liquid through to produce steam to drive turbines - for limitless, base load clean electricity. Then I'd sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle, farm fish, protect the forests, make the deserts bloom, and live happily ever after!
Point being, this could be the dawn for humankind; and a renaissance for western civilisation - for how else, but western industry and capitalism, could the technology be applied?
In one interpretation, the Book Of Genesis predicted our current state of affairs and likely future some three thousand years ago.
1) We ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, and then...
2) Were evicted from the Garden of Eden.
Here's how I think this remarkable prediction was accomplished. It wasn't a vision from beyond, the word of God transcribed, or magical psychic powers. It was deep insight in to the human condition, a condition which hasn't really changed since the prediction was made.
As example, if you've read enough of Foghorn's posts, sooner or later it becomes clear that my human condition is to go endlessly blah, blah, blah about all kinds of things like a typoholic madmen, and swing wildly back and forth between being a jerk and a decent dude. Once you see the pattern, once you understand my human condition, you can predict the future of my writing with a degree of certainty.
Ancient peoples had some advantage in understanding fundamental properties like the human condition because their minds weren't crammed with all the kinds of mass produced noise which assaults our attention today.
There are of course many other interpretations of the Book Of Genesis, and no way to ever finally conclude which is correct. I'm just reporting my current favorite interpretation.
I think you meant to say, āhe cannot simply be taken at face valueā. I have not read these commentaries of Straussā, but my impression in reading the Anabasis is that Xenophon is not so much ironic as elliptical, both in language and thought: he expects the reader to both supply the omitted verb or phrase, and to draw his own inferences from what has already been said. As evidence of this I would direct you to the Rousseau quote I previously posted, and I hope you amended my āwowā to āwoeā there.
This reminded me of a very similar thing Bloom said, but I was unable to find it. Maybe you can? It was something like, āthe surface is the depthsā.
Quoting Fooloso4...
...that WAS indeed a funny story! I belly-laughed. The book was received with such animosity (but also popularity, we must remember), that Bloom feared the American Mind would close upon and crush him. Maybe the deer would have licked his face, but the anecdote, if true, proves that he had little experience of that animal.
I had to charge a doe once when my dog got too close to her fawn and she tried to stomp him.
I have Benardeteās excellent translation of Platoās Symposium, which I read many years ago now. I also have the Greek, but wouldnāt dare attempt to read it, as my Greek skills are yet in their infancy, and there are so many quotes-within-quotes in that dialogue.
It is a shame that you and I are not next door neighbors, for, sharing a common interest in Strauss and philosophy, we might have many profitable discussions on each otherās back deck over a beer and barbecue. I guess the internet is supposed to be the solution for this problem, but itās just not the same. One wants to see a person face-to-face, to hear their opinions and experiences through ones own ears, to hear their āvalved voiceā.
Yeah, ya never know nowadays.
I will sit on my back deck and toast you with a beer.
I'm interested. What did you have in mind? Because much of that logical rigour is logical precisely because it is mathematical. And clear language seems to be about communicating, not doing, science.
Reminds me of the old riddle, āA father and son were involved in an automobile accident. Responders on the scene pronounced the father dead, but rushed his son to the nearest hospital with critical injuries and in need of immediate surgery...
ā...into the ER strode the surgeon with gloves and gown, ready for emergency operation, but after seeing the victimās face exclaimed, āOh no! This is my son!āā
@Fooloso4 āCheers, mate! I will echo a sentiment of Bloomās and say that, though we disagree on much, our concern for the same things proves we have more in common than what separates us.
Very nice. Unfortunately some here take disagreement as a personal attack or resort to personal attacks where there is disagreement.
You have reminded me of Cleitophon, O Morosophos:
Socrates: Cleitophon...as someone was just telling us, was conversing with Lysias and criticized spending time with Socrates, while he could not praise too highly the company of Thrasymachos.
Cleitophon: whoever that someone was, Socrates, did not recount for you accurately the arguments that I made about you to Lysias. For while there were some things for which I for my part did not praise you, there were also some for which in fact I did. But since it is plain you are holding this against me, for all that you pretend you couldnāt care less, I would very gladly go over these same arguments with you myself...so that you will be less inclined to think that I have a low opinion of you. For as things stand now, perhaps you have been misinformed, and that is why you appear to be more harshly disposed toward me than you ought to be. So then, if you give me permission to speak frankly, I would very gladly accept it, as I wish to explain.
Socrates: Why, it would be shameful indeed, when you are so eager to benefit me, not to submit to it. For clearly, once I have learned my bad and good points, I will practice and pursue the one and shun the other with all my might.
Lest I be charged with plagiarism, let me point out that this is from Orwinās translation.
It is remarkable that after these words, Socrates never again speaks in this dialogue. I imagine him listening attentively and silently throughout, and later contemplating in private what he heard.
Also remarkable to me is Socrates response: that he wanted to hear his critic so that he might become better. How rare is that sentiment! As soon as we hear criticism of ourselves, our instinct is to defend ourselves, for no one wants to feel himself to be lacking in good qualities or otherwise deficient in anything that would attract someone else to him.
The development of āthick skinā to ward off the slings and arrows of opprobrium is what one often hears is needed as protection against criticism. Socrates here, however, offers us submission to them, in case that criticism is warranted...
...my mother once told me, āyour solution to problems is to run away from themā. Thatās the wisest thing I remember her ever saying, and I just stood there before her in silence... because I knew that what she said could not be contradicted.
I would have thought that was the hallmark of our era.
Nay Mr. Storm, in my opinion what distinguishes modernity from antiquity is rather the notion that there is no problem that cannot be solved, including, most crucially, the problem of the hostile relationship between philosophy and civil society. The ancients considered this hostility to be a permanent condition of life, and did their best through their writings to mitigate its effectsānever thought of changing the relationship itself, which they considered to be inevitable.
The phrase āresponsible adultā elicits an image of the citizen who āfits inā, takes a stable well-paying job, perhaps marries, has children, raises them, does everything in moderation, that is, without compromising his job or his family life. Is that what you implied by that phrase?
Mr. Storm, Iām still not at all sure what youāre talking about. Do you mean to say that ppl who travel a lot and use āsubstancesā are the emotionally immature? Are you suggesting that responsible adults, the emotionally mature ones, remain sober and in one place? I am not familiar with Jungās Eternal Boy or Girl.
I get the feeling that you despise me. Is that true?
My bad then. It just seems that your reluctance to answer me combined with your dismissiveness suggested that. Clearly though you are not willing to continue the conversation, and I will therefore cease to ask you further questions.
I think we decided that it is undecidable, although I am not sure what it is we have to decided on.
Well I disagree. I think we should have stopped at hunter gathering. We'd be way happier.
ā Banno
Arguments against science? Okay, try this on for size. The universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years old. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light - yet the universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years across. How is that possible? Further, recently detected light from 250-300 million years after the big bang, is only just reaching us now - but 'we' were there at the time. All of space, time, matter and energy was in close proximity to the location where the first stars emerged, so how can that light only just be reaching us now? Maybe it makes sense in ways I don't understand - even though I consider myself a fairly well versed layman, and at least two standard deviations above stupid, this doesn't make sense to me - and science makes too little effort to explain.
We're missing half the picture @Banno. Of course the other half (the immaterial) maybe pure fantasy, a figment of our imagination as some might say. It's odd though that the pinnacle of materialism - the brain - should have such thoughts at all. Heresy! Heresy! Sleeping with the enemy! SacrƩ bleu!
Like inflation theory?
As far as I understand it, cosmic inflation occurred only very early on, shortly after the big bang - and on a small scale, 10 to the power minus 36 seconds after the singularity to 10 to the power minus 32 seconds. It doesn't explain how the universe is 93 light years wide but only 14 ish, billion years old.
But it does. Those estimates are themselves based on inflationary cosmological models.
That's very helpful. Thank you!
"Insanely rapid" - there's a scientific term! I wasn't accounting for the insanity! My bad!! Because, to a sane person it would seems that two points with diametrically opposite trajectories could not get much further than 28bn light years apart in 14bn years, even with a brief period of faster than light expansion - that surely cannot account for the other 58bn light years of space without reference to insanity!
That's Love Island, not science ;)
Never watched it in my life. Obviously you have been. :)
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Oh, well then - that explains it. Thanks! 14x2x2=56 - which only leaves 37bn light years accounted for by magic. I mean cosmic expansion. Close enough!
...so the argument against science is that Counterpunch doesn't understand it.
Sure.
No, he assured us he has read this stuff and has a good grasp of it.
Quoting counterpunch
Well, much more than 37bn. Part of inflation theory is that the universe must be much, much larger than the observable universe. However, no magic necessary, just counting. 2c for two adjacent points. Next add a third. You have points A, B and C in a row. A is receding from B at almost the speed of light. B is receding from C at roughly the same speed. How fast is A receding from C?
And remember this happened in 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds during which the visible universe acquired most of the size it has now.
The largeness of the unobservable universe is a requirement that the inflation yield the observable, homogeneous cosmos we see now.
Not really, no! I think my original point was about science communication, or lack thereof - and the discussion followed from there. I'm not going to be rude to the Kid - who is doing his best to explain something that doesn't seem to me to make sense. And I'm interested in science stuff. I wouldn't know there was a problem if I didn't know quite a bit about the subject - so, thanks Banno, for your remarks. Swing and a miss though, again!
No, I don't think so. But thanks for trying.
Well it is, whether you think so or not. Even Wiki opens with:
"Inflation is now a built-in piece of our standard story of cosmic evolution. But itās still controversial. In 2014, researchers claimed to have seen ripples from inflation imprinted on the cosmic microwave background. But this proved mistaken..."
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/cosmic-inflation/#ixzz6zGCbeACB
All of this is irrelevant. It's not how I thought this discussion would develop. I'll let you talk - but frankly, you know less than I do. I didn't expect anyone to weigh in, claiming that the big bang theory and cosmic inflation are wholly adequate. I assumed it would stand as an unsolved problem in science, I could use as a springboard to discuss science communication and related issues. I can only suggest you write to the astrophysical journal, and tell them - that, controversy over, problem solved by "insanely rapid" cosmic expansion!
:rofl: This maybe the key to unlocking some doors to...the twilight zone! Press on, o philosopher! Lead the way!
Israeli Intelligence Failure Leads To Creation Of The Devil's Advocate
:rofl:
Quoting counterpunch
The one astrophysical journal. :joke:
Quoting counterpunch
It's the current reigning model, I take no credit for it (unless the name "insanely rapid" catches on, in which case I'll take credit for that). It's just the inflationary cosmological model for future reference, in case you ever have the epiphany that it's good to read up on a subject before spouting off about it.
The twilight zone - where science is valued above the politics of primitive people, and technology is applied on the basis of scientific merit, to secure a prosperous sustainable future? Spooky!
Quoting Kenosha Kid
"The Astrophysical Journal, often abbreviated ApJ (pronounced "ap jay") in references and speech,[1] is a peer-reviewed scientific journal of astrophysics and astronomy, established in 1895 by American astronomers George Ellery Hale and James Edward Keeler."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astrophysical_Journal
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Found your shift key, huh? Well done!
No. wikipedia did. oh, sorry, Wikipedia. lol
I think a case can be made that certain tools are bad (for humans). I think bioweapons are bad (for humans). The specific chain/manacles made for slavery. IOW not chains per se.
Ars sine scientia nihil est
Don't forget that we might assume an infinite number of points between any two spatially separated points, then we really do have an insanely fast separation. More like a terrible hypothesis though. Anyway, this stuff is not even science at all, so it shouldn't be presented as an example of science, or, @counterpunch.an example of scientific failure.
There's no empirical evidence which indicates that the separation between two supposed points, due to expansion, is limited to c. We don't even know how to find the points which are supposed to be separating from each other. So we might assume an infinite number of such points within any volume of space, and then we have nonsense, Scientists don't even have a vague idea as to how light moves through space which is not supposed to be expanding, so how are they ever going to make theories about how light moves in a space which is composed of points moving rapidly away from each other in all directions? Maybe if they weren't so quick to reject ether theories, the expanding points could be the vibrating particles of a substance.
I agree. Science or knowledge is always biased in the sense that it orbits some worldview.
That quote is from the philosophy of architecture. So what's the relationship between a scientist and an architect?
It's the standard cosmological model, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29?wprov=sfla1
I'm very familiar with it. But cosmology is metaphysics, not science.
Right, we know how you use that word "insane": " the 'inflationary period', while brief, was insanely rapid". When you don't understand something you designate it as "insane". You do not understand me therefore I am insane.
Since you have absolutely no idea as to any of the specifics concerning this "insanely rapid" expansion, it makes no sense for you to call this "science". Clearly, from your description, there might be an infinite number of spatial points, each with an infinite number of spatial points between them, with each spatial point receding from every other, at some absolutely arbitrarily designated speed. The designation of a speed is really irrelevant because if there's an infinity of these points to even the smallest parcel of space, then the speed of inflation is necessarily infinite.
[quote= Wikipedia: Outline of Metaphysics]Cosmology ā a central branch of metaphysics, that studies the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. [/quote]
Inflationary theory, as you describe it, Kenosha Kid, is not science, but extremely bad metaphysics.
Yeah, I'm using the word an insane amount of times. But in this case, I just meant that you're quite mad.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I'm no cosmologist, more a cosmo-hobbyist, but I know enough to e.g. hold a conversation with one. The hypothesis is that a positive vacuum energy would cause an exponential expansion of the universe, and we can make certain scientific predictions from this hypothesis: the CMB and the distribution of matter should be pretty independent of the precise distribution of quantum fluctuations in the early universe, creating a visible universe that is instead more or less homogeneous and isotropic. This is what we see. Such an inflation field would stop magnetic monopoles from forming, and indeed we see no magnetic monopoles. It would also yield a visible universe that is locally very flat, which is what we have. I know that this must be a positive-energy scalar field, making the Higgs field a potential contender, and the remnants of this field are a contender for dark energy, a reference to the empirical observation that the universe's expansion is accelerating isotropically.
Modelling, hypothesis, observation: so far, so scientific, not to mention that inflationary cosmology comes from scientific research groups, not philosophical ones, and the founders of the theory have won prizes for breakthroughs in science, not metaphysics.
So on that level, calling it metaphysics not science is insane, but more generally your approach in all such conversations of:
1. doing no research into a field
2. demonstrating no understanding of that field
3. concluding from your zero understanding that the field must be at fault
4. concluding from your deduction that you must know more than anyone else
is extremely pathological, and not in any beneficial way. This is, after all, not our first rodeo and you pull the same stunt every time.
Permission btw to ignore all that and just respond with "You said insane again, you clearly know nothing and I know everything". We're not expecting miracles.
[quote=Yes, 'And You and I']Sad preacher nailed upon the coloured door of time
Insane teacher be there reminded of the rhyme
There'll be no mutant enemy we shall certify
Political ends, as sad remains, will die
Reach out as forward tastes begin to enter you
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Those are not observations. They are interpretations made through the application of dubious theories. I know that you don't agree that the theories are dubious, but there is no reason to believe that general relativity is applicable toward understanding inflationary theory. Anomalies such as "dark energy" and "dark matter" demonstrate the inapplicability of the these theories which are applied in the interpretation of the observations.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I don't know why you think that calling cosmology "metaphysics", which is the conventional norm as I demonstrated with Wikipedia quote, is insanity. But I think that calling an hypothesis "science", when the hypothesis is not at all consistent with observations, as the need to assume mystical, magical entities like "dark matter" and "dark energy" demonstrates, is worse than insanity, it's intellectual dishonesty. Calling your metaphysics "science" and trying to back up that claim with faulty interpretations of observations, is nothing other than deception.
Viz:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Seems you're incapable of sticking to the topic. Why? Is it because you actually know how completely ridiculous, and completely unscientific, your description of inflation between spatial points is, so you're eager to change the subject?
Until you can empirically demonstrate any real points in space, with inflation between them, I'll continue to assume an infinite number of points between any two points in space, therefore inflation necessarily at an infinite speed.
The best you can do is say "normal rules for inertial frames (including universal speed limits) don't apply". What hurts like a kick in the balls, is that you insist this is science. Oh yeah, science is the discipline where rules don't apply! Have you absolutely no respect for true science? Calling this crap science is the worst disrespect for science that I've ever seen. Call it what it is, will you please, "metaphysics". You will not though, because you know it would be rejected by educated metaphysicians, as terrible metaphysics.
Have you considered the inherent difficulties of studying something so big and so old as the universe? I do not accept cosmology 'is not science' just because I do not understand how the universe can be 14bn years old, and 93bn light years across - if nothing can travel faster than light. I don't understand the galactic rotation problem, or dark matter either. These are puzzles - science may be able to solve given enough time. But maybe, no matter how long we exist, or how far we travel, we'll never be able to gather the evidence we need to solve these problems, precisely because the universe is so big and so old. Maybe cosmology is where science flows into metaphysics - with theories we'll never be in a position to justify or falsify.
Since you're refusing to address the issue, I'll take the time to characterize you, as you did me.
You present us with bad metaphysics, and call it "science", so that when a metaphysician demonstrates the flaws in your metaphysics, you can dismiss it all by saying that the metaphysician has no understanding of that field.
With utmost accuracy. I'm an idiot for getting into this with you.
Completely random, but because I saw a video about that yesterday: the "speed of light" isn't a speed limit in the traditional sense. Objects can have arbitrarily high relative velocities. If you had a magical laser pointer that could transmit a Beam onto the surface of Mars with pinpoint accuracy, you could use that to write your name on the surface in giant letters, and the point on Mars' surface might move faster than light.
However, what you cannot do is cause any effect faster than light. The limit is on "information" in a generalized physical sense, not on any object. So taking the laser pointer on Mars example: even if you write the letters arbitrarily fast, moving the pointer over the surface arbitrarily fast, it will still take 13 minutes for any movement of your arm to have any effect on Mars. And these 13 minutes can not be circumvented.
What I don't understand is how the universe can be 14bn years old and 93 light years wide.
If the Big Bang happened at a single point, and all energy and matter originates there - then any way you look at it - energy and matter has travelled over 3 times faster than light to get out that far.
The faster than light expansion of the early universe doesn't account for it as it was only a fraction of a second, from 10 to the power minus 34 seconds, to 10 to the power minus 31 seconds before the light speed limit was established.
It's not something I ever expect to understand. So please, don't try to explain. I raised it as an example, to introduce several arguments - that might have emerged in subsequent discussion.
Instead, Kenosha Kid tried to explain it, at great length - and so I never got to talk about science communication, or how science beholden to government and military funding - rather than science as the pure pursuit of truth, may need to appear to have answers, whether it actually has satisfactory answers or not. I suspect this of Cosmology and Quantum Physics in particular. I don't understand investing so much to tear the mask off God while failing to provide for survival. And this speaks to my more general argument, that we've used science without valuing science as an understanding of reality, and consequently, I think it's difficult to throw a rope around what exactly science does and doesn't know. Which, again, comes around to matter of science communication.
Another related point is more philosophical, and that is how does one approach science philosophically? The nihilist looks into the infinite universe and says - nothing matters. But what if, by rights, science begins at the fingertips? It's more consistent with a scientific epistemology to build from the bottom up, from here - outward, which in turn allows us to focus on what is true, and matters to us. We have a pretty good scientific understanding of the world around us. Good enough to survive - and prosper!
In 1880 Emil du Bois-Reymond delivered a speech to theĀ Berlin Academy of SciencesĀ enumerating seven "world riddles" or "shortcomings" of science:
1. the ultimate nature ofĀ matterĀ and force;
2. the origin of motion;
3. theĀ origin of life;
4. the "apparentlyĀ teleologicalĀ arrangements of nature" (not an "absolutely transcendent riddle");
5. theĀ origin of simple sensationsĀ ("a quite transcendent" question);
6. theĀ origin of intelligent thought and languageĀ (which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known);
and
7. the question ofĀ free will.
Concerning numbers 1, 2 and 5 he proclaimed "Ignorabimus" ("we will never know"). Concerning number 7 he proclaimed "Dubitemus" ("we doubt it').
That's a quite badly written Wikipedia page about The Seven World Riddles, and it doesn't list the seven, and nor do you! Has science solved some of them? You mention number seven as "Dubitemus" - but what is it?
I'll save you the trouble:
1. the ultimate nature of matter and force,
2. the origin of motion,
3. the origin of life,
4. the "apparently teleological arrangements of nature," not an "absolutely transcendent riddle,"
5. the origin of simple sensations, "a quite transcendent" question,
6. the origin of intelligent thought and language, which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known, and
7. the question of freewill.
That's better!
As a school in my locality likes to point out. Wikipedia isn't what it used to be. Quality deterioration over time is the norm rather than the exception. Still, as some say, something's better than nothing. I hope to see Wikipedia resuscitated and back in the game in a coupla years, fingers crossed. Plus, interest fades.
I'm surprised though that Wikipedia is first on a Google search list.
Actually Popper's only hard thesis was that humans and as a result their knowledge is subject to error. So, if you prove him wrong you are proving him right.
Quoting counterpunch
I must have written that a thousand years ago.
Quoting Cheshire
Why post that here now - without a link? I've no idea where it came from - or what, precisely I was referring to. What I would say though - appropos of nothing in particular, is that accepting science as truth does not mean that we cannot limit the implications to that which is scientifically necessary to survival.
It would be unwise and undesirable to tear down the Churches, banks and borders - just because they're based in ideological ideas. Rather, recognising science as truth creates an extra-ideological rationale to do what's scientifically necessary to survival - in the first instance, applying the technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma.
Without that energy, there is no path to a viable sustainable future, so the implications are inherently limited - to a systematic scientific understanding of what's necessary to meet and overcome this global scale challenge.
Magma energy allows for carbon capture, hydrogen fuel, desalination and irrigation, recycling - in order to internalise the externalities of capitalism, without internalising them to the economy. So we can meet the climate challenge without imposing poverty by dictat and taxation, as if to eek out our miserable existence forever! We can have more and better - if we can only overcome our ideological limitations on this one issue, and science as truth is the one thing on which we might possibly agree.
And I'm insane to question the metaphysics of a person who rebukes the skeptic with 'it's science therefore your demonstrations of deficiency are irrational unless your a scientist' It doesn't take a scientist to understand metaphysics..
Well that's true. And apparently it takes more than a metaphysician to recognise science. I guess we all have our niches, though I'm not sure what you're adding.
On Tuesday, though, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility had a go at answering that question. The answer is pretty sobering. The cost of the transition to government, as the OBR points out, depends on which of the costs involved the state choses to take on.
The OBR assumes the government will pick up about a quarter of the cost to the economy - and puts this cost at around Ā£350bn over 30 years.
The implication is that the total cost of the transition will be Ā£1.4trn - three-quarters of which will be borne by households and businesses rather than the government itself, for example, meeting the cost of replacing existing household gas boilers with costly zero carbon alternatives such as solar powered electric heating, ground source heat pumps or electric boilers."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/the-obr-has-put-a-price-on-the-government-s-net-zero-ambitions-and-it-will-make-you-shiver/ar-AALQbzH?ocid=msedgntp
From my perspective, this is entirely the wrong approach. Looking at the problem in scientific and technological terms first, for half that price, I think it would be possible produce limitless clean energy from magma, convert it to hydrogen, and ship it all around the world to be burnt in traditional power stations, and distributed at petrol stations, to power hydrogen internal combustion engine, and hydrogen fuel cell driven vehicles!
Attacking this as the global problem that is it, and from the supply side, it is scientifically and technologically possible that we could meet and exceed global energy demand, from clean magma energy for half the price the UK alone plans to spend getting to net zero by 2050, and we wouldn't need to stomp on businesses, tax payers and consumers for decades to come to do it, because the cost of applying the technology would be shared many ways.
I cannot but point out the opportunity forgone by, quite understandably, addressing this problem within the bounds, and via the mechanisms available, but the cost is such, and the threat is such that it would be remiss not point out that the energy available is potentially so massive that we could transcend the limits to resources equation forcing us into a bottleneck, if we could look beyond our ideologically described selves but for a moment, and apply this one key technology, it would save us a fortune!
To the op, I know you believe science/knowledge can be assinged an attribute of good or bad but I guess we are going to just have to dissagree on this as I have not seen any argument that would force me to believe otherwise. It may be out there but I have not seen it.
------------------------------------------
Science, like intelligence, is just a tool used to gather knowledge. If you imagine a set of all knowledge, there is a subset that can be defined as all knowledge known by humans. Science is one of the tools used to increase the size of the set of human knowledge.
I don't think knowledge can be assigned a moral attribute. With respect to knowledge, assigning the attribute of good or bad can only be used for the application of knowledge, which I define as wisdom. Like this quote in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade āHe chose... poorlyā. He chose (application of knowledge)ā¦ poorly (unwisely). The knowledge wasnāt bad or good but the application was subjectively defined as bad.
To those who believe that science/knowledge can't be assigned moral attributes then perhaps another way to ask the question would be: Can humanity handle (used in a way subjectively defined as good) the application of knowledge acquired by science?
Here is a thought experiment which I call "the black box of doom(BBD)": Imaging a group of people that are adult members in good standing in their civilization. For each of those people simultaneously put a black box in their hand with a red button on it. Tell them that If you press the button the entire universe would be destroyed. Estimate how long it would take before the universe was destroyed if at all.
I am guessing that there is a 50% chance that someone would press the button in less than one second. Does this mean that knowledge of the black box of doom is bad? No. Does this mean that the science that discovered the technology for the black box of doom is bad? No. Does this mean that humans are not mature enough to use this knowledge? Yes.
To your original post: I believe science/knowledge has had a tremendous impact and benefit for humanity as a whole UP TO NOW. There may be a time in the future where we may want to avoid technology classified as BBD technology until we evolve to the point where we can handle the application of this type of technology. You could define this as bad if you are referring to how humanity would use it.
To maintain science is just a tool is very wrong. It's so much more than that; and that in essence is the whole argument, because there's a functionality to a scientifically valid understanding of the world that we could harness to our benefit - if we could just look beyond our ideological identities and interests.
There's a relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of our actions, causality, and the consequences. It's apparent in everyday life that knowing what's true, and then doing what's right is necessary to the success of our actions.
If we recognised that in principle, a scientific understanding of reality should regulate the application of technology, and applied the right technologies for the right reasons - we could overcome climate change and secure a prosperous sustainable future, by harnessing limitless clean energy from the molten interior of the earth, to produce massive base load electrical power, used to produce hydrogen fuel, capture carbon, desalinate and irrigate and recycle - and so secure a prosperous sustainable future, and live well long term.
Quoting RoadWarrior9
That's not the problem. The problem is that our ideological conceptions of ourselves, and each other; our religious, national, political and socio-economic identities and purposes - exclude a scientific conception of reality. I do not expect that to change; however, recognising in principle, that the application of technology should be regulated with regard to a scientific understanding of reality, could justify application of the one key technology we need to have any chance at all of a decent future - that is, limitless clean energy from magma.
So rather than a black box of doom we see that, if science is not just a tool, but is recognised an important understanding of reality, there is hope, and I would push that button instead.
There would be no point.
I never said being ignorant is better than being knowledgeable. It appears you are making an assumption to avoid the work of a logical reply, which is reasonable as there is too much info even in just this one thread to keep up with. But rather than posting remarks like that you might try either not posting if it is too much effort or making an effort and contributing to your discussion.
Which I showed is false by assigning a moral value to science; by doing exactly what you said could not be done.
I don't see a point to your thought experiment since it simply expresses your guess.
You seem to think that despite science/knowledge having had a tremendous impact and benefit for humanity as a whole, that we don't need it to fix our present and future situation. That just looks confused.