|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| Why the are we talking about god in this topic (I blame your OP lira!) when we could all be pointing and laughing at the17sss’ ideologically-driven ignorance as it pertains to global warming science? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Why the are we talking about god in this topic (I blame your OP lira!) when we could all be pointing and laughing at the17sss’ ideologically-driven ignorance as it pertains to global warming science? |
Yeah, looking in hindsight, I should't have mentioned Him at all :( |
|
|
| epicaricacy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
That's most people I know around here, and we do make a very sharp distinction between these words for exactly that reason. The sheer number of people that believe in God and aren't exactly part of any organised religion is quite impressive (though some claim to be Catholic and never stepped in a church). |
the thing is...i don't know if i don't believe in God or not...i DO know that i don't believe in an outdated book written by men with agendas. The universe is so huge and unknown, that i do believe that there is more to life than planet earth...that being said i guess i will find out when i die. I think the wanting to believe in the afterlife is a sign of my fear due to the mortality of humans, but i still like to think that death is more than just nothingness....which is due to wishful thinking.
At the end of the day, religion may truly be the opiate of the masses, but if it leads people to do good to others and not live a life that is rife with selfishness, i can't really blame them....we all need something to believe in, whether it is trance mixes that don't exist, jesus, spaceships, or mudkips with the power to turn weed into kimchi. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Why the are we talking about god in this topic (I blame your OP lira!) when we could all be pointing and laughing at the17sss’ ideologically-driven ignorance as it pertains to global warming science? |
ok now his post makes sense..
:p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
There is no more of a problem in trusting the pronouncements of scientists than in trusting those of historians, mathematicians, doctors, and other experts who deal with information and issues of which you are mostly ignorant. Sure, people should not be "in awe" of scientists. But that is not because, contrary to some misguided criticisms, that scientists are presumptuously trying to become a new priestly class. It is because science is simply a more systematic extension of the everyday task of trying to get a useful map (set of ideas about the world) that will help guide us safely and comfortably through the territory (the world itself).
[Note to philosophers that the map metaphor above is not an invitation to hash out a debate about scientific realism or representationalism.] |
|
|
| Lira |
OMG< YOU"RE BACK!!!
*hugs Brian* |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
 |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I think you like turning everything into a philosophical issue.:) Science = naturalistic. It describes things in the natural world with great accuracy. Of course our understanding breaks down on the edges of science..and "what we know aint necessarily so" when we start pondering quantum strangeness and uncertainty..but these gaps in our knowledge really have no bearing on the effectiveness and accuracy of science in real life. If a model works, it works..and we can bet it's a close enough approximation to reality for all intents and purposes. Not being able to answer the ultimate "why" questions is no reason to discard the knowledge we have or to belittle the scientific process. |
it's not that i like turning things into philosophical issues, but that i can see when they arise and i think it's worth it to bring them up.
you're not saying anything i didn't already say in my earlier post. my point in my previous post was that reductionist, deterministic science of the classic sense is only going to be 'useful' to the layperson and (especially) those who govern the layperson, just like dogmatic religion has been.
i'll repeat it again: obviously science is 'useful' in our day-to-day lives. but what is the value of this use? What are the costs? Scientific utility is just like money - the paper is itself valueless, it's what you can do with it that is valuable. And with all of the scientific utility of the 'computer', for instance, what does a large contingent of population the do with it? To jerk off, make empty friendships, and buy things they don't need. So what if google indexes 1 million billion web pages? What's the point? What's the value of it? What is the rubric against which I judge whether my life is better because of science? What am I judging it against?
As I said, industrialized science creates a standardized illusion of value through novelty. It adds surface noise and complexity to our lives, but not much substance.
I said nothing about discarding knowledge, only that we should not as a society put our eggs into one basket. I am not 'belittling' the scientific method, though it's rather funny to me that you deify it in this manner. Don't worry, I don't think its feelings are hurt.
I always hear this argument that science is 'good enough' and useful. But I am here saying that what science is 'good enough' for, what it is 'useful' for, are ultimately meaningless/valueless, and that in the process of being useful, this greedy thirst for 'advancement', 'expansion', 'knowledge' has serious ecological and spiritual ramifications. And when I say spiritual, I mean individual faculty for self inquiry and self knowledge. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
i'll repeat it again: obviously science is 'useful' in our day-to-day lives. but what is the value of this use? What are the costs? Scientific utility is just like money - the paper is itself valueless, it's what you can do with it that is valuable. And with all of the scientific utility of the 'computer', for instance, what does the majority of the world use it for? To jerk off, make empty friendships, and buy things they don't need.
As I said, industrialized science creates a standardized illusion of value through novelty. It adds surface noise and complexity to our lives, but not much substance.
I said nothing about discarding knowledge, only that we should not as a society put our eggs into one basket. I am not 'belittling' the scientific method, though it's rather funny to me that you deify it in this manner. Don't worry, I don't think its feelings are hurt. |
LOL Adam, you usually say pretty smart things. I hope this is just a brain fart that will go away once you read what you are writing and realize how dumb it is. Science has never set out to give any value even though that is a result of it. The premise of science, in short, is to figure out how the world works. If in the process, useful things are discovered then it's applied science.
To address your computer example, are you being intentionally dense? Computers are also being used to manage businesses, store enourmous amounts of information, make precise calculations that would be ridiculously difficult for a human mind to perform in fractions of a second, etc, etc, etc. , our entire financial and industrial sectors depend on computers now.
Since we shouldn't put "all our eggs in the basket of science" what is your alternative to science then? |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
LOL Adam, you usually say pretty smart things. I hope this is just a brain fart that will go away once you read what you are writing and realize how dumb it is. Science has never set out to give any value even though that is a result of it. |
I didn't say that science ought to.. what I am implying is that we take put less stock into the fruits of science (smart phones, clap-on lights, larger televisions, etc) and more into what DOES give our lives value - those treasured experiences of real life that are increasingly rare. (see below)
| quote: | | Originally posted by woscar The premise of science, in short, is to figure out how the world works. If in the process, useful things are discovered then it's applied science. |
No, you're wrong. The premise of science is to guess how the world works based on what we can see of it with inadequate technology, then make more technology so we can guess something different, all the while hoping that technology magically reaches some glorified zenith where nothing will need to be proven ever again.
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
To address your computer example, are you being intentionally dense? Computers are also being used to manage businesses, store enourmous amounts of information, make precise calculations that would be ridiculously difficult for a human mind to perform in fractions of a second, etc, etc, etc. , our entire financial and industrial sectors depend on computers now. |
Are you being intentionally dense? The financial and industrial sectors are probably the cause of most of the world's misery. I'm being rhetorical. You're being willfully naive. Computers are also used to make precise calculations to refine nuclear weapons, to finance and Companies that use computers to manage enormous amounts of information control the production at the expense of world ecological and ultimately human health. If you really think that only good things come of technology, you are delusional.
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Since we shouldn't put "all our eggs in the basket of science" what is your alternative to science then? |
that expression doesn't mean alternative. An alternative would mean instead of a basket, we put the eggs in a fancier basket, which would not solve anything.
What I suggest is to collect only the eggs you actually need, so you don't have to worry about finding baskets for them (ie live without too much attachment, dependency, and desire).
But there are also other baskets - personal relationships, life-changing experiences, self-inquiry. These things are all independent from science and industry. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Science does not try to tell you how to be a more ethical person, or a wiser person, how to fall in love, or have a mystical experience, or how to make aesthetic judgments. But for what science does try to do -- provide theories that let you mathematically describe the workings of the physical universe, and precisely predict and control certain aspects of life if you so desire -- it is pretty much the only game in town.
I think it is perfectly legitimate to object to certain applications of science. Lots of scientists have done so themselves. And it sounds like that is what you are doing, nefardec. |
|
|
|
|
