The Place and Value of Science

Bn,



I don't understand what this means. Science recognizes methodologically that scientific knowledge is less than absolute truth, but in this light I see no fundamental distinction between description and explanation. Description is explanatory.

iconoclast.

... reminds me of a science fantasy novel I read in a previous lifetime that plants a smattering of characters from all across world history on a riverboat floating down through Riverworld ...

... and/or unimportant.

paulhanke,

The thing is people misunderstand science, and misunderstand the conventional nature of ideas like nation and capitalism. They think that money and the nation state are realities - whereas, rather like religion, they're conventional ideas. It's difficult to get people to look past these conventional ideas to see that in fact, humankind is a single species occupying a single planetary environment, and that we have to act as a species in order to survive.

Acting on the basis of lesser ideas we act at odds with the very nature of the reality we inhabit. These concepts externalize the reality, and action in the course of such ideas causes externailities like the energy crisis and climate change to occur, and prevents us from addressing them.

I appreciate this philosophical argument raises the spectre of Stalin - not to mention eugenics and a host of other scientific nightmares, but given the goal of securing the continued existence of humankind, it would be insane to tear down the world and try to start anew.

However, in order to grant a global government (constituionally bound to a scientific conception of reality) the legitimacy for authority over soveriegn nation states, the epistemological superiority of science over these conventional ideas must be established.

I also think this is important socially - both in the sense that it sets right the human relationship to knowledge, that is profoundly wrong, and it opens up an avenue for human advancement into the future, providing the hope of continued survival, as opposed to the existential terror of impending extinction, allowing us to live in the sunshine of the present moment rather than dwell in nihilism.

I do see this as the beginning of a process that will be taken forward by future generations, but in the present moment, the very least we can do is open up the possibility, and do what's minimally necessary to enable the problems of existence to be addressed in future. That doesn't require of us any great sacrifices of freedom, only the rejection of hopelesness that pervades our lives, our societies and our world.

iconoclast.

iconoclast,

... the more you elaborate on your ideas, the less I find myself in disagreement with them!

Now, I'm not going to lay claim to being the student of philosophy that you are - I'm just a bookworm with a bad habit of taking ideas from all over the place and seeing if they make sense together (occupational hazard - software systems engineer, don'tcha know) ... so pardon my manners if I try for a moment to fuse zoology and political science :perplexed:.

In a sense, modern political science is a response to the zoological reality that humans are at once individual and social animals and so there is a tension between the two that requires balance ... my problem is that that's where political science's foundation in zoological realities seems to end ... to make a zoo metaphor (I'm not sure if it's a safe metaphor to be making in this crowd ), modern political science is a self-imposed cage which does a reasonable job of defining balanced boundaries for freedom and community ... but that's all - it feeds humankind with the minimum sustainance ... unfortunately, as any zoo caretaker will tell you, if you cage an animal and provide it with just basic sustainance - if you disregard its higher needs beyond just food and water - that animal will mentally and physically atrophy, possibly even losing even the will to live.

Now, humankind is nowhere near this situation - humankind remains supplementally fulfilled in varying degrees through a variety of mythos/ideologies such as religion, national pride, and so on ... but if you devalue (or eliminate) these existing fulfillments and don't create a worthy mythos/ideology to replace them with, all you're left with is your political science ... and if political science is all you have to offer as a replacement for the fulfillments you have stripped away, are you really doing your job as caretaker?

Anyhoo, I guess it's time to don the helmet and shoulder pads - I know I'm gonna take a pounding for that "zoo" metaphor!

paulhanke,

I began in utter philosophical confusion about the age of 20, but like yourself grabbed an idea here and tested it against an idea there - and for almost twenty years now, I've been thinking, writing and reading on this question, delving to the heart of the matter, looking everywhere for the truth. So I've got no problem with the forced marraige of zoology and political science.

I attempted to get right to the heart of why things seem to be getting worse despite various developmental forces - not just science and technology, but politics and economics and so on. I probably wouldn't put it in those terms now - but the argument I'm making is my journey stripped of all the false starts and dead ends, many of which I see people putting forth here as if they were the truth.

It's difficult to get them to understand why I'm making the proposals I'm making, those you find less objectionable the more we discuss them, without first disabusing them of thier delusions - a cruelty I know, and it makes me uncomfortable, but as the name suggests - I've found that I have to break the false image of the religious, political and economic to get people to see the reality beyond.

Even your good self, though much more intellectually evolved than many, need to be reassured that the 'supplemental fulfillments' employed by humankind: are not to be simply swept aside as the intellectual childishness they in fact are.

Well, at this stage I'm afraid they do. The argument has to be made, and be irrefutable in order to claim epistemological superiority over the ideological basis of church, bank and nation state alike. International politics, the banks, big business and the major religions are my target. The axe must be forged and held over thier heads - even if it would be folly to use it. I'd rather die trying than meekly accept the fate mapped by the inadequacies of these institutions.

Similarly, I truly believe that people could draw superior supplemental fulfillment from belonging to a species with a future, from scientific and technological advancement, environmental balance, and living with an eye on the stars, but I don't have any problem with religious faith, national pride and so on - except where they stand as obstacles to the continued existence of the species.

Where you see a cage, I see a vast expanse of territory, currently blocked off by these bad ideas that I would breach in order to let humankind through. I would make a gateway not a fortification that will in any case be breached. I would rather the existing institutions were guides than security guards - but this is the way forward - and I think it inevitable that the press of humanity will find the breach and flood through it into the future.

I also think that, once the possibility of a future is opened up, people will move beyond these false comforts and make a scientifically valid future fully human by filling it with mythos, art, music and so on - because people do, don't they. But that's for future generations to decide. It's for us to enable thier choice.

iconoclast.

... I knew that "zoo" analogy was a bad idea ... what I wanted you to focus on was the caretaker!!!



... as do I ... we just envision it happening in different ways ... I see our children being instilled with such an ideology, the natural result of which is a global federation bound together through a mature ideology that drives the scientific investigation of options for the future; whereas you see more of a global government by fiat that wipes away old institutions, leaves scientists to pick investigative directions based upon their personal ideologies, and somehow out of which spills the new (but toothless) ideology ... I dunno ... in a government by fiat I see great civil turmoil ... in a government by fiat I see naive mistakes ... and even though scientists may seem united today in trying to beat into the heads of the politicians the fact that the situation is serious, I really don't see them speaking with a unified voice when it comes to solutions:

Mr. Spock: 'The energy crisis is the most immanent threat and so first we should establish a sustainable energy basis for human civilization.'

Dr. Cupofcoffees: 'The energy crisis is the most immanent threat and so first we should shut down all energy-sucking industries and return to a more primitive way of living.'

... but then, I'm sure you could find just as many things wrong with the way I envision things, too!

Yeah cup of coffee,

maybe if humans didn't drink coffee so much. Did you know we spend more on it than any other drink in the world up here in Canada? We could probably cure a harmful disease or get really far with cancer vaccines instead, or provide everyone in Africa with a vaccine to prevent the HIV. Or maybe end poverty or provide clean water for everybody in the world with that money. Thats how I would envisions things.

paulhanke,

Nothing but time - I think your ideas are hopeful as far they go, which by my estimation is up to about 2050. I mean, you wouldn't actually DO anything but moan to the next gneration about what an asre we've made of things so far. I'm talking about taking responsibility now - doing what's necessary before it's too late. There isn't time to pass the buck, so if we don't do the necessary we make a decision for the whole of the future.

3) fiat: an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, esp. by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it.

Power has to rest somehwere, and I'd make my argument for a global government constituionally bound to a scientific conception of reality in terms of political legitimacy.

‘Legitimacy refers to the rightfulness of a power holder or system of rule…Two broad criteria for moral justifiability can be distinguished: (1) political power should derive from a rightful source of authority; (2) it should satisfy the rightful ends or purposes of government.’ (551)(Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

A government bound to valid knowledge would satisfy both these criteria. The valid and impartial truth of science is a rightful source of authority, and scientifically conceived, the ends and purposes of government would be rightful. And I ask you, what's the alternative: the right to raise your hand once every four or five years to choose between shyt and shyte on the descent into hell?

That said, I'm just pointing the way forward, showing that it's possible, arguing for survival - I don't doubt that other people have a contribution to make, and I don't really care how it's achieved, but given that a bright and decent future is possible, I insist that it's unacceptable to allow the species to become extinct through inaction.

Please though, don't make me out as some sort of caretaker. The last guy who tried that line got roundly flogged and nailed to a tree. It's science that has the authority to claim epistemological superiority over the ideological basis of church, bank and nation state - not me.

iconoclast.

Holiday,

Awww! That's nice - the idea that we can give up some small luxury and use the money to make the world a better place. A fine idea in principle - except that now the coffee farmer and all the people who work for the coffee company are cast into the very pit you'd drag others out of.

Meanwhile, knowledge continues to be owned and economic considerations continue to dictate the direction of research and application, or withholding of technology.

But hey, we can give up beer to save the coffee farmers, and then give up cosmetics to save the brewers, and then give up...

iconoclast.

As opposed to people who have to spend half their day just to get a bucket of unhealthy water? Or people who live off of a dime a day.

I'm not saying we have to deprive ourselves completely of the luxury, but we should put luxury after the necessities. This should afterall be a global community, Mr. the most important question of our age.

Holiday,

I feel suitably chastized and agree these things need to be addressed, but I also think we need to establish a sustainable energy basis for human civilization before adding 3.5 billion consumers unsustainable demands to our own. I don't think charity is the way forward, but is merely a sticking plaster on a gaping wound that absolves governnment and industry of the repsonsibilities they bear for causing these problems and failing to address them.

iconoclast.

... only if you take today as the starting point ... look around - is anyone here disagreeing with you that the situation is serious? ... is anyone here not changing their personal habits to use less energy? create less waste? (nihilists excepted) ... heck, even the U.S. Army is going "green" ... we're probably only a few Max's away from reaching the critical mass necessary to cause the next ideological paradigm shift ...

paulhanke,

Why should I reduce my energy use? Enough energy falls on the earth from the sun every hour to power the world for a year - and I'm supposed to shiver my way through the winter, and sit in the dark eating twigs while some fat cat fossil fuel robber baron lays on his yacht in the Carribean sea, soaking up that very sunshine? Why? Because I have the conscience he lacks? I don't think so. It's bollox - they're reaping the profits from holding back technological development, and passing on the costs, and the responsibility to the consumer - when there's no need for you and I to bear this burden, to have less, to turn out the lights, to not travel or be cold in winter, or too hot in summer. No. Systematic change, not symptomatic change. Now! Before it's too late.

iconoclast.

Holiday,
You do realize that by the same token if everyone stopped drinking coffee it would result in millions of lost jobs in the U.S. and Canada alone right? There is a balance to these sort of things, one that cannot be violated, which is why in the case of ill informed idealists, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to be careful, these problems are multidimensional with many interdependent variables. This is why more often than not success moves by increments rather than leaps into the unknown.
It is likely the case that ever single radical movement is wrong, but that their sum is correct, i.e. that there are kernels of truth buried within each ideology, and in their totality there is a greater truth, but since many of them contradict one another except for in these specific truths, we must let them sort themselves out. That is not to say that there is never a time for drastic measures, just that more often than not, drastic measures do more harm than good.

Fair trade coffee, because it's an overpriced quasi-luxury item in the US, has actually brought a lot of wealth to areas that would otherwise be impoverished in Africa and Indonesia. Even in Hawaii, for that matter, which if you've ever been off of Oahu you'll note has a lot of extremely poor areas -- but the coffee industry on the Big Island has brought a lot of wealth.

Zetetic11235,



Thousands, maybe a few hundred thousand, but thanks for reiterating my point - with a nice nationalist slant. But it simply doesn't follow that:



Things are well out of balance - there's no balance, one cup of starbugs coffee costs more than the farmer earns in a week, and two cups costs more than the staff earn in an hour. Where's the balance? I was simply showing that charity is not the answer, but a paliative for this very imbalanced system.



Touche, mon frere!



As opposed to what? Radicalism is in the eye of the beholder. If you mean relative to current political and economic arrangments - they began as radical movements - democracy, liberalism. Transport you back in time and you're an apologist for a despotic monarch, a feudal order that's arbitrary and cruel, and a Church mad with power and wealth - keeping the people in endentured servitude and penuary because all radicalism is wrong.

In another era you're arguing for slavery.

bah! humbug!

iconoclast.

How about those employed in China by companies such as starbucks or the others around the world employed by any number of corporate entities?'



I don't see your point. The office worker should not get a hundred dollars an hour and no one needs two starbucks coffees an hour just like they do not need two sports cars a year, but they buy them anyway if they can afford them, and this is because they have found a way to make enough money. If they did it by legitimate means like starting a small buisiness ect what right do I have to complain?

Commerce with restrictions has brought much good to countries who have a semi-free market economy. Look at what caused a lot of the problems in Zimbabwe, driving out the white farmers crippled their economy and led to terrible living conditions which were exacerbated by Bobby Mugabe's dictatorial grip. If, when power was wrested from the white government, they allowed for free trade and kept hte white farmers, instead of distributing the land amongst the untrained masses who could not sustain any farming efferts, they might not have become a third world country.


You have totally missed my point. I did not say that all radicalism is inherently wrong, I said that there is a good chance that all radical ideals/methods could be wrong but with a kernel of truth, allow me to expaciate. We have to look holistically at what is actually happening and what would actually happen if we applied stragem X fueld by ideal Y and work out a systematic restructureing rather than work in patchwork, which is how most radical ideals seem to approach problems. You cannot address one problem while ignoring the other, this is the main point I was trying to make. We have to consider all sides to all of our problems if we are going to solve them. So in conclusion, please do not mince words to make your point.



No, I would at worst be arguing for a phase shift from slavery rather than a bloody revolution which cost hundreds of thousands of lives and ruined the south. You do realize that violent crimes on blacks skyrocketed after that right? They were no longer valued property. There may well have been a better alternative, but it was not slavery which caused the civil war, it was politics.

How about LBJ's great society on the other hand! Look at what a great success housing projects have been!:rolleyes: This is not due to his heart being in the wrong pace neccessarily, but his tactics being ill thought out.

That.

The problem is not in consuming; but in producing, often excessively, what we are consuming. Those people wouldn't have to grow our beans and rely on us for money if we didn't get them involved in our economy.

I haven't showed up in a while so I'll reply a few pages back to the "science is not the culprit; the systems its used in are" argument.

Which, nobody argued, but I will.

If you'll notice, the only time science flourishes is in places that are well-off and government oriented. When there is free-time to ponder on things and experiment within a system that supports it, innovations are made. This being said, it takes people working the regular jobs of survival, slaves (identified as such or not) to take the place that an inventor would normally work in. This isn't to say that simple sciences and tools can't be made without the intervention of others, but at the state they are in today it would be impossible.

But first we must evaluate what this does to humans to specialize in parts to form a unison, a 'higher' society. For a slave, life is simple with little to no recreation. They follow orders, they pass on and nobody pays mind to their value. Leaders and men of rank, however, are given a place in history for deeds that surpassed the 'norm'. In a civil society, only they are allowed to enjoy the fruits of labor; science being one.

Again, another "not to say" that science couldn't be any other way but by caste society, but in the advanced forms they are in, no. Someone is required to do the 'dirty work', be it factories or factory workers or the operators of the factory or the maintenance men; this isn't an escape route from manual labor and the slavery needed to upkeep the 'high' life.

Think of the oil as a slave for a moment; not in the sense that it's a personal being, but that it's in high demand for our royal-like posh lifestyles, and without it we wouldn't have running vehicles or a number of things. Think of the vehicle: the metal parts it takes, the factory workers, the money, companies, roads, war, wrecks, insurance, and pollution- the biggest price of all.

And for what? To get one place to the next faster? What are we in a hurry for? Why can't we walk? Do we have to get to the gym in time or to the plastic surgeon to get liposuction and a tummytuck?

This is where science leads, it's sort of a way for the rich to occupy themselves, but how it's called 'progressive' beats me.

That is a scary comment right there.