The Last Word

[L. Marcus]

That would be laughable, I'm sure.

[Cancer]

Let's see if I can alternate between "kisses" and "cosmological" from now on in my entries in the Word Association Thread. Just did the second "kisses".

And the second round of "cosmological"!

 

:dweeb:

[L. Marcus]

Isn't nerd more apropos?

[Cancer]

THIRD HIT ON "kisses"!!!

[L. Marcus]

Right in the kisser.

[Pariah]

THIRD HIT ON "kisses"!!!

That's an achievement of cosmological proportions. Well done.

[Bazza]

THE REAL “ANTI-SCIENCE”

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/04/the-real-anti-science

[Pariah]

THE REAL “ANTI-SCIENCE”

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/04/the-real-anti-science

There are a few kernels of wheat in that article, but to my mind, it's mostly chaff.

 

I nearly quit reading at the beginning of the second paragraph when the author said, "No one is attacking science"--an assertion which is demonstrably untrue, at least in America, today.

[Cancer]

Note the origin point of that item: the Discovery Institute, "best known for the advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design" (that quote is from Wikipedia).

[Bazza]

There are a few kernels of wheat in that article, but to my mind, it's mostly chaff.

 

I nearly quit reading at the beginning of the second paragraph when the author said, "No one is attacking science"--an assertion which is demonstrably untrue, at least in America, today.

Fair enough.

 

For me it is important to remember that the scientific method is a tool, and should be used ethically and purposefully. Just because science can, doesn't necessarily mean science should. The findings of science and its use, I think are the issues.

[Cancer]

"Can" and "should" what?

[Bazza]

The atom bomb, transhumanism, skynet (fictional example). IIRC Musk is just one of a number who has warned of the dangers of AI.

[Cancer]

The beginnings of the atomic bomb are so tightly bound with European history of the late 1930s, and the war just about every thinking person knew was coming then, that to blame it on "science" indicates you've already consigned what you want to call "science" to the Irremediably Evil bin.

 

It is a different but similarly gross miscasting to bill transhumanism as part of science. Science, or some part of it, is among the tools transhumanism purports to employ. My view on a lot of transhumanism is ... we've seen a lot of its core motivations, goals, mindset, and fundamental hubris, before. They remind me chillingly of the old eugenics movement. The eugenicists may have sincerely thought they were doing science, but it became clear even by 1950 that they were not. The idea of improving the human condition through guided manipulation of both the physical and social-political environments is hardly new. And just like before, transhumanism fails to acknowledge that their vision of "improvement" is necessarily limited, and therefore fundamentally flawed, by the fact that the people in the movement are human also, with biases they cannot recognize and consequences they cannot imagine. They assume -- no, they are certain -- they know the right answer and are advancing on it.

 

But if you are certain you know the answer ... then you aren't doing science. You may be using tools that science developed, but no, you're just another self-serving megalomaniac. Your drift towards self-aggrandizement might be less obvious than others and might be surrounded by prettier rhetoric, but it's just another cabal trying to wrest the world into your picture of what looks good to you.

 

As for skynet and similar things, both the dystopian varieties that extinguish life, and the pollyanna flavors like Asimov's robotic world-governing machines ... all I can do is shrug. I don't think we'll get there.

[Bazza]

For much of your post-- fair enough. Thanks for writing it.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that scienctific method is by its nature neutral. As such it can be used for things that can benefit humanity and planet Earth or be used for things that destroy humanity and/or planet Earth.

 

For the most part things that benefit humanity and Planet Earth should be pursued and the other avoided.

 

Ethical considerations notwithstanding. Either professional ethics, or personal ethics. In some fields like medicine this is more important than I would imagine in astronomy or physics. This gets back to my idea of can/should. But now I'm off on a tangent, so I'll stop.

 

The other point I'll try to make is that some communities/subcultures use science as an ideology. I'm thinking here of those who are adherents to scientism, atheism, humanism (SAH) etc. The findings of science are (or should be) neutral to these ideologies. My point would be that one can still adhere to science while disagreeing with SAH. The two are distinct although in many cases treated as one. Eg one can think Dawkins is a fantastic biologist but disagreeing with his atheism; and some would conflate this disagreement as an attack on science due to Dawkins profession.

 

Or disagreement with Bill Nye on philosophy but still recognising his expertise in engineering.

 

Hope it helps.

[Cancer]

Well, I'm trying to point out that your source is an open, active disinformation agency trying to get a single fundamentalist religious doctrine -- the one they believe in -- permanently installed in the publicly-funded school system here in the US, so as to increase influence of their backward-looking antiscience faith. If you had actually intended to alienate people who actually do science in this country, you could no better.

 

Second, I'll point out that humanism, including transhumanism, is a philosophically-based structure. Yes, some scientists are signatories to it. Others are not. But it's the philosophers who are driving that vehicle.

 

As for scientism, I have to look up what that word means. And that suggests that it, too, is not scientific, perhaps even like Scientology is not scientific.

[Bazza]

Well, I'm trying to point out that your source is an open, active disinformation agency trying to get a single fundamentalist religious doctrine -- the one they believe in -- permanently installed in the publicly-funded school system here in the US, so as to increase influence of their backward-looking antiscience faith. If you had actually intended to alienate people who actually do science in this country, you could no better.

You must be referring to secularism because that is the only way it makes any sense. As I understand it from research and experience, secularism is a philosophical worldview which gained popularity during the Enlightenment/Age of Reason.

 

And yes I know you are meaning Christianity. And that religion is not my source.

 

Second, I'll point out that humanism, including transhumanism, is a philosophically-based structure. Yes, some scientists are signatories to it. Others are not. But it's the philosophers who are driving that vehicle.

That is what I'm trying to get at. So we are agreed there is a distinction between science itself and scientists who have a philosophical worldview.

 

As for scientism, I have to look up what that word means. And that suggests that it, too, is not scientific, perhaps even like Scientology is not scientific.

As I understand it in common vernacular it is those who believe that the science is the only valid reliable knowledge and scientific method should be used exclusively in all situations. It is quite similar to Comte's Positivism. This is a philosophical ideology which some other board members adhere to. From my experience many of these people regard science and scientism as one and the same.

[Bazza]

It is now midnight, so goodnight. Or Good day.

[Cancer]

You must be referring to secularism because that is the only way it makes any sense. As I understand it from research and experience, secularism is a philosophical worldview which gained popularity during the Enlightenment/Age of Reason.

The secularism you refer to is certainly an input there, albeit an early form. In the US, the First Amendment has built a wall between religions and the mechanism of the state. The driving force behind that was hardly scientific; it was then-contemporary experience with state religion driving persecution of religious minorities, something that loomed large in the British colonization of North America. Jefferson (author of the Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment) was a potent secularist, but in an era when it is impossible to accuse him of scientism or anything of the late 19th, 20th, or 21st Century. The Discovery Institute is implicitly dedicated to removing the First Amendment and imposing their beliefs as a de facto state religion.

 

That is what I'm trying to get at. So we are agreed there is a distinction between science itself and scientists who have a philosophical worldview.

I might be more unkind here and say, "... scientists who commit the error of assuming their proven scientific expertise carries over into regimes which are not science." It's an easy mistake to make. I have made it in the past, and probably will in the future. It's hardly unique to scientists, though. The terrible political troubles in the English-speaking countries have all come about because the people who are good at cheating others out of large sums of money business make the assumption that that ability qualifies them to run everything for their own profit, and they have the money needed to buy off segments of the electorate and mass media so they can take advantage of that opportunity. Scientists have their faults, but that level of venality is not generally among them.

 

As I understand it in common vernacular it is those who believe that the science is the only valid reliable knowledge and scientific method should be used exclusively in all situations. It is quite similar to Comte's Positivism. This is a philosophical ideology which some other board members adhere to. From my experience many of these people regard science and scientism as one and the same.

Yeah, scientism is overreaching, the same kind of error as above.

[Bazza]

[Bazza]

The secularism you refer to is certainly an input there, albeit an early form. In the US, the First Amendment has built a wall between religions and the mechanism of the state. The driving force behind that was hardly scientific; it was then-contemporary experience with state religion driving persecution of religious minorities, something that loomed large in the British colonization of North America. Jefferson (author of the Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment) was a potent secularist, but in an era when it is impossible to accuse him of scientism or anything of the late 19th, 20th, or 21st Century. The Discovery Institute is implicitly dedicated to removing the First Amendment and imposing their beliefs as a de facto state religion.

 

I might be more unkind here and say, "... scientists who commit the error of assuming their proven scientific expertise carries over into regimes which are not science." It's an easy mistake to make. I have made it in the past, and probably will in the future. It's hardly unique to scientists, though. The terrible political troubles in the English-speaking countries have all come about because the people who are good at cheating others out of large sums of money business make the assumption that that ability qualifies them to run everything for their own profit, and they have the money needed to buy off segments of the electorate and mass media so they can take advantage of that opportunity. Scientists have their faults, but that level of venality is not generally among them.

 

Yeah, scientism is overreaching, the same kind of error as above.

Para 1) Fair enough. What you describe is history so can't really dispute it. 

 

Para 2) Mostly agree. Sure those with degrees and doctorates are preferable as they give independent credibility and authority when speaking, i.e. experts. However some scientists have veered into writing philosophy and have been successful with it, e.g. David Bohm. It is near impossible to cover the gamut in every field of knowledge at university that people will take what you say seriously.

 

The best I can think of, is a liberal arts & science undergraduate degree, followed by a philosophy, politics and economics (PPE) degree. Australian National University offers a "Bachelor of Politics, Philosophy and Economics/Juris Doctor" undergraduate degree which as it states combines a law degree as well as PPE. This would be a total of 9.5 years of undergrad study to cover humanities, science, business and law. I also like King College of London's undergrad Physics & Philosophy MSci which takes your study up to a masters level in both disciplines. 

[Cancer]

Third hit on "cosmological"!!!

[aylwin13]

And you just need to stop that, young man!

[Cancer]

It took a herculean effort of will to avoid entering "kisses" after your "stop that".

[Cancer]

Para 1) Fair enough. What you describe is history so can't really dispute it. 

Well, I reacted as vehemently as I did because the source you linked is ... well, if I had to point out a group as one dedicated to the extirpation of everything I believe in, it's them. I suspect you may not have known that.

 

Para 2) Mostly agree. Sure those with degrees and doctorates are preferable as they give independent credibility and authority when speaking, i.e. experts. However some scientists have veered into writing philosophy and have been successful with it, e.g. David Bohm. It is near impossible to cover the gamut in every field of knowledge at university that people will take what you say seriously.

 

The best I can think of, is a liberal arts & science undergraduate degree, followed by a philosophy, politics and economics (PPE) degree. Australian National University offers a "Bachelor of Politics, Philosophy and Economics/Juris Doctor" undergraduate degree which as it states combines a law degree as well as PPE. This would be a total of 9.5 years of undergrad study to cover humanities, science, business and law. I also like King College of London's undergrad Physics & Philosophy MSci which takes your study up to a masters level in both disciplines.

 

As is abundantly obvious, I am not much interested in philosophy, largely because my brief exposures to it have been ... unrewarding to me. And the pratfalls taken by positivism, and then the carnage wrought by Godel's incompleteness theorem, and then the persistent inability of most philosophers to come to grips with quantum mechanics... does not inspire me to pursue their efforts.

 

Popular-level science writing, especially from theoretical physicists, is something I've sampled over the last three-four years more than I previously had, because of this intro seminar I've been teaching the last three years. Theoretical physicists tend to gush about beautiful theories in a near-mystical tone, and go on about ideas that are rather more speculative than I think is worth discussing. As an observational astronomer, that rubs me the wrong way. It conveys the impression that all you need to make scientific progress is a lovely idea. That in turn gives rise to lots of nutcases with singular attachment to incoherent drivel that can't even explain themselves. But, the airy theory books sell, despite what I think of as serious flaws.

 

I find myself selecting books by experimentalists, observers, or science historians instead. Those do a MUCH better job of relating the theories to the phenomena under study, and explaining why the leading theories are, in fact, the leading theories, and what the measurements currently being made are, and why and how they can support or shoot down theories. Beauty doesn't mean **** if theory doesn't get numbers that go along with the measurements.

[Bazza]

Just can't win for losing, can you, Baz?

Sounds like a teacher comment about students taking final exams.