If I remember correctly, basically the Mu'tazilites lost to the Asharites and this was one of the reasons why the "Golden Age" of Islam, times when the Muslim World was favourable to science, came to a close. With thinkers like Ibn Al-Haytham and the Mu'tazilites you could basically have modern science emerging in the Muslim World. Yet naturally religion isn't the only reason. Of course the Mongols and the whole Arab/Ottoman World turning inwards would be reasons too.

Yet in many ways the discussion of Islam and Philosophy (or Islam and Modern Science etc) show in my view many similarities to how Philosophy and especially Science clashed with Christianity two Centuries ago or earlier. The simple reason is that both Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions (something that those emphasizing Judeo-Christian heritage never admit) and hence get into similar debates. As Islam had no Renaissance, it's no wonder that they have now to tackle with these issues as science and technology is so important in our time.

I think nobody has a problem if someone is politically correct when talking about minorities. If someone sees this as a 'political lithurgy', that shouldn't annoy them too much.

Basically the criticism is towards the aggressive crybullying when people are attacked as being racists with the objective to silence the other one.

There's a big difference in saying "I disagree with your views" and saying "I am deeply offended by your views".

67% of 58 voters say that they belong to a religion, yet only 36% of 58 voters say that they consider themselves a religious person. :brow: — S

Hardly surprising. For example in my country 3/4 of the people belong to a church (vast majority of them to the Lutheran State Church), yet only 27% of the people view themselves as religious.

Besides, today 'a religious person' might be defined a bit differently than before: a fundamentalist, a zealot or a person that believes that the Bible (the Koran etc.) is to be taken literally and anything other is heresy.

My only wish is that some kind mod will correct the spelling of the OP — Wayfarer

I think someone will have a great time with empiracism.

Shouldn't racism be empirically proven in our postmodern times? Or does it mean that empiricism leads to racism???

Israel has learned basically that peace with Palestinians isn't a priority as:

a) Similar wars with it's neighbours, like the Yom Kippur war, cannot happen anymore and Israel is totally dominant in every field of conventional warfare.
b) Even if Assad does manage to end the civil war, the country poses no threat to Israel (especially after it's nuclear weapons program was destroyed by Israel).
c) The time-to-time fighting with the Palestinians (and Hezbollah) can be contained and limited that it doesn't represent any kind of problem to the government or Israel in general
d) The current state doesn't represent an economic problem to Israel: the economy is doing just fine. There are no international sanctions that would force Israel to think otherwise.
e) Israel has already approach states like Saudi-Arabia as everything isn't viewed through the prism of the Palestinian question anymore.

Above all, the US has become an extremely untrustworthy ally which just fumbles up in the Middle East. It has lost it's influence severely in the Middle East and it's Middle East policy, if you can think there is one, is simply a train wreck. Just look at Iraq and the poor Kurdish allies of the US in Syria. Hence if one would assume that a 'Bernie/Warren'-administration or similar would change US policy towards Israel and cut for example aid to this wealthy country, it wouldn't be a huge crisis for Israel. Israel has good relations with Russia and Turkey and basically the change would create a bigger storm in the US political scene than in Israel.

So if it’s the economic problems for individual we’re addressing, and education doesn’t necessarily do it, then what does? — Brett

It works on the collective scale. Good education (along with good governance etc.) of a society or a nation makes it succeed in World that we have today. Lousy or nonexistent education causes severe social problems on the macro scale, while individuals can make it fine even with having participated in a lousy education system.

Education gives us better abilities to be part of the society we live in.

And you don't have science without good education.

I agree.

I would go further to argue the reason that 'reinventing' science from a different angle, be it the decolonization of science, indigenous science or let's say islamic science have all huge difficulties in this is because basically science is an international global effort. Once a new model or discovery is accepted by the scientific community, it hardly matters where or by whom the discovery or invention was made. And if the argument is of Eurocentric science history, teaching non-western science simply doesn't change the science itself. As I have studied history I do accept that in history we sure have too often focus on our own history and tell a story that could be told in a different way. That said, what happened is the same, so there can be objectivity even in history.

Hence the argument of science being too Eurocentric, too white, too male, too whatever simply doesn't lead to any real advaces rather just gives wrong ideas (or talking points) about science to those that are ignorant about it.

Actually science is naturally agnostic — Anaxagoras

Or our subjective interpretation would be so... because it (science) doesn't answer these kind of questions.

After all, how can an objective methodology give answers to something that is logically and rationally a subjective question?

An answer to how the World is doesn't give any answer how we should live. Religion answers to moral and ethical questions typically using the dichotomy of good and evil. If one has read actually what religions teach that is. And as I said, science or using the scientific method doesn't give answers to this. That there is or isn't a black hole in the center of our galaxy isn't a question about morality. How you live your life in a good way is a question about ethics and morality.

I personally find it whimsically naive to think that science destroys religion and would make us atheists, because in religions there typically is an old explanation of how the World came to be. When science has proven that this cannot be taken literally as a fact, the atheists rejoice! Or that evolution doesn't need a God. Well, mathematics and chemistry don't need a divine entity either, because they study totally different questions.

Have Nietzsche's fears come true? I don't think so.

In response, I pointed out some of the actual and significant causes of the toxic environment between the right and the left that go beyond kids at universities not being open minded. — MindForged

Ok. Let's forget the silly campus political correctness as it obviously isn't any root cause for anything here (although for political correctness, it is part of the racism debate)

So basically the question is that where does this toxicity come from. The way you present it that it obviously comes just from the wicked policies of the right and assume I'm trying to push blame on the sane people on the left like Trump after Charlottesville talked about all sides. And if I try to reason that Trump isn't what conservatism is in other places (like in Europe), that naturally is totally meaningless. Nothing matters than the US at the present. Fine. So why the toxicity?

Firstly, you have a political system of two entrenched political parties that totally dominate political landscape in the US with absolutely no reason to seek any kind of consensus. This is because either one party is in power or the other one is, and in time, sooner or later, the places will turn. No third party will threaten their domination of the power in the US. This creates huge complacency and stagnation in the system (breeds corruption too) as the politicians when out of power can simply wait either as Congress members, think tank personnel or work in the lucrative private sector jobs (basically as lobbyists) and wait the few years until their party gets back to power in the future. As basically the divide is between a centrist party and a right wing party, these two parties have to truly portray that they are so totally different from the other. In many cases they aren't so different. This creates the hostility between the parties: unlike in multiparty countries where political parties have to build coalitions between two or more parties and hence have to have cordial or diplomatic relations with their peers on the other side of the aisle, in the US this would be extremely counterproductive and ad hominem attacks and portrayal of the other as basically evil works extremely well.

Secondly, the "winner takes it all" and "no need for consensus" environment creates the "fighting with tooth and nail to the end" tactic to be successful. Let's take for example the issue that Americans so love, gun control. The gun lobby has simply the idea that the gun control lobby will never stop to anything other than total ban on guns, hence it's logical to fight everything at all times without any effort to seek a consensus. (It's just like Netanyahu's Israel's policy towards the Palestinians: nothing good can come out of giving land to the Palestinians, war is just a natural state for Israel.) Add in the mix the idea that some Americans have about their guns and you have totally opposing views. This political situation creates the situation where seeking to form consensus or a bipartisan agreement simply isn't a winning strategy. It's seen as surrender, not as an accomplishment.

Thirdly, the US has a real problem with collective policies. That Americans pay way more for Health Care than anybody else yet don't have a universal system and have dismal health statistics is case and point example of how bad the situation is. Hence liberal ideas to mimic the Nordic welfare countries will likely fail. For them to work, you have to have a lot less corruption.

Fourth, when it comes to Trump, he is a loser who didn't believe he would win. Once he won, he hasn't believed that he could win any new voters (which actually could have been possible if Trump would have been a competent leader), so he sticks to his hardcore supporters. These likely love Trump the most because he angers so much the liberal left (and the economy hasn't yet tanked). So Trump is just fine with separating babies from their mothers.

Assume that words are being used in the ordinary way, or examine and consider the context or usage, or, if you're still not sure, then ask for clarification. Assume that I'm talking about horses, as in actual horses. — S

If the issue is the problem of talking past each other in a philosophical discussion and the issue isn't a misunderstanding, then it's simply not a debate, but just people saying what they want to say and not caring what others are talking about, like:

A) I want to talk here about horses.

B) I love cats. I have a cat. Many people in the Forum have cats. Have you known that? It's interesting they don't have dogs. Why is it so?

C) Dog owners are fascists.

A) But the issue was horses. Horses are big.

B) Oh I agree, C. They are fascists.

And given you are complaoning to this stuff about kids on college campuses no platforming people and moaning about them bringing up microaggressions, surely you were talking about America as well. If not, then I don't know what phenomenon you're talking about. — MindForged

Really? You truly think that I have to be talking about America, or unless you don't know what I'm talking about?

The article was in Helsingin Sanomat and it was about the University of Tampere. So it might come to you as a shock, but other countries have exactly similar silly things going on in their universities. Or more accurately, the media portrays the universities having similar things going on. Why? Because media copies what sells and likely some journalists see themselves as fellow progressives, so they'll write a similar story from here what they have read from the States. And yes, when you are talking about political correctness, it is about language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. Then you DO talk have to talk about microaggressions and all the typical things, because that IS part of the present discourse. And the result when talking to academia studying racism and minority relations is similar. You really think that a junior, or more accurately assistant professor of minority studies, would say that racism wasn't a problem in the university here? Nope, there ought to be schooling at the subject for university staff.

Yet your is counterpoint is that this doesn't matter because... Trumps inhumane policies and global warming. Even if global warming is important (and I did try to show that this isn't an issue only the left cares about in the World), in this context It's a strawman argument. It's like having the counterargument for ANY leftist or liberal idea that it doesn't work because... look at Venezuela. Colombia now holds over 1.1 million of the 3,4 million refugees from Venezuela escaping the Latin paradise of 'democratic socialism' (see UN News Venezuelan refugees now number 3.4 million; humanitarian implications massive, UN warns). And because you aren't talking about this very true crisis in Venezuela, but something else, your nonsensical.

Do you hear yourself? College kids being idiots (in the best case scenario for your argument) is being compared to Nationwide policies by Trump — MindForged

If the topic was (somehow) political correctness, then refuting it by Trump and global warming.. :roll:

And anyway, I've been living in a country with a right wing administration and a right wing President. And when the migrant invasion was at it's peak, our right wing prime minister offered to have his now empty home in the countryside given to refugees. And Finland didn't close it borders.. even if we did have the anti-immigration party in the administration (which actually was a great thing: the party broke later into two parts). That's how racist, xenophobic and Trumpian the conservative were here.

In fact the vast majority of European countries with right-wing administration cannot be compared to Trump. Hence the idea that Trumpism is the present situation of the right is nonsense. I don't argue here that leftists here have it wrong because of... Maduro's Venezuela or because of North Korea. I fathom there aren't many staunch supporters of the Juche-ideology here.

The bullshit that the right comes out with incites racial hatred and violence (of a serious nature). Global warming is real and serious, denying it to continue making a profit out of oil sales could cost the lives of thousands, the refugees the right would like to deny haven are fleeing serious persecution. It's not at all comparable with making people say "xshe" instead of "she", or whatever such nonsense. — Isaac

(Yet you do notice that my example was about racism. Or the accusation of the university being racist. Not gender inequality or LGBTQ issues.)

First question:

How many conservative leaders you see in Europe that are so-called Climate deniers? Who of them doesn't think that climate change is an important issue? I guess you will find one or two politicians that will for some reason lick the rump of the Trump administration, but the vast majority of any right wing administration in Europe do see it as a serious problem that has to be tackled now.

Second question:

Who in the right really promotes racism? The vast majority of people who say they are conservative?How do they promote it? Do you think that the extreme right, bunch of nazi losers represent the right? It would be similar that saying that all leftist people are maoists.

This is the thing that I emphasize when talking about the polarization of the political debate: You don't actually engage the otherside, but only a stereotypical travesty of what the 'right' or the 'left' is made to look like by the opposing side.

At least for higher education, I believe that the Humboldtian ideals: holistic combination of research and studies, freedom of scientific inquiry, freedom from religious orthodoxy (or today, any political orthodoxy) and also the integration arts and sciences in the university.

Does this venn diagram make sense? — wax

Were you the one who said had problems with venn diagrams?

Basically Ok, but you are implying that a) the group of some people that might behave (?) cannot behave like Mussolini. And Mussolini, who once was a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party, who preached of violent revolution, praised Karl Marx and criticized patriotism, couldn't ever have been politically correct (hypothetically, as he is quite dead and lived in a different time).

I don't think I've ever used the term 'sheeple' but I have often been surprised, when watching, One Man and His Dog, how easily the sheep seem to chose going in a pen, rather that confront the sheep dog. — wax

Naturally animals that we define 'prey' are going to avoid or at least will keep a safe distance from animals that we define as 'predators'. It's very logical behaviour.

The word sheeple is a bit different than just referring to people being sheep. The word 'sheeple' is typically used by conspiracy theorists to get their own flock of believers to 'embrace' the cause. It is a way to say that all the ordinary people who think the conspiracy simply isn't true are the brain washed ignorant docile people. The 'sheeple will usually be seen following the very evil conspirators with their diabolical agenda. And whereas these nay-sayers to the conspricay theory, like those who believe astronauts went to the Moon, are these sheeple, those few who believe the conspiracy are the ones aware of reality, are the ones that are truly conscious and hence are very special people.

I think statements like this are both overstated in importance and is just an example "both sides are the problem" vacuousness. People don't really change their minds about politics through discussion with the other side, this is all for appearances sake in reality. — MindForged

This is a very American attitude. Yep, free speach is just for appearances sake in reality. And this of course is one reason for the toxic and agressive discourse. You see, it's all about winning with your argument... Seeking a consensus? Learning from others? Rubbish!

The liberals have their own vices, which is why I became disaffected with their wishy washy ideology. — MindForged

Problem is that any ideology presented today seems 'wishy washy' as the most outrageous lines are taken to be the examples as the core ideas of the ideology. And no hard thing to do with Trump the moron in charge.

. Those and innumerable cases like them are the chief causes of the toxicity. — MindForged

And who here is defending the idiot in Chief here? This is exactly the point I'm talking about.

But the right live on another planet and no amount of me pretending this isn't right wing lunacy most of the time is going to change that. — MindForged

And what kind of lunacy would the 'left' be, if the extremely aggressive college students promoting victimhood-culture, safe spaces who see microaggressions and racism everywhere would be considered to be the left?

Just few days ago here the largest newspaper ran a story of the universities being inherently racist with the headline "It hit real hard in the face how racist the universities are - say 21-year old student Brigita Krasniqi, Professor admits racism in the university."

So what was the hard in the face hitting racism? The Bosnian born female student, who actually is quite 'caucasian'-looking as you in the US say, had been approached as if she would have been an exchange student and (ghasp) people talked English at her. Even worse, as a muslim, people had asked how does she as a muslim see things. Oh, the horror of the racist microaggressions! But worse is to come: a lecturer had said that the 'Greeks are lazy'. So I guess the lecturer ought to be fired. The interviewed professor, a junior professor in minority studies, demands schooling of personnel at how to cope with racism.

It's the typical nonsense that you find in some US campuses just copied here by progressive journalists. They, every now and then, run a similar story usually about an Finnish-African and how he or she copes in 'White Finland'. If the Finnish-African doesn't have enough bad words to say about the intolerance of the Finns, then an academic researcher is interviewed about just how racist all Finns are. And of course the above is a thing about PC culture. Is this the real culture of the left? I don't think so. In my view this lazy journalism just makes it worse as naturally there are hostile attitude and xenophobia towards foreigners in Finland.

But of course some see what the media and the professor above are doing as a huge conspiracy or a sinister agenda that 'the left' is pushing. Has to be financed by Soros! And with that the people go for the polarization option.

Soviet Union had statism; America does not. The real offenders in America are not public, they are private Groups like the Church of Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses; corrupt networks in law and medicine; corporate criminals - whether overt criminals like Enron or corrupt oil companies that tell people a load of lies in order to keep them hooked on destructive technologies; gangs and the organized crime — Ilya B Shambat

Comes to mind Putin's Russias actions against Jehovas Witnesses:

MOSCOW—Russian authorities have confiscated millions of dollars’ worth of property from Jehovah’s Witness organizations, in a move that raises concern the group is under deepening persecution despite assurances from the Kremlin that the faith isn’t being targeted.

WSJ

Several Jehovah's Witnesses in the Russian city of Surgut say they were beaten, suffocated, or shocked during interrogations by police about their group's activities.

Human rights groups and religious freedom advocates are blasting a Russian court for sentencing a Danish Jehovah's Witness to six years in a penal colony, saying the charges of "religious extremism" are unwarranted and unjust.

CNN

Keep on pushing the 'politically correct' line, comrade? Or?

Now, how many times do you think that this same problem has occurred on this very forum, and what can you do to reduce its occurrence? — S

Look for definitions of the words before you answer?

Of course it can be sometimes really ignorance, but unfortunately a lot of words mean different things to different people. The worst thing is that many words that you thought had exact definitions are used as adjectives not in their original definition. Just think about 'fascist', 'capitalist', 'maoist', 'racist', 'liberal',,,

There's a good reason why a lot of philosophy papers, at least in analytic philosophy, make explicit how the author is defining terms that are important for the paper. — Terrapin Station

And sometimes this is circumvented, especially those lecturing on German philosophy, with not daring to translate the words to the language they are using, but use only the German word (like with dasein). I guess with French philosophers they use it too. Plus it's a great way to exclude others from the debate!

I think the underlying problem is much more the polarization of the political discourse and the lack of even trying to engage the other side. This creates the current toxic environment.

I wonder how well Oswald Spengler would have used the ecocatastrophy/mass extinction argument in his 'Untergang des Abendlandes', had he written it hundred years later.

Then the mistake is to think that we can reach 'an absolute objective view of reality'. We cannot do that. Yet denying 'absolute objective reality' surely doesn't mean that we then have retreat to something as silly as solipsism. We can see things in a different light perhaps later, yes, but that doesn't undermine everything.

Using the scientific method is an effort at finding an objective view/interpretation/model of reality.

yes, if I used my argument about the supernova then the person I am trying to counter would just claims that my argument is 'absurd'...it is only absurd in that if a supernova happened in this way in real life, then nobody would really question it...but I wouldn't be using that argument as a way to show that it would happen, but just as an analogy. — wax

Not sure what your point is here. Can you explain in other words?

What I don't like is that some people take the utilitarian and pragmatic view of 'objectivity' in science and roll it out to other arguments to try to show that there is a more absolute objective perception of reality that is possible...

That isn't logical. — wax

Well, many use 'science' and 'scientific' as an argument where it shouldn't be used. Scientism is the best example of this misuse or improper use of science or scientific claims. Usually it comes out of ignorance about the subject at hand.

The capitalist's reality is that more population = more workforce, and so there will never be, within that framework, a space left to discuss biopolitics in the manner that you wish. — Akanthinos

Don't forget more population = more consumers = more aggregate demand.

If a thousand people witness something; the individual witness accounts are still subjective, aren't they.

Even if it is a thousand astronomers that confirm that there has been a supernova in a distant galaxy, or a closer supernovae that is viewable to most people on Earth.

At no point is there any objective evidence that there has been an event, all witness accounts are subjective and subject to individual perception processes. — wax

Yes, everyone of us uses our own brain, so thus everything is subjective? Think about it this way:

If one astronomer finds a supernova in the sky, but nobody else doesn't, what is the probability that the astronomer has made a misinterpretation of the data or has done (or the machine has done) a measurement error?

Then on the other hand, if a thousand astronomers claim to have spotted a supernova in the sky, what is the probability of everyone of them making simultaneously a similar mistake?

There is some claim to Popper's falsifiability.

Then again, if we really assume they're all wrong, that perhaps what they have witnessed is an extremely rare event in astronomy, which might look like a supernova, but hasn't anything to do with it, then you need a better explanatory model, a scientific paradigm shift perhaps, to show that it wasn't actually a supernova. Even that doesn't go against objectivity. Science advances when we discover that we have had bad premises.

People hate getting upstaged by volcanoes. The nerve! I feel for you. It must have been a crushing experience. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for your kind words, Bitter Crank. :smile:

I'm interested in asking the further question; who benefits from the function of political correctness in public discourse? Is it the people who intentionally co-opted it as part of a rhetoric of scaremongering exaggeration, or is it the target of that rhetoric? The answer's pretty clear to me, given that it's the same rhetorical structure that's rooted in the initial cooption of the term. — fdrake

It's just like debate over 'cultural marxism', not much to do with actual marxists, the few there are. It doesn't have much to do with reality. Like, well, the talk about the sinister "nationalists" taking over Europe. Yeah sure, nazis everywhere.

I really have come to the conclusion that what is usually written about for example universities is absolute humbug. Utter nonsense. In universities the vast majority of the young people study and occasionally party and only a tiny fraction are the so-called "activists", who historians later refer to as being essential part of the era... because saying that young people studied in the schools and universities just like their parents and grandparents would be boring.

And why is the debate like it is?

Basically this is just the way debates go in our times of algorithm based social media world, which puts like minded people to share time in complaining things they don't like and agree on how crazy the opposite views are. Best to describe it in the worst possible light with the most ludicrous examples. No point of interacting with those crazy people on the other side, you see.

I sort of see it the other way around; good manners is a subset of political correctness; it's just a kind of aspect of how it might present. — wax

Hmm... lets start with a definition of political correctness:

Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided.

Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race. In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.

Now if good manners were a subset of political correctness, then people would be against good manners as they as they are... excessive or unwarranted?

Politically correct people surely would want that political correctness would be part of 'good manners', but it (at least yet) isn't so. People who aren't rude or impolite can surely say an opinion that a politically correct person feels to be insulting.

It's hardy that simple. — Hanover

Biggest reason, not only reason. And in the example I was talking about, there are factors like homogenous and functioning training of teachers, a functioning public sector that isn't corrupt. And the differences hadn't been there prior in a similar fashion. Are the families different? Of course, I think that there is many times in some schools nearly a hostile attitude among students towards learning. Those who try hard and succeed to get good remarks are "teachers pets", perhaps even bullied. But then again, in every country you do have upper and lower classes and those children that have issues stacked up against them.

Like so many reactionary movements it was full of vim and vigor but it had no coherent direction or practical vision. Ironically a scientific approach could have been very useful to them in identifying the most effective objectives and methods; creation through destruction is not always helpful. — VagabondSpectre

Yet that wouldn't be so galvanizing. With using the Scientific method usually you normally end up with something quite boring. The real problem becomes what then? What do you implement? What to replace "Eurocentric" science with? What is the decolonized science or the decolonized curriculum?

I think this South African academic Jonathan Jansen puts it well when he says that movements like decolonalization of the curriculum have a short half-life and simply run into the "institutional/settled curriculum" of what already exists, what is the norm and how things have been done. Decolonization is an incomplete answer and doesn't solve the real problems that there are. It cannot be a hammer for all needs.

Is it possible that more cleverness, more decision making, and more planning is not the answer? Is it possible that when heading for the cliff, either a change of direction or stopping entirely is more what's needed? Go to the world government website, and there is a quote from Einstein. Einstein has the answers, Einstein for president. This touching faith in the puissance of great men, is - shall we just say, 'a religious impulse'? — unenlightened

Why is World government seen as the answer? Is an extremely centralized authority global problems the answer? Has it been? Is it politically viable? Is a centralized authority the best way to tackle a difficult complex problems? And is a theoretical physicist the best political leader?

Why isn't cooperation between independent countries seen as a clever answer? Many times best solutions have come from surprising innovations from surprising places, not something that a centralized authority has thought to be the thing needed.

I have a bad cold and feel terrible, so Yellowstone can go ahead and blow up. I'm ready to get it over with. Will it be too much? Dunno. The last time it covered a good share of the great plains with a thick layer of volcanic ejecta. Would stuffing a large H bomb down Old Faithful's throat trigger it?

GO YELLOWSTONE! — Bitter Crank

Ah, and think about what great time the media would have with it. People would be glued to the televisions, laptops and smartphones...

Anyway, I had "a traumatic experience" in my youth with volcanoes. I was living as a child in Seattle and my father took me to a trip to Florida. For a boy in 2nd grade Disney World and John F. Kennedy space Center were simply awesome. I even saw a huge fire started from race riots in Miami as we were on the runway leaving the place. Our flight from Dallas was cancelled and so we had to stay for the night in Dallas. I saw this huge thunderstorm with lightning everywhere from revolving restaurant top off a skyscraper. I was all eager to tell my schoolmates what awesome things I had experienced.

None of them listened to me at all. All they talked about how they had waken up early on Sunday on the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens. Nothing can compare to waking up to AN EXPLODING VOLCANO. We lived in the place called View Ridge, which had direct sight to the mountain, hence all the talk was how huge an awesome the sights and sounds were. When I came there, the first explosion clouds had already drifted to the east (Seattle had no ash fall). Yes, erupting volcanoes are simply awesome.

If Yellowstone blows up, I'll congratulate you on how lucky we are to live in historical times...

I am from Russia, and Russians are generally regarded as the rudest people in the world. — Ilya B Shambat

Who thinks so? As a Finn I think Russians are quite friendly people. And if you are a guest of a Russian, you are treated extremely well. The Russians I've met have never been arrogant or condescending.

The basic problem with some people like (Americans and the British) is that they simply don't understand Russians. They far too easily relate the Russian people with the (present) political system in Russia at the time and think somehow the people are quite the same as the system. Hence typically how Soviet (Russian) people were depicted in the West in films or books was quite a superficial actually incorrect stereotype.

But to the OP. The antidote for political correctness is plain and simple good manners. When talking about political correctness, the problem lies on the political aspect of it: it's only political, it's just in the present political climate correct. It's something that can change. And what makes it political is the political nature of the issue, where there are obviously many different viewpoints. You don't relate the correctness in political correctness to basic moral values that are quite apolitical.

Simply put it, being nice and respecting others isn't a sign of hypocrisy, just as being rude isn't a sign of honesty.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was, indeed, pretty crazy -- and did it ever go away? Not much. — Bitter Crank

Actually it did. We're now in the situation that the US and Russia don't have SO many nuclear weapons that they can literally destroy every city as they did before. We have come down from 60 000 nuclear warheads to 10 000 nukes. And this is actually makes things more dangerous. Even more dangerous when you take in the new Russian doctrine of "nuclear de-escalation" meaning de-escalating a conflict situation by using nuclear weapons. In 1993 the Russian doctrine allowed the first use of nuclear weapons only when the “existence of the Russian Federation”, it changed in 2000 to Russia reserving "the right to use nuclear weapons to respond to all weapons of mass destruction attacks” on Russia and its allies. And now it has come to "in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation.”

Hence Putin thinks using nukes will calm the US down. Now that ought to sound pretty crazy and dangerous!

So, folks, this is the game I am inviting you to play. Stop finding reasons why the future cannot be known, because you all don't behave like that any other time, you save money you get qualifications, you make plans and buy season tickets. So imagine that you have seriously come to the view that some combination of sea-level rise flooding most major cities, more extreme and unpredictable weather , an overall warming of anywhere from 2 to 6 degrees C. Leave it vague, but assume massive population displacements, assume some infrastructure collapse, civil unrest, starvation and disease. Assume normal service will not be resumed. The internet might be slow.
So the plans that you have been making on the assumption that everything will go on as before, need some adjustment. It's not worth making plans. What is still important? — unenlightened

Well, I'm not looking for reasons why the future cannot be known, just reminding that the human species is quite adaptable and if draughts, hurricanes and political turmoil happen, they aren't anything new to us. But if I understood the game correctly, here's my plans:

a) Likely have to build a new sauna that is now on the waterfront of the sea. (I assume a lot of countries will look at how the Dutch have used dams in their country.)

b) Go visit sub-Saharan Africa or places that are still safe... before they perhaps they collapse to be similar places of anarchy as Somalia or Libya nowdays. Or to see Antarctica in it's present state.

c) Enjoy now the nice Finnish winter with lots of snow. It might turn into the dismal English winter later (except if the Gulf Stream stops, then welcome Alaskan climate).

d) If mankind cannot find solutions to the problem, like it seems to have found for Peak Oil (at least to avoid a rapid total collapse), then let's hope enough volcanoes erupt to protect us from global warming. (Yellowstone erupting might be too much though...)

. The great equalizer is education, not denying one's ignorance and celebrating one's stupidity.

I suspect you agree with all this? — Hanover

Education is a great equalizer indeed. So great, that even if one can argue that our intellectual abilities differ as does our abilities in sports, where physical training is good for everyone, but not all can be top athletes, it still is so overwhelmingly important that in larger groups of people the difference doesn't show. What matters is how much resources are put into education, what is the ability of the teacher and how positive environment towards learning the school gives to pupil.

Let's take an example, my country, Finland, which has many times been marketed as a country where school education is great and has been top of the line for some time (although it has fallen a few places) in international rankings. Even Michael Moore has come here to be in awe about it. However even here in Finland there are differences between schools and those differences have become bigger. If you would take just Southern Finland, the country would be in PISA science performance rankings there alongside with Singapore (1st place), but add up the schools in Northern and Eastern Finland and Finland is at 8th place. Btw the US is 23rd place. And the biggest reason is basically money. The larger cities and municipalities of Southern Finland can invest more into education than poorer rural areas as we don't have oil as Norway does. Of course this is a rather meaningless difference as obviously any education system ranked in the top 10 or so in the World is quite OK, but it does show that even in a country where the education system is extremely homogenous, the teachers are quite the same, you still get differences. Then how bad the situation is when there are truly huge differences in schools? In the US there is a problem with the quite large gap between the best and the worst schools.

Put the focus on Africa and the picture simply is catastrophic. You have teachers that barely now more than their students. You have 1st grade classes of 80 to over 200 children attending. You have the problem that the language used in school isn't the mother tongue of the pupils. You have huge drop out rates and children going through the education system without learning properly to read and write. Less than 10% of the young people get tertiary education. South Africa puts the most into education in Sub-Saharan Africa, but even it is plagued with a dismal system. This has huge effects on the workforce and hence the economy. The lack of engineers, doctors and other professionals means that the continent can only provide low-skill manufacturing and raw materials.

When the differences in the education system are so huge and problems so big, then it becomes quite trivial arguing about 'decolonizing' the education system or science. At worst, the whole 'decolonizing science' argument becomes a scapegoat to cast the blame on somewhere else and at worst, the 'decolonizing' and use of 'Indigenous knowledge' leads to unintentional or intentional lowering the standards of education.

There is a profound difference between a physical drawing, and an abstract, idealized geometric shape. You can't draw a mathematical circle with a pencil and paper. Nor could you ever make a physical measurement of any irrational number. Do you understand that? I'm asking just to make sure we're not talking past each other on this essential point. — fishfry

And you cannot ever make a physical measurement of a natural number like 2. As I've said earlier, every physical measurement is obviously an approximation. Naturally every drawing is too. Do you understand that? I guess you do, so I assume you do understand the abstract theoretical nature of mathematics, hence I'm not sure what where the disagreement is here.

I'm not denying the out-there-ness of ππ. I'm a Platonist on weekends. But to me the case isn't as obvious as it is to others. Sure, we don't have any choice in whether 5 is prime. So it's out there. But where is it? Was it there before the Big Bang? Platonism is not as obvious as some think. How do we know that math and logic aren't qualities of our own minds and not so much of the world? Just as a bat thinks the world is full of informative sounds. We are very human-centric in these matters and I wonder if someday we'll get past that. — fishfry

If Platonism is the problem, I think this is a different question, which is more a metaphysical one.

Yes, and all this overwrought discussion triggered by an old snake oil salesman. — Brett

Yet if you get people notice an issue with alarmist attitude of the World is ending in a decade, that doesn't mean that issue isn't true itself. But naturally just saying "perhaps the issue of world ending in a decade" is a bit of a exaggeration OBVIOUSLY means that you think that there doesn't exist any problem with the issue.

This is true. A full-out exchange of bombs among the existing nuclear powers would result in massive fire storms which would greatly extend the initial blast damage, and would throw up so much soot and dust into the upper atmosphere that climate would start cooling rapidly. The world would not freeze, but agriculture might dwindle to virtually nothing for a few years -- long enough for the survivors to starve. Then there is radiation on top of everything else, and a lost of vast stores of resources. — Bitter Crank

But notice how angry Jake comes if you point out that exploding all the nuclear weapons in the World creates way far less energy (and soot and dust to the upper atmosphere) than did the latest mass extinction event, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Yeah, obviously just saying that I'm denying that nuclear weapons pose a danger.

I agree with Brett above.

Just to be clear, this not some way out nut job cherry picking statistics to make a radical fruitcake conspiracy theory. This is an expert in the field. — unenlightened

From the CV there given, I would say this guy is a career communications person. When he states as his academic career "twenty years of experience in sustainable business and finance", then has gotten into the very trendy Davos circles on the WEF and gives TedX talks, yep, no wonder can he write something that will shock and awe ordinary people. Likely because he has been giving talks to people all his life and obviously and knows what sells.

It's like the classic way how in Washington policy circles you sell US Foreign Policy to Americans that are otherwise quite ignorant of the outside World: "Scare the shit out of them!!!"

You can't define pi with a drawing. — fishfry

Well, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter doesn't change how big or small a circle is. And I can point out what these two lengths are with a drawing. Now where this is on the number line is another question, but the ratio does stay the same.

You can only define pi using a train of logical deduction in a mathematical framework. — fishfry

And Logical deduction is theoretical in math.

The problem is here that either people seem to start from decimal representation or physical measurement, which is like putting the cart in front of the horse. And this is actually a very typical way how many people think about math: that first there is reality, which is then studied with physics, hence if physics has a problem, then math has a problem. Physical measurement has it's problems when for example you go to very small scales where the problem is where one thing starts and another ends, or then in too big measurements the small size of the universe somehow comes to be the problem.

The theoretical nature of math isn't noticed.

Rank Amateur,

Mathematics is a theoretical science. It's logic doesn't follow the limitations of making physical measurements.

In fact, every physical measurement is obviously an approximation. Even the number 2 is theoretical. If you want to measure exactly 2 inches, you simply cannot increase the accuracy more and more.

The odd thing about this analogy is that you seem to have it the wrong way round. The permawarmers acknowledge that every few years, the temperature will go down for a bit but overall, the long term trend is steadily or unsteadily upwards. And the permafrosties are always saying it's going down or is about to go down, and the reason for it going up is not the reason that has been theorised for 100 years, burning fossil fuels raising CO2 in the atmosphere, but random woo and the hot air of climate scientists. — unenlightened

Well, people should understand the difference with weather and climate.

My point is that when people choose what they want to hear, you get an audience that will want to hear one thing and actually isn't open to change it's views and then the presenter can fall into pleasing tje crowd. That would mean a permafrostie/warmer changing his or her view would irritate the old crowd that followed him or her, while the previously "other side" would just sneer at him or her "finally coming to senses".

An example from real life (from financial world). I followed this one financial commentator who was quite permabear in 2007 onwards promoting gold and raw materials investments etc. Yet in 2011 he got totally fed up with gold narrative, stopped talking about a raw materials supercycle and really got angry of one guest forecasting oncoming hyperinflation. This angered a lot of his followers and for a while lead to heated debate until he simply stopped answering to listeners questions and commentary. Likely his audience simply changed. (With gold he was proven correct. Now btw he is starting to be bearish again)

But back to actual issue: The problem is that when scientists present the dire "alarmist" predictions and they don't come to be true, this is just brushed aside as the alarmism is seen as to have been beneficial to "wake up" people to the problem and/or to get the medias attention to the issue.