What do you mean by everyday conduct of science? You are probably not yielding results because it is so broad. Are you talking about the environmental impact of technology? — TimeLine

A Google search for "environmental costs of technology" yields 4 results. Not what I am talking about.

Educating/training scientists. Conducting research. Press conferences, seminars, conventions, etc. Publishing papers, journals, books, etc. None of that has any negative impact on the environment? Electricity is/was not used? Gasoline is/was not burned? Materials are/were not extracted? Land is/was not developed? Trees are/were not cleared? Wildlife is/was not harmed? Non-renewable resources are/were not consumed? Waste is/was not generated?

Amazing.

why is the world the way it is?

Now, I don't see how science could ever explain this. — darthbarracuda

I would say that science offers explanations for specific events and other observations and seeks to construct models, find universal laws, etc. with respect to questions like the origin and history of specific things like the Earth, galaxies, the cosmos, etc.

It is not an indictment of science that science is unable to explain vague, abstract things like "the world the way it is".

Physicalism/materialism, not science, is what fails us. Science, as far as I know, has never claimed to be in the business of explaining everything. Science, as far as I can tell, acknowledges that its scope is the physical things that humans can observe and make predictions about--nothing more, nothing less. Philosophical physicalism/materialism, on the other hand, says that matter and energy are all that exist. Okay, but why do things other than matter and energy not exist?

If you want answers to questions like why the world is the way that it is, you are probably wasting your time and energy thinking about physical material. Maybe that is why the question has bothered you--you have been enculturated into a system where focus on the physical world (or the part of it that our senses can sense, our instruments can measure, etc., at least) dominates. If theological explanations like "The world is the way it is because it was made out of God's goodness" do not suit you, I'm sure that there is an abundance of alternatives out there. Discover as many of those non-physicalism, non-science alternatives as you can and the answer to your question will probably gradually become clearer.

But the latter likely will not be definitive, final answers. Even scientists and physicalists have to live with that.

Yes, I believe it is the backbone of philosophy, but knowledge can be gained apart from using just logic. — Sam26

Knowledge can be gained without using any logic at all.

I do not have to know how to construct a valid deductive argument to gain knowledge. I do not have to have any familiarity with concepts like premise or conclusion to gain knowledge.

Looking at the clock on this computer that I am using I see that it is 11:55 p.m. eastern time. Knowledge gained. No arguments constructed or analyzed. No rules of logic needed.

I say argument is the backbone because one of the key features of philosophy is analyzing beliefs that are put forward as arguments — Sam26

I thought that people construct arguments to support the truth of statements, not to justify what is going on in their minds (beliefs, thoughts, etc.).

The goal is truth, and yes the wisdom you gain from discovery, but you have to do it well to gain wisdom — Sam26

Hogwash.

Goals and objectives vary from person to person. For some people their goal might be enjoyment, and any truth or wisdom gained in the process is just a bonus.

You don't have to do it "well". You have to do it "well enough" to meet your goals/objectives.

Unless, of course, there is some universal standard of "well". Again, nobody in this thread is telling us what that universal standard is.

One doesn't gain wisdom apart from gaining knowledge. — Sam26

And one can gain knowledge without formal logic.

Or are all of the people in the world who are never introduced to concepts like premise, conclusion, syllogism, informal fallacy, modus ponens, etc. doomed to lives with no knowledge and no wisdom?

I didn't say that was all there was to philosophy, but that it's a very important part of philosophy. — Sam26

You said that it is the "backbone of philosophy".

So thinking well in philosophy requires the ability to analyze and form good arguments, this, it seems to me, is the backbone of philosophy. — Sam26

That sounds to me like saying philosophy is basically nothing more than the skills developed in a logic textbook or on a debate team.

I beg to differ. Philosophy is about finding wisdom. Logic and arguments are part of that journey, but to characterize philosophy as the craft of constructing arguments is focusing like a laser on one tree and being oblivious to the vast forest that it is part of.

Horses for courses. Sharks think better than humans when it comes to doing the calculations for swimming and eating fish in the ocean.
But they do not know how to start a computer — charleton

That just tells us that sharks and humans know different things, not that anybody thinks better than anybody else.

Two humans. One quickly finds the answer to a problem (such as a maths one) whose solution is irrefutable; the other never finds the solution. — charleton

The statement was that some people think better, not that some people think faster.

The same pair of people being quizzed on a matter of emotional intelligence the result might find the maths failure can find the solution whilst the maths whizz fails even to understand the emotional problem. — charleton

How does any of that show that anybody is a "better thinker" than anybody else?

After some very superficial study of philosophy and religion I had the feeling that faith was nothing more than A=belief without evidence. Position A is, from all angles, completely irrational and so, clearly, anti-philosophical. — TheMadFool

How can anybody believe anything without evidence?

Whether such faith is rational or irrational is a moot point if it does not exist.

Can a belief even be formed without evidence?

Saying that it is about trust rather than belief doesn't change anything. One has to believe that someone or something can be trusted.

Beliefs come and go. Who knows what we will believe tomorrow.

Faith is deeper than that. It is not swayed by evidence or lack of evidence. It is the foundation upon which everything else is built.

Don’t understand your beef. There are better and worse tennis players, pianists, writers, artists, scientists - not everyone has the same degree of skill in thinking and writing, and understanding of philosophy. — Wayfarer

It was stated categorically that it is obvious that some people think better than others, and that this forum shows it.

That makes absolutely no sense.

We are talking about an abstraction, thinking, not about some specific, concrete event like someone swinging a golf club.

Here is an illustration: the statement "Thomas Kuhn is a better thinker than Noam Chomsky" makes no sense without any criteria. Based on what criteria? The number of books published? Pedigree--the number of later public intellectuals mentored/influenced? Nobel prizes? Solving a problem that had stumped intellectuals for 1,000 years versus one that had done so for only 200 years?

No two people can seem to agree on what demarcates science and non-science, yet it is obvious that some people are better scientists than others?

It does not matter if we are talking about tennis, the piano, writing, science or philosophy, it depends on the goals/objectives of the person/people carrying out the activity. Unless there are universally agreed upon goals/objectives for an activity, it makes no sense to state categorically that some people are better at that activity than others. It makes even less sense when we are talking about something abstract such as "thinking".

That's a pretty common theme not exclusive to some philosophers who criticise social structures for creating psychological distress. Im sure many socialist and Marxist psychologists and social theorists should come to mind.

Hence my last post. Has this focus on creating an ideal society been futile and instead we should just focus on the individual and their beliefs about and in relation to society? — Posty McPostface

Does the following sound like some Marxist calling for the realization of a utopia? To me it sounds like a health care professional trying to help people see the real sources of their suffering. I do not think that it is much different from a public health professional saying, "Historically the medical community has focused on the lifestyle choices of individuals. But this distracts us from the real causes of our illnesses that individuals have no control over: radiation, air pollution, etc." Read the following and tell us if you still think that it is somebody calling for the ideal society--for utopia--rather than somebody addressing social reality and social reality's effect on individual and collective suffering:

"The standpoint from which I write is a 'clinical' one, and the (tentative and provisional) conclusions I come to are the result of having struggled for years to make sense of the kinds of distress people bring to the psychological clinic, and how they cope with it. In the course of that struggle I have found myself constantly wandering into territory that is only partially familiar to me and being forced to use tools not routinely found in the clinical psychologist's kit. Though this is not a work of sociology, politics or philosophy, it will at times seem as if it is trying to be; but I want to insist, still, that it is a work of clinical psychology, and that is because it is throughout rooted in and informed by 'clinical' experience.

Even then, however, I have heavily to qualify the use of the word 'clinical' because it carries with it so many false assumptions. The majority of those who find themselves in distress in Western society turn to the clinic because there is nowhere else to go that carries the same promise of relief. They, as well as most of those who treat them, believe that they are hosts of a personal illness or disorder that can be cured by established medical and/or therapeutic techniques. That belief, however, is in my view (and the view of many others) false, and it is clinical experience itself that reveals it as false.

By 'clinical psychology', then, I do not mean a set of medically or therapeutically based procedures for the cure of emotional distress, but rather a privileged opportunity to investigate with people the origins of their difficulties and to consider the possibilities for change." -- David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom

I do not believe that anybody can truly understand "mental illness" without considering the work of David Smail.

For those who do not feel like ever reading Smail's work, I can give you this summary: psychological distress--the thing that brings people to the mental health clinic--is the result of distant social forces and an individual's place in networks of power, interest, etc., not something inside the individual. Clinical psychology is uniquely positioned to help individuals see the distant external sources of their psychological distress. Clinical psychology has, however, historically said nothing in therapy about society, power, interest, etc. and has instead focused on internal features of the individual such as memories, self-talk, etc.

It is probably not the best, most accurate summary, but hopefully anybody reading this gets the idea. Psychological distress--and the suffering that accompanies it--can only be addressed at the level of social systems. A lot of what we call mental illness and attribute to the isolated psyches of individuals is really symptoms of life in oppressive social networks of power, interest, etc. Changing the individual will not address the causes/sources of the problem.

Smail may be right or he may be wrong. But I do not believe that anybody can truly understand mental illness without considering his work.

Perhaps, mental health simply be understood as practicing good moral behavior and conduct or just living ethically? — Posty McPostface

No.

"There is of course no disputing that in modern Western society whites often oppress blacks and men often oppress women. This is bound to be the case in a social context in which people are forced to compete for scarce resources and to differentiate themselves from each other in any way which will accord them greater power, however illusory that power may be (nothing, after all, could be more pathetic than the belief that 'whiteness' confers personal superiority or that men are in some way to be valued more highly than women).

However, it is a conceptual mistake of the first magnitude to attribute the causes of such oppression to internal characteristics or traits of those involved. So long as sexism and racism are seen as personal attitudes which the individual sinner must, so to speak, identify in and root out of his or her soul, we are distracted from locating the causes of interpersonal strife in the material operation of power at more distal levels2. Furthermore, solidarity against oppressive distal power is effectively prevented from developing within the oppressed groups, who, successfully divided, are left by their rulers to squabble amongst themselves, exactly as Fanon detailed in the case of Algerians impoverished and embittered by their French colonial masters.

It is not that racist or sexist attitudes do not exist - they may indeed be features of the commentary of those who exercise or seek to exercise oppressive, possibly brutal proximal power. But that commentary is not the cause of the process that results in such proximal oppression and it is as futile to tackle the problem at that level as it is to try to cure 'neurosis' by tinkering with so-called 'cognitions' or 'unconscious motivation'.

This, I think, explains the otherwise puzzling success of 'political correctness' at a time when corporate power extended its influence over global society on an unprecedented scale. For this success was in fact no triumph of liberal thought or ethics, but rather the 'interiorizing', the turning outside-in of forms of domination which are real enough. The best-intentioned among us become absorbed in a kind of interior witch-hunt in which we try to track down non-existent demons within our 'inner worlds', while in the world outside the exploitation of the poor by the rich (correlating, of course, very much with black and white respectively) and the morale-sapping strife between men and women rage unabated.

Once again, we are stuck with the immaterial processes of 'psychology', unable to think beyond those aspects of commentary we take to indicate, for example, 'attitudes' or 'intentions'. The history of the twentieth century should have taught us that anyone will be racist in the appropriate set of circumstances. What is important for our understanding is an analysis of those circumstances, not an orgy of righteous accusation and agonised soul-searching." -- David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom

Is it even possible to find work that we love(ie the work that eventually becomes our life, the work, infront of which work/life balance is BS)

Or is it the other way around, i.e we begin something and that eventually becomes the thing that we love/passion? — krishnamurti

"Good work uses no thing without respect, both for what it is in itself and for its origin. It uses neither tool nor material that it does not respect and that it does not love. It honors Nature as a great mystery and power, as an indispensable teacher, and as the inescapable judge of all work of human hands. It does not dissociate life and work, or pleasure and work, or love and work, or usefulness and beauty. To work without pleasure or affection, to make a product that is not both useful and beautiful, is to dishonor God, nature, the thing that is made, and whomever it is made for. This is blasphemy: to make shoddy work of the work of God. And such blasphemy is not possible so long as the entire Creation is understood as holy, and so long as the works of God are understood as embodying and so revealing God's spirit." -- Wendell Berry, Christianity and The Survival of Creation

I think that Realism underlies the scientific method. The idea that whatever is amenable to empirical testing is actually there and exists. Also that the solutions that science proposes to the problems it encounters are couched in terms of this reality.

There is, of course, a risk of descending into circularity, but I think it safe to say that now (not so during the time of Newton) science has in fact honed in on the idea of the physical, and has adopted that metaphysics. — tom

But, as I understand it, that is not the same as the materialism/physicalism of a naturalist worldview. It is not the same thing from which determinism and similar ideas are derived. It's just a practical starting point for investigating the world, not a statement about existence, experience, reality vs. perception, etc.

I think that the point is being missed here.

The materialism in the scientific method is just an axiom or something like that assumed for the purpose of investigating the physical world. It is not, as I understand it, the same as the materialism/physicalism of philosophical/intellectual movements that deny the existence of free will, say that consciousness is nothing more than neurological activity in the physical brain, etc.

— Posty McPostface

“What does it mean to be a well adjusted Nazi? Is that mental health? Or is a maladjusted person in a Nazi society the only one who is sane?” -- Ken Wilber

— Purple Pond

Find material to read that is entertaining and makes you laugh. For example, in one issue of "Philosophy Now" there was a hilarious article about how a professor of philosophy found a contradiction in the official baseball rule book. "Philosophy Now" has a lot of content that is lighthearted, not too serious, etc. Raymond Tallis writes a column in every issue and has an entertaining writing style.

The For Beginners Books series of books read like comic books, and the illustrations are often funny.

I don't know if finding reading material that is more entertaining will solve your problem with concentrating. However, it will be a lot less intimidating and overwhelming than papers, books, etc. written by academia and barely read by many people outside of academia.

Have you tried YouTube? YouTube is full of debates, lectures, etc. on almost every topic you can think of. Maybe videos are something that would allow you to absorb ideas more effectively than reading.

There's also audiobooks.

Don't give up philosophy. You don't work for philosophy. Approach it the other way around. Make philosophy work for you.

Without addressing your questions in much detail, let me just ask: have you never had the feeling that you are talking to someone who is more intelligent than you? — jamalrob

I never have.

It makes sense to say it because thinking is a general skill. To say someone thinks better is to make a general statement, which is appropriate when we're talking about a general skill. It's true that thinking combines different styles and motivations, and some may be better at logical development than intuitive or imaginative leaps, but to say someone is a better thinker in general is probably most often just to say that they are better at all of those things, and that their thinking skills can be applied widely. — jamalrob

No.

It implies that there is some goal/objective that all human thinking is directed at and some threshold that must be met or passed to be considered good, better, best, etc. at such an endeavor.

Nobody is telling us what that goal/objective and threshold are.

Saying that some people think better than other people do is a truism. It's like saying "Good food is better than bad food."

I think it's obvious that some people think better than I do (they are just smarter than me, more insightful, logical, etc.) and it's obviously that I think better than some people too. Some people are better looking, have bigger dicks, make better pie crust, are stronger, healthier, etc. than other people.

WISDOMfromPO-MO, are you aware -- if not, allow me -- that 50% of the population is below average? — Bitter Crank

It does not make any sense to state categorically that some people think better than others, let alone to state categorically that it is obvious that some people think better than others.

Yes, some people can perform specific tasks, such as solving for checkmate, better than others.

But unless there is some universally agreed upon goal/objective for human mental functioning and some universally agreed upon threshold for good within that functioning--and nobody has said what those are--it makes no sense to state categorically that some people think better than others.

Humans perform a variety of mental tasks for a variety of reasons. If a person is able to employ his/her mental faculties to realize his/her goals/objectives then he/she is a good thinker. Other people's goals/objectives are irrelevant.

I don't know the statistics concerning how some people's IQs compare to other's, but it doesn't matter. People realizing their goals/objectives is what matters.

As humans we pride ourselves on being intelligent. Intelligence is a defining feature of being human. — TheMadFool

Non-humans do not have intelligence?

Wisdom is the opposite of folly. Humans may have a great capacity for intelligence, logic and reason, but has it proportionally yielded more, as much, or less wisdom?

We need more empathy, compassion and humility. We need more altruism.

The traditions and cultural achievements that the intelligence you refer to has been used to try to destroy and replace probably contain a wealth of wisdom. But one won't know until he/she shuts up and listens. One who actually does shut up and listen will likely hear what humans have really prided themselves on.

Are there other possibilities? — anonymous66

Integrate all known systems, beliefs, dogmas, etc. into one coherent whole.

I believe that that is what Ken Wilber has spent an entire career attempting to do, but I could be wrong.

That's not the lib/prog view, whatever that could be. — Akanthinos

In my interactions with liberals/progressives, it has been thinking that I frequently encounter.

If anything could constitute The Lib/Prog view is that, in weird terms, self-objectification is a form of empowerement, in the sense that the commodification of a subject's performance, if the choice and dynamics of this commodification remains mostly in the hands of the subject, is a form of liberation. Baudrillard put this in very eloquent words in The system of objects. — Akanthinos

Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of all of that jargon, but it sounds close to what I have been saying for a long time: individuals should be encouraged to take complete ownership of their sexuality; and they should take that complete ownership at as early an age as possible.

I believe that neither liberals/progressives nor conservatives want that. Both groups want people to turn out to have certain attitudes, beliefs, etc. with respect to human sexuality. An individual deciding for him/herself how to feel about sex; the value of sex; the proper place of sex in his/her life; etc. threatens the ideology and agenda of both sides, I believe.

If everybody was truly honest and open about sex we might find, gasp, that it is not very important to a lot of people.

Social scientists studying human sexuality try to produce objective inquiries, I am sure. But the social sciences do not have the precision of physics, chemistry, etc. and, therefore, we may never know how people really, honestly--honest with themselves, not just others--feel about sex. There is a lot to gain politically by filling that void, and liberals/progressives, not just conservatives, aggressively work to make their ideology fill it and dominate every person's life.

Well I just think that is completely backwards. It pains me to side with conservatives on anything, but in this matter I do. Actually I am highly suspicious of the 'politics of identity' and the fact that sexual pleasure has now been declared a civil right, but I had better shut up before I get myself banned. — Wayfarer

The liberals/progressives will probably say that they have science on their side.

The scientific evidence shows, they will probably say, that sexually liberated people have healthier relationships, lower rates of unplanned pregnancies, better mental health, etc. than sexually repressed people.

"To limit human sexuality in any way other than consent is harmful!", they will probably tell you. "All of the scientific evidence says so!", they will probably tell you.

If you present scientific evidence of harmful effects of pornography they will probably counter with, oh, "Sexually repressed evangelicals in the Bible Belt consume the most pornography".

I think on the contrary a great deal of sexual misconduct is stimulated (I won’t use the word ‘inspired’) by pornography. This depicts women as eager participants in all types of fantasised sexual acts including many that would have been universally regarded as perverted only a couple of generations ago. Quite a few of those accused insist that their victims were willing participants, and I think for sure the onus must be on the aggressor to prove that this was the case. But I think the question could be asked, do the enormous numbers of women who do participate in porn media actually encourage the very behaviours that these aggressors exhibit?

Now of course it could be said, that in this case, the women involved in pornography are consenting (and I’m sure that’s true in many cases, although there is probably some coercion involved also.) But as the behaviours being modelled are often the same in both porn media and harassment cases, with the variable being ‘consent’, then I think society ought to consider whether the ready availability of material depicting such acts might be a contributing factor. — Wayfarer

The liberals/progressives championing the Sexual Revolution would probably say that it is the other way around: the character of the content of pornography is the result of a sexually-repressive culture.

In other words, if the only limit on / regulation of human sexuality was consent there would not be a subculture like the pornography industry and its consumers and/or pornography would be healthier and more realistic.

If people do not have a healthy, safe, legal, free outlet then the result is unhealthy outlets, the thinking goes.

If you want to stop sexual harassment, change the power relationships. — T Clark

My perspective is mostly one of a neutral observer watching from the sidelines.

With that in mind, please consider this observation: the liberals/progressives championing the Sexual Revolution would probably say that the latter is in fact changing power relationships--by, among other examples, ending the monopoly that institutions like the Catholic Church have had on human sexuality.

Like I said..... — Wayfarer

If it is about intentionality, and if design has nothing to do with intentionality, why are people bringing arguments for and against design into it?

I am trying to understand.

The idea that humans are like mechanisms of any kind is pushing the analogy too far — Wayfarer

I think that it is a false analogy to begin with, never mind how far it is pushed.

How do I know? I know because of the properties that the argument says corresponds between the two.

A watch has the function of keeping time. If anything were different about the size, arrangement, etc. of the parts of the watch, the function of keeping time would not be possible.

A human has the function of...

Uh, I don't think they ever tell us what the function of a human is that corresponds to a watch's function of keeping time.

I am sure that that barely scratches the surface.

I am sure that I could think of and list other discrepancies if I had the time and energy.

So the whole analogy is that, just as a complex object like a watch must have a builder, so too must a complex world in which there are living things have one. — Wayfarer

We say that much earlier human societies/cultures were not complex. Yet we say that their creations, such as Egyptian pyramids, were complex.

Go figure.

He says that ‘a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world — Wayfarer

I think that we already have fallacies there alone. Who says that everything in existence must be the product of a recent human invention called engineering? Who says that things that are not organized or complex were not "engineered"?

Engineering is a process.

Who says that things that exist--organized or not; complex or not--must be the result of a process? Who says that things cannot exist due to appearing or being made to appear spontaneously?

must already have been vastly complex in the first place ..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation." — Wayfarer

I think that that is a valid criticism.

Like I already said, if you ask the people who say that humans were "designed" by God for the steps/process of that design, they probably have nothing to give you.

The drafting table that God used, was the finish cherry or oak?

Maybe it was "espresso". It seems like most of the ready-to-assemble furniture these days says on the package that the finish is "espresso". So, speaking of design, maybe the people designing the furniture today are just now catching up with God's tastes.

I prefer matte black.

However as numerous critics have pointed out, the classical understanding of deity is precisely not a complex being at all, but is utterly simple. — Wayfarer

Which is probably why a lot of these attempts to support belief in the existence of God with the scientific method, cosmology, etc. sound so ridiculous.

But I do not think that a lot of it really is about God, faith, spiritual well-being, etc. I think that it is mostly culture wars being fought for political gain.

Which is why I said, the underlying issue is really intentionality rather than design. — Wayfarer

Thanks to Google I was just now able to take a random, 10-minute crash course in intentionality.

Everything that I saw said that intentionality is about mental states.

Designed or accidental/random--I don't see what difference it makes.

The usual expression is ‘methodological naturalism’. — Wayfarer

No matter what one calls them, I sense that there is often no cognizance of the distinction between them and that that contributes to the confusion in discussions about materialism, physicalism, consciousness, etc.

It's probably more to do with the functions of the inner areas of the brain, such as the medulla oblongata. — believenothing

But in the link give above ("Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain") the inner part of the brain is gone.

It's a joy only because it offers an alternative to the depressing notion that we exist by accident. It's comfy to think our bodies were made "with us in mind", as if it's all a great gift. It's kind of sad how people will froth at the mouth when they marvel at the cherry-picked beauty of a biological system. :-| — darthbarracuda

Yet, a clock/watch is used as an analogy.

Nobody thinks that a clock/watch was made with the clock/watch "in mind".

Being designed, in a loose sense, means that you were created for some purpose, or at the very least you are not an accident. Most theology would tell you that purpose is to worship/serve god. — ProbablyTrue

But comparing humans to a clock/watch means that God is not very good at designing some things.

If humans were designed to worship/serve god, and if the overwhelming majority of humans have not worshipped/served God, then God did a lousy job of designing.

Do people think about what they are saying?

I don't think you're seeing the point, but then it's a really big issue. — Wayfarer

"Paley's argument proceeds by identifying what he takes to be a reliable indicator of intelligent design:

"Suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it" (Paley 1867, 1).

There are thus two features of a watch that reliably indicate that it is the result of an intelligent design. First, it performs some function that an intelligent agent would regard as valuable; the fact that the watch performs the function of keeping time is something that has value to an intelligent agent. Second, the watch could not perform this function if its parts and mechanisms were differently sized or arranged; the fact that the ability of a watch to keep time depends on the precise shape, size, and arrangement of its parts suggests that the watch has these characteristics because some intelligent agency designed it to these specifications. Taken together, these two characteristics endow the watch with a functional complexity that reliably distinguishes objects that have intelligent designers from objects that do not." -- Design Arguments for the Existence of God


I do not see any way around the conclusion that such thinking says that humans are designed like a clock, skyscraper, aircraft carrier, etc. is designed.

It may not be the point that is trying to be made, but it seems to be a logical conclusion of such thinking, nonetheless.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of people and their capabilities. There are people, maybe you are one, who can take charge of their own lives and build a place for themselves no matter what the conditions are. That's not true for most people. Most people just want to fit into a place where they can earn a good living and have a secure and satisfying job. That's not an unreasonable desire. As a manager, those people can be intelligent and competent coworkers. Not everyone is a dynamic entrepreneur. Most people aren't. If you are a manager, you wouldn't want them to be. Entrepreneurs don't make good employees. — T Clark

Again, without any scientific evidence I can only go by my own observations.

Again, I have no reason to believe that the global capitalist system cares about individuals realizing their true, full potential. Every economic actor is supposed to do what he/she/it believes is in his/her/its best interest. The invisible hand, we are told, magically turns all of that individual subjective self-interest into objective maximum collective welfare. Choices are to be made marginally--"Would it be in my best interest to buy this candy bar or skip it?".

As a result, people make choices based on things like price, risk, incentives, opportunity cost, etc. If you can do [X] amount of work and get paid Y or [X-10] amount of work and still get paid Y, you should do [X-10] (not work as hard and as much on the job), the system tells us. If you can lie. If you can cheat. If you can cut corners. If you can get away with destroying other people. The list could go on for many pages.

The system rewards homo economicus, not the examined life.

The system incentivizes and rewards efficiency. If it would be more efficient, as reflected on spreadsheets, to train 100 people to do a repetitive job following a script than to spend the same amount of resources developing one person who has the potential to, oh, discover the cure for AIDS, the former must be done.

If leaders in business think that we need more STEM graduates and that offering BAs in English does not create jobs, too bad if the next Shakespeare ends up washing dishes and never produces one literary work.

I will say it again: we need the unique knowledge, skills, talent, etc. of everybody to be put to optimal use for the benefit of all people. The fact that a lot of people want nothing more than the economic security of a routine job does not change that.

And resources spent employing somebody who is happy to underachieve, cheat, lie, etc. are resources not available to be spent on somebody who wants to make the greatest contribution he/she possibly can. There are probably more of the latter than we think quietly sighing as their true, full potential is never realized. That is sad.

A good coach, manager, knows that the best team comes from bringing everyone along. Improving everyone. Maybe that's not true for professional or high power collegiate sports where you get to choose who plays, but for most, and for just about all in business, it is true. You're given who you have to work with and you make the best of it. That means getting the best out of everyone. — T Clark

I don't think so.

I have not had any formal education in business management, so I don't know what is taught at accredited institutions. But I've been there many times when the store, plant, center, etc. gets "visitors", and the fact that an individual on payroll is not being utilized on par with his full potential has never been near anybody's radar screen. I have never heard, "Oh, no! The district manager will be here Tuesday and will find out that Ruth would excel in sales but we are only using her as a secretary!".

Furthermore, I doubt that anybody in a management role has ever been denied a bonus, promotion, etc. because an individual in the organization is an underachiever. As far as I can tell, it's all about the collective metrics--do sales this year exceed last year?; have costs been reduced?; does customer satisfaction meet the goal?; etc. The true, full potential of all individuals compared to their actual development is never a concern.

Here's T Clark's formulation - In any enterprise; soccer team, engineering office; factory floor; hospital; McDonalds; 25 % of the people are competent, 25% are incompetent, and the middle 50% are more or less ok. I have seen a good manager or coach take the bottom 25% and make them ok; make the middle 50% better, provide support to get the best work out of the top 25%, and get them to all work together better to create an effective workforce. There aren't many managers or coaches who can do that. I guess that's because 25% of the managers and coaches are incompetent and 50% are just ok. — T Clark

I don't know what they teach in business schools, but I gather from my observations that nobody responsible for leading other people has the duty or desire to help every individual realize his/her true, full potential. Their responsibility is to manage and develop everybody under their leadership/supervision to produce the right results. If that means that somebody underachieves, too bad. I would say that it happens all of the time in team sports. A tight end in football might have the potential to be a game-changing receiver, but if the coaches need him to be a blocker more than anything else then they are not going to sacrifice team needs for his individual needs.

The problem is that in order to survive individuals have to respond to demand in markets.

The OP in this thread expects markets to respond to individuals who possess certain traits and have completed certain training. But the world as it is does not work that way. In order for the OP's wish to be granted, governments would have to intervene in markets and use coercion.

The problem is compounded by the fact that most people are happy to acquiesce and live a life of underachievement.

People would probably be happier and enjoy better, more productive lives if their lives were oriented around their true, full potential. But abstract, unclear rewards like self-expression are no match for tangible rewards like money or rewards with clearly-defined benefits, such as the social status that comes with owning one's home.

I am convinced that the entire problem boils down to the artificial, socially/culturally-constructed divisions between households and firms; labor and capital; etc.

I believe that I have said it in other threads on this website. I have said it on other websites: Every economic actor should be equal.

I do not have the time to outline it / spell it out again. But, in a nutshell, every economic actor should consider him/herself to be a business, and every economic actor should be taxed, regulated, recognized, etc. as a business. Basically, every economic actor, including individuals, should be thought of like what economic theory now calls a firm. Nobody would be a "worker". Everybody would be a business selling a product and/or service. Everybody would be an independent contractor. Everybody would bid on as many different contracts as they want/need to--individuals working all day, all week in the same job for the same company would no longer be the norm.

Maybe the biggest reason why people do not realize their full potential in acquiring knowledge and developing skills is because we have an economic system that requires people to have narrow specializations working all day and all week in narrowly-defined roles. If you are an exceptional writer, you will have a difficult time ever utilizing that skill if you are sitting in a cubicle with a headset on and taking phone calls 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. If you are a good teacher, you will have a difficult time ever utilizing that skill if things like designing and implementing training are concentrated in one department or the job of one person and you are in another department and/or role doing nothing but sales all day. Etc. Etc.

I have seen nothing presented in this thread that is to the contrary of what I have been saying. We do not have an economic system that encourages people to realize their true, full potential. We have a system that encourages and/or incentivizes people to make decisions about formal education, training, and work based on things that have little to do with what they would excel at and make the greatest contribution at. Many years ago when I was in an introductory political science class I was caught off guard by the number of classmates who said that they wanted to go to law school. I sensed that they believed that law school was their ticket to above-average social status, prestige, wealth, influence and power. The exponential number of other paths to a fulfilling, meaningful future that they could consider apparently were far from their radar screens. From elementary school through college, and beyond, the message that we are given is that if you want to be successful and live a good life you have to follow certain narrowly-defined paths. How good you might be on those paths, how well-suited your personality and aptitudes are for those paths, and how much more productive you might be avoiding those paths are not things that people consider, I think it is safe to say.

It is that tunnel vision that results in the overwhelming majority of people never realizing their true, full potential, in my estimation. The OP in this thread does not change anything, in my estimation. The OP in this thread simply calls for a new variation of that tunnel vision.

True change would start with asking how we can marshal the full potential of all people for the benefit of everybody. Saying, like the OP here, that we need a certain kind of people with a certain kind of training making the decisions for a change is really just more of the same.

It is all interconnected and interrelated.

You can't do justice to any part of the landscape by taking it out of its larger contexts.

Where you are right now may be "flat". But if that is all that you think and feel then your response will be distorted.

Try thinking and feeling things like how glaciers, colliding plates, etc. made the place flat. Then see what your response to it is.

it doesn't mean that we have no control over our minds. And, I didn't need to research philosophy to know that. It just requires being conscious ... stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind. — Aurora

The materialists and determinists will probably tell you that that "stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind" is an illusion.

And they will probably say that empirical science shows that it is an illusion.

Well, I don't have reams of data at my finger tips, either. But... Logic tells us, does it not, that if customers, workers, managers, and shareholders are all getting what they want, then the system has to be working. Customers want affordable and decent-quality goods; workers want reasonable labor loads and adequate pay managers want production to go smoothly and profitably; and shareholders want dividends and their assets to hold value.

If everyone in the economy is fucking up, fucking each other over, fucking off, and constantly lying, cheating, and stealing then no one is going to be satisfied: not the consumer, not the worker, not the manager, not the stockholder.

Most people are getting what they want. The economic system is big enough and complicated enough to allow for a certain low level of continuous failure. 35,000 people die in traffic accidents, true. But out of 320 million americans covering hundreds of billions miles a year on the roads, that is a low failure rate. Sure, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in every organization--whether it be the Cancer Society, Apple Computer, Exxon, or the Arkansas legislature. But, if the level of waste, fraud, and abuse is low and tolerable, we can live with it.

It takes an extremely efficient and vicious police state to eliminate all waste and fraud. I'd rather have some waste, fraud. and abuse and NO police state. As the recently disgraced Garrison Keillor said at the National Press Club a while back: — Bitter Crank

Clearly you do not know what I mean by wasteful.

A system that does not encourage people to realize their true, full potential is sad.

A system that incentivizes underachievement is sad.

A system that does not stress honesty, integrity, doing things the right way, etc. is pathetic.

And be careful about what you want, you may get it. Look at the University of Louisville. Rick Pitino was getting what he wanted. U of L basketball fans (the customers) were getting what they wanted. Pitino's boss, Tom Jurich, was getting what he wanted. U of L, the donors, the sponsors, the taxpayers, etc. (the shareholders) were getting what they wanted. But now the U of L basketball program is the face of an investigation into corruption involving many NCAA schools, shoe companies, etc.; Pitino and Jurich have been fired and are probably never going to be hired anywhere else; the 2013 NCAA championship may be vacated; the future of the basketball program is uncertain; with yet another scandal on its hands, the future of the entire athletic department is uncertain; major damage to the entire product--college basketball--has been inflicted, not just damage to one brand; and all stakeholders are now suffering.

Almost everybody was getting what they wanted in Waco, Texas and at Baylor University: relevance in big-time college football. I heard that in a meeting with the university's governing board one donor said, "I don't want to hear one more thing about the university's mission. I was promised championships!". Now the whole community, the whole university, and all of college football have been severly damaged by a sexual assault scandal of unprecedented magnitude.

Soft drink makers, their employees, their customers, and their shareholders have apparently been getting what they want for a long time. Now we have an obesity epidemic. Now the industry might meet the same fate as the tobacco industry.

Again, if things like the actual quality of the product; the actual knowledge and skills that a person possesses; etc. were valued, the economy would look a lot different in post-industrial society.

— Bitter Crank

I don't know what rigorous scientific research says, but my subjective experience says that good work has little to do with hiring, assignments, promotions, etc.

I have seen too many people who cut corners, break rules, lie, cheat, etc. be recognized and praised as the top performers. I have seen too many people who do not care about the quality of their work be recognized and praised as top performers. I could probably think of a lot of other assymetry between quality of work and rewards for work.

I have been fired when I was being honest and following proper procedure while people who were cheating were retained and praised as invaluable assets. It has happened numerous times.

I'm not saying that people fail. Customers, workers, managers and shareholders all get what they want, and the whole enterprise is considered a success. The whole economy is considered a success.

I am saying that doing what one is exceptionally good at is obviously not what the economic system we have encourages.

Economists may call it efficient. I call it wasteful.

An intelligent human, to me, is one who is able to use his/her mind and come up with an original thought, regardless of whether the whole world would disagree with that thought ... i.e. not one whose mind uses him/her, not one who blindly plays out a script that everybody else in the world is following. — Aurora

But philosophical materialism and its favorite offspring, determinism, are increasingly telling us--and increasingly being accepted for saying--that how we use our minds, along with the accompanying content of those minds, is entirely effects of causes that we have no control over.

The behavior you deem to be idiotic was, we are increasingly being told, selected through natural selection because it is advantageous.

Of course, tomorrow it might not be advantageous any longer. Who knows what will be selected then. Maybe low IQ will be advantageous. Or low empathy/affect.

And let's not forget that physical traits like a symmetrical face may correlate with, or even cause, ascent to positions of power and influence. Having the savvy--and the money--to buy cosmetic surgery may play as big a role there as biology.

And guess who gave us all of these ideas? A lot of the people you would call idiots. It wasn't serfs or hourly workers who came up with things like determinism and evolutionary psychology.

But, then again, we are increasingly believing that the serfs and hourly workers have no control over things like their role in producing ideas.

It's looking more and more like future generations will believe that we are all puppets.

Wouldn't that make all of us idiots?