Fair enough. Even no industrial policy is a sort of industrial policy, in effect. — Olivier5

Hmm, and I thought you'd pick up on the interesting question of whether unions are consistent with lassiez faire economics - or, if not that, you'd deny that Cameron was actually a brexiteer. Y'know that, even no reply is a sort of reply, in effect!

Sure, you could always see it differently, but this is at least what she was saying at the time. — Olivier5

Cameron said he was a Remainer. Politicians lie all the time. They say one thing and do another; so better to judge them by what they do. Closing the coal mines, and shifting to gas was justified in terms of sustainability, but as an intervention in the market - and destruction of the unions, it was not lassiez faire.

Thatcher hated the very idea of an industrial strategy, sustainable or not. Hers was a laissez-faire policy; she believed that state interventions in the economy were almost always counter-productive. — Olivier5

Thatcher closed the coal mines - and devastated large parts of the north of England. One can argue, it was a sustainable industrial strategy, but I think it was about breaking the power of the unions - which is far from lassiez faire.

Found your shift key, huh? Well done! — Kenosha Kid

No. wikipedia did. oh, sorry, Wikipedia. lol

This maybe the key to unlocking some doors to...the twilight zone! Press on, o philosopher! Lead the way! — TheMadFool

The twilight zone - where science is valued above the politics of primitive people, and technology is applied on the basis of scientific merit, to secure a prosperous sustainable future? Spooky!

The one astrophysical journal. :joke: — Kenosha Kid

"The Astrophysical Journal, often abbreviated ApJ (pronounced "ap jay") in references and speech,[1] is a peer-reviewed scientific journal of astrophysics and astronomy, established in 1895 by American astronomers George Ellery Hale and James Edward Keeler."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astrophysical_Journal

...how lazy do you have to be to not even Wiki — Kenosha Kid

Relevance? — Kenosha Kid

All of this is irrelevant. It's not how I thought this discussion would develop. I'll let you talk - but frankly, you know less than I do. I didn't expect anyone to weigh in, claiming that the big bang theory and cosmic inflation are wholly adequate. I assumed it would stand as an unsolved problem in science, I could use as a springboard to discuss science communication and related issues. I can only suggest you write to the astrophysical journal, and tell them - that, controversy over, problem solved by "insanely rapid" cosmic expansion!

"Inflation is now a built-in piece of our standard story of cosmic evolution. But it’s still controversial. In 2014, researchers claimed to have seen ripples from inflation imprinted on the cosmic microwave background. But this proved mistaken..."

https://www.newscientist.com/definition/cosmic-inflation/#ixzz6zGCbeACB

The largeness of the unobservable universe is a requirement that the inflation yield the observable, homogeneous cosmos we see now. — Kenosha Kid

No, I don't think so. But thanks for trying.

...so the argument against science is that Counterpunch doesn't understand it.

Sure. — Banno

Not really, no! I think my original point was about science communication, or lack thereof - and the discussion followed from there. I'm not going to be rude to the Kid - who is doing his best to explain something that doesn't seem to me to make sense. And I'm interested in science stuff. I wouldn't know there was a problem if I didn't know quite a bit about the subject - so, thanks Banno, for your remarks. Swing and a miss though, again!

Yes, it's a matter of mentality switching from the comparable sanity of special relativity, in which an object cannot recede from another faster than c, to the insanity of general relativity, in which an object can recede at c while riding on a space that's also receding at c (making 2c). That no object can recede from another faster than c is a rule about _inertial_ frames, not curved spacetime. — Kenosha Kid

Oh, well then - that explains it. Thanks! 14x2x2=56 - which only leaves 37bn light years accounted for by magic. I mean cosmic expansion. Close enough!

First key thing is that the " inflationary period", while brief, was insanely rapid, with every point pretty much moving at speed c away from its neighbouring points... — Kenosha Kid

"Insanely rapid" - there's a scientific term! I wasn't accounting for the insanity! My bad!! Because, to a sane person it would seems that two points with diametrically opposite trajectories could not get much further than 28bn light years apart in 14bn years, even with a brief period of faster than light expansion - that surely cannot account for the other 58bn light years of space without reference to insanity!

But it does. Those estimates are themselves based on inflationary cosmological models. — Kenosha Kid

That's very helpful. Thank you!

Like inflation theory? — Kenosha Kid

As far as I understand it, cosmic inflation occurred only very early on, shortly after the big bang - and on a small scale, 10 to the power minus 36 seconds after the singularity to 10 to the power minus 32 seconds. It doesn't explain how the universe is 93 light years wide but only 14 ish, billion years old.

This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are.
— Banno

Arguments against science? Okay, try this on for size. The universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years old. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light - yet the universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years across. How is that possible? Further, recently detected light from 250-300 million years after the big bang, is only just reaching us now - but 'we' were there at the time. All of space, time, matter and energy was in close proximity to the location where the first stars emerged, so how can that light only just be reaching us now? Maybe it makes sense in ways I don't understand - even though I consider myself a fairly well versed layman, and at least two standard deviations above stupid, this doesn't make sense to me - and science makes too little effort to explain.

I think it impossible to distinguish between intrinsic and instrumental value with regard to nature. The fact I intrinsically value nature doesn't exclude its instrumental value. Life is a web of interdependencies that we are part of; such that all our ends are dependent on maintaining a viable biosphere. A core aspect of that web of life, is that individual organisms die - and so intrinsic value does not entail not killing animals, or developing the land to suit our purposes, even if that has a negative effect on other organisms, that's life - red in tooth and claw.

I am raising this question because many of the fundamentals of philosophy, especially basic questions and attempts to answer the metaphysical and epistemological problems are open to challenge in the thinking of our time. It leaves me wondering if it will get to the point where philosophy is seen as an appendix of knowledge, especially that which is developed in science. My idea of a dead-end is like a cul de sac, or point in a maze, where there is no way out, or no obvious way forward. It is equal to coming to stagnation, or a standstill. — Jack Cummins

Western philosophy took a wrong turn at the Galileo roundabout, and ended up making Descartes the father of modern philosophy; and to the exclusion of a scientific epistemology, building on an argument based on skeptical doubt, that dispenses with the real world by imagining being deceived by a demon! That pretence may well be played out.

I see the possibility of a philosophy of science - in a society that values science as valid knowledge of reality, and so secures a prosperous sustainable future; that is deeper and more meaningful than Cartesian soul gazing - through to the subjectivist doggerel of the left wing house of postmodern "whatever!"

We could start by putting causality into evolution; by discussing the selection pressure exerted by a physical reality with definite physical and chemical characteristics, and consider the role this plays in designing the organism. Then we can discuss the nature of intelligence; physiological and behavioural intelligence, underlying human intellectual intelligence.

For example, much of the discoveries in humanity come from the Renaissance and scientific revolution where there was no downward existential force constraining human communication at a human to human level, thus allowing human beings to thrive emotionally and be in that state of being able to create and derive new ideas. — JohnLocke

That's incorrect.

In 1634, Galileo was arrested for proving the earth orbits the sun; was put on trial - threatened with torture, death and excommunication, and forced to recant. Immediately, his contemporary, Descartes - withdrew a work on physics from publication, and instead - wrote Meditations on First Philosophy, which uses a skeptical methodology to arrive at a subjectivist conclusion, consistent with religious spirituality, and so, consistent with religious justifications of political power. See Divine Right of Kings.

Subjectivism has been built upon by Western philosophy - over the past 400 years, to the exclusion of objectivism and science as an understanding of reality - even while science was used from the 1730's onwards, to drive the Industrial Revolution, the Church was still burning heretics alive through to 1792.

Because science was deprived of any moral authority as truth, government and industry have used science, and applied technology in pursuit of their own purely ideological ends - and thus we have nuclear weapons, but have not developed the technology to supply the world with limitless clean energy, despite knowing about climate change, at least since 1965 - when a US President's Advisory Committee panel warned that the greenhouse effect is a matter of "real concern". (Lyndon B. Johnson.)

Also, the idea that technological communication diminishes creativity is odd. I wonder what prompted you to take to your computer and tell us about it?

Natural doesn't necessarily mean right or good.
See 'naturalistic fallacy.'
It's next to Nazi in the dictionary!

Got anything published? — Wayfarer

Thank you for your question. No. I haven't tried to publish anything - except here, where, with all due respect to the moderators, the editorial standards are virtually non existent! The problem is that, it's such a large subject area - a quality piece of readable length, could only cover a tiny part of the whole. I'm trying to reveal a vista - and here seems the perfect place to do that. Low resolution, broad brush strokes, immediate - if somewhat indifferent audience.

I've googled it. What I appear to find is that geothermal energy is indeed an energy source, has some pros, some cons, is location dependent, is expensive. Nothing that says geothermal energy is the panacea for all the world's energy problems. — Wayfarer

The word geothermal covers a wide range of technologies, from low temperature heat difference for domestic use, right through to volcanic springs. My approach is different again; it's very high temperature geothermal - produced by drilling close to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. I mentioned above, I'm looking for temperatures around 700'C. It's magma energy; not geothermal as we know it!

The evaporate - probably water, would be contained in pipes - and heated to 700 degrees to produce superheated steam. This is important, because it's the expansion of water superheated to 700'C - that produces the power.

This can be shown with reference to early steam engines - and the problems they had with condensation lowering the steam pressure. Ribbed boilers! What were they thinking?

So for various reasons - working examples of geothermal in the US, Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Italy, New Zealand, Iceland and Japan, are not wholly indicative of what I have in mind. Clearly though, there's vast amounts of energy there, and we need it to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability.

The energy is there; it's just a matter of tapping into it safely, at a sufficiently high temperature, and at a workable and affordable depth for drilling - which in turn will be a matter of identifying specific geological formations. I haven't read any studies on exploiting very high temperature geothermal close to volcanic features.

Geothermal energy in Iceland and New Zealand harnesses heat from volcanic springs - with a maximum temperature, even under pressure - of 150'C ish. I'm looking for 700'C minimum - and believe there's cubic miles upon cubic miles of rock heated to that temperature, it would be possible to drill through.

There are questions of materials science - because the boreholes need to be lined with pipes. These need to be super-smooth on the inside, and be able to stand heat and pressure. So, there's a lot to work out. It is to be done; but there are around 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire alone.

Converting heat into electricity is well established technology - as is converting electrical energy into hydrogen fuel for transport. Given a running start, I could easily foresee fleets of hydrogen powered tankers delivering clean fuel all around the world.

so I'm wondering if it does have the transformative potential you claim it does. — Wayfarer

Oddly, the fact that "no one else thinks that" - to paraphrase your meaning, has absolutely no bearing whatever on my opinion that the technology is viable, and that a massive input of clean energy, particularly now - would be transformative. I can think of nothing more hopeful than a viable plan to overcome climate change.

I should resist. I'm done. There's no hope. I've explained - from philosophical justification through to the specific technologies that need to be applied, how we might agree to do what's necessary to a prosperous and sustainable future, and been ignored.

Humankind has a blind-spot because you believe religious, political and economic ideology describes the world, you can't even 'see' a scientific understanding of reality.

You don't appreciate that the science is true of reality, relative to the ideology - which is all just made up. You believe ideology, because you draw your identities and purposes from it. The means to secure a prosperous sustainable future is externalised by your ideological worldviews; by your very identities, and not even the supposed philosophers here can bare to look beyond.

In scientific and technological terms, it's not difficult to secure a prosperous and sustainable future. Instead, this:

I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence. — Wayfarer

I've explained why this is wrong. It leads to authoritarian government imposing poverty forever after for the sake of sustainability. It will not work; not least because poor people breed more - and as such implies ever less resources, shared between ever more people.

It's a simple matter of physics that we need massively more energy - not less! A future with less energy spent on it will be worse - in every way. Civilisation is a designed structure - constantly falling apart due to entropy, and constantly maintained through the expenditure of energy. Without the energy to spend, things will just fall apart.

The energy we need is there, beneath our feet - a huge ball of molten rock, 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around; a virtually limitless source of clean energy, we could harness to meet and exceed our current energy demand, capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle. With magma energy, we could transcend the limits to resources equation - and make the deserts bloom if we so chose.

Fortunately, I've long left behind such sophomoric arguments (see my first post on p.1). — 180 Proof

I read your post at the time - if you refer to this:

'weak atheism' doesn't satisfy me philosophically (hasn't for decades, in fact). I prefer to make the strongest case for unbelief regardless of how weak or non-existent the argument for belief may be. — 180 Proof

It was in response to this, I said, "please do." Make an argument for atheism, as strong as you like. "Don't confine yourself to logic...!" I said. Still, nothing. So far, you haven't made an argument. All you've done is debate the debate, and make sarcastic dismissals. Tell me about your atheism. I feel like, for me - atheism was an angry phase in my twenties, I've grown out of.

I maintain that science is important, and that it's important to acknowledge what you can and cannot know. Both theism and atheism make knowledge claims without evidence; and I'd like to identify and point that out with regard to your claim to know there's no God.

Atheism is not justified in terms of a valid epistemology, or with regard to scientific method. You don't know if God exists or does not; and yet locate yourself beyond the bounds of what you can reasonably claim to know, and then claim logic as your authority. That can't be right.

One can believe in something like a creator deity without believing that it interferes in everyday life. — Michael

I would have said:

One can reasonably argue that religion may be pointing at something real, without considering religion definitive of what it points at.

The existence of a God of some kind is a reasonable hypothesis, given the existence of the universe, apparent order in the universe, and the fact the universe fosters intelligent life. Then consider the ubiquity and utility of the concept of God in human civilisation, and one is forced to conclude that, as an hypothesis, God exists - and thus the atheist claim "I see no God, therefore there is no God" fails on grounds of inductive reasoning, i.e. no swans are black.

The atheist may argue that the burden of proof is on the theist, but I don't believe so. The individual theist did not originate the concept. The concept exists; and still constitutes a viable hypothesis, even in face of the sum of scientific knowledge.

By my logic, agnosticism with respect to any 'theistic deity' is incoherent (as pointed out here). — 180 Proof

I can see why you italicized the my. Perhaps you should also have put quote marks around the term "logic."

Further, your link refers specifically to 'Abrahamic deities' throughout - in a thread entitled: "Agnosticism is the most rationally acceptable default position." If your intent is to show the Bible is not literal truth - there are lower hanging fruit!

My agnosticism refers to the possible existence of a Creator God. I don't know if such a God exists, but it's one possible explanation for the existence of the universe; to say nothing of apparent order in the universe, that gives rise to life and human intellect.

I'm not agnostic with regard to religion. Religion is the politics of people's past - and God was necessary as an objective authority, to justify moral laws in multi-tribal society. Religion is essentially a social contract between ruler and ruled, and so it seems to me - your atheism, is atheism with regard to specific definitions of God.

Now you claim to show:

By my logic, agnosticism with respect to any 'theistic deity' is incoherent — 180 Proof

Not with reference to that link.

Initially I meant to talk to all members — Nelson E Garcia

How can you if 'There is no Independent Existence'?
This forum, and all its members are figments of your solipsistic imagination.
You're talking to yourself - and you still didn't get it!

I prefer to make the strongest case for unbelief — 180 Proof

Please do. Don't limit yourself to logic on my account. Because I think, when all is duly considered, one must eventually arrive at agnosticism.

The Logic of Atheism debate got me thinking about something. If atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of gods, then how does logic apply to that? I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. Non-beliefs aren’t really based on arguments, they’re based on a lack of them. Convincing arguments supporting theism are lacking, therefore atheism. If logic is just a tool used to justify/support arguments, then how could it apply to a non-belief that is based on a lack of convincing arguments? — Pinprick

I wondered if the term 'logic' was being used in a formal, or colloquial sense. I think maybe 180 used the term 'logic' colloquially, and was then challenged to defend it - and the debate blew up out of his refusal to back down. Maybe if there's a round 3 - they can revise the question; have a straight up, free wheeling theist/atheist debate - using any of all arguments at their rhetorical disposal.

Hi — Nelson E Garcia

Who are you talking to?

Worst debate ever!

Define being! No, on second thoughts - don't. It doesn't actually refer to anything. It has all the definitional qualities of a linguistic spandrel; a concept described incidentally by other architectural features of a meaningful linguistic structure.

Dune - Frank Herbert.
— counterpunch

Agreed, what a great book. — darthbarracuda

TV guide is pretty good too - but I find you have to stay current!

1. Human morality is partly objective because humans share biological traits that underlie their sense of moral necessity. It is not objective in the sense of being independent of humans, but is in the sense of being common to all humans (barring edge cases) and humanity being objectively distinguishable from non-humanity. — Kenosha Kid

Morality is partly objective because it is inherent to religion, law, philosophy, politics, economics - and the ideological architecture of society, and so objective with respect to the individual. Historically, in a hunter gatherer state of nature, morality was intrinsic to the structural relations of the kinship tribe. Further, one can speculate that morality devolves ultimately to the causal relations between the organism and reality, likely via the pain/pleasure reward circuitry.

3. Morality is subjective insofar as it is still us as individuals who inherit that biology and culture, and us ultimately that have to make moral decisions, gain experience based on those decisions and their outcomes, and grapple with moral problems specifically for us. — Kenosha Kid

Morality is subjective insofar as the individual is imbued with a moral sense; like humour or aesthetics. The moral sense precedes human reason in evolutionary history - and such it is, we know right from wrong instinctively. The moral sense is related, but not identical to a capacity for moral reason, we find expressed as religion, law, philosophy, politics, economics; wherein, morality is objectivised.

2. Morality is also relative insofar as much of it is also mediated by inherited socialisations which differ across time and space. Historically, those socialisations have been optimised to maximise our ability to apply our social hardware to daily living, which is why there is so much similarity between the cultures of immediate-return hunter-gatherer groups. More recently, those socialisations have evolved to counteract that innate behaviour (serfdom, slavery, individualism), and even more recently they're evolving to reassert that innate morality on a global scale (equality, diversity, tolerance). — Kenosha Kid

I do not agree to the formulation of relativism suggesting that there is no right and wrong; most basically morality is a sense. We know right and wrong instinctively - and this moral sense precedes intellect in evolutionary history. The intellectual articulation of moral values - their expression by you and by me, makes them relative expressions of values. However, insofar as our expressions of values feed into things like religion, philosophy, law, politics, economics - that are means by which to establish objective values (and so allow for multi-tribal society and civilisation) relativism is resolved.

It is precisely the view advocated by Dawkins & Dennett to liberate mankind from the delusion of spirituality. — Wayfarer

You'll be rewarded in Heaven for pointing that out! Hopefully, quite soon!

The Magpie Annual 1974.
The Littlewoods catalogue lingerie section.
TV guide.
The Bible.
Pear's Cyclopedia.
Dune - Frank Herbert.
Energy for Survival - Wilson Clark.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Daniel Dennett.
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking.

Perhaps you should compose a list of things I might avoid saying!

It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences. — Wayfarer

WF speaks to an impoverished view of evolution. It's true, that evolution is driven by random genetic mutation, and has no particular destination in mind, but nonetheless, even the most primitive organism had to be correct to reality, that is - capable of surviving to reproduce within the physical, chemical, and increasingly biological reality of its surroundings. Those that were unsuitable were rendered extinct, over and over - a filtering process that; while based on blind forces, occurs in relation to a reality with definite characteristics. In short, the fact science excludes teleological assumptions from its methodology, does not mean a scientific understanding of reality, does not have teleological implications.

All of the above!

I wouldn’t acknowledge it, because I think it’s a caricature of history. As I’ve said, you hold a very one-eyed, black v white image of history but the reality is hugely more complex than you allow. — Wayfarer

Should I first write a definitive history of the Church in diary form, explaining day by day - everything that occurred from the establishing of the Papal Court of the Inquisition in 1235, 6th September about 4 'o clock in the afternoon, through the trial of Galileo, 1635, unto the present day, to support a claim that religion has a problem with science? You're deflecting!

Answer the argument - that religion jealously guarded any sense of telos as its own sacred ground, and science wasn't allowed the least implication beyond its practical applications in industry, such that your criticism, that science has no telos is a fait accompli.

The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence. — Wayfarer

You might at least acknowledge that science was deprived of any notion of purpose by religious fundamentalists who insisted that religious texts were definitive - and that science was suspect of heresy.

Had science had been recognised as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, and pursued and integrated as divine truth, it seems to me that a sense of telos would follow from the relationship between the surviving organism, and causal reality in evolution; in that the organism must necessarily evolve toward a valid relationship with reality, in its design and behaviour in order to survive.

For homo sapiens, it's not merely physiological and behavioural - but also intellectual. Knowing what's scientifically true and doing what's morally right in terms of what's true - applying technology in accord with a scientific understanding of reality, would have made a paradise of the world. Again, implying the purpose of following in the knowledge of the Creator, given to humanity to understand.