Thanks, I do try.

Just saying your deceptively simple question is in fact a huge and complex subject area that plays out right across society and the world, past and future, left and right, religious and secular - you've opened a can o' worms, and then go 'ewww, worms!'

off topic!

Natural selection differs from greed. — Lif3r

Your argument ignores the fact that, on the whole, capitalism produces that which people need and want. You disregard this to construe success as greed, and they are not the same, precisely because success is achieved by - in some sense, serving the common good. (If people didn't need and want it, they wouldn't buy it.) You construe another's success, as a zero sum game - only achieved at the cost of the the welfare of another, and this is not only false, but wicked.

Banno is getting off on being a dick-tator. My post was chiefly about the difference between statistical fact and social media narrative; as it played out with regard to a particular political/racial example. Apparently, examples are off topic. Explanation of the religious roots of anti-scientism - off topic.

We are required to shout:

"Nuclear weapons!"

"Antibiotics!"

...at eachother, over and over again!

Er, what on earth are you on about? Saying 'polluters should pay' is not equivalent to saying "I am allowed to pollute". I can only marvel at the reasoning skills that permit you to think that "polluters should pay" implies "I can pollute". — Bartricks

I marvel at your inability to grasp the concept of Riparian Rights. Personally, I think taxation is not the right way to address this problem. It's the blunt tool of choice, but for me - I'd harness limitless magma heat energy, and extract carbon from the atmosphere.

The only reason any of us have a carbon footprint is because we still use fossil fuels - when all the clean energy we could ever need, and more - is right there beneath our feet.

Taxation reduces demand - for the poor. The rich don't give a shit; carry on as they are, while poor people are dying of hypothermia because they can't afford fuel. I cannot understand how the left can advocate such a policy approach; while weeping buckets about equality.

It's fucked up, but your objections are still misconceived. The fact you don't have kids is irrelevant to your responsibility to leave behind a liveable planet. And treating people as pollution is doubly fucked up. Fossil fuels are the polluter, and there is an alternative, more than adequate to replace them entirely.

Explain how what you said was implied by anything I said. Go on. — Bartricks

A stream flows in one direction - like time. If you pollute the river upstream, you are impinging on the rights those downstream. If you pollute the planet now - if effects subsequent generations. Riparian Rights asserts the rights of those downstream to enjoy the same rights as those upstream.

By asserting that you don't have to pay tax on pollution because you have no offspring, is essentially saying that you can piss in the river upstream, because you don't have relatives downstream. But there are still people downstream - forced to drink your piss. The fact they are not related to you is neither here nor there, is it?

Would you guys please get back on topic? There's plenty of places to discuss race and god; this is a thread about science. At least make some attempt to relate the discussion to the OP, perhaps? — Banno

Yes, certainly. Test tube. My sincere apologies. Bunsen burner. On topic from now on. E=Mc2. Or at the very least, a pretence of such.

I'm not too much of a historian but I do know the Germans got screwed at Versailles and that led to the rise of Hitler etc. I didn't mean to get into the historical nuances of the phrase "good German" and I see your point. — fishfry

No stress but, there's a distinction between German and Nazi worth keeping in mind - particularly given that our democracies, in the US and the UK - are so polarised by populism right now, and the economic consequences of brexit and covid, are yet to fully impact the balance sheet. Could be a tricky few years ahead.

You can get in a lot of trouble these days for pointing that out, but it's true. A set of facts that can be spun many ways. — fishfry

It's the difference between statistical fact and a social media narrative. There's 350 million Americans, and 10 million arrests per year, 0.01% of which end in a fatality - but if two black people die in the same week, that's incontrovertible proof by twitter standards, that the police are Nazis, and there are plenty of people willing to exploit that correlation for political ends.

I'm in agreement. Obama was a race hustler who made race relations far worse than before he became president. I'm an old MLK-style liberal (content of character etc.) appalled by what's become of race relations. I have no idea where it's going, whether the present moment will die out or get worse. — fishfry

It's not a one way street. There are real racists, who hated that President Obama was black. I too judge people by the content of their character, and from this side of the pond, he seemed like a good President. I don't know of good reasons to criticise him, but if there were - that's what's wrong with political correctness. You can't call out a black person for being an asshole, without appearing to be attacking them based on skin colour.

Here, the Labour Party - which is like your Democrats, only more so, have been absolutely decimated at the ballot box; largely because they've turned their back on the white working class majority - they were established to represent, and thrown themselves into political correctness with abandon, leaving the majority unrepresented. I honestly think the Conservatives are having to damage their own political prospects, just to keep democracy alive. How else can one explain Dominic Cummings - turning on his own? A sudden fit of conscience? lol.

Er, no. That quite obviously isn't implied by anything I said. Up your game. — Bartricks

Up yours! I'm describing Riparian Rights - as a metaphor for intergenerational environmental responsibilities. Google it igno!

My system is better. Make the polluters pay. That is, make make parents pay. They have violated rights and owe their offspring a living and others protection from their offspring. That debt can rightfully be collected. Thus taxing parents so that they pay for the problems they have created is just. Taxing others is not - it is extracting money with menaces, and that's wrong unless the money is owed. — Bartricks

So you can urinate in the river as much as you like because you don't have relatives downstream?

The question I asked is quite simple: why do you advocate genetic interventions - which are passed on through germ cells to subsequent generations - when, epigenetic therapies are not passed on to subsequent generations, but merely effect the expression of genes in the individual?

It's using a sledgehammer to break a nut. Why - when there's nutcrackers right there? Were you unaware of epigenetics? Or, did you want to scare people back to the Church - and/or postmodern subjectivism with a sci-fi nightmare?

I think:

A: all human beings are members of the same species, and

B: political correctness is identity politics in reverse, and it is totally racist, one sided, dictatorial and false, and

C: It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of arbitrary characteristics like skin colour - whatever your motives for doing so.

No, I'm busy taking a crap. — Baden

I see, you're gonna go de-platform?

If I too ignore everything you say, I'm not interested in talking about, I have to say goodbye!

Children don't consent to be born. — David Pearce

Children can't consent to be born - because they don't exist, and for a long time after they are born, are not deemed responsible enough to give consent. Consent is the purview of responsible adults, and it's responsible adults with ability to make germline genetic interventions on behalf of their offspring - and all subsequent generations. The questions is - should they make germline interventions on behalf of their unborn offspring, and grandchildren etc, when epigenetic engineering suggest that detrimental conditions can be treated with epigenetics, when they are adults - able to give consent?

If one believes that antinatalists are wrong to condemn baby-making as inherently unethical, then one must show that genetic experimentation can be conducted responsibly. I'm not convinced that responsible experimentation is yet feasible. But we now at least know enough to mitigate the harm of coming into existence in a Darwinian world. — David Pearce

I do not regard causing suffering as inherently unethical. Suffering allows us to navigate the world by teaching us to avoid that which is harmful. The fact that a child born is destined to suffer - is just part of the learning process. Depriving the child of the ability to suffer is harmful. A harm you would inflict without consent - when, again, epigenetics allows for treatment of unnecessary suffering of the individual, with consent, without forever after altering the human genome. Your omission of individual epigenetic therapy on adults, in favour of germline genetic engineering on unborn offspring remains unexplained.

Germline interventions are not irreversible. — David Pearce

Nor, apparently, necessary to address the problem.

After several moments googling a subject I know very little about, it seems that:

"salaries, wages, commissions, and bonuses you have paid to the employees of your small business are tax-deductible expenses if they are deemed to be: Ordinary and necessary, and reasonable in amount."

If a company unilaterally decided to raise the minimum wage of its employees - maybe that wouldn't be deemed ordinary, necessary and reasonable in amount. But if government did so, it is by legal definition ordinary, necessary and reasonable.

Yeah that's my question. An additional tax break seems like double dipping for the company. — Echarmion

How so?

Why would you need to give companies a tax break for paying the minimum wage? Wages are always deducted from taxable profit anyways. — Echarmion

Government is perfectly entitled to tax as it sees fit, and to set minimum wages as it sees fit. Why reinvent the wheel?

In our discussion, I've glossed over the role of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance — David Pearce

Why? You said:

Philosophers need to acquaint themselves with what's technically feasible so we can have a serious ethical debate on what should be done. — David Pearce

I asked you repeatedly about germline intervention. I wrote:

Interfering in the human genome, so altering every subsequent human being who will ever live, is a risk that's not justified by depression
— counterpunch

You replied:

Recall that all humans are untested genetic experiments. The germline can be edited – and unedited. But if we don't fix our legacy code, then atrocious suffering will proliferate indefinitely. — David Pearce

You haven't just glossed over epigenetic engineering - that could be performed on the adult individual with their consent. You omitted to mention entirely, an approach that would directly address concerns that I have raised, after telling us that we need to acquaint ourselves with what's technically feasible that we can have a serious ethical debate. Is not consent a serious ethical consideration?

I absolutely respect your devotion to mitigating clearly-defined evils (to say you're doing much more than me to help others would be a wild understatement) - but how do you sustain your pinpointing of (biologically based, and so capable-of-being-engineered-out) evil against, say, the knocking-down-chesterton's-fence argument? What I'm trying to get at is, it feels to me you have full faith in the current scientific framing (an end of scientific framing ala the much discussed political 'end of history') Is that fair? — csalisbury

From the 26 letters (sic) on my keyboard I can write more than a million English words, about 170,000 in common usage, and string these words into a virtually infinite number of meaningful sentences consistent with correct syntax and grammar. There are 118 known elements. Four or five - (possibly more) fundamental forces (when you think about dark matter/energy.) I think the end of scientific history may be some way off yet.

Thinking in those terms, and bearing in mind Chesterton's fence - what about epigenetic engineering? Epigenetics is the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself. For example, it's been shown that starvation suffered by ancestors can alter the epigenetic expression of genes associated with metabolism in subsequent generations.

This is very strange, and quite contrary to the supposed unidirectional nature of Darwinian (or Mendellian) genetics. It's like the blacksmith's son inheriting big arms. It's not supposed to work like that. It's the Lamarkian heresy come back to bite Darwin in the ass! But it does seem to be real. The mechanisms are not currently well understood - which speaks to Chesterton, or does it - because arguably, epigenetic engineering could bypass many of the moral dilemmas associated with germ-line genetic alteration foisted on subsequent generations, in that - gene expression could be altered phylogenically, as opposed to ontogenically, meaning you could have informed consent.

It's a good idea to pump money into the bottom of the economy, because money creates value as it spirals upward, however, I think a significant increase in minimum wage, with tax breaks for companies paying it, is a better approach than a Universal Basic Income - because value would still be derived for what is effectively a giveaway, but a giveaway that doesn't point a giant spotlight at quantitative easing. In this way, I think you can maintain all the natural capitalist incentives and avoid many of the inflationary effects on prices and wages of giving away free cash.

Two other considerations are giving away free money will always draw a crowd, so you'll immediately have increased immigration. (Or, you can attract businesses with low tax rates - even if this cancels out with high minimum wages.)

Also, you open the door to Communism. To ensure people are not claiming UBI in all 50 states of the Union, you'd have to means test it in the sense you'd need to know who had claimed. It would require a massive invasive bureaucracy to give away free cash - which is just a hop, skip and a slump from Communism.

First of all, I think that clinging to a thwarted 400 year old ideal is unproductive. Let it go. You won’t achieve peace by citing past injuries. Or perhaps it is that you’re not looking for peace, but for capitulation. Or will an official apology suffice? — Possibility

History is instructive. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed. I would say doomed to repeat it, but time is short. We are facing threats to our very existence; and in my view, that's a consequence of a mistake the Church made 400 years ago, that we have carried forth unconsciously - until "Trump digs coal." To expect an apology of the Church is about as realistic as expecting an apology from Trump. I don't imagine either of them care in the least what I say. But that doesn't mean I cannot learn from their errors.

I disagree that science continues to be ‘the injured party’(‘but they started it!’), and I also disagree that science has the answer — Possibility

Oh? So what? See how that works!

Science has claimed ‘limitless clean energy’ before and been wrong, and has claimed ‘the solution’ before and caused irreparable damage, so anything that sounds too good to be true and relies on claims of singularity or infinity needs to be recognised as an ideology: an affected (positive/negative) spin from a limited perspective on available data. — Possibility

I don't recall anyone claiming limitless clean energy before - except perhaps nuclear fusion, which has always been, and remains about 30 years away. Other than eating up funding for an idea that cannot possibly work in earth gravity - see the Pauli Exclusion Principle, I don't know what irreparable damage they have done. With regard to magma energy - 'limitless' is ever so slightly poetic. There is in fact a finite amount of energy in a big ball of molten rock - 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around. Does "effectively limitless" work better for you?

The ‘answer’ will not come until science takes moral responsibility for conclusions drawn from research data, and agrees to work with the ideologue through ethics, arts, humanities, metaphysics and communications - not pander to prevalent ideology, but help to critically examine and restructure our ideological motives so that we are more self-aware and sceptical consumers of information. — Possibility

My proposal is designed to solve the problem in the least disruptive way possible; and it's important to understand that this occurs at the most scientifically fundamental level; as the first step in a systematic approach to sustainability - because, if we are to secure a prosperous sustainable future, it needs to be objective with regard to all legitimate vested interests. Comprehension of science as an understanding of reality - (not just a tool, but a worldview) is integral to the political agreement necessary to develop and apply this technology. I do not expect people to abandon their ideological identities and purposes; indeed, these proposals are designed that they don't have to.

This is the problem with the left wing approach to sustainability. You require changes right across the board to achieve environmental benefits; at huge cost, for little gain. You require the consumer to know how everything they consume is produced. That cognitive burden is impossible to bear. I say attack the problem from the supply side - and starting with limitless.... effectively limitless clean energy, produce more and better. The man on the street need hardly notice.

When science claims to be ‘neutral’ information, then it’s indistinguishable from fake news, and all science can do is add to the noise. Instead, science is responsible for presenting ‘needed’ information - rendered as a system-wide distribution of attention and effort in relation to time. A way forward. Not the only way forward, nor the ‘best’ by any and all standards, let alone the objective truth. And the more narrowly defined its system, the more ignorant its claim. — Possibility

Science is fake news everybody. Oh no - that's terrible. Everything's gonna stop working!

... ... ... no, still working. You must be wrong! Phew!

I imagined planes dropping from the skies - because aerofoils stopped providing lift. But nope, still up there, so - the science of aerodynamics must be true, right? If that's true, then physics must be true - and the earth is still a big ball of molten rock.

This is a case in point. You’re talking about survival of humanity in our current state of energy consumption. It’s a tantalisingly simple solution for a very limited problem, but is it the right one? — Possibility

A left wing, pay more - have less, carbon tax this - stop that, green approach to sustainability implies dictatorial government imposing poverty. People won't vote for poverty. "It's the economy, stupid." So democracy will have to go, and capitalism. Totalitarian communist government will have to hold back the starving masses from resources forever after to eek out our existence. If that's what you prefer, over a prosperous sustainable future - powered by limit ...effectively limitless clean energy, then wind and solar are for you!

(I should probably mention that because wind and solar are intermittent, you'll need to maintain a full fossil fuel generating capacity alongside your windmills, that last 25 years tops, and then need replacing at a cost of £200 million each. The UK needs about 15,000 windmills to meet current energy demand, so as to reach net zero by 2050.)

But apparently the eventual ‘bite’ won’t be science’s fault - it will be humanity’s fault for choosing the easy fix without considering the broader implications that scientists currently dismiss as ‘not science’ because they can’t yet be empirically tested. And you’ll be long dead by then and won’t give a rat’s. — Possibility

I have absolutely no idea what this means. Science is wide open to relevant information. That's how it works. If someone developed a scientific theory based on partial information they'd be wasting their time. It would be killed at the peer review stage. I'm gonna go ahead and guess you're not particularly familiar with science.

In a dynamic system built on a limited relation to both energy and time (and it IS limited), simply unlocking additional sources only hastens self-destruction - but it just depends on how narrowly you choose to perceive the system. But what do I know? I’m not a scientist. — Possibility

No, this is incorrect. As a matter of physical fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. With effectively limitless clean energy we can extract carbon from the atmosphere, desalinate sea water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle all our waste - and so on, allowing for much greater prosperity while simultaneously protecting the climate, sensitive natural habitat and natural water sources. Given the energy we can make the deserts bloom and leave the forests alone. Drilling close to magma pockets in the earth's crust, can give us that energy in near limitless quantities.

...

The level of intellectual rigour in the last few pages is appalling, from all sides. — Banno

Didn't you ask for responses from people who disagree with the proposition that science is good? Did you expect them to be intellectually rigorous?

....

He's basically right. Descartes was a mathematician. The Church could dictate what math problems could be examined and which ones not. He was offering them a more enlightened view. — frank

More enlightened in what sense? More enlightened than what? Your opinion means nothing without supporting evidence. It's just assertion, based in 400 years of anti-science propaganda - extensive evidence for which I've provided above.

No argument needed. — Fooloso4

Typically subjectivist. Believe whatever you like. No evidence required.

From Meditation IV:

2. For, in the first place, I discover that it is impossible for him ever to deceive me, for in all fraud and deceit there is a certain imperfection: and although it may seem that the ability to deceive is a mark of subtlety or power, yet the will testifies without doubt of malice and weakness; and such, accordingly, cannot be found in God.

This is Descartes rescuing his "certain truth" that he exist, from the oblivion of solipsism with reference to God. This goes on and on, unceasingly, page after page, right through to the end of Meditations V:

16. And thus I very clearly see that the certitude and truth of all science depends on the knowledge alone of the true God...

Your assertion is quite simply false.

http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations/8.htm

You misunderstood my point. The Church was the final authority on all matters philosophical and scientific. To challenge this authority was to risk the fate of Galileo. Descartes begins by doubting everything, which means doubting the teachings of the Church. He replaces the authority of the Church with the authority of the thinking self and reason — Fooloso4

I misunderstood your point? I can live with that - because you're wrong, and offer no evidence, or even argument that you're right. You are simply making assertions I know to be false. Subjectivism and spirituality are synonyms; and Meditations blows white smoke up the Church's chimney!

Descartes' doubt gave him the cover to doubt the authority of the Church. — Fooloso4

Descartes method of doubt is skeptical doubt. It's not reasonable to dispense with the object world by imagining some demon is deceiving him. Taking into consideration also, that he withdrew a work on physics, entitled 'The World' from publication while Galileo was on trial, clearly Descartes wrote in fear of the Church - whom, were burning people alive for heresy through to 1792, 60 years into the industrial revolution. Darwin was attacked in 1859. Craig Venter was attacked for "playing God" in 2008, for creating artificial life.

If Descartes doubted the authority of the Church, he was very quiet about it, and no-one heard him.

How did you come upon these ideas? — Tom Storm

I studied sociology and politics at university, and got into philosophy via political theory. I read Rousseau's "Inquiry into the Causes and Nature of Inequality between Men" - which starts with a crawling apologetic to the Church for even daring to think in rational terms. It's a brilliant piece of writing - that foreshadows evolution, and explains the origin of money and much else besides.

I was already concerned with climate change, and then read "Energy for Survival - the alternative to extinction" by Wilson Clark. It's an encyclopaedic survey of energy technologies published in the 1970's.

If I were to cite another influential book, I'd have to go with Daniel Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' - and I've often quoted this passage:

“The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might–hope against hope–have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge. New discoveries may conceivably lead to dramatic, even 'revolutionary' shifts in the Darwinian theory, but the hope that it will be 'refuted' by some shattering breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to a geocentric vision and discard Copernicus.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

I'm not sure I understand properly the nature of the split between scientific technology and religion. Are you arguing that science is driven by crass material gain and disrespect for nature and this would not have happened if religion had not opposed it? — Tom Storm

Not exactly, because Galileo was right. It moves! Descartes however, wet his pants - and concocted a skeptical argument for subjectivism to flatter the Church's emphasis of the spiritual over the mundane, and got a nice little title bump with an appointment to the Royal Court of Queen Christina of Sweden. Galileo meanwhile, was threatened with torture, excommunication, execution - and only by the skin of his teeth got away with house arrest for the rest of his life.

Effectively, science as an understanding of reality, was divorced from science as a tool - and we used the tools without regard to science as an understanding of reality. The religious, political and economic ideological architecture of society; wherein political authority was justified with reference to the Divine Right of Kings - a religious law dating back to the year 700 AD, remained - unreformed in relation to a emerging scientific understanding of reality. Consequently, we remained ideologically primitive - and so applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons. Like monkeys with machine guns; that can't end well!

You're passionate about this, but I don't think I properly understand your point. I'm not trying to be a dick, and I am interested in these kinds of arguments, but do you think you could summarise your main argument in some dot points? Forgive me if this is wrong. You seem to be saying that science has been strategically deprived of spirituality (you use the word religion). As a consequence of this, science is robbed of its capacity to integrate our understanding of facts and our understanding of... god? How would science work better in your view? — Tom Storm

It is wrong, and I forgive you easily. It's a complex argument with many moving pieces. I can quite understand how would not pick it up right away. Thanks for trying.

*Human beings evolve as hunter gatherers.
*Hunter gatherer tribes join together by worshipping the same God.
*Religion requires faith to uphold moral laws attributed to God.

*Galileo shows religion to be incorrect, using scientific method.
*Church puts Galileo on trial for heresy.
*Descartes wets his subjective pants!
*Philosophy wears Descartes subjectively wet pants for 400 years.

During which time:

*Science used to drive industrial revolution.
*Science used to drive military/economic expansion.
*Religious and subjectivist philosophy continues to attack science.
*Mary Shelley writes Frankenstein.
*Mad scientists defeated by flag waving God loving hero on page, stage and silver screen.

*Nuclear weapons.
*Fossil fuels.
*Oceans full of plastic.
*Climate change ignored for 70 years.

This discussion has been declared off topic by the owner of the thread. I'm already on thin ice with Baden for my wanderlust, so I'll say no more on it.

Well, then, if you're such a proponent of the just world hypothesis, — baker

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying something like: If a police officer is going to arrest you - that's not your time to protest. Your time to protest will come later. The arrest is going to happen, and you can make it easy, or you can make it hard, but it's still going to happen. She made it hard, she refused to wear a mask, she resisted arrest - and she got tased. You said, she got tased for not wearing a mask. That's not true, is it? She got tased for resisting arrest.

↪counterpunch
I think we're done, Counterpunch - we're plainly just talking past one another.
— Wayfarer — Banno

See what you've gone and done!

It was a response to your mentioning of the fact that Lemaitre published his thesis in 1927. What was the point you were making with that reference? That it took until 2014 for the Catholic Church to recognise his theory? — Wayfarer

I was responding to banno - who dismissed the idea that the Church has a problem with science; and I'm showing that this has been a problem for 400 years.

In that context, I don't think it matters a jot what religion Lemaitre was, or what the Pope may or may not have thought in 1950 - if in 2014, nearly a century after Lemaitre, 160 years after Darwin, the Pope had to declare evolution and big bang are real.

Those details are irrelevant to the point that there's an anti-science tendency, going right back to Galileo - in 1616, who "practically invented the experimental method" and that's still playing out in 2014. This then supports my comment that 'scientism is an attempt to put science back in a box in which it doesn't belong in the first place.'

I'm not making hard and fast distinctions of any kind. I think it's crazy that religion and science should be in conflict, and believe this conflict has brought us to the brink of extinction because it deprived science of any moral implication as valid knowledge of Creation; and allowed government and industry to use science as a tool - without acknowledging the meaningful implications of science as an understanding of reality. I'm saying we are headed for extinction because we used scientific tools in service to religious, political and economic ideological ends - unreformed, in relation to a scientific understanding of reality.

I stand accused of scientism, via Susan Haack's essay, that you argued: "says all that needs to be said." I disagree - with her and with you. For me, the idea of scientism implies that our relationship to science is fine, that there's no problem, and if you think there is a problem - then that's scientism.

Well, no - it's a perfectly appropriate regard for the means to establish valid knowledge of reality - and the body of knowledge thus established, particularly when - in face of the existential threat of climate change, we have politicians able to say things like: "Trump digs coal" - and not be recognised immediately, and dismissed as a raving lunatic.

The fact that you take it to mean that, only confirms what I said previously - that proponents of scientism will generally fail to recognise what it means. Daniel Dennett says the same: 'Scientism: I don't know anybody who is guilty of it. Scientism is a strawman used by people who object to science 'poking its nose into places it shouldn't be.'

I think we're done, Counterpunch - we're plainly just talking past one another. — Wayfarer

I've addressed your remarks directly. I've addressed the article directly. I've addressed the concept of scientism directly. If I'm talking past you it's because you're ducking out of the way.

If there was a reason for posting that wikipedia entry on Lemaître, I'm missing it. Perhaps you could explain - maybe when you respond to the post I wrote to you, above?

counterpunch buys into the pop story of Catholic anti-scientific practice. — Banno

"The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang."
By Colin Schultz
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
OCTOBER 28, 2014

Yesterday, Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, said that Darwinian evolution is real, and so is the Big Bang..."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/

******

Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, which he called the "primeval atom".

******

Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859.

*****

On February 24 1616 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.

******

"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...."

— Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) – November 4, 1992

*****

It's partly right, of course, but the story is much more complicated. — Banno

Which part?

He rejects the Haack article without providing any critique. Counterpunch advocates scientism. — Banno

No, I don't reject the article. It adequately expresses a view, but it's a view I disagree with - because I reject the concept of scientism as an attempt to put science back in a box in which it doesn't belong in the first place - a box formed (in large part) by 400 years of religious anti-science propaganda.

The only alternatives to science are — Wayfarer

tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination
— counterpunch

So - you're either pro-science, or you're relegated to pagan superstition. They're your choices. — Wayfarer

If you say so. Personally, I was responding to the argument made in the article on signs of scientism, which reads:

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry
besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as
poetry or art.

So then, other kinds of inquiry such as tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination? Are you denying the legitimacy of these forms of inquiry?

I think you know what I meant. The "good Germans" we heard so much about, as in "Where were the good Germans?" Now that I've seen the past few years in the US, I understand better where they were. — fishfry

It was terrible for the Germans after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles demanded huge reparations, while at the same time annexed the Saaland, which was Germany's main access to coal for industrial and domestic fuel. At the same time Germans had democracy forced on them - and it was proportional representation, which led to a proliferation of political parties, and weak, indecisive government. It's easy to see how Germany fell prey to the Nazi regime.

Well then we're all in agreement. Personally I don't resist cops, I comply and act polite. That's because when I was young and foolish, I sassed off to a cop and got a night in the Oakland, CA city jail for my troubles. Got my Ph.D. in the criminal justice system that night. Now that I'm old and foolish, I'm polite to cops. — fishfry

When all this kicked off, I looked up the statistics on Arrest Related Deaths - and apparently, there are around 10 million arrests per year, and around 1000 end in the death of the suspect. That's 0.01%. Of those, 32% are black - which may immediately seem disproportionate, given that black people are only 13% of the US population. However, when you look more closely, it turns out that black people commit a lot more crime - and so make up a larger proportion of arrests than their numbers in the population would suggest. I was on twitter at the time - and shared these statistics, and was banned from twitter for doing so.

But wait, because the plot thickens. Data on arrest related deaths was collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2003-2012, whereupon the Obama administration shut it down, the year before BLM was formed in 2013. So, this kicking off in the weeks leading up to the Presidential election looks mighty suspicious. One has to ask why Obama would shut down data collection on the race of arrest related deaths if it was such a huge issue that forming BLM was necessary. About 300 black people die every year - which is plenty of fuel for a social media narrative, while statistically, there's no evidence of racism on the part of police, and every indication of extraordinary professionalism.