To suggest that science can only be valid knowledge if it is a complete description of reality is incorrect. — counterpunch

Of course scientific knowledge is incomplete, that is a given and wasn't the point I was making at all. Science is an incomplete understanding of certain aspects of reality. Within its ambit it has no serious competitors. I wasn't suggesting that science doesn't know anything.

I am not supporting any ideological worldviews; quite the contrary, as you should know if you read my posts. The claim that science can (potentially) explain everything is an ideological worldview; realistically science can explain what it can explain and cannot explain what it cannot explain.

With all due respect, you have not grasped my meaning - and the points you make are irrelevant and increasingly confused. If you are unable to grasp the idea of a scientific understanding of reality, to compare to the world as described by religious, political and economic ideologies, then there's little point continuing while talking at crossed purposes. Thanks for your interest.

The world described by science is a single planetary environment; occupied by human beings, who are all members of the same species, and presumably, have a common interest in sustainability! The earth is a big ball of molten rock that we could tap into, to meet all our energy needs, and more! — counterpunch

Is this the life that science promised us when we were lead out of the dark ages into the light of technology? that we would, in the twenty-first century, have to worry about how to provide energy for their bodily existences to the masses? Sustainability!...one wonders if what we have is worth sustaining.

Isn’t human life supposed to be something elevated, something ethereal, something more than mere existence? “we are all members of the same species”, you say, and indeed that is true, but isn’t it also true that we all derive from different cultures? I suppose you would pejoratively describe these different cultures as “ideologies”...at least insofar as they interfere with the goal of modern science to provide all human beings around the globe with the things necessary for their material comfort. The problem is that the higher ideals of a particular culture often contradict the lower goals of that science.

The problem with science—after it became a political party as opposed to a private enterprise—is that it lost its interest in the higher things of the soul. Music, poetry, philosophy herself, became relegated to the dustbin of history, because they just didn’t matter anymore: all that mattered was that the material wealth and comfort of all everywhere be secured.

The problem with this is that human life is more than just its own sustenance. Yes indeed, our lives must be sustained—but only if there is something they are worth being sustained for. There is something more than just the material prosperity of man, and it is precisely this that modern science has nothing about which to say.

My question is, what can we tap into to meet all the energy needs of our souls? For it is these that are flagging while we worry about the sustainability of the resources that provide energy to our bodies. But I forget: the distinction b/w body and soul has long been discredited and forgotten. The latter, under Rousseau’s influence, became the self in modern psychology, an indeterminate and ineffable thing; or was subsumed under the heading of the former as the brain: a mere organ of the body which, however, can be manipulated through drugs and shocks to behave properly.

The point is that there's a difference between an ideological understanding of reality, and a scientific understanding of reality.

Do you understand that? — counterpunch

Yes, I understand that too, and I addressed it.

Further down you say

To suggest that science can only be valid knowledge if it is a complete description of reality is incorrect. — counterpunch

So, what does ‘a scientific understanding of reality’ mean, given that it must of necessity be ‘incomplete’? It means that it’s not ‘an understanding of reality’ as such. It is, as you also say, a method for testing hypotheses and conjectures. It’s an attitude, a way of finding out. I think as soon as it claims to be an understanding of reality, then it is speculative philosophy. Do you see how you're shifting back and forth here? In one place, science is 'the correct understanding of reality' - and that itself is an ideological statement. Then you say 'well, it's a way of testing hypotheses' - which is true. But it's not 'a scientific understanding of reality' - it's an attitude, and a method. You're subtly conflating the two all the time in your posts.

you reduce science to a loose collection of tools — counterpunch

It's not a loose collection of tools, but a method - scientific method.

I agree that geothermal energy is likely important, but this thread is not about that issue.

Nice.

Susan Haack (interview) on science:

There is no “Scientific Method,” I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only:

The inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists.

The special tools and techniques gradually developed by scientists over the centuries (instruments of observation, the calculus, statistical techniques, models and metaphors, computers and computer programs, social helps such as peer-review, etc., etc.); which, being often local, and always evolving, are not used by all AND:

The involvement in scientific work of many people, who may be thousands of miles, or centuries, apart.
Together, this is what explains how the sciences have managed to get more evidence, appraise its worth better, keep people honest, encourage creativity, and so on; and hence, their successes.

:up:

Imagine that you teach a six year old child how to ride a bike. Sure, they may fall and scrape their knee, but they get back on the bike, master riding it, and their life is enhanced. A happy story.

Imagine now that you conclude from this success that you should next teach the child how to fly an airplane. Rational?

This is where we are with science today. We've had great success in recent centuries, and have concluded from that that we therefore can manage any amount of knowledge and power delivered at any rate.

Jennifer Doudna won the Nobel Prize for making gene editing easier. She wants to "democratize" gene editing by making it available to all. She's being celebrated as a hero. So we can now look forward to a coming world where millions of folks will be cooking up new life forms in their garage workshops, and releasing their creations in to the environment to see what happens.

But Doudna is not the villain here. She's just sincerely serving the widely agreed upon science worshiping cultural consensus within which she resides.

So we can now look forward to a coming world where millions of folks will be cooking up new life forms in their garage workshops, and releasing their creations in to the environment to see what happens. — Foghorn

I really don't think that's true. Can you cite anything in support?

Yes, I understand that too, and I addressed it. — Wayfarer

The point you addressed, and I quote, that "science is important to every facet of modern life" - is not my point at all. You mis-characterise my argument to make things easier for yourself, responding to your own straw man ideas of my argument, rather than what I am saying.

So, what does ‘a scientific understanding of reality’ mean, given that it must of necessity be ‘incomplete’? — Wayfarer

The world understood via the lens of physics, chemistry and biology, as opposed to the world understood via the lens of God, flags and money.

It means that it’s not ‘an understanding of reality’ as such. — Wayfarer

I do not accept that. Science has a very good understanding of the world we inhabit - and remaining questions about the big bang, and/or quantum mechanics, do not imply that what science knows is false.

The ‘scientific worldview’ now is vastly different to the ‘scientific worldview’ of 1920 and it will probably be vastly different again in 2120. — Wayfarer

You cannot use the fact that scientific knowledge improves over time to argue that it must always be false. Consider the sequence the Bible, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein. Even the Bible acknowledges that there are heavenly bodies in motion. It doesn't know which are moving, but nonetheless, says something true about reality. Copernicus ideas are more valid, and Galileo again improves upon Copernicus, etc. Consequently, the scientific worldview of today is not vastly different to that of the 1920's, because they describe the same thing. And that's why Khun's incommensurability theory is wrong. The object is commensurable.

You're subtly conflating the two all the time in your posts. — Wayfarer

No, I'm not. When I say 'a scientific understanding of reality' it is to point to the natural world, objectively apprehended; to compare to an ideological understanding of reality: i.e. God, flags and money. It's not to suggest that science can locate every particle in the universe, and tell us how fast its moving, in what direction.

I agree that geothermal energy is likely important, but this thread is not about that issue. — Wayfarer

This thread is about people who disagree with the contention: science is good. You are one of those people. I am not one of those people.

I am explaining why you're wrong; and why a scientific worldview is the best guide to the application of technology - (as opposed to God flags and money) in relation to assertions that science is responsible for climate change, nuclear weapons, and so forth.

It's people like you, who have religious convictions they cannot challenge, by thinking of what a scientific understanding of reality implies - who are responsible for the misapplication of technology threatening human existence. You needn't worry. Even if face of evolution, religion actually fares quite well - not because it's true so much as that it has served an important purpose for a long time!

I really don't think that's true. Can you cite anything in support? — Wayfarer

Are you familiar with CRISPR? You seem very educated, so I thought you might be.

Quick summary for those who need it, CRISPR is new Nobel Prize winning technology whose primary contribution is to make gene editing substantially easier. Jennifer Doudna and her team at IGI...

https://innovativegenomics.org/
https://www.facebook.com/igisci/

...have consistently stated that one of their goals is to "democratize" this technology, that is, make it widely available to all. As example, basic CRISPR kits are already being sold on Amazon.

Her thinking seems to be that:

1) The more people using this technology the more benefits we'll see.

2) Engaging the public in doing science themselves is the best way to educate people out of resistance to science.

To my best understanding, CRISPR is still complicated enough that it's not yet a tool appropriate for the average citizen. However, there are already gene hacking hobbyists showing up on Reddit and other such places.

What I'm pointing to here is the direction gene editing technology is heading. As example, when I was a kid only the largest organizations had computers, which were primitive by today's standards. Fast forward to the current moment, and pretty close to everyone has a powerful computer in their pocket which they use routinely for just about everything.

I'm just reporting it is the specific goal of leading scientists in the field to make gene editing ever easier, and to share this technology with anyone who wants it. And although there is some questioning and concern, generally speaking these experts are being applauded by the wider culture beyond the scientific community.

Doudna recently received the Nobel Prize for her work on CRISPR, so there is extensive media coverage of her work available online, which is why I know about it.

To me, the underlying bigger picture question is....

Can human beings successfully manage ANY amount of power delivered at ANY rate?

SIDEBAR: I recently spent about a month politely presenting a reasoned challenge to where this technology is headed in a series of daily posts on the IGI (Doudna's team) Facebook page. I politely asked the IGI team to engage, and use my posts as an exercise in sharpening their own arguments. They politely declined. A week or so later all of my posts vanished from their Facebook page without warning or explanation.

To put this in context, Doudna claims engagement with the public is very important in almost all her interviews, but her team does not wish to use their social media accounts to socially engage the public.

I have no personal beef with Doudna, as I see her as a person of good intentions. But it's experiences like this that have caused me to coin the term "science clergy".

The world understood via the lens of physics, chemistry and biology, as opposed to the world understood via the lens of God, flags and money. — counterpunch

No kidding. I have not said anything about religious conviction, you resort to that because your own dogmas are being challenged.

Are you familiar with CRISPR? You seem very educated, so I thought you might be. — Foghorn

Yes, I know what CRISPR is, and who Jennifter Doudna is, as she won the Nobel last year. I agree that such technologies are fraught with perils but it's an exagerration to say that it allows people to 'cook up new life forms'. I daresay the social media accounts of scientific celebrities attract a lot of attention, and that their public engagement is in practice pretty limited.

have consistently stated that one of their goals is to "democratize" this technology, that is, make it widely available to all. As example, basic CRISPR kits are already being sold on Amazon. — Foghorn

I also agree this actually might be something pretty invidious. You're right in saying it should be more discussed. I would have thought such technology ought to require some kind of licensing.

but it's an exagerration to say that it allows people to 'cook up new life forms'. — Wayfarer

It's an exaggeration NOW, as I disclaimed above. Please note that my comments address the direction in which this technology is headed.

And, CRISPR is just a currently discussed example of the overall trend being driven by science. The knowledge explosion is accelerating. What that means is that ever more, ever greater powers will become available to ever more people at an ever faster pace.

Again, the bottom line big picture question we face is....

Can human beings successfully manage ANY amount of power delivered at ANY rate?

If we conclude no, and then observe a near unanimous agreement among experts that science should proceed forward at the fastest rate we can afford....

We arrive at a very different relationship with authority.

Which seems an interesting investigation for philosophers to engage.

No kidding. I have not said anything about religious conviction, you resort to that because your own dogmas are being challenged. — Wayfarer

Your determined incomprehension is not a challenge to my ideas. It's merely annoying. Sustainability is my only dogma. I believe humankind should survive. Applying technology in relation to a scientific understanding of reality, rather than for the sake of God, flags and money, is how sustainability is achieved. I know you are an anti-science God botherer from previous discussions. You'd be one of those people attacking Craig Venter in 2008, as 'playing God' for creating artificial life in the lab.

I know you are an anti-science God botherer from previous discussions. — counterpunch

This seems a wildly inaccurate characterization of Wayfayer's writing. You're just sinking your own ship with this kind of talk.

Can human beings successfully manage ANY amount of power delivered at ANY rate? — Foghorn

To which the obvious answer is ‘yes’. I get that you’re making a polemical point, but, for example, you’re utilising the power of your computer and the Internet to make your point.

This seems a wildly inaccurate characterization of Wayfayer's writing. You're just sinking your own ship with this kind of talk. — Foghorn

Go make me a tiny wookie!

Which seems an interesting investigation for philosophers to engage. — Foghorn

I think the idea behind the widespread distribution of CRISPR is the democratic distribution of the technology. I presume that this is the reasoning behind it. I also had a brief look around for info on that, and learned that Jennifer Doudna is widely engaged in discussions of the ethics of the technology. I also am aware that Walter Isaacson’s last book was about her, which I might well buy - I’ve read his previous three books (on Einstein, Steve Jobs, and The Innovators). He’s one of my favourite non-fiction authors.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Code-Breaker-Jennifer-Doudna-Editing/dp/1760859893/

I think the idea behind the widespread distribution of CRISPR is the democratic distribution of the technology. I presume that this is the reasoning behind it. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's it. Well intentioned madness.

I also had a brief look around for info on that, and learned that Jennifer Doudna is widely engaged in discussions of the ethics of the technology. — Wayfarer

Yes, but imho, her thinking is muddled. She continually talks about "effective governance" while at the same time talking about "democratizing CRISPR". These two goals are in direct conflict with each other. The more people who have such tools, the harder such tools will be to govern.

I also am aware that Walter Isaacson’s last book was about her, which I might well buy — Wayfarer

I haven't read the book, so you may be able to further inform us on that. What I could tell from interviews, reviews, videos etc, Isaacson is basically a Doudna cheerleader. At least in all the interviews I watched I never saw him ask an inconvenient question. His job is to sell books. And you can't do that if you can't access the subjects. And you can't access the subjects if you ask too many inconvenient questions.

I asked some inconvenient questions in an appropriate manner in the appropriate place. I was erased.

The basic equation I see is:

1) All these people have good intentions.

2) Many impressive benefits will flow from gene editing technology.

3) None of that is going to matter if we crash the food chain, or otherwise commit fundamental FUBAR with this technology.

It's the scale of such technologies that we should focus on. As the scale of power grows, the room for error shrinks. If we plot that line forward in time, sooner or later we run in to big trouble.

To which the obvious answer is ‘yes’. I get that you’re making a polemical point, — Wayfarer

No, apologies, but I'm making a literal point. The obvious answer is no. Human beings can not successfully manage ANY amount of power delivered at ANY rate. Unless you are asserting that human beings are gods, which I know you aren't saying.

This is the simplest thing really.

1) Everyone takes it to be an obvious given that the powers made available to children should be restricted due to their limited maturity, experience and judgement etc.

2) On the day the children turn 18 we then assume that they can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate, and thus embrace the ever accelerating knowledge explosion.

Here's the logic failure. We assume, typically without any questioning, that because adults can handle more than children, therefore they can handle anything.

And what's fascinating is, the best educated, most intelligent and accomplished high ranking leaders of our culture are happy to make this logic error, because they don't recognize it as a logic error.

We pride ourselves on having dethroned the religious clergy. It's time to perform the same operation on the science clergy.

I asked some inconvenient questions in an appropriate manner in the appropriate place. I was erased. — Foghorn

I really wouldn’t waste too much time stewing over that. I suspect that their Facebook site gets an awful lot of commentary, the subject is a controversy magnet. I have an interest in philosophy of physics, but nothing I could post on their sites would probably ever see the light of day. It might seem undemocratic but it’s more likely ‘the economy of eyeballs’.

Here's the logic failure. We assume, typically without any questioning, that because adults can handle more than children, therefore they can handle anything. — Foghorn

Again - not so. I am not licensed to, say, export plutonium, or access the central banking system's computer. There are thousands of things I'm not permitted to do. You're falling into flights of rhetorical fancy.

@Foghorn I do like this concept of dethroning the scientific clergy! Science is used by politicians through the media as a dogma and solution for every "problem" now.
Witness the current "corona fiasco" and science used to justify political interference in all aspects of human life.
When a clergy interferes with human freedom it has to be Ignored!

I really wouldn’t waste too much time stewing over that. — Wayfarer

Not stewing, reporting. It's relevant to the issue of our relationship with science, and scientist's relationship with reason.

I suspect that their Facebook site gets an awful lot of commentary — Wayfarer

It doesn't actually, which I found surprising too. I had the community section of their Facebook page largely to myself for about a month. I spent the whole time talking to myself, there was no engagement from anybody. I did see however that my posts were being moderated, as I suspect all posts were. They approved all my posts, until the day they erased them all.

Again - not so. I am not licensed to, say, export plutonium, or access the central banking system's computer. There are thousands of things I'm not permitted to do. You're falling into flights of rhetorical fancy. — Wayfarer

Yes, you are not allowed to handle plutonium. Nor am I. But the North Korean psychopaths are. Any power given to the good guys is also given to the bad guys, and probably a bunch of stupid guys too.

Respectfully, you're missing the point, perhaps because I'm making it poorly.

An accelerating knowledge explosion leads to 1) ever more 2) ever larger powers being made available to 3) ever more people at an 4) ever faster pace. That is the nature of acceleration, more and more, faster and faster.

As example, consider the history of computing. A power once available only to experts, now available to pretty much everyone.

What I'm asking you to do is plot the exponential nature of knowledge development against the incremental (at best) nature of human maturity development. Should you graph that relationship
in your intelligent well educated mind, you will see the lines diverge from one another at an ever quickening pace.

That divergence is unsustainable. No one can predict how that will end, only that it sooner or later will.

This is the simplest thing really.

1) Everyone takes it to be an obvious given that the powers made available to children should be restricted due to their limited maturity, experience and judgement etc. — Foghorn

Only it's not simple, because your conclusion is a need to "dethrone the science clergy" whatever that means. Whereas, to my mind, your Pandora's Box argument, speaks eloquently for the science based regulation of technology. i.e. making decisions about which technologies to apply on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality - rather than, religious political and economic ideology.

Whereas, to my mind, your Pandora's Box argument, speaks eloquently for the science based regulation of technology. i.e. making decisions about which technologies to apply on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality - rather than, religious political and economic ideology. — counterpunch

Ok, but science is not a machine. It's run by human beings. And so declaring management "science based" does not automatically remove that management from the kinds of emotional agendas which rightly concern you.

As example, quite a few scientists willingly volunteered to develop the atomic bomb, even though at least some of them were clear minded enough to understand that doing so would present an existential threat to civilization. They weren't evil, they were just human. They were born to do science, they had a natural talent for science, they wished to use their talents just as anyone would, and so they placed
their personal self interest above the interest of civilization, while rationalizing this choice by various methods. That is, they acted like human beings.

Slapping "science based" on the regulation process doesn't remove the human element, because scientists too have religious, political and economic agendas which they pursue, just like everybody else.

Only it's not simple, because your conclusion is a need to "dethrone the science clergy" whatever that means. — counterpunch

The term "science clergy" is admittedly vague. It's really more of a trolling word designed to stimulate conversation. The fact that I have to explain what the phrase means reveals it's limitations.

I don't mean science is a religion. I mean we have a tendency to relate to science much as we used to relate to religion. You know, science as a "one true way" and so on.

Ok, but science is not a machine. It's run by human beings. And so declaring management "science based" does not automatically remove that management from the kinds of emotional agendas which rightly concern you. — Foghorn

Science is not many things! It is however, an increasingly coherent and valid understanding of reality, to compare to religious, political and economic ideological descriptions of reality.

As example, quite a few scientists willingly volunteered to develop the atomic bomb, even though at least some of them were clear minded enough to understand that doing so would present an existential threat to civilization. They weren't evil, they were just human. — Foghorn

The nuclear bomb was developed because the US feared Germany would develop it first. Not because scientists thought it would be a spiffing idea. But because nations in ideological competition use science for ideological ends, with no regard to a scientific understanding of reality. Again, your example shows a need to accept a scientific understanding of reality, and apply technology accordingly.

Slapping "science based" on the regulation process doesn't remove the human element, because scientists too have religious, political and economic agendas which they pursue, just like everybody else. — Foghorn

That's not correct. One doctor can tell if another doctor has treated a patient with regard to the best scientific/medical knowledge. A Morbidity and Mortality Conference - is a venue in which doctors gather to assess the treatment of a deceased patient, and they determine whether anything done was wrong in relation to the medical science. It does not preclude some 'all too human' Harold Shipman type - using medical knowledge to murder people, but saying it's not possible to regulate technology with regard to a scientific understanding of reality, is false.

Science is not many things! It is however, an increasingly coherent and valid understanding of reality, — counterpunch

That is the problem which I am attempting to describe. :-) Seriously, the fact that science works so well is what presents the existential threat.

The nuclear bomb was developed because the US feared Germany would develop it first. Not because scientists thought it would be a spiffing idea. — counterpunch

This is a common, and flawed, defense. The nuclear bomb was developed because a group of scientists, the only people capable of creating the bomb, willingly decided to build a bomb. I'm not trying to demonize these people. I'm just pointing out that scientists are human, and capable of questionable decisions, just like the rest of us.

but saying it's not possible to regulate technology with regard to a scientific understanding of reality, is false. — counterpunch

So you don't accept that scientists are human beings? :-) Are they incapable of error in your opinion?

Please recall. A scientific understanding of reality is led by scientists. And scientists are human beings. And human beings are significantly FUBAR.