Violence can defeat quite much everything.That violence can defeat science. There is a tipping point after which, it's just all decay. — Caldwell
:chin:... the decay of science. — Caldwell
:100:Another thing is that the scientific enterprise does not exist independently of "other phenomen[a] in the history of histories of human civilizations". Obviously, if the human civilization enters a decline (as a result of a global catastrophe, for example), its scientific pursuits will decline as well. Conversely, it is hard to conceive of science undergoing a decline in the midst of a burgeoning civilization. — SophistiCat
:up:Science earns its keep by providing the technological means to strip-mine nature. — apokrisis
Reinvent. Saying this is on par with saying it's cyclical. Because the nature of narrative is the same. Does science really reinvent itself?I don't see this at all. Imo science has been on the rise for 8000 years now. It has to repeatedly reinvent itself. At times it may have become stagnant, sometimes there were rapid breakthroughs - but that's just in the nature of science. — Hermeticus
Again, saying science is a concept is similar to saying it is organic. The narrative -- pay attention to the narrative. Since you cannot go to a lab and actually experiment on "concept", just like Spengler cannot experiment on organic cycles of activity, your narrative is just as good as Spenglers.What do you mean by that? Science is a concept. A framework for building knowledge. You can "defeat" scientists, people who advocate science - but the concept itself is untouchable. — Hermeticus
Oh I have a better understanding of decay -- but that's how cyclical thought thinks of what happens when science decayed -- what replaces it? You don't think other beliefs can become dominant? Look, think again. Just because we have computers and wireless technology it doesn't mean we've solved that issue. Funny thing is, we as believers of science don't have to worry about outside forces. The argument goes that the power and authority of scientific knowledge will eventually cause its own demise. Science cannot be attacked from the outside. It can only be ruined from within.Is that what you understand as decay then? Again, I don't see that at all. Worship, belief without justification and blind indoctrination existed before science and have been declining as the scientific method evolved. — Hermeticus
The anti-science stuff is used as a weapon since anybody can say that a study is biased or ideological or whatever. And it's not difficult to find a graph that shows whatever correlation you like. — Manuel
And of course, the academic world can easily be made extremely bureaucratic and not have the least interest to do actual science, but replace it with pseudoscience. — ssu
Be quiet, Proof!
:chin: — 180 Proof
This is a concern that is true, yet at least not anti-science.National boundaries are suffocating science. — Shawn
Yup. I think he truly thinks it is organically growing.Spengler seems to draw an analogy between biological organisms and civilizations (cultures), treating the latter as a superorganism and, he reasons, just like biological organisms e.g. a human goes through multiple stages of development ultimately terminating in death, cultures/civilizations too undergo a similar multi-stage evolution. — TheMadFool
Yup. I think he truly thinks it is organically growing. — Caldwell
Here we have the old notion of all cultural phenomena being "cyclical", as if they were resurgent beings. My opinion is that this represents a fallacy of misperception, albeit one fairly common within society...what one might call a "social legend", an example of "pop philosophy" tinged with superstition. One might say that the perception of "cycles of cultural phenomena" is no more than phenomenological!...just like any other phenomenon in the history of histories of human civilizations -- science is cyclical. — Caldwell
Quite true. Violence backed by sufficient force can "defeat" or demolish any human undertaking. Even so, there appears to be little danger on the horizon to scientific inquiry from human violence, at least as far as I can see....violence can defeat science — Caldwell
This, based upon the notion of "cyclicality", appears a fallacious expectation. I would think that the future limitations upon scientific discovery will be the cause of technological limitation, rather than cyclical "decay". Scientific inquiry rests upon the foundation of technology; scientists can only inveestigate what advances in technology will allow. As technological advancement speeds or slows, so scientific inquiry.There is a tipping point after which, it's just all decay. — Caldwell
Perhaps to theistically religious fundamentalism of various types. With theism on a slow retreat in the "western world", though, I think this poses little danger. Here in the States, I would worry more about the future of Christianity than about the future of scientific inquiry. Biblical creationism, despite it's cultural embeddedness in some parts of the U.S., has become no more than a sideshow...a curiosity, and Christianity no more than a cultural tradition largely devoid of belief. Nor would I worry much about science in the Muslim world; quite a number of scientists continue to emanate from South Asia and, to a lesser degree, the middle East. There will always be your Afghanistans, but that situation is more of a failure of culture, of the failure of a culture to adapt to a changing world (or alternatively viewed, the failure of the world to accept the permanence of a particular culture), much as in Somalia, than it is the result of religion. I see no reason to bemoan the future of science in the Muslim world in general....science is anathema to other, equally powerful, schools of thoughts. — Caldwell
So, what do we commonly hear? -- anti-vaxers, superstition, creationism, etc. While you are welcome to touch on these subjects, let's think of what we can ignore regarding the decay of science, as prep work. Then, we can move on to the real 'reality' of scientific survival: — Caldwell
Well if science got us into it, it's only science than can get us out of it. Plus a major change in attitude. — Wayfarer
To go to the devil to ask for help against the devil. — Reverend Samuel Parris (Salem Witch Trials)
I hope to see a debate or discussion regarding the anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science. So, I'll suggest some ideas that could help stir the subject into the darker reality than what we're used to. This is written in a rush, and there is certainly much room for improvement. — Caldwell
If you are arguing that we're returning to religious based reasoning, your concern would be of a re-enchantment, where we are devolving back into a theocratically and mythologically based epistemology for understanding basic facts of day to day existence. I really don't see mass scale movement in that regard. — Hanover
The cyclicists actually have a refined notion of cycles. And it has nothing to do with resurgent. A phenomenon of cycle has a beginning not yet mature as to have claws -- but rather, an awesome growth that's full of goodness. Like science. But shall we admit we prefer the linear framework of activities, humanity, or civilization? I am actually undecided.Here we have the old notion of all cultural phenomena being "cyclical", as if they were resurgent beings. My opinion is that this represents a fallacy of misperception, albeit one fairly common within society...what one might call a "social legend", an example of "pop philosophy" tinged with superstition. One might say that the perception of "cycles of cultural phenomena" is no more than phenomenological! — Michael Zwingli
I'm beginning to feel like an apologist for the cycle theorists. But here goes. They actually predict the opposite of what you're saying. They don't foresee a limitation. And that's where the danger lies they say.This, based upon the notion of "cyclicality", appears a fallacious expectation. I would think that the future limitations upon scientific discovery will be the cause of technological limitation, rather than cyclical "decay". Scientific inquiry rests upon the foundation of technology; scientists can only inveestigate what advances in technology will allow. As technological advancement speeds or slows, so scientific inquiry. — Michael Zwingli
Maybe "worry" is unfit here. I will backtrack a bit. Let's go ahead and say, no one is worried. Spengler is not worried, for sure. I think your statement above misses the point. The decline theory of science acknowledges all that! Unlimited technological advancement and financial gain. There's nothing that you can think of in a maximizing fashion that they haven't already articulated.The bottom line: there's way too much money to be made as a result of scientific inquiry for us to be worrying about it's future, at least here in the west. When all is said and done, "the bottom line" is, indeed, "the bottom line". To tell the truth, society may eventually (soon?) have to "push back" against science in the area of technological innovation, particularly in order to protect our individual privacy in an age characterized by the monetization of information. — Michael Zwingli
If you are arguing that we're returning to religious based reasoning, your concern would be of a re-enchantment, where we are devolving back into a theocratically and mythologically based epistemology for understanding basic facts of day to day existence. I really don't see mass scale movement in that regard. — Hanover
Yes! We want to smell the earth not hide behind the theory of numbers and symbols.Because people started to long again for the unshakable truths of the Aristotelian order. — Tobias
Yes! We want to smell the earth not hide behind the theory of numbers and symbols. — Caldwell
Perhaps we should consider a return to paganism; or worship of the sun? — Banno
Edward Gibbon, in his classic work on the fall of the Roman Empire, describes the Roman era's declension as a place where "bizarreness masqueraded as creativity.” — Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
I hope to see a debate or discussion regarding the anti-scientific sentiments or
movement towards the decay of science. — Caldwell
"Many discoveries are reserved for ages still to come, when memory of us will have been effaced." - Seneca
"Many unknowings are reserved for ages still to come, when memory of us will have been, eternalized." - Gus Lamarch — Gus Lamarch
We have everything we need to prevent the fall into ignorance. Very well enunciated! No one is truly anti-rationality. We will know when we get there. I am saying this because I trust the human mind.But am I defending total ignorance, complete retrocess? Not at all; I defend the "authenticity" of the human mind, and all its ideas, whether logical or illogical, religious or scientific, old and new. The decay of some method of study, due to its inability to give us a total and "true" answer to reality, is caused solely and fully by our resentment - the hatred caused by the incapacity; the awareness of the unconsciousness of existence before us; the lack of Man's "specialty" - towards our own limitation.
- And what would be the correct method then? Are we doomed to "unknowing"?
Maybe so, maybe not, and maybe, we're only doomed to what we're capable of deserving - we'll never know! — Gus Lamarch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.