In essence, because we do not listen to what the scientists say. — Banno

That comment highlights in itself one of the great problems of science, or rather with the perception of science. The idea that if we listen to what the scientists say then the world will be fine, we won't threaten our existence, we will have a good life and so on.

One only needs to look at the history of science to find dangerous statements or recommendations that were presented as true by scientists. That is, statements that are now widely seen as dangerous. And there are statements made by scientists today that are dangerous, but because many people blindly believe that scientists tell the truth and that we should listen to them, well they don't see them as dangerous.

There is a growing distrust of what scientists say, but they have mostly themselves to blame for that. If they stopped presenting their conclusions as much more certain than they truly are, we wouldn't have many people blindly believing false statements made by scientists, and there wouldn't be a growing distrust of what they say.


And then there is the whole what demarcates science from 'pseudoscience', and there is no good answer to that, there are many observation-based logically consistent theories of the world that are labeled as pseudoscientific or non-scientific for no good reason, just to discredit them because they go against the mainstream power structure.

It goes to show how important philosophy is even in this modern day and age. But the current worldview sees philosophy as a joke I am afraid.

And then there is the whole what demarcates science from 'pseudoscience', and there is no good answer to that, there are many observation-based logically consistent theories of the world that are labeled as pseudoscientific or non-scientific for no good reason, just to discredit them because they go against the mainstream power structure. — leo

That is a great problem, due to our lack of ability to change and always striving for truth. When you have been studying science for 40 years and all of the sudden your preconceived notions of what you thought reality and science for that matter is a joke, then I could imagine why it would be hard to accept newer views of reality.

The idea that if we listen to what the scientists say then the world will be fine, we won't threaten our existence, we will have a good life and so on. — leo

That's not what was said. The OP blames science for "threatening our very existence with technological devices today", when the culprit is scientific illiteracy combined with naked greed.

Blaming science parallels blaming the victim for her own rape.

The OP blames science for "threatening our very existence with technological devices today", when the culprit is scientific illiteracy combined with naked greed. — Banno

Does it? As I read it it simply says that science does not prevent us from destroying ourselves.

the culprit is scientific illiteracy combined with naked greed. — Banno

Lack of education? But why, in this wonderful scientific age, are we all so badly educated and greedy? We can produce clean water, but we cannot produce clean minds - is there a science and technology of humanity to match the water and sewage system?

Technological problems are trivial these days, but psycho-social problems are intractable. and psycho-social problems prevent us from dealing with technological problems.

One has to conclude, surely, that 'science' does not have all the answers. How do we stop being greedy?

why, in this wonderful scientific age, are we all so badly educated — unenlightened

Science has become more and more compartmentalized and specialized to a degree that the language of science is not easily accessible or comprehensible to the otherwise generally well educated. Even scientists need to consult other specialists when they stray out of their own area of expertise. The tower of Babel is upon us.

Science sets out what we might do, and what will happen if we do it.

The choice of what to do remains with... well, I was going to say "us", but...

The tower of Babel is upon us. — magritte

That's not a problem. I can get a plumber to do the pipes, and an electrician to to the wiring and so on. this is called cooperation and coordination. Humans are good at that. Super technical super complicated stuff gets done that way, that no one can understand - like my laptop. Thank you germanium miners.

Science sets out what we might do, and what will happen if we do it.

The choice of what to do remains ... — Banno

Indeed. So science cannot do politics, cannot do social studies, cannot do psychology. Science cannot care. And woe betide humanity if we neglect to care because science cannot measure and control it.

Thank you germanium miners. — unenlightened

I never heard of germanium before. But I thought you said geranium miners. Flower power.

Science has become more and more compartmentalized and specialized to a degree that the language of science is not easily accessible or comprehensible to the otherwise generally well educated. — magritte

How true. Up until the late 1800s, magazines like Nature and its predecessors had articles about discoveries in mathematics that were by and large intelligible to normal, well-educated readers. These days new ideas in the subject are usually too specialized for even mathematicians not working in those specific areas to understand.

How do we stop being greedy? — unenlightened

We can develop an anti-consumerist, anti-materialist philosophy, and try to teach it to our kids.

Maybe have a "don't buy shit" week in the month of January too.:yum:

The worst part of consumerism is that the ‘goods’ they sell you are designed to break down and be thrown away rather than to be durable goods. That’s a big part of the plastic catastrophe.

that is called planned obsolescence.

We can develop an anti-consumerist, anti-materialist philosophy, and try to teach it to our kids. — Olivier5

Sure we can, so why don't we? You come up with external solutions to an internal problem, which is why it doesn't happen. When the problem is the world, science will tells the practice that will work best. But when the problem is the human, the problem is the scientist, then science cannot help, but on the contrary, does exactly what you have done - project sensible solutions onto the world as if humans can implement it. This solution is as old and as ineffective as "don't do what I do, do what I say." Human problems can only be answered with your life.

Sure we can, so why don't we? — unenlightened

This is a lesson which the pandemic, and the calls for physical isolation, may teach us, if we look. Each person must do one's own part, make the resolution and adhere to it, with will power. But the human being is in many ways lazy with respect to will power, always seeking excuses, rationalizing ways to escape the resolve. So when we see that so and so are not keeping up their end of the stick, we see this as a good reason to drop our end, instead of forging ahead as leaders instead of followers. Therefore the structure falls like a house of cards, the domino effect of herd mentality.

So the answer to "why don't we?", is that we do not have the will power. And human beings will never implement any such solutions until they learn how to practice and exercise will power, which makes them into leaders instead of followers.

This solution is as old and as ineffective as "don't do what I do, do what I say." Human problems can only be answered with your life. — unenlightened

Who said I don't do that in my own life?

It goes to show how important philosophy is even in this modern day and age. But the current worldview sees philosophy as a joke I am afraid. — Thinking

Essentially, tech-driven science has developed to the point it can't be decoupled from philosophy in general, where tech-science occludes unmixed reason (science isn't reasonable with its all or nothing physicalism). Philosophy answers to nothing but reason, a priori, whereas modern "thought" has shifted all the way over to empirical data as the only source of truth, a posteriori. Intelligent people don't share the same limitations as computers/algorithms; e.g., a elementary philosopher does exactly what a computer simulation can't do: form thoughts, ideas, concepts, meaning, understanding, judgments, etc..(he doesn't merely collocate data or find patterns in heaps of data, meta analysis, he synthesizes a catena of new, as yet nonexistent, concepts). Then it appears the solution isn't only more philosophy, but philosophy removed from STEM. The difference between synthesis and analysis is the difference between a timeless philosopher and a modern scientist, respectively.

Who said I don't do that in my own life? — Olivier5

No one. I said it was ineffective. If I said it was as ineffective as a glass hammer would you insist that you use a metal hammer?

we do not have the will power. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that explains the problem at all. We have the will power to create armies and bombs to seek out new fossil fuels to exploit, and all kinds of stuff and yet we are terrified more by the prospect that someone will get something for nothing than by the destruction of the world. Here is Trump willing the death of a few more while he still can in the dying days of his presidency. No lack of will...

So what do you propose then?

So what do you propose then? — Olivier5

I propose first of all to point out that it is a problem of humanity, and a problem that science and reason cannot deal with.

And then I will wait until all the proposals run into the sand. If I had a proposal for solving the problem of humanity, it would be from the imaginary position of non-humanity. This is why scientific psychologies fail; the humans that reform humanity are all too human; the peasants are just as greedy as the nobility given the chance.

So that is the first and last step, not to separate oneself from the problem so far as to make a proposal.

Waiting, at this point, means accepting doom as necessary or unavoidable.

Waiting, at this point, means accepting doom as necessary or unavoidable. — Olivier5

Kind of you to tell me what I mean, but actually no, it doesn't.

But suppose for a moment that doom is unavoidable. What do you propose? Will you wait then, or will you do something? This is rather important, because a large part of the problem of humanity is just this need for a win, a positive result, for progress. And of course we are all doomed to die sometime or other. So I don't propose, and I don't wait. I plant trees and bake bread; I do not travel, I live low and small, and I offer what insights I have. I try to help my neighbours practically and psychologically. Or else I do other stuff, you know. What I do matters even if it makes no difference.

Well I’m glad for you but when I proposed something not unlike what you just said, you said it was ineffective...

Well I’m glad for you but when I proposed something not unlike what you just said, you said it was ineffective... — Olivier5

I'm not proposing anything, I'm doing autobiography, in response to you claiming "Waiting, at this point, means accepting doom as necessary or unavoidable." when I said "I propose first of all to point out that it is a problem of humanity, and a problem that science and reason cannot deal with.

And then I will wait until all the proposals run into the sand."

I am not proposing that you or anyone should do what I have been doing for fifty years, merely mentioning something it. It is as if the arguments I have bothered to make have passed you by completely, and we are reduced to some virtue competition. Carry on proposing if it floats your boat.

What can I say? Keep on not proposing if that rocks your boat...

I can respect the man who gardens and bakes bread and helps his neighbors. I'm sure more than half of the men on this forum don't even think of doing something close to as wholesome as that. My generation really is lost in technology, it is like a hypnotic sleep.

I don't think that explains the problem at all. We have the will power to create armies and bombs to seek out new fossil fuels to exploit, and all kinds of stuff and yet we are terrified more by the prospect that someone will get something for nothing than by the destruction of the world. Here is Trump willing the death of a few more while he still can in the dying days of his presidency. No lack of will... — unenlightened

I think that "will power" refers specifically to the capacity to prevent oneself from acting in a situation where the person is inclined to act. So it is distinct from "willing", which is when the person carries out the act which one is inclined to do. Will power is the means by which we prevent ourselves from doing what we know is a bad act, but we are nevertheless inclined to do it for some sort of pleasure, or out of habit. It is the means by which we break bad habits.

I think that "will power" refers specifically to the capacity to prevent oneself from acting in a situation where the person is inclined to act. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have never been able to make any sense of the notion, myself. Whence cometh this mysterious power? Given there is a shortage, how can the supply be augmented?