Granting science the highest authority is debatable because science doesn't produce truth about everything. It has the capacity to give us a truthful report on the physical, natural world. That's no small thing. It is gradually revealing how our brains work--that is most excellent. I trust science. What science is not equipped to do is tell us what we should do. — Bitter Crank
Be correct to reality or be rendered extinct. — karl stone
Marx saved capitalism. — karl stone
If there is any prospect at all of successfully managing the potential dangers of science and technology, I'd suggest it follows from adopting responsibility to the meaningful implications of the reality science describes. — karl stone
For, make no mistake - my technophobic friend, there is no retreat to the rural idyll for the majority. — karl stone
I genuinely believe there is a way forward - that follows from the piece on evolution on the previous page, that being (intellectually) correct to reality, as all surviving life has done through attrition until human intellect, is a path that leads somewhere we must go. — karl stone
Their problem is that they lack class-consciousness, and heaven and earth have been moved to make sure they don't develop class consciousness. — Bitter Crank
The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth,
Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined.
The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America
Really? Marx was describing the historical processes he saw at work. He didn't save capitalism -- it didn't need saving. Marx predicted, he didn't prescribe. He may have been on the side of the workers. but the workers have tasks that they have to fulfill, from Marx's perspective, and if they didn't fulfill those tasks, then... — Bitter Crank
He didn't tell anyone to begin the revolution in 1917. Marx--as far as I can tell--predicted the revolution would happen when the working class was fully developed and capable of taking over capitalism. Have we reached that point yet? Maybe -- workers at all levels of the corporate structure have the skills to operate the corporation. In fact, for the most part workers (low level to high level workers) do operate the corporation. — Bitter Crank
What workers lack is "class-self-consciousness": the kind of consciousness that illuminates their class interests and informs their actions. Most workers in the US, at least, think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed tycoons of some sort. Silly them! Their problem is that they lack class-consciousness, and heaven and earth have been moved to make sure they don't develop class consciousness. — Bitter Crank
That's not Marx's fault. In the long run, if the working class doesn't fulfill it's destiny (as Marx sees it), then one of the contending classes -- workers or capitalists -- will be destroyed. That is not a desirable conclusion to class conflict. — Bitter Crank
...if the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle, how could class consciousness be absent from the working class? — karl stone
The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America. — Washington Post
First, there is some prospect of managing science and technology, we're already doing that. The question I'm raising is, can we successfully manage unlimited science and technology? If not, then it seems reasonable to at least question whether a development such as, say, unlimited free clean energy would on balance be helpful to human flourishing. — Jake
Next, you keep saying "the reality science describes" without referencing the imperfect reality of the human condition. I wouldn't harp on this except that it seems to me to be not a failure of your personal perspective so much as a logic flaw which almost defines modern civilization. Yes, if human beings were all rational as you define it then we could handle far more power, that's true. The problem is, we're not that rational, never have been, and there's no realistic prospect of us all joining the science religion and becoming Mr. Spock logic machines. — Jake
I'm not technophobic, I'm allergic to our simplistic, outdated and dangerous "more is better" relationship with technology. As example, do you want all citizens to be able to buy nuclear weapons at the Army Navy store? Assuming not, that doesn't make you an enemy of technology, that makes you an enemy of stupidity. — Jake
Is capitalism dependent upon stupidity? In America today very few people hold the majority of wealth. And the rest of us just go along with that, distracted as we are by our TVs and social media accounts etc. — Jake
The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America.
— Washington Post
What if the top 20 percent owned only 30-40%? They'd still be doing great, and vast sums would be liberated to invest in infrastructure, education, affordable health care etc. But, we the 80% are too dumb to effectively challenge the rigged system, and so we swim in an ocean of preventable problems. — Jake
Had science been adopted by the Church from 1630 - and pursued, and integrated into philosophy, politics, economics and society on an ongoing basis... — karl stone
The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth
Richest 1 percent bagged 82 percent of wealth created last year - poorest half of humanity got nothing
Published: 22 January 2018
Eighty two percent of the wealth generated last year went to the richest one percent of the global population, while the 3.7 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world saw no increase in their wealth, according to a new Oxfam report released today. The report is being launched as political and business elites gather for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Your view that the Church (already ruptured by Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, et al,) held so much intellectual sway over Europe in the 17th century that science was a subsection of theology is not sound, imho. The universities had been in business since the 12th century and had been chipping away at the intellectual citadel of the church. True enough, the French Revolution was still 160 years off; Russia, Spain, and various other princedoms didn't get enlightened for a long time. But a secular-scientific view of the world was none-the-less forming among intellectual elites. — Bitter Crank
Take Giro Fracastoro (1476-1553) a physician in Padua. In 1546 he proposed his theory that disease, ("infections") were spread by "spores" or some such agent. He was right, but the necessary wherewithal to pursue this theory didn't exist in his lifetime, or until numerous lifetimes later. "Finding scientific reality" was hindered more by the difficulty of the search than interference by religious thinking. — Bitter Crank
Still, the study of nature was producing results that could be turned into technology. Watt's steam engine worked, but it leaded steam badly, reducing its efficiency. It was another Englishman*** who had developed methods of drilling precise cylinders in cast iron that made Watt's engines work much better, leading to bigger and better... — Bitter Crank
Batteries, photography and telegraphy are further examples of science and technology in the early 19th century. The telegraph was introduced in 1840; by 1862 it had become critical to Lincoln's management of the American Civil War. — Bitter Crank
By the mid 19th century, our understanding of the natural world was reaching a critical state where knowledge would take off. In summary: It was the great difficulty of understanding the world without any prior scientific insight that made the task slow and difficult. — Bitter Crank
Insofar as the gifted make use of those talents - and benefit from doing so, it is good for society (and the poor) that they should. — karl stone
The idea of "unlimited science and technology" is purely hypothetical and somewhat unlikely. Your argument appeals to the unknown absolute to conjure fear. — karl stone
But I haven't proposed unlimited science and technology - as your absurd example of selling a ten year old boy a heat seeking missile demonstrates - your arguments are those of a straw-man tilting at windmills. — karl stone
If however, you're saying that religious thinking was no obstacle to scientific thinking, then I disagree entirely — karl stone
Giro Fracastoro — Bitter Crank
Oops, we've crossed the pond — karl stone
Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 - a volume not received at all kindly by the religious.
What about Helmholtz, Christian Doppler, Paul Ehrlich (the one born in 1853), Richard Owen, Hinrich Rink (Danish geologist), Max Saenger (had the bright idea of stitching up the uterus after a caesarian), Bell, Pasteur, Lister, Koch, Mendel, Mendeleev, etc.???
Were there riots over them? — karl stone
Please list for us the scientists and other cultural elites who argue we should be doing less science. The cultural consensus is that we should learn everything we can learn, as fast as we can learn it. Your opening post is part of that consensus. — Jake
This consensus is not rational, because it ignores the real world fact that human beings have limited ability, and thus should not be given any and all powers that we can create. As example, we are smart enough to create nuclear weapons, but not smart enough to get rid of them once created. What this demonstrates is the reality that just because we can invent something it doesn't automatically follow that we can also successfully manage what we've created. — Jake
My argument addresses itself to the reality of the philosophy of modern civilization as it currently exists today, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus power. — Jake
As I've said above, I'm not really arguing against your specific proposals so much as I am arguing against the "more is better" technology is the solution to everything mindset which they arise from. And I'm not arguing with you personally so much as I am the cultural group consensus which your post illustrates. — Jake
You do not seem to have got to grips with the core concept - that is, science as a tool was pursued as a means to progress, whereas, science as an understanding of reality was suppressed relative to religious dogma, and thereby political and economic ideology. — karl stone
Similarly, we don't need superhuman powers of prescience to manage technology. All we need, is to know what's true, and do what's right in relation to what's true. — karl stone
Sure, but it doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? It's of absolutely no help whatsoever to man nor beast. — karl stone
Thus proving that humans are of limited ability, limited rationality, limited sanity. It's upon that real world evidence that I'm arguing that the powers available to us must also be limited. You keep selling "science as an understanding of reality" while ignoring the reality of the human condition which is well documented in thousands of years of history in all parts of the world. — Jake
Similarly, we don't need superhuman powers of prescience to manage technology. All we need, is to know what's true, and do what's right in relation to what's true.
— karl stone
In other words, you're arguing for a radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation of how such a thing might come to be. — Jake
If we analyze the maturity of a teenager, and decide they are not yet ready to drive the family car, doesn't such an analysis get us somewhere? — Jake
My apologies for my impatience, which is my problem alone. I've had this conversation too many times to count, my own form of irrationality. But (here come the excuses) this is so incredibly SIMPLE!!! that it frustrates me how intelligent well educated people struggle to get it, and rarely succeed. Look how SIMPLE this is... — Jake
1) We take it to be obvious that the powers available to children should be limited due to a realistic understanding of the limits of their ability and maturity. 99.9% of all sane adults agree with this. — Jake
2) On the day the child turns 18 we throw this rational common sense away and the group consensus changes to, "we should have as much power as science can give us, as fast as possible". — Jake
This transformation of the group consensus is not even vaguely rational. It blatantly ignores the well documented evidence provided by thousands of years of human history. And here's why this irrationality takes place. We've transferred the blind faith we used to have in religion in to a blind faith in science. A "more is better" relationship with knowledge and power is simplistic, outdated and dangerous. It's a childlike philosophy whose time should have already come and gone. — Jake
No-one has disputed that human beings are limited; nor has anyone argued for unlimited use of technology. — karl stone
In fact, if you are arguing against the "more is better" assumption underlying human behavior, it's you proposing the "radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation..." — karl stone
I'm still trying to put across the principle of acting responsibly in relation to a scientific understanding of reality - as opposed to applying technology as directed by religious, political and economic ideological misconceptions of reality. — karl stone
People are mental and can't be trusted, so padded cells for everyone! But now what? — karl stone
But we are not talking about children. We're talking about scientists, governments and industries primarily. Some extremely smart and serious people. — karl stone
increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality — karl stone
So how are you going to take those factors - already in play, out of the game? You can't. — karl stone
Well it isn't going anywhere Jake - more is inevitable. People need water, food, clothing, housing, heat, light, employment, entertainment - and all you're offering them is less. — karl stone
I disagree. I wouldn't suggest internalizing the true cost. But if you did, the very value of money itself would adjust - just as it adapted to oil price shocks in the past. Rather I'd suggest, seeking to limit the implications to a narrowly focused, feasible and necessary endeavor - like funding renewable energy infrastructure. — karl stone
True. Some technological hurdles have to be done, but I'm optimistic. Especially solar power has become dramatically cheaper. Renewable energy goes down in manufacturing price as it gets more popular, whereas fossil fuel becomes more expensive as it gets more rare.Renewable energy technology doesn't need to be subsidized - it needs to be funded. An infrastructure that needs to be built like the rail network, or the canals, or the Romans and their roads. Only then will it be a fair comparison. — karl stone
If you were the only person stuck in this outdated "more is better" paradigm I wouldn't harp on it, for I have no beef with you personally. I'm harping on it because the "more is better" position your position is rooted in dominates the entire society. And ANY position accepted without questioning by ANY group consensus requires inspection by philosophy. — Jake
The oil shocks of the past weren't somehow made redundant by money changing value, but rather created massive economic dislocations: incumbent industries shrinking because they don't make economic sense without cheap fossil fuel energy and new investment in renewable energy as they are more competitive if fossil energy is more expensive (i.e. the social upheaval that I alluded to in my post). — boethius
By "funding renewable infrastructure" I assume you mean by subsidy. If we view just the comparative cost of energies, it seems that forcing fossil to internalize true costs is the same as subsidizing renewables. However, it's not the same. By simply subsidizing renewables to be cost-comparable to fossil energy is not the same as internalizing the real cost of fossil energy. — boethius
True. Some technological hurdles have to be done, but I'm optimistic. Especially solar power has become dramatically cheaper. Renewable energy goes down in manufacturing price as it gets more popular, whereas fossil fuel becomes more expensive as it gets more rare. I assume that the biggest challenge is aircraft and ships as these need to have long endurance and powerfull motors. — ssu
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.