Are you asking me? Because as far as I'm concerned, neither of them are right. Science is right. It's true knowledge of reality - a reality that may have been Created by God. I don't know. What I can know is that science works. If you want to believe that there's a God, who am I to contradict you? I will harness scientific knowledge and limitless clean energy to secure a sustainable future. Al-Sisi can't do that and neither can Macron, so they're both wrong.

Are you asking me? Because as far as I'm concerned, neither of them are right. Science is right. It's true knowledge of reality - a reality that may have been Created by God. I don't know. What I can know is that science works. If you want to believe that there's a God, who am I to contradict you? I will harness scientific knowledge and limitless clean energy to secure a sustainable future. Al-Sisi can't do that and neither can Macron, so they're both wrong. — counterpunch

You say they're both wrong but they are the head of 2 countries, 2 major countries and they have to deal with reality and reality is that people are attached to their history and traditions and changing that takes a lot of time. History and traditions of Egypt are substantially different than ours. We cannot just impose our thinking like being the best unless you want to repeat the worst episodes of history (war, dictatorship, etc...)
I agree with you (if I read you right between the lines) that science, and mostly technology we made out of scientific discoveries, shape our lives. I agree that western societies rely more and more on science.
I would even go beyond that asserting that in western countries it is technology to govern us, and not us to govern technologies. This has been quite clear in the last decades where ethics and politics are deeply challenged by technology (social networks, genetics, electric cars, etc.)
But we have to deal with reality and there're countries that are still run differently. Where religion and state are still together. Maybe it is a matter of time... I'm optimist and I believe western society is making progress, history is not just randomness or repetitive cycles, there is progress towards something... a singularity? Who knows.
Note: I don't believe God is above anything, but science is and science says sooner or later the sun will destroy the Earth if we do not do it first... how should we deal with this?

That would be a realistic concern were it not for the philosophically solid constitutional basis of the party... and the blood oath! — counterpunch

:grin:

Ah, the blood oath! How didn't I come to think of that? How silly of me. :up:

You conflate what it means to be the opposition in politics with opposition to truth. — baker

Then politics sits opposite of science.

I contend that our relationship to science is mistaken; a consequence of arresting Galileo for the heresy of proving the earth orbits the sun, and supressing science as an understanding of reality even while using science to drive the industrial revolution. In short, we used the tools - but we didn't read the instructions, and that is why we are headed for extinction. — counterpunch

I think it was Ben Carson that proposed the idea of the Logic Party. The problem is that he was also a theist.

The opposition would be theocrats and politicians as both are based on emotions and the subjective nature of morality and pleading to popularity and authority.

You say they're both wrong but they are the head of 2 countries, 2 major countries and they have to deal with reality and reality is that people are attached to their history and traditions and changing that takes a lot of time. — Raul

The reality is that humankind is two generations from a catastrophe we won't survive. We can solve it by acting now - and secure a prosperous sustainable future, or condemn our children and our grandchildren to hell, and our species to oblivion. That's the reality.

I think politics does that all on its own - no help from me. It's like that old joke. You can tell when a politician is lying. His lips move! — counterpunch

What a splendid attitude to have, so conducive to making a positive change in the world and bringing about world peace!

Science says that chimpanzees have morality of sorts — counterpunch

Not really
https://www.youtube.com/watch/al-f_WWoHI4

Despite you feeling disconcerted by what I wrote to you late last night, I am really concerned about the catastrophe which is likely to occur within the next couple of generations. I have been writing on that in another thread for a fortnight. I am wondering if what you are really trying to say is that the politicians are not listening enough to the findings of many of the scientists, especially on the climate and ecology. If that is, I am in complete agreement with you.

What a splendid attitude to have, so conducive to making a positive change in the world and bringing about world peace! — baker

Sustainability. I'm seeking to bring about sustainability, with the minimal possible change in any other respect. I'm not a revolutionary. I want the powers that be to be able to get on board, because time is short. The window of opportunity to prevent disaster is closing quickly. It really matters that we have the correct approach - and less energy is not the right approach. Stop eating meat, cycle, second hand clothes, stop flying, insulate homes - it goes on and on. We cannot 'eek out' our way to sustainability. That should be obvious; even to the party opposite.

Despite you feeling disconcerted by what I wrote to you late last night, I am really concerned about the catastrophe which is likely to occur within the next couple of generations. I have been writing on that in another thread for a fortnight. I am wondering if what you are really trying to say is that the politicians are not listening enough to the findings of many of the scientists, especially on the climate and ecology. If that is, I am in complete agreement with you. — Jack Cummins

Well that's not it - so maybe look at my comments and try and get your head around what I am saying about the relationship between science and ideology. Here's a handy guide:

Science = true!
Ideology = not true!

If whilst reading my comments again, you find yourself getting a little lost, consult the handy guide.

Well, I respect you but I disagree, it is your reality, not mine . I don't think in 2 generations it will be the end of the world but agree we have to better protect our environment. There re many other challenges though.

I am not wishing to contradict you. I am only saying that it is not a matter of scientists vs an opposite party. It always takes a while for the mainstream of society to catch up with the leading edge of science. Many people have been speaking of sustainabilty for the last two decades and it may be that many current problems, not just the pandemic, are a going to be a wake up call for change. But to frame it in an equation of science being true against ideology is too simplistic because there are many scientists, with many varying academic and political persuasions.

I'm seeking to bring about sustainability, with the minimal possible change in any other respect. I'm not a revolutionary. I want the powers that be to be able to get on board, because time is short. The window of opportunity to prevent disaster is closing quickly. — counterpunch

I agree. But I don't see how your attitude is conducive to inspiring others to change.

It really matters that we have the correct approach - and less energy is not the right approach.

What do you mean by "less energy"?

Stop eating meat, cycle, second hand clothes, stop flying, insulate homes - it goes on and on.

For many people, such changes are too much to commit to within some foreseeable time frame. This is the reality of change.

I think there is a general consensus on the broad brush strokes shape of a scientific understanding of reality, on what scientific methods are, and on the utility of technology. — counterpunch

These are not questions within science, they are questions of philosophy of science, and there is absolutely no consensus on these issues.Not to mention the fact that whatever local consensus there has been within regions of scientific practice has undergone significant change over the past 500 years concerning the nature of reality, on what scientific methods are, and on the utility of technology.

What you’re on about isnt science, it’s scientism, the elevation of one view of science over all others as the ‘one true way’ science is, and the elevation of science above all other human endeavors as having a special access to truth.

Still committing the Naturalistic fallacy, I see; confusing what is the case with what we ought do about it.

That's the issue that underpins the error in almost everything you have posted.

there is absolutely no consensus on these issues. — Joshs

There is a great deal of agreement among scientists on the broad brush strokes shape of a scientific understanding of reality. How otherwise could there by a general consensus about climate change, for example, or evolution, or the bacterial theory of disease, or plate tectonics?

I'm perfectly well aware that philosophically, epistemically, all scientific conclusions are provisional, always less than certain - and always open to revision in face of new evidence. But at the same time there's a vast coherent body of informally accepted knowledge that is simply not in dispute. At least, not among scientists.

Still committing the Naturalistic fallacy, I see... — Banno

No, but thanks for asking - again.

I'm quite satisfied that I'm not committing the naturalistic fallacy because, my explanation of "how things are" - does not inform what we ought to do. Rather, examining evolutionary history demonstrates the error we have made; it explains why it's necessary to be "true to reality" to survive, and why we decried science as a heresy. I point out that this is the mistake that drives humankind toward extinction, and which it is necessary to correct to secure the future. But ultimately, despite all this, you could still argue humankind 'ought' to become extinct. Is that what you're saying?

...you could still argue humankind 'ought' to become extinct. Is that what you're saying? — counterpunch

Indeed.

a political party that recognises science as truth" is not necessarily a party of scientists. It's a party of people who think science is true - and the best guide to a prosperous and sustainable future. — counterpunch

I was never a scientist. I have spent a lot of energy and time overcoming a mainline Protestant religious upbringing and its world view. Some time back I made a commitment to a scientific understanding of the world. (Of course I made a commitment. I'm a religious atheist--sacred vows get made.) The world view of science is that the world is understandable--not obviously understandable, but with systematic study what is not understood can be made known. The project is not complete, of course.

A Science Party? Good idea. Something to counter the "Know Nothing" organization, and the 3D party of Deny, Deflect, & Deceive. The whole corporate-political mafia of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels.

So, there are already people who would happily join the Science Party. Just be aware that while rational people (including scientists) do their best, we are driven by the same ir-rational drives as everyone else. You make an excellent case for cheap abundant electricity and hydrogen fuel produced by tapping geothermal energy. I've read your extensive research which has been vetted by numerous academic peer groups. You have discovered the solution. So what's the problem?

The trouble is, I just don't like it. I want to like it, but I can't. I'm in love with solar. The sun is the way! And I'll do everything in my power to make sure that your project is torpedoed at the earliest possible opportunity. Solar IS the way forward. The preceding bold/italicized text was for RHETORICAL PURPOSES ONLY.

That's one of the things that can go wrong with science based politics: Even the best scientists have egos; have vested interests; get emotional; can be treacherous. Highly rational science-politicians have the same batch of emotional drives as the average orangutang. We all do. Our limbic system is our Achilles heel.

Still, you have the right idea. Just don't expect totally smooth sailing.

(Of course I made a commitment. I'm a religious atheist--sacred vows get made.) — Bitter Crank

Solar IS the way forward. — Bitter Crank

Sol Invictus!

The sun has been beating down for days, reaching 40º on the front deck. So I've been investigating solar panels.

What's odd is @counterpunch's notion that one solution needs must fit all categories; that digging a hole in the Earth will be the best solution in Iceland and the Sahara.

A Science Party? Good idea. — Bitter Crank

Harnessing limitless clean energy from magma is a good idea. It's an idea that needs development, but the energy is there - and the technologies exist to extract it. It's geothermal in the same way humans and orangutans are both primates. The difference is that magma power can be shown to produce vastly more power than solar, more reliably, and more cheaply.

A human member of Sci-Pol would have to accept that, because those are the facts. (Membership policy regarding orangutans is yet to be decided!) Sci Pol is responsible to a scientific understanding of reality. A member blocking a plan going forward without scientific justification would be liable to the same sanctions as a scientist fabricating data. It's unethical. It's dishonest. The responsibility of sci-pol to a scientific understanding of reality is about methods, motives and reasoning that can be referenced to an objective truth, such that crookedness stands out like a sore thumb.

...you could still argue humankind 'ought' to become extinct. Is that what you're saying?
— counterpunch

Indeed. — Banno

You first.

What's odd is counterpunch's notion that one solution needs must fit all categories; that digging a hole in the Earth will be the best solution in Iceland and the Sahara. — Banno

Wind and solar are profitable industries, but they are not adequate to the challenge. They cannot produce enough power to meet our needs. Wind and solar will cost a fortune, barely produce a trickle of unreliable power - and then in 25 years, present us with a big pile of tech scrap and the same costs all over again - all to produce slightly less carbon. But there is a source of clean energy sufficient to the task; and more! Magma power - the big ball of molten rock beneath our feet. It is high grade energy, its constant, and virtually limitless. Tapping into magma energy on a massive scale would change everything - we could meet all our energy needs, and capture carbon and bury it, not merely producing a little less carbon - but reversing the tide.

Let me ask you a question; how do you get solar energy out of the Sahara? What's odd is that you haven't thought about that; not that I have thought about it. The basic physics is very clear - because of entropy, less energy is worse. We need more energy, and magma can provide as much as we can use.

They cannot produce enough power to meet our needs. — counterpunch

Demonstrably false.

Tasmania exports renewable energy to continental Australia.

There is also a project to export Australian solar energy to Indonesia.

Being a continental plate, Australia is extraordinarily stable. Magma is far too deep to for drilling. THere are a few small projects, but nothing on the scale of wind or solar.

But none of that is of philosophical interest. What is curious here is the error of thinking that one solution will fit all possible needs. The closed mindset.

Fanaticism.

East Anglia ONE - UK offshore wind array, 102 turbines, 7 MW each, producing 714 MW - enough for 600,000 homes. It took 10 years to build, and cost £2.5bn.

The UK has 30 million homes. So roughly, that would require 6000 windmills, costing £1500bn - ish. Only from 2030 - UK government intend phasing out petrol cars, adding the transport energy demand of 30 million cars to the national grid. So 10,000 windmills costing £2500bn. Plus storage facilities - because wind is intermittent. Wind turbines have a working life of around 25 years, and then need replacing. So, rather than repeat myself - I'll repeat myself:

Wind and solar are profitable industries, but they are not adequate to the challenge. They cannot produce enough power to meet our needs. Wind and solar will cost a fortune, barely produce a trickle of unreliable power - and then in 25 years, present us with a big pile of tech scrap and the same costs all over again - all to produce slightly less carbon. But there is a source of clean energy sufficient to the task; and more! Magma power - the big ball of molten rock beneath our feet. It is high grade energy, its constant, and virtually limitless. Tapping into magma energy on a massive scale would change everything - we could meet all our energy needs, and capture carbon and bury it, not merely producing a little less carbon - but reversing the tide. — counterpunch

nothing here says that geothermal is the best solution for Siberia.

nothing here says that geothermal is the best solution for Siberia. — Banno

Liquified hydrogen fuel contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum - so, given that:

"Remote parts of Siberia are too costly to connect to central electricity and gas grids, and have therefore historically been supplied with costly diesel, sometimes flown in by helicopter."

Using magma energy to produce electricity, and electricity to produce hydrogen - would allow 2.5 times as much energy per kilo to be flown in to remote locations. And it would be clean energy.

the philosophical point of this discussion: it is unreasonable to posit a single viable response to a complex issue. The rational response is to try multiple solutions.

You don’t seem to agree.

Harnessing limitless clean energy from magma is a good idea. — counterpunch

I wonder. What are the environmental consequences of doing so? Does the process disturb the natural subterranean environment? Are there any changes in the pressure of the lava chambers/tubes closer to the surface in the surrounding areas?

Don't piss Pele off!

:razz: