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
:grin:That would be a realistic concern were it not for the philosophically solid constitutional basis of the party... and the blood oath! — counterpunch
You conflate what it means to be the opposition in politics with opposition to truth. — baker
I think it was Ben Carson that proposed the idea of the Logic Party. The problem is that he was also a theist.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
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
What a splendid attitude to have, so conducive to making a positive change in the world and bringing about world peace!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
Science says that chimpanzees have morality of sorts — counterpunch
What a splendid attitude to have, so conducive to making a positive change in the world and bringing about world peace! — baker
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
I agree. But I don't see how your attitude is conducive to inspiring others to change.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
What do you mean by "less energy"?It really matters that we have the correct approach - and less energy is not the right approach.
For many people, such changes are too much to commit to within some foreseeable time frame. This is the reality of change.Stop eating meat, cycle, second hand clothes, stop flying, insulate homes - it goes on and on.
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
there is absolutely no consensus on these issues. — Joshs
Still committing the Naturalistic fallacy, I see... — Banno
...you could still argue humankind 'ought' to become extinct. Is that what you're saying? — counterpunch
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
(Of course I made a commitment. I'm a religious atheist--sacred vows get made.) — Bitter Crank
Solar IS the way forward. — Bitter Crank
A Science Party? Good idea. — Bitter Crank
...you could still argue humankind 'ought' to become extinct. Is that what you're saying?
— counterpunch
Indeed. — Banno
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
They cannot produce enough power to meet our needs. — counterpunch
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. — Banno
Harnessing limitless clean energy from magma is a good idea. — counterpunch
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.