As stated previously, your reality is only true for a particular moment (in which we lack access). I will give you (that despite this inconvenient idea), we muddle along with our guesses, approximation, and other assorted attempts to make sense of our world, but this not what I am getting at, instead, to truly understand the transient nature of all things knowable places knowledge in another sphere. — synthesis

Well, clearly, you're one of those end consumers - believers of many wonderful things, who need hardly notice that science is saving the world, because science is true; for while that does imply what you believe is wrong, there's no need for you to do that math! Afterall, if you did the maths, you'd agree with the science!

Well, clearly, you're one of those end consumers - believers of many wonderful things, who need hardly notice that science is saving the world, because science is true; for while that does imply what you believe is wrong, there's no need for you to do that math! Afterall, if you did the maths, you'd agree with the science! — counterpunch

As if the world by did not survive without man's science for 4.5B years and will somehow fail to manage without the same after we are but a footnote? You truly are a homer!

And what I believe is irrelevant, instead, it is your companion, reality, which takes precedence. But instead of seeing reality as this fixed mathematics formulation spitting-out drivel like 345.3975 g/l or 5,456,231 m/s, actual reality has no doors or windows to peak through, nor any language, as it can only be experienced (which you do all the time). You are simply unaware.

As if the world by did not survive without man's science for 4.5B years and will somehow fail to manage without the same after we are but a footnote? You truly are a homer! — synthesis

You should believe whatever you choose to believe for whatever reasons you believe it is appropriate to believe things. Your reasons for believing things are obviously very different from the reasons science believes it is appropriate to believe things, but I would not ask you to adopt scientific epistemic standards as a personal philosophy. You should continue to believe whatever it is that has you wishing humankind extinct!

You should believe whatever you choose to believe for whatever reasons you believe it is appropriate to believe things. Your reasons for believing things are obviously very different from the reasons science believes it is appropriate to believe things, but I would not ask you to adopt scientific epistemic standards as a personal philosophy. You should continue to believe whatever it is that has you wishing humankind extinct! — counterpunch

cp, I believe we have beat this to death.

Always enjoy our conversation. I wish there were more people like you here.

See you on another thread...

See you on another thread... — synthesis

Thanks for so ably, and persistently demonstrating the problem. Clearly, there's something very wrong with you, but after pages of discussion, I'm sorry to say, I'm no closer to understanding what the hell it is!

Humanity is the problem. No matter what issues science solves going forward, man's core issues remain. Until man learns how to deal with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues, little changes (except, perhaps, life expectancy). — synthesis

Humanity is the problem. No matter what issues science solves going forward, man's core issues remain. Until man learns how to deal with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues, little changes (except, perhaps, life expectancy). — synthesis

Obviously implicit in synthesis' statement here is the suggestion that he has ...

deal[t] with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues — synthesis

...but pages of discussion suggest glib disregard of the moral/spiritual condition of man. Rather, a hostile, malign, quite possibly sadistic attitude is suggested by the persistence with which synthesis drives a discussion intended to address the relations between science and sustainability, into the long grass of epistemic philosophy, by objecting on every subjectivist philosophical grounds western philosophy has devised over the past 400 years, to the idea that science has any truth value at all.

I stated very directly what this was about:

At its core I don't think my position is all that complicated. In the fewest and simplest words possible I think science is our best bet at a future. I don't think that rash or irrational - rather I think it rash that's not where we stake our trust. — counterpunch

Such that persistent derailing requires explanation other than the meaningful content of such arguments, which are weak and nonsensical compared to science's explanation for why the egg is sucked into the bottle. But also, these persistent objections, pages of them, are skipped between without any consistent assertion of belief:

I take the position that it is impossible to know these things but based on our limited knowledge and spartan mental capacity, I'd go short homo sapiens. — synthesis

Sceptical subjectivism, and misanthropy.

My sense of it is that we are but a temporary surface nuisance here on the planet and we should be leaving sooner than later. — synthesis

Nihilism.

Compared to what? Of all the intelligent beings that may occupy The Universe, let's just say that we're probably not near the top of the class. Our intelligence doesn't have a great deal to show for itself other than various forms of gadgetry (IMO) — synthesis

Sci-fi misanthropy.

"If you are indeed science-oriented, then you understand that using the past to predict the future (other than long-term trends, perhaps) is a slippery slope indeed. Much of what will determine the future has yet to take place." — synthesis

This is a take on an argument by Schopenhauer, that the future cannot be predicted from the past. He argues if you pick up a stone 100 times and drop it, you cannot be certain the 101st time, it will fall to the floor. The obvious error is that, we can and do make such predictions.

Philosophically, the argument suggests the future cannot be predicted with certainty, so prediction is not knowledge, and science is not truth. In the epistemological literature this is generally countered by the argument that knowledge is justified true belief, such that the reasonableness of the prediction, rather than the unreasonable certainty of the prediction is at issue.

All attempts to bring the discussion back to topic were consistently resisted, here with simple illogic, presumably drawing upon Absurdism, a philosophical response to nihilistic despair that maintains subjectivist disregard for objective realities:

Although Science does move, I believe a more accurate GPS might demonstrate that the movement is lateral. It (Science) simply goes from one absurd position to the next. The difference is the former has fallen from grace whereas the later is now all the rage (a process that can go on forever). — synthesis

It is an absurd assertion that science does not progress, and it's quite difficult to deal with - but ultimately, just like nihilism, absurdism upholds no value that requires one accept absurdism. It can be simply disregarded.

You say that truth is demonstrated by a "functional relationship" between knowledge, action, and consequence. You go on to say, it's true because it works. So, how is this different from those in the past who believed that it was the gods that made things work. Wasn't their rationale just as valid? There existed a solid relationship between knowledge, action, and consequence. Made perfect sense to them. And it was true (to them) because it worked! — synthesis

Are there religious sensitivities to acknowledging science as truth on the international level required to create a rationale to apply the technologies necessary to overcome the climate and ecological crisis?

With regard to my own cultural tradition, I'm quite up front about it. I think the Catholic Church made a mistake 400 years ago, and that science could have been welcomed theologically, and integrated into spiritual understanding and practice, such that scientific truth were invested with moral authority, and technology would have been developed and applied for more scientifically rational and moral reasons. It's not merely that we are denied the functional truth value of science that demonstrates the mistake, but by dint of reciprocated disdain, science renders a thousand years of tradition absurd.

St Augustine's view that rational and divine knowledge cannot be in conflict should have prevailed, Galileo should have been welcomed, and science should have occurred as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation. But instead of an angel bearing a scientific cornucopia of technological miracles, science was rendered as Frankenstein! It needn't be. This is a philosophical error we could recognise, and correct, if only in regard to the technologies necessary to meet the existential threat of the climate and ecological crisis.

Your "existential crisis" is what you reap when you plant intellectually altered seeds. — synthesis

I think that's an insult. He's suggesting I'm imagining the climate and ecological crisis, now, after four pages of argument:

Worrying about the end of the world (no matter how this might come about) seems rather silly as this is the fate of all things (they come and go). This is not to disparage your magma theory, but should it not stand on its own instead of on the shoulders of baseless fears that have over-run the last two generations? — synthesis

So what I'm hearing is there's no truth, no future, no hope, but there's no climate change crisis, everyone is nuts, science is a lie, time is an illusion, everything is subjectively constructed, absurd and hopeless, and worrying about it is hopeless, because you can't know anything! And I'm hearing this from someone who claims to have:

deal[t] with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues — synthesis

I wish to assure you that there is a comfortable psychological state possible upon accepting a scientific worldview; that many of the haunting shadows you seem to view from your perspective - are cast by very small objects as viewed from mine.

So what I'm hearing is there's no truth, no future, no hope, but there's no climate change crisis, everyone is nuts, science is a lie, time is an illusion, everything is subjectively constructed, absurd and hopeless, and worrying about it is hopeless, because you can't know anything! And I'm hearing this from someone who claims to have: — counterpunch

Well, obviously somebody wasn't done with this conversation. That was quite the rant!

cp, the difference between you and I is that you subscribe to one reality (and a popular one, at that). I, OTOH, subscribe to many (and there are infinite realities). For instance...

...and please forgive me if I have used this example previously, but it is fairly easy to point out the obvious flaws in science's language, mathematics. I am sure you would agree that each object in The Universe occupies unique spacial coordinates and is therefore subject to unique Universal forces.

It would follow that each object in The Universe is (technically) one of a kind. Therefore, exactly what does "2" mean? Does this render the entire system of mathematics as simply an approximation, or worse, a mere convenience? I rather believe the later to be the case.

And if this is the case, what are the ramifications? Has science been exposed for the poseur it really is?

Well, obviously somebody wasn't done with this conversation. — synthesis

I reviewed the conversation to learn what I can from it. I'm still trying to understand why you so persistently drove the conversation off topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was malicious. I think you know I care about this, and take pleasure from preventing me discussing it.

This is just a friendly discussion. You have to realize that everybody sees the world differently. It's what makes life interesting.

I do understand what you are saying and from your point of view it makes perfect sense. Go with it. I choose to approach life differently, a path that has worked quite well for me.

Everybody has to find there own way in this world. The key is in believing in yourself 100% which is again why I have enjoyed speaking with you.

I don’t know. Science deals with facts. It doesn’t tell us how to act. We all like batman. We go watch him at cinema and we know that he is a hero. He is a representative of who you should be. Not entirely but you get my point. You don’t go rooting for the bad guys usually. This is a form of truth that is outside science. It tells you who you should be, how you should act. I think we more need to know how to act and figure out who we can be. I think that will help us alot. Not denigrating science on any level.

This is just a friendly discussion. You have to realize that everybody sees the world differently. It's what makes life interesting. — synthesis

No, I don't. I addressed this with the first line of the opening post. I'm right. If you disagree, you're wrong. We are not doing everybody gets a trophy! Evolution requires that organisms are correct to reality or are rendered extinct. Your stupidity is literally killing us!

I do understand what you are saying and from your point of view it makes perfect sense. Go with it. I choose to approach life differently, a path that has worked quite well for me. — synthesis

Your personal beliefs have no relevance to this discussion. Objecting to science as a basis to secure the future because it conflicts with your fond illusions is about the most selfish and psychotic thing I can imagine. The Church made a mistake that took 400 years to manifest. You've had it explained to you in real time, and still choose wrong. I can only suppose you are malicious.

Everybody has to find there own way in this world. The key is in believing in yourself 100% which is again why I have enjoyed speaking with you. — synthesis

Then you say something like this, and I can only suppose you're stupid. People don't make their own way in the world. We are part of society, which is organised in relation to religious, political and economic ideology as a basis for action. What is believed, dictates what actions are possible. Your personal beliefs are irrelevant. It is the survival of civilisations at stake here. Science is true, and if we don't recognise that at the societal level and act accordingly, humankind will become extinct.

I don’t know. Science deals with facts. It doesn’t tell us how to act. We all like batman. We go watch him at cinema and we know that he is a hero. He is a representative of who you should be. Not entirely but you get my point. You don’t go rooting for the bad guys usually. This is a form of truth that is outside science. It tells you who you should be, how you should act. I think we more need to know how to act and figure out who we can be. I think that will help us alot. Not denigrating science on any level. — Caleb Mercado

I've never had Batman used to explain the is/ought dichotomy before. Most people refer to David Hume (1711-1776.) Hume noted this disparity between fact and value, but in light of modern knowledge, it doesn't hold up. Human beings are imbued with a moral sense by evolution, such that - we cannot look at a list of facts without seeing the moral implications. It may be logically correct that no list of facts necessitates any particular value, but human understanding is a synthesis of fact and value. And how can we do what's right if we do not first acknowledge what's true?

Im not a philosopher so this is more hard for me but ok. Moral sense by evolution might be wrong. Why is it right?

We all have a conscience and if we violate it we pay for it with negative emotions. We strangely don’t have to follow it though.

Truth is facts but can also be how to be.

Moral sense by evolution might be wrong. Why is it right? — Caleb Mercado

Chimpanzees have morality of sorts. They share food, groom each other, and remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future. Human beings too evolved, and raised young, generation after generation. Primitive man was not an amoral brute.

For Hume, 100 years before Darwin, morality was an objectively existing set of God given laws, whereas for me, moral implication is an innate facet of human reason. For Hume, is and ought cannot be reconciled - which only holds true if they are considered external orders. Psychologically, we do this all the time.

Alot makes sense here too me but human reason? What is so unreasonable for me to take and get everything i want whenever i want? Seems like the reasonable thing too do.

A lot makes sense here too me but human reason? What is so unreasonable for me to take and get everything i want whenever i want? Seems like the reasonable thing too do. — Caleb Mercado

Okay, but I doubt others will agree.

Yes. But why should i care about them if i get away with it? Or even if i don’t and have alot of “power” why should i care?

Yes. But why should i care about them if i get away with it? Or even if i don’t and have alot of “power” why should i care? — Caleb Mercado

You're right to note that individually, we are not compelled by the moral sense. But, firstly, we should consider that other people are moral beings, also imbued with a moral sense they are not compelled by either. They remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future! Also, there is value in understanding how to reason rightly in relation to fact and value. The point being that the supposed is/ought dichotomy is false; or a trivial observation on the difference between logic and reason. Logically, no list of facts infers a Value, but as Hume notes himself:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."

Every system of morality! Are we not then required to explain so ubiquitous a mode of thought? Apparently, no! Instead Hume goes on to object that this is not logically justifiable. It's not, that's true - but we do not reason based solely on logic. We synthesise fact and value in the manner Hume observed. In my view, Hume's was an observation, misunderstood, misconstrued and magnified beyond all proportion in epistemic philosophy as a consequence of an anti-science bent that dates back to Galileo.

I have to re read that.

I am not saying there is a god. Just that it’s reasonable to take whatever you can when you want. Why should we consider others as moral beings? maybe morals are predicated on the idea of god?

We are reciprocal. But that does not mean we are moral. It could and i think it is more a selfish thing (not bad) It’s more a benefit than being good.

We are reciprocal. But that does not mean we are moral. It could and i think it is more a selfish thing (not bad) It’s more a benefit than being good. — Caleb Mercado

Thanks for your contributions but I think I've helped you all I can. I'm running a marathon for every step you take, you repeated a question I just answered, and I cannot read that sentence above. Frankly, I deserve better!

I came across an essay in AEON you might (or might not) find interesting --

"The fall of the Roman Empire wasn’t a tragedy for civilisation. It was a lucky break for humanity as a whole" the lead says. Here's a relevant quote:

Yet brute force alone would have taken Europe only so far. Useful knowledge also played a vital role. There was no hope of transforming industry and medicine without dramatic advances in science and engineering. That posed a serious challenge: what if new insights and ways of doing things clashed with hallowed tradition or religious doctrine? Innovators had to be able to follow the evidence wherever it led, regardless of how many toes they stepped on in the process. That turned out to be a hard slog in Europe, as incumbents of all stripes – from priests to censors – were determined to defend their turf. However, it was even harder elsewhere. China’s imperial court sponsored the arts and sciences, but only as it saw fit. Caged in a huge empire, dissenters had nowhere else to go. In India and the Middle East, foreign-conquest regimes such as the Mughals and the Ottomans relied on the support of conservative religious authorities to shore up their legitimacy.

Europe’s pluralism provided much-needed space for disruptive innovation. As the powerful jostled for position, they favoured those whom others persecuted. The princes of Saxony shielded the heretic Martin Luther from their own emperor. John Calvin found refuge in Switzerland. Galileo and his ally Tommaso Campanella managed to play off different parties against each other. Paracelsus, Comenius, René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Voltaire headline a veritable who’s who of refugee scholars and thinkers.

Over time, the creation of safe spaces for critical enquiry and experimentation allowed scientists to establish strict standards that cut through the usual thicket of political influence, theological vision and aesthetic preference: the principle that only empirical evidence counts. In addition, intense competition among rulers, merchants and colonisers fed an insatiable appetite for new techniques and gadgets. Thus, while gunpowder, the floating compass and printing were all invented in distant China, they were eagerly embraced and applied by Europeans vying for control over territory, trade and minds.

Fair enough im no philosopher but your claims seem more like assumptions. Reciprocal does not equal morality.

I also took a stab on reading hume. He assumes we have a fellow feeling. This is not the case in according to personality psychology (big five)

Some people are “agreeable” and they care more about others and some people are“disagreeable” and they care about themselves. So the fellow feeling thing is absolutely wrong. Which is his basis for morality. And science figured that out.

And yes. We can talk about right and wrong. I don’t think you could say that Auschwitz wasn’t wrong.

And ofc something ought to be. You believe it yourself when you teach your children. You hold yourself accountable when you don’t liv up to your potential and your conscience tells you when you walk the wrong path. There is an ought ofc because nobody is born perfect. We all know that. We know we could be better. And you berate yourself when you are not living up to your ideal.

It is interesting. I read this quote, then parts of the full article. There's something slightly Panglossian about it. It's reasonable to speculate, but not quite safe to assume, had the Empire persisted it would not have progressed beyond rural slavery - and every reason to imagine people who worshipped the sun and built aqueducts might have greeted the occurrence of scientific method more easily, which might ultimately have served the good, better. Still, things are not different than they are, and there were positive consequences following from the fall of the Roman Empire.