I prefer to tangle with Box Jellyfish. Pointless and painful, I'm told. :wink:

But different strokes...

It's not whether you win or lose. It's how you play the game. — frank

Would really like to believe that but...did you ever win a prize, a medal, a certificate, or the like for "...how you play the game..."?

I know what Pufferfish are; I've caught them when fishing as a kid. I also know, as I already said, that the Japanese eat them, very carefully prepared (due to their potentially fatal toxicity) as sashimi, which also means they are not unique to Australia (although of course since there are apparently many species, there may be an endemic Australian species).

This notion that the idea of the in-itself is rendered valueless by virtue of its absence from ordinary conversation is an apparently clever nugget, but pretty far off point.

The argument for the thing-in-itself is about apriori knowledge. Yes, it ends up being ineffable, but that's just incidental. — frank

I haven't said anything like that " the in-itself is rendered valueless by virtue of its absence from ordinary conversation".

And Kant's argument is not really about a priori knowledge, but asserts the logically analytic entailment that if there are appearances, then there must be "something" that appears.

How about a method? — ssu

What about a method? I wish to discuss science as an understanding of reality - relative to a religious, political and economic ideological understanding of reality. Do they describe different things?

I'm not suggesting that a scientific understanding of reality is anything more/or less than a description of reality. But it is not a description of mere perceived phenomena.

There are many things in science we cannot perceive directly - and further, science works. Applying scientific principles, we create technologies that function within a causal reality, and the closer the technology approximates the scientific principle, the better the technology works. For example:

"It was not until the 1920s that André Chapelon began to apply the theories of Thermodynamics to the design of steam locomotives, with immediate and dramatic results. Unfortunately his work remained poorly understood in most steam locomotive design offices around the world and it was only in the 1950s that Livio Dante Porta took up the mantle and continued the work that Chapelon had started."

https://www.advanced-steam.org/ufaqs/thermodynamics/

Thermodynamics must describe something real. It's not subjectively constructed. It's valid knowledge of an objectively existing reality, that; when applied to locomotive design, resulted in better functioning engines.

Kant is a prime example of philosophy confirming the position of the Church - that science is suspect of heresy; leading to the promotion of subjectivity/spirituality - over objectivity/the mundane.

"Oliver Bullied is often quoted as saying: “Thermodynamics never sold a single locomotive” (or words to that effect) when commenting on Chapelon’s contemporary locomotive developments in France. Whether true or apocryphal, the remark exemplifies the lack of understanding of Thermodynamics that was widely prevalent within the locomotive engineering fraternity of his day."

Human development is retarded by religious/subjectivist anti-science attitudes. We are headed for extinction, and people like you are unwilling to admit you're in the wrong, because this terrifies you:

"science 'proves' or 'shows' that the universe, as such, is devoid of meaning, purpose or intention."

How can that be so when you are in the universe, and clearly it is your meaning, intention or purpose to crap on science until the sky catches fire?

I can’t say I agree with such a blanket approval of what is known as ‘science’, but I do agree that the process of checking explanations is a good thing. It is the entire scientific method - not the narrow section in the middle that those who call themselves ‘scientists’ today primarily concern themselves with - that has contributed most to our positive progress. Without continually bringing it back to this broader context, ‘science’ quickly loses its way. — Possibility

What's that then?

As in, if you what to claim that there is good science and bad science, we might listen better if you can tell us how to differentiate them. — Banno

I’m not claiming that there is ‘good science’ and ‘bad science’ - only that the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ of science is where aspects of the scientific method (such as formulating both the question and conclusion/explanation) are excluded from the responsibility of ‘science’.

There's a distinction between knowing stuff and doing stuff.

Science falls on the side of knowing stuff. Sure, what you know will be used poorly; but even in the face of that I'm not disincline to say that knowing stuff is worthwhile in that it opens up more options for what we can do, as well as allowing us to better understand the consequences for what we do.

There'd be an argument, should the world end, that we might have been better not finding out the stuff that led to our demise; that our end is payback for the hubris of science.

There'd be another argument claiming that the science is neutral, and our demise is the result of failure to progress morally and socially.

There'd be yet another argument that if we had done more science, so that we better understood our plight, we might have been able to avoid it.

Three distinct narratives. Which to choose? — Banno

Science is part of understanding, not simply ‘knowing stuff’ for the sake of it. To isolate ‘science’ from its real world application - relegated to blindly producing ‘options for what we can do’ - is a fairly recent development: one, maybe two centuries old. Personally, I believe that science is as responsible for the choice of narrative as it is for the knowledge. But the distinction between theoretical and experimental sciences, the call to Shut Up and Calculate, or the business structures of Big Pharma, are just some ways that ‘scientists’ distance themselves from such responsibilities.

At the 1634 trial of Galileo, the Church decried science as heresy - divorcing science as a tool, from science as an understanding of reality. We used the tools, but did not observe science as an understanding of reality. So it's not that:

‘scientists’ distance themselves from such responsibilities. — Possibility

...but that a scientific understanding of reality is afforded no moral authority relative to the religious, political and economic ideological architecture of society.

There'd be an argument, should the world end, that we might have been better not finding out the stuff that led to our demise; that our end is payback for the hubris of science. — Banno

It's not the hubris of science, but a lack of modesty by the Church. If science is valid knowledge of reality, and reality is Created by God, then science is valid knowledge of Creation, and the Church declared the word of God heresy. That's why the world is going to Hell. We worship an old book about Creation, rather than the Creation itself.

You speak of the need to orchestrate science definitely there is a need for it to come up with some solutions to problems it creates, like pollution and damage to ecology. Really, I think that any approach which sees science as completely positive is extremely one sided. Do we assume that nuclear weapons are completely beneficial?

I think that praising science may be a bit premature because if humanity continues in the direction it is going, in using resources as it had done future generations, and other life forms are likely to suffer, and mass destruction through nuclear weapons presents a potential threat.So, while it appears that science has won on this site, I don't think it is nearly as simple in reality. Even beyond ecology, many of the solutions create problems as well as solving them. The most obvious is the way in which many forms of medication have side effects. This usually does not mean that we would not want to take medication, but often, newer drugs are being created to have lesser side effects.

I think that part of the reason why the tone on this thread is extremely positive towards science is because a lot of people in the world feel that science in the form of vaccines are being used to overcome the pandemic. I am certainly willing to have the vaccine and hope that it provides a solution globally. However, it is not straightforward, or completely clear that the vaccine has solved the problem, with potential mutations. I believe that the battle is not over in any definitive way, and it could be with us for many years to come potentially.

I am sure that science will win on this thread, but it doesn't mean it has won completely in the world. I am not against science, but I see it as mixture of potential for benefit or harm, with a lot of unanswered questions about the future.

Do we assume that nuclear weapons are completely beneficial? — Jack Cummins

Previously, I explained to you that nuclear weapons are science mis-applied for ideological reasons; and that there's no reason grounded in a scientific understanding of reality to create nuclear weapons.

Was there a good reason you'd ignored this? Or are your reasons for ignoring this, your own convenience?

I do agree that with you that nuclear weapons are science mis- applied for political reasons. I was not ignoring what you said, but just trying to write a very short summary of potential problems of science. I believe that, in reality, the topic could be so extensive really, especially where the political aspects of science come in.

You quite clearly blame science for nuclear weapons, and the climate and ecological crisis. But if science is "just a tool" how can science be to blame?

(Are you Amish? Then you shouldn't be using a computer!)

Arguably, you have a point where you say:

I think that any approach which sees science as completely positive is extremely one sided. — Jack Cummins

But how does that not translate, in your head - for the need to regulate the development and application of technology with regard to a scientific understanding of reality?

But what if we evolved to be able to sense extra dimensions or some such. Could we get closer to knowing reality that way? — frank

These are a few of my favourite themes. Of course we evolved, but through reason and language we escape from biological determinism. Never make the mistake of thinking that reason can be understood through the lens of biological evolution.

Kant is a prime example of philosophy confirming the position of the Church — counterpunch

Nobody who knows the least thing about Kant would ever make that claim.

Nobody who knows the least thing about Kant would ever make that claim. — Wayfarer

"Kant was born on 22 April 1724 into a Prussian German family of Lutheran Protestant faith in Königsberg, East Prussia. Baptized Emanuel, he later changed the spelling of his name to Immanuel after learning Hebrew. He was brought up in a Pietist household that stressed religious devotion, humility, and a literal interpretation of the Bible."

Philosophically, Kant is a subjectivist. Subjectivity maintains the priority of the subjective/spiritual, over the mundane/objective.

I cannot copy and paste from this link, but it's incorrect that nobody thinks this. See:

Immanuel Kant, Subjectivism, and Human Geography: A Preliminary Investigation
D. N. Livingstone and R. T. Harrison

https://www.jstor.org/stable/622294?seq=1

I am not Amish, whoever he is. I think that I made it clear that I am not actually against science per se. Of course, I use computers and I am starting to spend more and more time on my phone.

I think that it is true to say that it is about the need for application and regulations of technology, but I don't have complete confidence in many world leaders in doing this. I am sure the approaches vary so much throughout the world. As it is now, I fear that we are on the brink of seeing catastrophic events and effects in the world, as a result of the misuse of science. Climate change is accelerating to such an extent, and from my reading of this, it could mean that conditions become unbearable in some Third World countries. It is also so hard to predict or picture how life will be in our countries in two to three centuries time, and on a much larger scale.

On this site, most of us are from developed nations Many are from the USA, and I am from England. I believe that it is too easy to see things from the narrow confines of our lives, rather than from a more global perspective, and with a view to future generations. I am not an antinatalist but can see that kind of critique as pointing to a possible future which may be extremely difficult for many people, especially when petroleum resources are diminished. I know from some posts that you have written you are concerned for science to be able to address the environmental issues. I do agree with you basically, but I think that it is going to take a lot of work to ensure that science works to resolve the problems which have been created.

I believe that it is likely that scientists probably come from various political angles. Also, funding of science is probably dependent on structures which are interconnected to power structures. I am definitely in favour of addressing ecological threats, but I think that it is very complicated and I feel that the future of the human race is very precarious. Rather just sit back and praise science, it may be that we need to see how we can progress to try to avert some of the hazards which are linked to the way science has progressed, to try to safeguard future humanity and other lifeforms.

Kant’s original thesis was on Platonic universals but later in his career he came to completely reject his earlier views. Indeed later in life I’ve heard it said that Kant would literally not set foot in a Church. I think it’s a huge mistake to portray Kant as any kind of religious apologist. As for being a ‘subjectivist’ I think that’s your own terminology. Kant also lectured in scientific subjects - all part of ‘philosophy’ in those days - his nebular theory, modified by LaPlace, remains current. I think if you want to google something about Kant, try ‘Kant’s Copernican revolution in philosophy’.

I am not Amish, whoever he is. — Jack Cummins

The Amish are a religious sect in the US that forgoes the use of modern technology. They are admirable people in many ways - very hardworking and innovative. Famed for barn raising. If everyone lived as they do, sustainability wouldn't be an issue. But of course that's unrealistic.

I think that it is true to say that it is about the need for application and regulations of technology, but I don't have complete confidence in many world leaders in doing this. — Jack Cummins

Me either, and I've just read the report of yesterday's G7 climate conference.

https://www.g7uk.org/g7-climate-and-environment-ministers-communique/

I hate to appear ungrateful for what does seem like serious progress on these issues, but 'net zero by 2050' is not going to be enough. The 420ppm of carbon already in the atmosphere is consistent with 2'C temp rise by 2100. With the addition of approx 3 ppm per year, that's 510 ppm by 2050, consistent with 5'C average global temperature rise by 2100 - if we reach net zero.

As it is now, I fear that we are on the brink of seeing catastrophic events and effects in the world, as a result of the misuse of science. Climate change is accelerating to such an extent, and from my reading of this, it could mean that conditions become unbearable in some Third World countries. — Jack Cummins

The danger is that equatorial forest like the Amazon and Congo dry out and catch fire, like California and Australia last year. Game over. A further danger is that methane deposits in ocean sediments are released, and catch fire - like methane from defrosting Russian arctic tundra is on fire. Game over. Every year the probability these scenarios will occur is increased. We need to positively extract carbon from the atmosphere - not just emit less, or none of it. That's not enough.

So the idea is that we're sort of projecting an environment for the things we encounter. — frank

Exactly, and of which there are but two members of such “environment”......space and time.

The Kantian “an sich” of the full “ding an sich“, is that which is not ever encountered by us. “In itself” makes explicit “not us”, and it is quite obvious we can say nothing of that of which we are necessarily excluded.
————-

It's that we don't apparently learn that, for instance, physical objects have spacial and temporal extension. — frank

Correct. We cannot say whether or not space and time are properties of objects. But of course, the common metaphysical rejoinder is, that they are. To which Kant argues, if such is the case, in order for us to experience anything whatsoever, we are forced to grant “....two self-subsisting nonentities, infinite and eternal, which exist (yet without there being anything real) for the purpose of containing in themselves everything that is real...”, an absurdity.
—————

The argument for the thing-in-itself is about apriori knowledge. — frank

No, it isn’t. It is about the limit of human experience, or, which is the same thing, a posteriori knowledge. The purpose of the first critique is to expose the natural excesses of pure reason, and to set the proper boundaries for it, in accordance with a particular speculative theory.
————-

Kant is a prime example of philosophy confirming the position of the Church - that science is suspect of heresy; — counterpunch

This is catastrophically false. Or, in the interest of proper dialectic, I have no familiarity with anything Kantian that sustains such an assertion, and would certainly appreciate citations in support of it. While it is the case Kant belonged to a religious civil society, and his benefactor was indeed a religious individual, Kant himself had no such overt inclinations, at least as witnessed in his metaphysics and most certainly not in his moral philosophy.

The church may well have thought science to be suspect of heresy; Kant, on the other hand, was a Newtonian first, and an era-specific theoretical “natural philosopher” in his own right, second, re: nebula theory, plate tectonics, refutation of absolute space and time, so can hardly be said to confirm science as heretical.

Sapere aude.

I just did this continuing education class that covered the history of vaccines. The change in human life created by that little scientific biscuit is huge.

But it helped increase the size of the human population with devastating effects on the environment.

Good for whom? — frank

My thoughts also. It seems to me the whole point of the physical sciences is to increase the human population. However, it appears that this virus was created by science so perhaps this is a counter-example.

Our levels of over-population and ongoing destruction of our ecosystem would be unachievable without the material sciences and technology So every silver lining has a cloud... . .

As for whether we should praise science,this will depend on what you're calling science. If you mean the scientific method then okay. If you mean the modern scientific mindset then this deserves vilification. If you mean the science of Yoga then okay. If you mean the science of scientific consciousness studies then we're back to derision and vilification.

So much depends on what you're calling 'science'. .

It seems to me the whole point of the physical sciences is to increase the human population — FrancisRay

No. It is more of a by product in some limited areas pertinent to human health.

This is catastrophically false. — Mww

That's a disastrously naïve thing to say.

Kant is subjectivist. Subjectivism supports the Church's position on science - and this obvious on the face of it; that the spiritual and the subjective are alike, and are opposed to the objective and the mundane. Science is objective knowledge. By emphasising the subjective, Kant undermines the the objective, and thereby science.

The fact that:

I have no familiarity with anything Kantian that sustains such an assertion — Mww

...is neither here nor there. Kant is wrong, because subjectivism is wrong.

Subjectivism was only conceived of by Descartes after Galileo was put on trial for the heresy of proving the earth orbits the sun. And his argument in Mediations, for the foundational subjectivist principle - cogito ergo sum, is a skeptical argument. His method of doubt is unreasonable. Descartes imagines an evil demon is deceiving him - and thereby dispenses with the object world.

In reality, we see the world as it really is. Our senses are limited, but accurate to reality, and this must be so - because otherwise we could not have survived our evolutionary history. An ape ancestor swinging through the forest canopy, that saw the next branch further away, or closer than it actually is - would plummet to its death. That so, empiricism and objectivity are valid of reality, and prior to subjectivity.

ignorantia iuris nocet

I wish to discuss science as an understanding of reality - relative to a religious, political and economic ideological understanding of reality. Do they describe different things? — counterpunch

The proponents of scientism define science to be so different from political or economic investigations. Yet one can be objective, trying to observe reality without any personal or ideological agenda and do this from the viewpoint of politics, economy, even looking at the religious aspects using the same methods as in scientific research.

The Kantian “an sich” of the full “ding an sich“, is that which is not ever encountered by us. “In itself” makes explicit “not us”, and it is quite obvious we can say nothing of that of which we are necessarily excluded. — Mww

Yea, ok. I mispoke. I took Janus to be saying that if we talk about it, we're conjuring it, so it's not ineffable anymore.

I was trying to explain that the idea, whether one accepts it or not, is not something so ineffable one can't even mention it. That's ridiculous.

Do you know much about the IIT theory of consciousness?

I'm not a proponent of scientism, in that, I don't argue that science can establish values. I maintain that morality is a sense - like humour or aesthetics; and that, contrary to Hume's is/ought dichotomy, we rightfully prioritise scientific facts in terms of this innate moral sense.

Your values and my values may be quite different; such that, we can look at the same list of facts, and prioritise them differently, to reach different conclusions about what we 'ought' to do.

This is why Popper is wrong; in Enemies of an Open Society, where he argues that accepting science as truth would lead to dictatorship. We would not be forced to "make our representations conform" to science as truth, because our representations are in terms of our values, in terms of which we understand the facts.

The argument for the thing-in-itself is about apriori knowledge. — frank


No, it isn’t. It is about the limit of human experience, or, which is the same thing, a posteriori knowledge. — Mww

Why would we assume a limit for human experience? Isn't it that noting the apriori status of knowledge of time and space seemed to indicate that those are purely native ideas? We can't see beyond our own projection.

I am not Amish, whoever he is.
— Jack Cummins

The Amish are a religious sect in the US that forgoes the use of modern technology. — counterpunch

:rofl:

I got a bit confused because I had not come across the Arnish and I have known a guy called Anish. I would imagine it is very difficult to manage without technology. I would miss playing CDs too much, and I couldn't manage without a mobile phone, as most things are dependent on them for most of the things we do. I use mine to read and write on this site. If my phone went wrong I would be rather lost until I got it fixed or got a new one.

Kant is subjectivist. — counterpunch

No, he is not, at least insofar as he undermines the objective. He undermines pure reason’s, and thereby the transcendental subject’s, proclivity for over-estimating the objective. He doesn’t limit the objective, he only exposes the human limit for understanding it.

In reality, we see the world as it really is. — counterpunch

Correct, but we don’t care about what we see, as much we wish to be certain about our knowledge of what we see. It makes no difference to us what’s out there, we care only about how it relates to us.

:rofl: — TheMadFool

I don't speak teenage girl. Could you explain what's amusing you?

Is it that Jack hasn't heard of the Amish?

Because that's no cause for mockery, is it?

You should not seek to make it embarrassing to learn things!

Correct, but we don’t care about what we see, as much we wish to be certain about our knowledge of what we see. It makes no difference to us what’s out there, we care only about how it relates to us. — Mww

:100: :up: