It's a wonderful piece. Succinct and lucid. — Tom Storm
Did you like the essay? — Tom Storm
Although, there are signs that the global population growth rate is going down. here
That would solve a lot of problems. And it's largely due to science and engineering. — frank
Rehabilitating the unconscionable? — Tom Storm
But I didn't like it - because in my view, accusations of scientism are an attempt to put science back in a box that it shouldn't be in, in the first place. — counterpunch
Ha. I'd say it's likely to go down big time and soon leaving few survivors, and all due to science engineering. — FrancisRay
Proponents of scientism will never acknowledge there could be such a thing, in my experience. — Wayfarer
Could you write this same sentence again, a different way, as it's impossible to parse. — counterpunch
You may not agree with this sentence but there’s nothing the matter with the syntax. FrancisRay seems to be able to interpret it. — Wayfarer
Do you mean those committing the sin of scientism? — counterpunch
1. The improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
2. The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience". Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture." Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.
Applying the right technologies for the right reasons, now - we can still save ourselves, but it requires we look beyond partisan ideological interests, to science as an understanding of reality. If we do that, it's fairly simple. — counterpunch
Magma heat energy used to produce electrical power, can meet and exceed current global energy demand... — counterpunch
When you say 'science as an understanding of reality', you're proposing it as an alternative to 'partisan ideological interests', and thereby presenting science itself as a kind of ideology. — Wayfarer
I'd say, that we face a climate and ecological crisis as a consequence of the misuse of science and engineering by a culture that deprived science of any moral worth, and turned it out barefoot, onto the streets - to hawk its wares to government and industry.
It's the difference between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality. We used the tools, but stuck with the same old ideological understanding of reality. Consequently, we applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons.
Applying the right technologies for the right reasons, now - we can still save ourselves, but it requires we look beyond partisan ideological interests, to science as an understanding of reality. If we do that, it's fairly simple. — counterpunch
I honestly don't understand what the difficulty is here. — James Riley
Rather, I think the reason we have the knowledge and technology to solve the climate and ecological crisis - but don't apply it, is the ubiquity and exclusive authority of ideological bases of analysis - and what I'm trying to do is get people to look beyond the battlements of ideology to a scientific understanding of reality, because in those terms, it's a relatively simple problem to solve. — counterpunch
Yes, the application of science has brought about much that is unwanted. Nevertheless, science is our best understanding of what is going on, and hence our best chance at ameliorating negative results lies not in rejecting science but in following it. — Banno
Information without the human cognition of its object, is empty. — Mww
Well i’m that case I agree with you. — Wayfarer
Knowledge of global warming had been around for decades before the world in general became interested. — frank
what is the mindset that pays attention to science? — frank
The two have competing epistemologies ... The ought questions rely upon introspection and wisdom, relying upon ancient texts and time honored traditions. — Hanover
The point being, there ought be no conflict if each stays within its lane and we can therefore ask ourselves whether a particular scientific discovery ought enter our lives or not without coming off as anti-scientific. — Hanover
The lanes are not clearly marked. Religious groups have restricted the use of contraceptives to control population growth and the spread of disease. There has been opposition to medical research and technologies that make use embryonic stem cells. — Fooloso4
? I mean, the microwave oven benefits me immensely, but it was a completely accidental discovery, hardly scientific, — Mww
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.