I don't care. I'm not willing to go into the granular detail of the matter. I'd have to examine the EU court's decision, that says in general terms - the UK can revoke Article 50, and compare that to the powers given under the Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017, and that's a lot of work - only to get noped!

Um, — Jake

From Umbridge!

what exactly is a "scientific understanding of reality"? Chanting the phrase is not an explanation. To your knowledge, does anyone on Earth currently have a "scientific understanding of reality" as you define it? If your answer is yes, what are the names of the people who you feel have a "scientific understanding of reality"? — Jake

It's in contrast to an ideological understanding of reality - as is quite simply, the world understood in scientific terms. So, it's not something one has as such - but rather, something of which many people are capable. You do accept, I suppose - that the world is a single planetary environment. It's not made up of nation state shaped pieces. The world didn't come with borders painted on it. Nation states are made up - and yet, it's through the lens of these made up ideas, we make decisions about how to apply technology - not least, nuclear technology.

If your answer is no, then can we agree giving human beings more and more power at an ever faster pace is not such a great plan? — Jake

No. We can't agree. Stop the world I wanna get off - is never the answer. Responsible management is the answer. Responsible to a scientific understanding of reality first, and ideological considerations, like profit - second.

...it's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017). The Withdrawal Act is something else, and follows from the Withdrawal Agreement in a given set of circumstances.
— karl stone

Nope, it's the Withdrawal Act. The Notification Act is spent. — Evola

Nope. It's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017) that prevents May from unilaterally revoking Article 50. It's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017) that followed from the Gina Miller case.

The European Union Withdrawal Act (2018) is something else entirely, and only comes into force after successful ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement. (i.e. the deal....that isn't in fact a deal.)

But they didn't, necessarily, have a scientific understanding of reality.
— karl stone

Ok, so who is it exactly that you are referring to regarding "a scientific understanding of reality"? Imaginary people as yet to be born? — Jake

You're like that fish - who, when asked "How's the water?" answers: "What the hell is water?" There's a difference between an ideological understanding of reality; that is, the world seen through the lens of religion, nation states and money - and a scientific understanding of reality. You don't even seem to realize that your very identity and purposes are shaped by religious, political and economic ideologies.

Well, I'm sorry to break this to you champ, but those ideologies are not true - not in the way science is true anyway. They're conventions, and they do not describe reality as it really is. That difference is the problem. It's why everything is getting in strange ways worse, despite astonishing scientific and social advancement over the past 200 years. It's a mistake in the program - something we need to put right to ensure we can progress toward a long and bright future.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. How's the water?

She could always use Royal Prerogative!
— karl stone

She can't. It was established in the Miller case that prerogative powers do not extend to changing domestic law or affecting domestic rights. — Evola

Yes, I think you might be right. Although strictly speaking:

"Revocation of Article 50 would require repeal of the Withdrawal Act."

...it's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017). The Withdrawal Act is something else, and follows from the Withdrawal Agreement in a given set of circumstances.

Ok, here's an example.

Why did a scientific understanding of reality not prevent Los Alamos scientists from CHOOSING to build the bomb?

Wait, stop, no blame shifting please. Every Los Alamos scientist had the choice to refuse. They could have chosen death rather than to build a doomsday device. But they didn't refuse, they instead willingly participated and had pride that they had been selected for such a high priority project.

The Los Alamos scientists had the scientific understanding of reality or they couldn't have built the bomb. Having the scientific understanding of reality didn't stop them from choosing to build the bomb.

I'm not trying to demonize the scientists here. I'm simply saying that they were human beings like the rest of us, and a scientific understanding of reality did not seem to be a sufficient mechanism for preventing them from doing something insane. — Jake

But they didn't, necessarily, have a scientific understanding of reality. They were specialists in particular scientific fields; operating within an ideological context - in which, the world isn't seen as a single planetary environment, but rather - a jigsaw puzzle made up of nation state shaped pieces. There's nothing that more promotes that ideological worldview than war between nations. I assume the threat of another nation developing the doomsday weapon first was the overwhelming factor. But you're asking me what other people thought. I can't know that.

yes, you keep repeating how it was manufactured. An opinion most Brits don't share with you so really an irrelevancy where it comes to the overall perception of May and the EU. — Benkei

I can't speak for most people. I can only speak to the facts. It's amazing you can tell what most people think. There's a lot of people claiming to speak for a lot of people, and the the only people not getting a say are the people themselves. They were lied to, incited, cajoled, seduced, deceived, manipulated and harried into voting Leave in 2016 - and only did so by the narrowest of margins. There's no genuine democratic consent for brexit.

I'm not saying she will succeed in pushing the perception to one where other people than May will be blamed but it seems the strategy of the British political parties at this time to be concerned with who to blame more then to cooperate and reach a sensible agreement. — Benkei

It seems to me they're trying to walk off the no deal cliff, while pretending it's someone else's fault. The will of the people, the EU, Remoaners - they'll blame anyone but themselves for what they are doing - because they know damn well the consequences will be catastrophic for a great many people.

think there's 0 chance the UK will revoke the article 50 notice as there's no majority support for it in Parliament. There's no democratic legitimacy for the government to revoke it without that support and as such would be political suicide for the already estranged, English political elite if they did do it. The result of the referendum cannot be ignored like that. — Benkei

I don't agree, but we'll see. There's no good way forward from here. Someone is going to end up very much put out, and bear mind that 3/4 of people didn't vote Leave. This bitterness will drag on and on - if Article 50 isn't revoked, the economy crashes and people lose jobs, homes, businesses - because 26% of the population got conned by corrupt billionaire tax dodgers.

Sadly, she does not, and after the Supreme Court's ruling on the Miller case, parliamentary approval may be required to ask for an extension. Revocation of Article 50 would require repeal of the Withdrawal Act. To think that the Miller case seemed like a good idea at the time.

What May needs to do is have that vote, and plead for an extension to A50. In the meantime put in place legislation to repeal the Withdrawal Act, then she can revoke A50. Then she better call a general election. — Evola

She could always use Royal Prerogative!

The way to do that is to accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, as a basis to apply technology.
— karl stone

Ok, could you perhaps expand on "accepting a scientific understanding of reality" in some specific detail, given that this idea seems central to your thesis? If you are willing, please try to avoid typing the sentences you've already shared a number of times and try to explain it from some different angle, the more specific the better. Perhaps you could use some particular technology like AI or genetic engineering as an example? — Jake

Maybe you could expand on what it is you don't get. It really is something you need to 'get' for yourself, because I can't crawl inside your head and point out the contrast between your ideological worldview, and a scientific worldview. I have described the evolution of humankind, and how tribal morality was manifest in an innate moral sensibility, and the tribal kinship structure.

I've explained how hunter gatherer tribes employed God as an objective authority, to allow for an explicit moral code, or law and order, that applied to everyone (think about Moses coming down the mountain with his stone tablets) to thereby overcome the tribal hierarchy problem, and join together to form societies and civilizations.

And I've explained how this created an ideological power structure that had a necessary resistance to the occurrence of science. Science as an understanding of reality has been suppressed these past 400 years - even while science was used to power the industrial revolution. Applying science and technology as dictated by ideological notions brings us to the edge of extinction. We need to accept a scientific understanding of reality - and apply technology accordingly.

I don't know how else to say it. Asking me to "say all that again... only slower, and using different words" is not a legitimate request. If you have a specific question, I'll do my best to answer it.

May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose.
— karl stone

Immaterial if you can blame someone else. — Benkei

The old adage, "we are only ever three meals from revolution" is always worth keeping in mind. May can revoke Article 50, and she should. If she doesn't, and people are losing their jobs and businesses, their homes are being repossessed, and so on - blaming it on the EU and the will of the people isn't going to hold up to scrutiny - particularly when "the will of the people" was so obviously manufactured in 2016, and has changed dramatically since.

Cameron and May were brexiteers - who sabotaged Remain with impossible pledges, and a vast deliberate failure on immigration, while providing for a referendum that was all about immigration. They played a central and duplicitous part in manufacturing consent for an unplanned, uncosted, unplan - that two years later, still doesn't work. She alone has the power to stop brexit by revoking Article 50. If she doesn't - it's entirely on her shoulders.

I don't have a plan - how could I?
— karl stone

Right. You don't have a plan. Nobody does. Which is what makes your thesis unrealistic.

Imagine I said that all these problems would be solved if human beings became gods. Ok, I suppose that would be true. But nobody has a clue how we might become gods. So it's a silly proposal. And repeating it in every thread wouldn't fix that. — Jake

But it's not impossible, or even unlikely - that in years to come people will be looking for a means to systematically address the existential threats bearing down upon us. The way to do that is to accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, as a basis to apply technology. It's actually a very reasonable idea, but it would be unreasonable of me to seek to dictate how that might play out. I can't plan other people's thinking and behavior. I can only make the argument that accepting science as truth is a safe and reliable approach.

The problem is, that science as truth has been suppressed for 400 years - and the countervailing arguments laid on pretty thick. Religion, philosophy, political ideology, right through to popular fiction - the mad scientist is defeated by the God loving, flag waving hero. People are afraid of science as truth, but they needn't be. If you look around at the technological miracles scientific thinking surrounds us with - accepting science as truth would allow us to claim that functionality for ourselves, and apply it to the way the world works.

If we accept science as truth, we need not have less, eat lentils and sit in the cold and dark to tackle climate change, or regret our existence as overpopulation. If we accept science is true, and apply technology accordingly, we could make a paradise of this world - and all it requires is changing our minds.

Wow. You don't understand that border traffic is in both directions? — Evola

More like which direction you're coming from. I'm still not sure. Saying something like "Brussels will not negotiate further. UK will be brought to heal or be cast out." plays right into the idea of the EU as a dictatorial foreign government that underlies brexiteer opinion. You're not, by any chance a Leave voter who's changed their mind, are you?

Brussels will not negotiate further. UK will be brought to heal or be cast out. Ireland better comply or it's curtains. See links I provided to mood of EU Parliament above. — Evola

I agree that Brussels is unlikely to make further changes to the backstop. But for me, the implication is that brexit doesn't work - it's a failed policy proposal that should never have been offered to the British public in a referendum in the first place. Kicking Ireland out of the EU, likely or otherwise - presupposes brexit goes ahead. I don't think it can, or should, or will.

There is only one way the UK can avoid paying the £39 billion penalty, revoke Article 50. — Evola

Ultimately, Theresa May has the ability to revoke Article 50 at any time - and that makes her alone responsible. There's all the reason in the world to revoke A50 - from the corrupt referendum, to the situation in Ireland, to the lack of preparedness on so many fronts, to the catastrophic economic consequences of a no-deal brexit. May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose.

Taking back control of our borders!
— karl stone

The UK can have porous borders, but the EU won't, and if Ireland doesn't comply it will be kicked out of the EU.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1082829/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Ireland-border-backstop-Leo-Varadkar-Theresa-May — Evola

I don't know what you're saying here - or how this is a response to my post. The UK is planning to wave lorries, and presumably illegal immigrants through customs at the Dover/Calais crossing - as a consequence of a referendum sold on the idea of taking back control of our borders, and reducing immigration. The whole thing is a lie.

The Irish border is another issue entirely - one there's nothing much to say on, because currently Theresa May is going back to Brussels, again... supposedly to negotiate on an issue, that from the EU's point of view, is very firmly decided. It's utterly bizarre. Brexit does not work for anyone but disaster capitalists. It needs to stop.

Just read today, the plan in a no deal scenario is to wave traffic through customs unchecked.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47121225

Taking back control of our borders!

Heidegger is not doing metaphysics — bloodninja

He's merely being metaphysical!

LOL

What is your plan for persuading our culture to make the philosophical shift you deem to be necessary? Without such a plan, your ideas are just a utopian vision not based in reality. — Jake

I don't have a plan - how could I? It depends upon persuading other people of the rightness of my views. My plan is expressing those views. What would you have me do - go door to door? "Have you heard the good news about science?" Really?

How do you propose that you will get everyone to "recognize the significance of scientific method" and "accept the authority of scientific knowledge"? — Jake

Do you?

All you're saying is that if human beings were fully rational we wouldn't have these problems, which is true, agreed. But you've living in a fantasy of your own invention, because human beings are instead just barely rational, as it would seem our bored relationship with nuclear weapons should prove beyond any doubt. — Jake

That's not what I'm saying at all. Do you really imagine I'd propose an idea that requires human beings were like Spock from Star Trek - and that I spend all this time and energy weeping over the fact they're not? That kind of naivety would be literally insane. It doesn't require absolute logic to recognize that science is a profound truth, nor to recognize that the world is faced with dire challenges. Indeed, it's the very moral abhorrence of allowing a terrible fate to befall our planet - the love and fear people have for their children, I believe will necessitate action. My theory is concerned with what action is necessary, moral, possible, productive and stable.

I'm not mischaracterizing your theory Karl, I'm just showing you the parts of it that you don't wish to see. And like I said, I'm in the same boat. I keep typing about this as if doing so would make the slightest bit of difference, when clearly that is just my own flavor of fantasy. — Jake

No, you're right. You understand as best you're able. It was mere flattery on my part to suggest a mischievous motive on your part. It's like when a dog thinks he's people - and you play along until it dumps on the living room carpet. Then it get's its nose rubbed in it!

dude, metaphysics and epistemology both suck. — bloodninja

I disagree. Metaphysics sucks because it's all rhyme and no reason; in contradiction to epistemology which asks "What can we know?' and "How can we know it?" - thus providing any epistemology based philosophy with a theory of truth and reason by which its claims can be measured.

Metaphysics can say anything, and reason anyhow. As Heidegger's obsession with the random concept of "being" demonstrates. One has to ask - is Heidegger's work merely the longest dictionary definition of a word ever? A word coined - not as an exacting definition of a nuomenal phenomenon, but for linguistic convenience.

"It's something Jake and I have discussed at great length, that he is aware of - but which he mis-characterizes in order to attack. Basically, I argue that humankind made a potentially fatal mistake by failing to recognize the significance of scientific method, and so denying the authority of scientific knowledge, and that it's necessary - and possible to correct this mistake, in order to secure a sustainable future."
— karl stone

In other words, a utopian vision with no basis in reality. But then me trying to address these topics on forums is the same thing. — Jake

See! There he does again with the blatant mis-characterization.

It's entirely based in reality. It begins with evolution, anthropology, religion, history, the occurrence - and suppression of science by religion, goes on to discuss the consequences of that mistake - and the potential benefits, and dangers of correcting it.

Sustainability is not utopian. It's been the natural assumption of every generation before ours. It's the very least we should expect - and evidence something has gone very wrong if we can see the final horizon.

As for discussing this topic here, I think it better to discuss such a difficult subject in a relatively quiet corner - from a low platform, and let it filter out. If I'm right, and I am - people will find it.

The thread's clearly supposed to be about Heidegger exegesis and criticism, specifically about the relationship of his account in Being and Time to nature. While there is a relationship to physics (which Josh provided uncommented quotes for and perpetuated the myth that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has anything to do with uncertainty rooted in perspectival variation), the ontology of nature, and how scientific understanding constrains and enables metaphysical speculation, your discussion isn't really on any of these topics. — fdrake

You're quite right. I apologize and shall make no further comment, that's not strictly related to the subject of the thread.

Metaphysics sucks! Epistemology rules! Whhoooo! Yeah!

Karl Stone: I have no idea what you've been on about this last three pages. What is this "very deep theory that's concerned with the nature of reality ... life ... the nature of mind"? — Esunjiya

It's something Jake and I have discussed at great length, that he is aware of - but which he mis-characterizes in order to attack. Basically, I argue that humankind made a potentially fatal mistake by failing to recognize the significance of scientific method, and so denying the authority of scientific knowledge, and that it's necessary - and possible to correct this mistake, in order to secure a sustainable future.

To quote Richard Feynman, if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. I don't - but I do understand the philosophy of science, and I'm not willing to accept that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a relevant factor, or that it applies to macroscopic phenomena. This desperate latching onto quantum mechanics by every crackpot metaphysical hack makes my skin crawl. — karl stone

Mine too, but there's is merely misuse. — tim wood

"There's" means - there is! "Theirs" means belonging to them! But forget that. Let's talk about quantum mechanics and the philosophy of science!

And here. I asked you a question, one that only you could answer - and you took care to avoid answering it. — tim wood

I don't accept this is a question, per se:

When you say you're a philosopher, what do mean by that? What is it that you understand a philosopher to be? I'd add the further constraint that real philosophers get paid for their work in philosophy, but while that is indicative, it is not conclusive. — karl stone

It's a snide remark. What was to be gained from answering as if it were an honest question? Let's see.

By 'I'm a philosopher' I mean to say I constantly engage with philosophical questions - and do so in relation to all the other questions I've engaged with, in order to develop a coherent understanding of reality, I hope can be useful to others. I'm never not doing philosophy. I am a philosopher. It's not a job - it's a vocation.

I'm trying to come up with an example of where an increase in knowledge causes harm, or more harm than good. Can you help? — Evola

Depends on how you define knowledge, I guess. It's more complex than it appears, particularly as it plays out in society and the world. An idea I've been batting around lately, is the idea of real internet ID - so everyone would have to be themselves online. It's an idea gaining ground in China for reasons I'm unaware of. I think it would create a more responsible virtual world, but there are potential implications for free speech and political organisation in the event of authoritarian government.

We would know more about who people were, but the potential negative implications for free speech would have to be weighed against the drugs, porn, child abuse, visa theft, bullying, piracy, prostitution, and screeching political opinion online anonymity allows for.

oops!

How do you suggest we sell this theory of yours to the scientific community, the politicians who fund them, and the public at large? I understand your theory to basically be saying, "if we were rational the problem is solved". How do you intend to make us rational? — Jake

My theory is not 'basically saying' that. It's not a basic theory. It's a very deep theory that's concerned with the nature of reality, the nature of life, and the nature of mind - as that applies to the philosophy, politics and economics of sustainability. My appeal is not to entirely rational motives. Take for instance, your masturbatory, I'm all right Jake disregard for the future of the species. I suspect that argument appeals to your ego.

Ok, "an irrational application of technology" seems accurate enough. But, neither you nor anybody else has any credible plan for how we make "application of technology responsible to scientific truth" thus it's a form of insanity to introduce ever more power at an ever faster pace in to the equation. The fact that these weapons exist, however that happened, is proof enough that we aren't ready for more and more power coming online at a faster and faster pace. — Jake

You demand a referee - and yet dismiss the only qualified candidate; that is, recognition of the authority of scientific truth over and above primitive ideologies. You refuse to acknowledge that science as you see it - is science conducted, and technology applied in pursuit of ideological wealth and power. Who would you elect referee? The Amish? Billions would starve. There's no return to the rural idyll for the vast majority. Our only hope is responsibility to science as truth.

It's the simplest thing Karl, once one escapes the group think. As example, do you believe that everyone should have access to any weapon they want? Or do you believe that such access should be limited in some manner or another? If you chose the later option, you already agree with me the power necessarily has to be limited. — Jake

You haven't escaped the groupthink. Your kind of anti-scientism is the prevailing paradigm, and exactly what I'm arguing against. It proceeds from the Church's response to Galileo, via Thomas Hobbes and others, and feeds straight into popular fiction via Mary Shelly. Every mad scientist dispatched by some God loving, flag waving hero follows in the course of this dynamic, and so do you.

oops!

When you say you're a philosopher, what do mean by that? What is it that you understand a philosopher to be? I'd add the further constraint that real philosophers get paid for their work in philosophy, but while that is indicative, it is not conclusive. — tim wood

Do you not know what the word philosopher means? You've got google - look it up! REAL philosophers get paid - do they? Okay then. Socrates wasn't a philosopher! Funnily enough, that's what the town elders thought - only, history doesn't record their names.

To say that quantum mechanic doesn't work or doesn't apply in the world of the big is simply to say you do not know what you're talking about. Real philosophers, it seems to me, attempt to know when they don't know, and as well not to talk nonsense. — tim wood

To quote Richard Feynman, if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. I don't - but I do understand the philosophy of science, and I'm not willing to accept that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a relevant factor, or that it applies to macroscopic phenomena. This desperate latching onto quantum mechanics by every crackpot metaphysical hack makes my skin crawl.

Maybe you should take up the issue with Lee Smolen , who recognizes the dependence of physics on its own worldview(Heisenberg recognized this too), and argues that the presuppositions that have dominated the field concerning the understanding of time are holding it back.
His argument for giving time a core postilion in physics as it has has in evolutionary biology sounds a bit like Heidegger. — Joshs

Do you have any quotes, sources or examples? I'm unwilling to take your word for what someone else said. I can't really engage with that. I've heard of Smolen, but I can't place his work.

Heisenberg is a quantum physicist - and I have serious concerns about the entire field; particularly - I'm not at all confident that there's anything fundamental to be discovered at the sub atomic and quantum level - and downright dismissive of the notion that those mechanics, or lack thereof - can be imported into the macroscopic world we inhabit.

I'm not a physicist - I'm a philosopher, but I rather suspect that the seat of reality is the middle ground we inhabit, and quantum physics is looking at the frayed edge of reality - on the border between something and nothing. It's the very loss of existential properties like velocity or location that underlie indeterminacy in quantum physics, that lead me to posit this idea. I accept it occurs, I just don't accept it's fundamental indeterminacy. It's frayed edge indeterminacy.

With regard to Kant and Nietzsche - I think they're both ridiculous. Their work is unreadable, and that's an entirely deliberate mystification. I have a rule - if you invented a new word to explain what you mean, or indeed, are apt to lapse into Latin at the drop of a petasum then you favour obscurity over clarity, because you're wrong or you're lying.

"The theory of relativity in physics does not deal with what time is but deals only with how time, in the sense of a now-sequence, can be measured. [It asks] whether there is an absolute measurement of time, or whether all measurement is necessarily relative, that is, conditioned."

Heidegger is completely wrong abut relativity in general, and space time in particular. Spacetime is a physical reality that is distorted by gravity. This is evident on earth, where two atomic clocks run differently, where one is at sea level, and the other is in plane flying 30,000 feet above. This is called 'time dilation' - and it's a scientifically proven phenomenon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

It's a genuine shame a mind as fertile as Heidegger's could not accept the reality staring him in the face. Sadly, this is not an isolated example. This kind of attack on science has to end:

"In physics, a theory is proposed and then tested by experiments to see whether their results agree with the theory. The only thing demonstrated is the correspondence of the experimental results to the theory. It is not demonstrated that the theory is simply the knowledge of nature. The experiment and the result of the experiment do not extend beyond the framework of the theory. They remain within the area delineated by the theory. The experiment is not considered in regard to its correspondence to nature, — Joshs

The two atomic clocks do not differ because of the theory that they should, but because of the difference in altitude. It is the physical reality that is tested. Theory is a variable - upheld or destroyed by the experimental results. These pernicious, or perhaps merely self deluding metaphysical philosophers bring us within sight of our extinction. If we do not recognize the significance of scientific truth now - a sustainable future will soon be impossible.

Ok, good question. I'm not sure I have an answer to your "what to do" question, but I'm willing to explore it, here or in another thread of your choosing. "Nothing sticks" because so far, in years of discussing this in many places, not a single person has been able to explain how human beings will successfully manage ever more power delivered at an ever faster pace, which is what a "more is better" relationship with knowledge (and thus science) leads to, as proven by the history of the last 500 years. — Jake

Well first, you might want to acknowledge that science and technology are not applied for scientifically valid reasons. They're applied as dictated by religious/political/economic power structures - for power and profit, regardless of scientific advisability. Were we to correct that error - scientific truth would regulate the application of technology. There's your 'adult in the room' - missing from your approach.

I do grow testy sometimes, which is entirely my problem. I may be making some progress there as I'm close to giving up on trying to explain for the billionth time that being bored with the fact that we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat is not very good evidence of a species that is ready for more and more power delivered at an ever accelerating pace. — Jake

If you cannot recognize 70,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War as an ideologically driven, and irrational application of technology - as opposed to an application of technology responsible to scientific truth, then I'm done banging a brick wall against your head.

The testiness arises from extreme boredom, and a form of arrogance that assumes that I, Mr. Jake Poster, can have any impact at all on a historic process so much larger and deeper than any us. Perhaps I'm learning to be a bit more realistic about the situation we find ourselves in, or perhaps I'm just becoming more selfish in the realization that I'll be dead soon and so this is somebody else's problem. — Jake

Oh, right - because philosophy has never changed anything! If you don't care if there's a future for humankind, your existence was just one long masturbatory fantasy. You took all previous generations struggled to create, from nought but sticks and stones, and merely pleasured yourself with it. Well bravo - but no encore!

In any case, if I wish to lay claim to being a person of reason I have to listen to the evidence, and the evidence from years of discussing this is screaming that reason is not going to solve this problem of our relationship with knowledge, and so there is probably little to do other than wait for the lessons that pain will inevitably generously provide. — Jake

I'm inclined to agree. The overwhelming probability is that we will not address the problem of our relationship to scientific knowledge, and will die starving and sun-burnt en masse; but it's not inevitable - and it's not right. If science hasn't proven itself a profound truth that rightfully owns the highest authority, that's our mistake - not anything inherent to science.

I'm not vetoing further discussion on the matter, for I did of course just write a post on it myself. But I'll admit to not being hopeful we can take the conversation anywhere we haven't already been, and by "we" I don't mean just you and I, but this philosophy forum, all philosophy forums, our culture at large. — Jake

Well I think I am saying something different, and hopeful, and true. I think you people can't see it because it requires you look beyond your ideological identities - and that scares you. You can't look reality in the eye, and assert the worth of humankind. Reality is a threat to you - as is evident in your entire approach, just as it's a threat to religion, politics and economics. Only it's not. Not if you accept it. From my point of view - nothing looks more like the word of God than science. Politics is merely the business of knowing what's true, and doing what's right in terms of what's true. And the economic opportunities that follow from accepting scientific truth, and applying technology accordingly - are vast, and potentially infinite.

Hey Jake. I have a problem. I don't want to let your post pass without protesting it, but at the same time, it's all chewed meat. Maybe stating this question suffices to note my objection, to what you repeat endlessly - despite the overwhelming problems with your 'more is better' denunciation of science having been described to you - repeatedly, and at great length. I don't want to go over it all again, because nothing sticks - and like Eldorado above, you're inclined to get testy when challenged. So, what to do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu7EYbMFOY8

The very first words out of Nigel Farage's mouth are a lie. David Cameron had wanted a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Tory manifesto for Micheal Howard. He again pushed for a referendum in the 2010 Tory manifesto, and finally made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 - that could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.

UKIP were nowhere in 2005. They didn't make significant electoral gains until the 2013 EU elections, and 2014 Local government elections. That was after Cameron's 2010, absurd tens of thousands immigration pledge, and after Cameron had promised a referendum in January 2013. At the height of their powers, UKIP had one MP. They were never a threat to Cameron.

Cameron raised expectations on immigration with his tens of thousands pledge - adding, "or vote me out" - while Theresa May as Home Secretary spectacularly failed to deliver. Nonetheless, May remained in post as Home Secretary for six years - longest tenure in living memory; while Cameron provided for the referendum he had wanted for a long time. (See the youtube video on Cameron, Lisbon Treaty, 2009, below.) May allowed 660,000 migrants into Britain in 2015, and published those figures during the referendum campaign, and Cameron put himself on the wrong side of that manufactured failure as champion of Remain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNoJr0rqq54

Thank you for the psychoanalysis, but if I want counseling, I will consult a professional. — Echarmion

You're welcome.

bogdan9310
12
↪Harry Hindu ↪karl stone
Having different observers, we could be looking at the same thing, and have 10 different observations. Observation is not reliable. Check out this article: https://exposingtheothers.com/the-problems-with-science/ — bogdan9310

If reality is observer dependent, explain traffic lights. No-one has ever gone to court and successfully argued - "The light I observed was green, Your Honour." If reality were observer dependent, traffic lights could not exist. Rather, there's an objective reality that we observe in a subjective fashion - subject to greater or lesser degrees of accuracy. Science employs repeated observation by independent observers to test its claims - and the incentives are to disprove other scientist's claims, not confirm them.

These are a lot of words to say "I think you're wrong". It would help if you explained to me what exactly I get wrong about hypotheses and agnosticism. — Echarmion

If that's all I were saying - that's what I would have said. I've explained why your claim that scientific understanding can only apply to ideas laid out in physics is wrong. It's because science is several things:

it's an epistemology: a philosophy of knowledge.
it's a method: the scientific method of testing hypotheses with reference to evidence.
it's a practice: conducting scientific experiments.
and it's a conception of reality: an increasingly valid and coherent worldview.

You argue that the last, 'an increasing valid and coherent worldview" is not science - but metaphysics. That follows from the mistake of suppressing science as an understanding of reality for 400 years. If you take the sum total of scientific knowledge - the broad picture it paints, then there's sufficient justification for a God hypothesis - but not proof, either for or against. Hence, agnosticism with regard to the God hypothesis.

Metaphysics is an insult. Any valid philosophy begins with epistemology - either explicitly, or implicitly. Heidegger's random obsession with the concept of 'being' for example, is metaphysics, and there's no systematic method to that madness. He adduces observations at random intervals - about hammers and bicycles, to support an equally random line of reasoning - toward a prejudiced conclusion.

Your atheism is similar. You cannot know that "God does not exist as a physical entity." It's 'the problem of induction' described by Karl Popper. You cannot prove the negative. Your epistemology is wrong. You have faith God does not exist - and I cannot truly understand why you would want to believe that. Maybe you're disenchanted - you were taught religion as a child, only to reject it in adulthood, and are left feeling bitter about it. Push past it. Religion is not God. Religion is primitive political philosophy - that occurred in the course of human evolutionary development, at the point where hunter gatherer tribes joined together. They adopted God as an objective authority for social and political values that applied equally to all, regardless of tribal affiliation.

We can know this precisely because religion suppressed science as an understanding of reality. They didn't want to know the truth. They wanted a justification for political power. But if there is a God, and I think it entirely reasonable to hope there is - the path to God is surely to accept true knowledge of reality, and act responsibly in relation to that knowledge. It's certainly the path to a sustainable future for humankind.

Perhaps we have different ideas in mind when we hear (or read) science. I was speaking strictly about science as an empirical method for making predictions about the world. Pure physics, nothing else. That is a form of "understanding" the universe, but it's not the only form. — Echarmion

Perhaps you don't understand the term 'hypothesis' - or how that relates to agnosticism. There are hypotheses that can be ruled out. Geocentrism - for example. It's the theory based on simple observations that the earth is stationary, and the entire universe revolves around us. This idea persisted for a very long time, but was eventually falsified by Galileo, who made the first formal statement of scientific method. The Church arrested Galileo, and tried him for heresy - forced him to recant his claims, and prohibited his works.

This had the effect of divorcing science as a tool, from science as an understanding of reality. Subsequently, science was used to drive the industrial revolution, but to achieve ends described by the understanding of reality constituted by religious and political ideology - rather than, in a manner responsible to a scientific understanding of reality. This was a mistake, and it explains why, now - science can destroy the world but cannot save it. To my mind, you - and indeed, the entire cannon of western philosophy follows in the course of this mistake.

The theories you listed belong, from my point of view, to the realm of metaphysics. They do not describe what we observe, they interpret it. There is grounds for metaphysical agnosticism (though I think the "first cause" dilemma has been solved neatly by Kant and the "fine tuning" argument is utter nonsense). But in purely physical terms, only what is part of a theory can be said to exist. The concept of God does not describe any part of the observable universe, nor does it make any predictions. Hence, physically there is no such thing. — Echarmion

Dismissing first cause and fine tuning by saying "Kant and utter nonsense" is both a redundant repetition and an unwarranted claim to authority. As stated above, science is many things - so saying, 'in purely physical terms' is to seek to put science in a box defined by scientific method, thus to allow free range to all kinds of unscientific ideas. We have suppressed science as a general understanding of reality in favour of religious and political ideology for 400 years, and it's a mistake. Do nation states 'exist'? Is money 'a real thing'? No, yet it's in relation these ideas we apply science and technology. So it's not metaphysics to have a general scientific understanding of reality, or at least, it shouldn't be.

Anyhow, my dinner is ready. And afterward, I'm likely to suffer from postprandial somnolence. So, take you time. Think about your reply!

If we are taking about empirical science then I think the scientifically correct position on God is atheism. God is not part of any scientific theory of the universe, so it doesn't exist. — Echarmion

I disagree. Given a scientific understanding of the universe - there's sufficient reason to form a God hypothesis. Logically, there's first cause, and physically, there's the fine tuning argument - neither of which constitute proof, but are certainly sufficient to support a God hypothesis. If you would entertain ideas like multiple universes, or the universe as a computer simulation - ruling out the idea of an intelligent, intentional cause is a double standard.

The fact is we don't know. No-one knows if God exists or not. Admitting what we do and do not know is important, because the really interesting thing that follows from such an admission is that, if there is a God - then science is effectively the word of God made manifest in Creation, and through discovering and being responsible to scientific truth, we can secure a sustainable future, and survive in the universe - maybe long enough to find out.

Adhering to the faith that there is a God, the human species is doomed - for faith undermines reason, denies a scientific conception of reality its rightful authority, and sets one faith group against another. As a tool of pre-scientific, religious and political ideology, science gives us the power to destroy the world, but denies us the reason to save it.

I don't want to take down science, and I am an atheist. Just pointing out some of its obvious flaws. People treat science like a religion nowadays, and use it in arguments to back them up, even if they don't know why. — bogdan9310

Science is several things:

it's an epistemology: a philosophy of knowledge.
it's a method: the scientific method of testing hypotheses with reference to evidence.
It's a practice: conducting scientific experiments.
and it's a conception of reality: an increasingly valid and coherent worldview.

So everything you said in your opening post is wrong - so much so that you come across as a religious person seeking to undermine science to maintain religious belief, and not at all like someone who understands science such that they could point out its "obvious flaws."

Here's an obvious flaw with what you've said. Atheism is not a scientific conclusion. The scientifically correct position on the God hypothesis is agnosticism, not atheism. It's 'I don't know.' There's insufficient reliable evidence to test the hypothesis. The questions 'what are we able to know?' and 'how are we able to know it?' are what epistemology is all about - and scientific method is the world's best answer to those questions.

Computers are built, right? Science works in the same way, knowledge keeps building up, and you build a structure. And it will make sense to you, and it will work, because that's how structures work. Unless it's a poor one. I'm not saying all science is bad, just that people treat it more like a religion. The problem is the way it's applied. — bogdan9310

But science isn't "just built up." Science proceeds by tearing down what's proven wrong, to rebuild what's right. It's a method of doubt, as opposed - I suspect, to your method of faith. You're taking pot shots at science for God, are you not?

Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. So if you had died, and were required to store your accumulated knowledge in 12 lockers exactly, would the label on the locker read 'Why I'm a Buddhist.' Or were you just looking for a random thread to get all this off your chest? You don't ask any questions. Do you want my opinion - because, I have opinions on several things you've said. But I'm quite happy to just say, interesting post, thanks! And leave it at that!

You tell me. You said:

My point is that we mostly make up knowledge, — bogdan9310

...using the computer that science derived from mathematical reason, and built using ever more sophisticated engineering techniques. Is your computer imaginary? Does it work on ideas that are just made up? Or must there be a truth relation between scientific knowledge and reality - because technology based on scientific understanding works?

Science works because it's true, right? So it's not just made up, is it? So why would you say that? I'm just asking you to be honest about where you're coming from on this.