Make the case that immigration ought to be discussed with this in mind. — MindForged

If we want to have lots more people in America then creating obstacles to immigration doesn't make sense, right?

If we want less people in America, or wish to keep the population the same as it currently is, then creating obstacles to immigration does make sense.

If we don't know what we're trying to achieve, then nobody has a rational case to make regarding immigration, whatever side they are on.

If you can't grasp something this simple, let's just agree to disagree and drop the subject.

Ok, so you don't understand that every other species ever discovered has been largely blind to what's going on over it's head, outside of it's niche?

Ok, is 400 million our target? Would more be better? If so, how many more?

Or, is 400 million too many? If so, why?

Should we try to be as big as China? Should we shoot for some other goal population-wise?

How do we craft an intelligent immigration policy if we have no idea what population size we feel is ideal?

Um, no. Most conservatives don't ask that question period. — MindForged

I'm not interested in the liberal vs. conservative shouting match, unless it's going to be based on competing plans for how we reach some specific goal. Without such a goal on the table, it's just shouting for the sake of shouting.

The immigration issue isn't centered on whether or not we've hit some number or range, and whether we're ok with it or not. — MindForged

Correct, that's what I'm saying too. The immigration issue as currently discussed is based on little more than ego fueled noise.

Generally speaking, more people participating in the economy is better for the economy. — MindForged

How many more then? 400 million? 900 million? 4 billion? Shouldn't we have some idea where we're trying to go before we all start prancing about pretending we're interested in immigration?

This is why it seems so hard for theists to grasp the concept of atheism. There's no source, there's just no belief in God or the supernatural. — Christoffer

Ah, so your lack of belief in a God just magically sprang in to existence out of nothing. It's a miracle!! :smile:

Ok, thanks for that analysis.

The question I've raised remains unaddressed, not just here, but also in the larger cultural conversation. What do we want the population of America to be? I'm not suggesting an answer, I'm just suggesting this is a necessary question.

It's interesting to me that the whole culture can be yelling back and forth about immigration around the clock on every channel without ever getting around to asking where it is we're trying to go.

Atheism is just not a belief in God or any supernatural things. — Christoffer

What is this lack of belief based on? What is it's source? How does the atheist arrive at this lack of belief? It didn't just magically pop in to existence out of nowhere, right?

Not so much over our heads as in our heads. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Ok, this is one answer to the question. And like all other answers that have been offered, it's little more than wild speculation.

Anyone claiming to know what is happening over our heads is arguing with the evidence provided by every other species ever to walk the face of the Earth.

No one is asking that outside the right wing because it's a ridiculous question. — MindForged

Ah ok then, so 84 billion people, or any other number, would be perfectly fine for America.

I'm not arguing for any specific number, I'm arguing that it's not possible to have a coherent opinion or policy on immigration without asking this question.

There are some challenges involved in "more the merrier". As example, here in Florida, where the population has exploded in recent decades. Most of the roads (especially along the coasts) have already been widened as much as they can be without knocking down trillions of dollars worth of existing structures. And the folks from elsewhere keep on coming, keep on coming, keep on coming.

But there are advantages to a larger population as well, for example, competing with China.

You're doing what everybody else is doing, chanting your preferred political dogmas on immigration while ignoring the larger question of what our population goal is.

If we want to have many more people in America then the wall is stupid. If we feel we already have way too many people, then the wall makes some sense.

The point here is that it's not possible to have an intelligent position on immigration unless we have some idea where we're trying to go. And we have no idea because we aren't smart enough to even ask the question. Thus, by burping up all kinds of fabricated gibberish Trump is doing a good job of representing the country he was elected to serve.

No, they were based on irrational beliefs and a form of similar religious followings of their leaders that you can see within religious groups, there was nothing atheistic about any of it. — Christoffer

Such statements always disqualify any commentator in my eyes. If Stalin and Mao had been ardent Catholics leading explicitly Catholic regimes (or Islamic regimes) I'm guessing you'd be more than happy to offer this as evidence of the evils of religion. Which you will now deny of course, further discrediting your analysis. Seen all such dodging a billion times, bored to tears by it.

What aspects of Trump’s wall could work? Could it really prevent immigration? — Franklin

Forgive me, but I suggest the entire immigration debate be replaced with this question...

How many human beings do we want living in America?

The population of America has doubled in my lifetime. Is that good? Is that bad? What goal are we aiming for?

Please observe how immigration is being discussed around the clock for years now on every media outlet, and this simple obvious common sense bottom line question never gets asked, let alone answered.

Should we build a wall? How the hell is anybody supposed to answer that without us having the slightest clue how many people we want living in America?

Could this be an idea created by people to give them a sense of purpose or is there really a higher power that we have just yet to fully discover? — Franklin

Every species on Earth is largely blind to what's going on over it's head. Millions of species over a billion years, each and every one blind to what's going on over it's head.

Thus, while any particular definition of a God is surely questionable, the idea that something is going on over our heads seems pretty credible.

Hi Rank! Glad to see you here.

We build weapons to protect ourselves from others or to attack others, because we fear others. — leo

Yes, and we fear others because we perceive ourselves to be divided from reality, separate and alone, and thus vulnerable. "Me" is perceived to be very very small, and "everything else" is perceived to be very very big, and so fear in all it's forms becomes a foundation of human psychology, and is expressed in symptoms of fear such as violence.

Adding more and more power at an ever accelerating rate to this equation is just poring fuel on the fire. So long as fear remains a foundation of human psychology giving humans ever more power is a prescription for disaster.

We don't get this because we've been getting away with this doomed formula for a very long time, and so we blindly assume that we can get away with it forever. What we don't see is that this formula (giving ever more power to fearful people) worked in the past only because the power was very limited. To ignore this inconvenient fact is to remain stuck in 19th century thinking.

The good news is that the sense we have of being separate and alone (and thus fearful) is an illusion generated by the nature of thought, what we've made of psychologically. Religion has been exploring this illusion in a variety of ways for thousands of years, and now science is as well in it's own way.

A key obstacle that we face in liberating ourselves from this fear generating illusion is that the illusion is generated by thought. Thus, thinking about the problem doesn't solve the problem, but instead fuels it.

I agree that it matters we apply technology responsibly. What I don't agree with is that science gives us the way to apply technology responsibly. — leo

Forgive the repetition please, but it seems useful to make a clear distinction between 1) science and 2) our relationship with science.

If our relationship with science was objective, detached and rational we could use the methods of science to develop tools and processes which could help us better manage technology. There would seem to be nothing about science itself that would prevent this, as science is just a conceptual machine with no agenda of it's own.

The problem as I see it is not with science itself, but that our relationship with science has taken on too many of the characteristics of the relationship we used to have with religion. The same human frailties that once caused us to accept religions as a "one true way" have been transferred to science. The same human frailties that once caused us to have an unquestioning relationship with religious clergy have been transferred to the new "science clergy". The same human frailties that once caused us to seek a religion flavored heaven have been transferred to the modern quest to create a technological heaven on Earth. And so on...

We think that the Enlightenment liberated us from all these old ways of thinking, but what happened instead is that the old ways of thinking were just aimed at a new target.

Religion is a useful enterprise until one gets all carried away with unquestioning belief in a "one true way". It's the same with science. It's not religion or science that is the problem, but our relationship with these enterprises.

Great. Me! That was easy. — karl stone

Ah, I see now. It's ok for us to proceed with "more is better" because Karl is here to manage whatever might happen. Ok, so it's just one person, but because it's Karl that's ok. So everybody, don't worry about AI or genetically engineered babies, because Karl is here to fix it if anything goes wrong. Phew!!

Sadly, almost everyone else is operating within an ideological environment — karl stone

My friend, you are TOTALLY LOST within your own ideology. I'm totally ripping it all to shreds and you don't notice, you don't care, but just keep on chanting, chanting, chanting.

Ok, this is how I become Mr. Grouchie Pants dealing with such sillyness, so it's time for me to bow out. Thanks for the chat!

You mean like Mr Smith of 33 Elm Tree Lane, Nicetown, Anywhere. — karl stone

Yup, that's what I mean. If you can't identify a single person who meets your standard of "accepting a scientific understanding of reality" then you have no basis upon which to propose that we should give human beings ever more power at an ever faster rate. According to your own posts there is literally no one on Earth currently capable of managing the new powers emerging from the knowledge explosion, and yet you want to release these new powers anyway.

Responsible management is the answer. — karl stone

Who exactly are you suggesting to be capable of responsible management? Who exactly has this scientific understanding of reality you can never stop talking about? Who exactly?

You have no idea. Thus...

A fantasy plan.

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. — karl stone

Um, 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"?

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?

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?

The larger point is this. Unless you can aim us at something or somebody specific which can change the equation, it remains madness for us to use the "more is better" paradigm to give ourselves more and more power without limit.

We might reach a compromise by agreeing to:

1) Pull the plug on "more is better" for now.

2) If at some point in the future the world is inhabited by beings who have a scientific understanding of reality, whatever that is, then we could revisit the "more is better" paradigm at that time.

As it stands, you're trying to reject my "more is better" concerns by offering in it's place a vague fantasy world which doesn't exist, at least not at this moment in time.

Maybe you could expand on what it is you don't get. — karl stone

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.

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. — karl stone

Yes, sooner or later the level of pain will reach a point where we'll get serious about such things.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Yes my usage of your term proves your point. — Echarmion

Please quote where I used the expression "followers of science". I may have, just don't remember where.

We can debate on whether knowledge in and if itself can ever do harm. — Echarmion

We typically seek knowledge for the power it provides us. In the past this wasn't a problem because we had so little knowledge and power that whatever we discovered was within our ability to manage, defined as avoiding civilization collapse. And so, if we are looking backwards instead of forwards, it seems reasonable to keep pursuing more and more knowledge and power.

All one needs to see the problem of today is to use simple common sense. Children have a limited ability to manage power. Adults have more ability than children, but that ability is still limited. You know, adult human beings are not gods.

Thus, any process which generates knowledge and power in a manner which is not limited will sooner or later exceed our management ability, which is limited. This sounds like futuristic speculation until we face the fact that we already have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat.

Consider a simple graph. One graph charts the slow incremental rise of our maturity, the other graph charts the exponential emergence of knowledge, and thus power. As time progresses the two lines move away from each other at an ever accelerating rate.

Nobody can predict when the moment of decision will come, but if we just use common sense we can see that sooner or later it will.

We could hypothetically address this challenge by radically accelerating our maturity to match the pace of the knowledge explosion, except that we have no idea of how to do that. Or, we could slow the knowledge explosion to match the glacial pace of our maturity development, but we refuse to even consider that in any serious way.

Say you're building a powerful machine with all the most modern features, but the logic board controlling the machine is from a 1977 Atari game console. Sooner or later the advanced features out strip the ability of the logic board, and the system crashes.

Common sense. That's all that's needed. But that's a bridge too far for we philosophers, because simple common sense doesn't serve our real agenda, inflating our egos with fancy talk.

More equivocation. I am arguing with you. — Echarmion

Yes, and it's clear this is the first time you've thought about our "more is better" relationship with knowledge, which is completely normal.

If you cannot defend your point, and instead resort to ad hominem, I think we're done here. — Echarmion

Oh my, we're so very worried about our little baby egos, aren't we? I'm agreeable to being done if that's what you prefer because I know from years of discussing this topic that it's never going to go anywhere.

If you wish to debunk me here's how to do it. For years I've been stubbornly attempting to apply reason to a subject that is beyond reason. On the surface my arguments are very logical, just common sense really, but I've failed to face and accept that logical arguments are never going to be the solution to this.

The fundamental challenge presented by the knowledge explosion is like a force of nature. The notion that we are in charge and driving the process is mostly illusion. The knowledge explosion is like an algae bloom in a lake. The process will run out of control and crash the system, and over some long period of time a new equilibrium will be established. Example, the fall of the Roman Empire, followed by a thousand years of darkness, from which the green sprouts of the Enlightenment arose. This is another cycle like that.

This is the first time human beings have attempted to create a global technological civilization, a very complex project. It's actually not very logical to assume (as I've been doing) that there is some formula by which we can get such an enormous thing right the first time.

Years of discussing this have persuaded me that we're just going to have to ride this out. We'll continue to race blindly towards the cliff, we'll go over the cliff, today's modern civilization will collapse in to chaos, and after some period of time some new paradigm that those living today probably can't imagine will arise in it's place.

I don't rule out that at some point far down the road we'll figure this out, but none of us will live to see what that looks like.

The only rational thing for us to do is enjoy each day as it comes, and be ready to let go of everything on a moment's notice. If enjoying each day involves pretending we can reason our way out of this mess so as to inflate our self images with fantasy, ok, go for it, why not, that's no more silly than bowling and golf and a million other distractions.

but nuclear technology continues to be one of the greatest benefits to mankind, and will continue to be so for eternity. — Evola

Won't matter a bit once the bombs start flying.

Knowledge, and thus science, does produce very many benefits. In the past, that was good enough.

Nuclear weapons do a good job of illustrating the revolutionary new era we now live it. If even a single power of that scale slips from our control and crashes civilization then none of the other very many benefits delivered by knowledge matter. A single power the scale of nuclear weapons going wrong a single time, game over.

This isn't speculative futuristic alarmism. This is the reality of the world we've been living in since the 1950s.

Everybody already knows this. And yet we keep racing as fast as we can to bring other vast powers on to the scene as quickly as possible.

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.

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

Echarmion, apologies, I had written a full reply to your post but the forum ate it. More later, after a nap.

You're admonishing the followers of science for being "like a religion". — Echarmion

Note your use of the phrase "followers of science". Speaks for itself, I need say no more.

The problem is, the indications are obvious to you. They are not necessarily obvious to anyone else. — Echarmion

Correct.

So for all you know, their behavior might habe nothing to do with religious adherence to the "more is better" approach. — Echarmion

And yet you are fighting tooth and nail for the group consensus just as a 12th century Catholic would faithfully defend the Church.

I have significant issues with the equivocation of our relationship with science with the relationship a person living in 12th century Europe had with the Catholic church. — Echarmion

The man in the street 12th century Catholic believed in his Church much in the same way the man in the street 21st century person believes in the "more is better" relationship with knowledge. There's unquestioning obedience to authority and the group think etc.

Be that as it may though, your argument for the out of control nature of science is flawed. — Echarmion

Ok, so instead of just making that claim, please explain to us how exactly it is flawed. Here's what you're up against.

Do you believe that the powers available to children should be limited? If yes, all I'm doing is applying this common sense principle to adults as well. Once you make that one tiny little step it immediately becomes obvious that a "more is better" relationship with knowledge is problematic.

What's confusing you is that for thousands of years when we basically knew almost nothing, in that situation, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge was a reasonable position. We aren't in that situation any more.

Even granting your position that scientists have a duty to limit their inquiries in case additional knowledge is harmful, you are assuming that scientists, and the public at large must share this belief. — Echarmion

I'm not following you here. What is it that I'm assuming?

Isn't this what happened recently to James Watson? — Evola

Expand on what you're referring to here please. Thanks.

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. — karl stone

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?

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. — karl stone

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.

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.

If this is how you think scientists think about science, you don't have much insight into scientific research. — Christoffer

As I said, you're confusing science itself with our relationship with science.

Do you think that scientists don't tread carefully forward? That they don't have ethics? And do you think that all scientists in the world blindly follow science in the religious way you describe? — Christoffer

Which scientists have publicly declared in front of their peers that we should NOT learn X, Y or Z? And if they did, what then happened to their career?

There are millions of scientists so I'm sure there are some rare exceptions, but generally speaking, yes, the scientific community has a simplistic, outdated and dangerous "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus, with power. It's not a religion, but is better described as being "religion-like", a non-questioning faith based belief built upon authority that holds that the more knowledge and power humans have the better.

I say "faith based" because this "more is better" belief is in direct contradiction to readily available widely known and agreed upon evidence, thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats threatening to erase modern civilization at the push of a button at any moment without warning. That is, the "more is better" belief is not a product of reason, but instead bears a closer resemblance to the relationship we used to have with clergy and religion etc. Our modern relationship with science can be usefully compared to the relationship 12th century Catholics had with their Church.

People and scientists trust science because of the facts it provides, because of the technology it develops and invents, because of the improvements for people's lives. — Christoffer

Yes, this relationship is very understandable given all the benefits science has delivered so far. What you're not getting is that there are limits to this process, just as there are limits to everything in all of reality. "More is better" was a reasonable paradigm when we knew very little, and were still riding horses and such. That era of knowledge scarcity has passed, it's over, and we're in a new era now characterized by an out of control knowledge explosion. You, and our culture at large, are trying to apply 19th century thinking to a very different 21st century reality.

To say that science "smell lot like religion" is pure nonsense in my opinion and totally ignorant of what science actually is. — Christoffer

Again, please note, you are confusing science with our relationship with science. I agree that the scientific method is a largely objective, questioning, challenging, rational etc process. Our relationship with science is none of those things.

I'm not against science. I don't hate scientists. I'm not selling any religion.

I am instead arguing that there is a pressing need for us to update our relationship with science to match the era we are currently living in, and racing towards.

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? — karl stone

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Here's the thread where this was previously discussed. If you want to try to revive it, go for it.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3728/the-knowledge-explosion

Only those who do not know what science is or what the scientific process and its methods are would treat it like a religion. — Christoffer

I would counter that those most expert in the techniques of science may be those most likely to treat it like a religion, that is, a "one true way" because they've devoted their lives to science and as human beings are likely to develop an emotion based attachment as a result.

As example, show us the scientists who argue for limits to the advancement of scientific knowledge. I'm guessing such folks are rare, which illustrates the "one true way" mindset.

It seems helpful to draw a distinction between science and our relationship with science.

I would agree that science is just a conceptual machine which generates new data from old data, and is neither good nor bad in itself, like any other mechanical tool. There seems little to debate here.

Our relationship with science is another matter. I would argue that our civilization as a whole has largely transferred a blind unquestioning "one true way" relationship we used to have with religion to science. What confuses many people is that the scientific method is very questioning, but our relationship with that method typically isn't.

I've been writing on this topic for years on many different forums, a social experiment of a sort, and have discovered that it's close to impossible for we moderns to conceive that there should be limits to science, and that the "more is better" relationship with science is dangerously outdated. And it doesn't seem to matter how much education one has, the science worshiping group think has penetrated all levels of society.

Is science a religion? No, certainly not.

Does our relationship with science smell a lot like a religion? Yes, it certainly does. The one true way leading us to the promised land, typically believed without questioning based on reference to authority etc.

There is so much confusion on this subject. We pat ourselves on the back about having transcended religion etc, but really all we've done is transfer an ancient blind faith mindset to a new and far more dangerous enterprise.

It ever seems to me that the more closely you look at something - anything - the less it is, or appears to be, what you first thought it was. — tim wood

Good point. One explanation is that all definitions are inherently flawed given that they are built upon a process of division which doesn't exist in the real world.

We look at a tree, and it seems obvious what it is. And the standard definition has it's uses of course. But we don't see the gas exchanges happening around the tree, the sunlight triggering photosynthesis, the roots underground, the insect and microbe populations which are essential to the tree etc. That is, we see a separate distinct "thing" and not the larger system it is a part of.

If we don't look closely, a tree is an object. Simple, easy, useful.

If we do look closely there is no object, in the sense of being separate and divided from other objects.

here's one more thing before I forget.... :smile: — Jake

Speaking of addictions, "one more thing before I forget" was one of my Dad's trademark phrases. You'd go visit him and he'd talk non-stop over everyone for four hours. He was a good guy, he really was, but as he aged his need for attention skyrocketed, and he expressed that verbally, and no surprise here, very philosophically. I'm the same way, just as addicted, except that I vent my blowharding on the net instead of in person so that people can scroll on by if they wish. Thus, I feel less guilty, and can blowhard even more. :smile: And you thought I was being nice.

Anyway, after four hours of the verbal assault from my Dad you'd be standing in the driveway with one foot in the car, only moments away from freedom, and then he'd say...

"Oh, one more thing before I forget."

And you knew you were in for another 45 minutes. :smile:

Love ya Dad, but wow, the man could talk.