Atheists and their jargon of insults

[cladking]

This is great. This is telling. Clearly it appears, for you, the problem with science is it's success.

No. Absolutely not!!!

The only problem with science is so few understand it. People believe in science and believe in Peers. They think science operates on evidence, genius, and truth. Metaphysics is not even taught in many cases.

Then a secondary problem is science is also being misused by the same kind of evil that brings us "greed is good" and planned obsolescence.

I will agree with you that those are all real problems.

I don't know that CO2 is a real problem but there is an evil using it against the people. It's the same evil that shut down mass transit causing wastage of resources and CO2 production.

I also find it interesting that you don't consider science to have been a problem, or "bad", until Darwin dropped his bombshell of a theory on a overwhelmingly dominant religious world.

In those days it didn't matter that science might be misunderstood. What were they going to do; make everyone haul all their horse manure to be buried in an airtight cave? I can just picture a cowboy with a big pooper scooper.

Most experiment was simple enough that misinterpretation was improbable anyway.

In the end, I think your animosity toward science is misplaced.

I have NO animosity to science. My animosity is to believers, mystics, Peers, fools, and the greedy.

Does embracing our ignorance mean we should acknowledge how much we do not know about the world?

Exactly.

I would argue the scientific community has a healthy understanding of the limits of our understanding.

I find 75% of scientists to be more mystical than necessary in this day and age. The others tend to be fine but most believe 9in more magic than I do. There are no "laws of nature" and this smacks of mysticism.

I get that you feel your concepts of consciousness and Ancient science are viable avenues to address these issues, but I personally do not see them as actual and workable concepts and I think you are going to struggle to find adequate buy-in to make an impact.

Of course not. With the information readily available a person would be foolish to agree with me. Even if I'm right that the pyramids were built with linear funiculars (they really were) a person would be foolish to take the fact as proof that I'm right about ANYTHING else. But Egyptologists should know better and anyone can easily see that they are not studying the artefacts. They should at least question how my predictions can be right and how I alone spotted Ancient Language breaks Zipf's Law. Egyptologist CLAIM to be linguists but they never noticed even the grossest characteristics of the language like the fact it had almost no words.


When I was a boy I invented the most beautiful proof you ever saw that anything divided by 0 is infinity. I shortened it to 64 steps and shopped it around to see if there were any errors in it. Even people I respected usually handed it back after the most cursory examination. I was astounded at the lack of interest in something so earth shaking. Eventually I discovered on my own that I assumed the conclusion on step number 46. It was really quite subtle.

What I learned was that people don't care. It never occurred to me that people who call themselves scientists don't care either. It never occurred to me that when I showed up linguists they would just ignore it like it never happened.

 

[cladking]

I get what you are saying in terms of the complexity of modern society and therefore individuals are really only able to have a relatively narrowed focus understanding of a small part of the complex whole, but I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I see this complex system as especially vulnerable.

This is the way it has worked to date. Perhaps I'm wrong and it can continue. But entire institutions operate without a single individual who understands it! This especially applies to the operations of machines like dynamos, nuclear power plants, and concrete factories. If the entire system goes down restarting it could prove highly problematical. This even extends into finance where most trading is done by computers using instruments so complex no individual could possibly understand it. Without money and finance even for a few moments, everything shuts down. Any sort of panic even among the computers could eliminate the value of anything (like the dollar) in less than a few minutes.

This is just the way factories and markets work and they also have a common weak spot; the internet. We're living on a ragged edge that gets narrower with every passing day. We wouldn't even know how to rebuild systems because nobody understands most systems. It would take decades to rebuild and there would be no crops, no supplies, and no economy. People wouldn't even know what happened because there would be no power, no gas, no net, no radio, no TV, and no nothing.

Yes, I trust we can probably avoid these things though the markets (like bonds) scare me a lot. We can probably avoid them because it is known we are dependent on the net and no doubt steps have been taken to assure that it is robust or a replacement can be started quickly. But the fundamental problem that people don't know how things work still exists. Tower of Babel 2.0

I also do not see extinction looming over the horizon. Whatever may be in store for us in the foreseeable future, however bad it gets, it won't be to the point of extinction.

We have various threats looming. There will be machine intelligence and fusion power within 50 years. Either of these could cause extinction. There is war and hatred spawned by bad communication. One person thinks it's OK to cut off the heads of babies and another thinks killing thousands to punish murderers is acceptable. One person thinks it's OK to weaponize germs and another thinks it's no problem to release them. Incompetence has grown so severe most employees are not allowed to even do their jobs rather they are told each specific task to perform and disallowed to do anything else. In this country 99% of all work is now done by machine and most of the rest is done by "illegals". More and more people are financial or political slaves as we take in each others laundry to earn a living.

It's a strange world that becomes less stable every day in every way and we are led by those who are the greediest ands believe there are too many people in the world who aren't rich. So longevity plummets right on schedule.

I'd be more optimistic if I had any confidence at all in our leaders in industry, finance, and politics. But they're too busy excusing mostly peaceful riots and counting carbon credits to see how they can take the rest of the money even as the quality of goods and services continues to evaporate.

What would be your religious take on extinction? Does your belief system consist of an afterlife? If it does, does extinction really matter? Just curious how that might work.

I had always assumed science and man would prevail. I never anticipated government for rent and gross incompetence at all levels of the commonwealth. I never anticipated that science would become a belief system. I always assumed man would be around to see the universe collapse back in on itself and find a means to not only survive it but to be better for it.

Of course all these things are like a dream upon awakening now. I merely hope that we can find a means that all the young people in my life have a chance to mature and succeed. I'm not giving up yet because of them.

 

[cladking]

While your complaints may be valid to a degree, they are certainly not damning or fatal to science.

It's not so much science that is endangering the planet it is greed. Or more accurately it is the belief that greed is good and nobody is responsible for his actions. People used to be responsible for results and now they are only responsible for what they say. As long as you talk a good game you can lead company, country, or institution. No matter if the place burns down, blows up, or shuffles sideways. Competent people are merely tolerated now days and the dolts are in charge.

Many of these bad ideas derived from a misunderstanding of science but this is NOT the fault of science but of education (run by dolts), government (run by dolts, and business (run by the greedy).

Yes there are legitimate concerns with the peer review system. Journal Publication, influence of money on research, etc. Fortunately, any errors introduced from these issues eventually get resolved over time as the errors get revealed through continuous work in the subject field of study. That is the beauty of the scientific model of inquiry, it has built-in self-correcting mechanisms.

The biggest problem with peer review is people take it as gospel. Some fields like Egyptology are so highly insular and moribund that they can't review anything that doesn't accept a lot of assumptions. They simply are incapable of considering any idea that doesn't hold that ancient people were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged stones up ramps. Only Egyptologists believe these things so no actual scientific work related to the pyramids, the language, or any of the artifacts can ever be considered. Not only does this deprive the world of expert opinion but it also deprives Egyptology of facts. Incredibly the powers that be in Egyptology are currently depriving even PEERS of data concerning the recent scientific testing on the Great Pyramid because it flies in the ace of dogma (and supports my theory)!!! More incredibly the Peers being deprived of this data don't even care!!! Not one has gone on record to complain TMK.

I predicted ,long ago that Egyptology would never adapt and simply become irrelevant to the study of language, people, and pyramids. It is coming to pass and likely to accelerate. Even young Egyptologists are more and more jumping ship.

 

[cladking]

Because science is based on verifiable evidence, not wishfull thinking.

No. Science is based on experiment and many find it beneficial to insult anyone who doesn't agree with their scientific beliefs. At the first whiff of scientific heresy there is a barrage of insults. Many believers live on the low road when it comes to discussion of opposing views.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is great. This is telling. Clearly it appears, for you, the problem with science is it's success. In your view, continued scientific improvement in our understanding is a bad thing. Bad because, in your mind, it means ever greater ability to kill millions, waste vast resources, demands greater energy use and therefore more CO2 released into the atmosphere.

I will agree with you that those are all real problems. What I would disagree with is the idea that it is the sole result of our improved scientific understanding of the world. I would suggest instead that the primary cause of the problems you describe is our ever increasing population. Killing millions, wasting resources, damaging ecosystems has been occurring for thousands of years. The only difference is that the further back one goes, the smaller the overall global population and thus the proportionately smaller impact.

Here is an example:

"The first humans arrived in Australia about 50,000 years ago. Miller said that more than 85 percent of Australia’s mammals – birds and reptiles weighing over 100 pounds – went extinct a few thousand years after the first humans arrived." LINK​

Think about that. Eighty five percent of animals above 100 lbs driven to extinction simply by the introduction of Homo Sapiens to the continent of Australia. This impact was not the result of "bad science" but purely the result of human nature.

I also find it interesting that you don't consider science to have been a problem, or "bad", until Darwin dropped his bombshell of a theory on a overwhelmingly dominant religious world. I can only imagine that an inability to reconcile the Theory of Evolution (as revised and currently understood) is the cause for this attitude.

In the end, I think your animosity toward science is misplaced. Human behavior and ever increasing population would be better candidates for your ire. I see have a better understanding of the world and ourselves only helping, not hurting our chances at solving these issues.



Does embracing our ignorance mean we should acknowledge how much we do not know about the world? I would argue the scientific community has a healthy understanding of the limits of our understanding. I certainly do not see preserving ignorance as the solution, rather, a better understanding of why we behave the way we do and developing strategies to manage that would be a more productive option, in my opinion.

I get that you feel your concepts of consciousness and Ancient science are viable avenues to address these issues, but I personally do not see them as actual and workable concepts and I think you are going to struggle to find adequate buy-in to make an impact.

I think that success of science is a big problem for some theists in general. Perhaps not a problem so much as a source of frustration.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because science is based on verifiable evidence, not wishfull thinking.

I consider evidence from observation or experiment, hypothesis testing and the scientific method as the basis of science.

This claim that true science is only from experiment is balloon juice.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, you often have little nuggets of truth or legitimate complaint hidden amongst the rest of your arcane ideas. Yes there are legitimate concerns with the peer review system. Journal Publication, influence of money on research, etc. Fortunately, any errors introduced from these issues eventually get resolved over time as the errors get revealed through continuous work in the subject field of study. That is the beauty of the scientific model of inquiry, it has built-in self-correcting mechanisms.

But it is becoming clear to me that you know and appreciate that scientific inquiry works. I just don't understand why you perseverate over problems that are already anticipated. It is understood and accepted that human investigators are not perfect.

While your complaints may be valid to a degree, they are certainly not damning or fatal to science.

Arcane? I had a different word in mind, but that seems fitting as a description.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. Science is based on experiment and many find it beneficial to insult anyone who doesn't agree with their scientific beliefs. At the first whiff of scientific heresy there is a barrage of insults. Many believers live on the low road when it comes to discussion of opposing views.

No all theories, hypotheses, and the design of experiments in recent history are based on the ability to make predictions based objective verifiability of physical evidence. Scientific journals are rather dry and factual without the dog and pony shows, insults and theatrics of your world, No mention of God or subjective beliefs like in your "magic " worlds. There is no mention of insults in here. Basic sciences do not deal with what is beneficial to anyone. The applied sciences are based on what is beneficial, but yes applied sciences have been sometimes misquided and not really beneficial My focus in your objections is the nature of Methodological Naturalism in the Basic Sciences and sciences such as abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[MikeF]

Arcane? I had a different word in mind, but that seems fitting as a description.

My goal is to remain polite and friendly, although I slip from time to time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My goal is to remain polite and friendly, although I slip from time to time.

You are a very good example. I get frustrated after a while sometimes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No.

Yes.

Science is based on experiment and many find it beneficial to insult anyone who doesn't agree with their scientific beliefs.

Science isn't about beliefs. It's about verifiable evidence. Be it experiment, observation, what-have-you.
If it isn't independently verifiable, it's not scientific.
Deal with it.

At the first whiff of scientific heresy there is a barrage of insults. Many believers live on the low road when it comes to discussion of opposing views.

This silly rhetoric of yours is getting dull

 

[MikeF]

I merely hope that we can find a means that all the young people in my life have a chance to mature and succeed. I'm not giving up yet because of them.

Indeed. I, and I am confident that many others, share this sentiment deeply. I lean towards the optimistic side of the scale and have some confidence in our ability to adapt and adjust. I really don't imagine humanity falling into an utter dystopian nightmare or bringing about a rapid extinction. I suppose only time will tell.

I will clarify the above statement to say that I am fully aware and completely agree that there are currently people living in a dystopian nightmare, and that historically there have always been those who have had to endure a bleak and hard existence, with actual percentages of overall population in those conditions varying over time. I see no foreseeable way to eliminate all pain and suffering, so my optimism is a statistical one, if you will.

 

[MikeF]

It's not so much science that is endangering the planet it is greed.

Well, there ya go. We have reached some common ground on science! In future, I will simply attribute all your complaints about science to your being an old curmudgeon.

As to greed endangering the planet, I see this sentiment expressed by others here on RF. I find the term "greed" rather emotional and not a very useful term, especially when trying to find common ground upon which to create solutions. I see the phrase "self interest" as a more neutral term and one that speaks to one of our primary instinctual drives. Self interest is baked into our DNA. In my view, I really do not see solutions that focus on suppressing or eliminating this primary drive, or even attempting to ignore it, having any chance of being successful. I feel that self interest needs to be acknowledge, accepted for what it is, and managed in a way that both satisfies the drive and maximally benefits society as a whole.

The biggest problem with peer review is people take it as gospel.

This isn't really a problem though, is it. Time solves this problem, as it has in the past and as it will continue to do. Science is all about this fundamental truth that human beings are flawed and fallible creatures. I know you will have a hard time letting this complaint go, so I'll chock it up to your curmudeonlyness.

 

[cladking]

This silly rhetoric of yours is getting dull

Certainly the insults and snide attacks will never get old.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Certainly the insults and snide attacks will never get old.

Yes, yes...
When all else fails, grasp for false ad hominem accusations.

All the while, off course, ignoring the actual points made and even cut them out of the quotes.

Good job.

 

[cladking]

Indeed. I, and I am confident that many others, share this sentiment deeply. I lean towards the optimistic side of the scale and have some confidence in our ability to adapt and adjust. I really don't imagine humanity falling into an utter dystopian nightmare or bringing about a rapid extinction. I suppose only time will tell.

I used to be a lot more optimistic. I used to believe that scientists want to learn truth and would never suppress it or avert their eyes from it. ...All scientists. ...Even those scientists I used to think of as soft scientists and now think of as anti-scientists at worst and pseudo-scientists at best. It never occurred to me that anyone who was trained in any specialty at all wouldn't value truth and the discovery of reality over things like blind superstition and their own petty careers. It never occurred to me that people would tolerate mysticism among leaders.

Now that I know better others of my assumptions are cast in doubt. I wonder how robust the internet is some branches of "science" can't even support their own weight. How long until some real scientist creates an experiment that destroys the planet or the ability of humans to exist on it?

I once believed that our leaders were inept but had the interests of most of the people at heart. Now it appears thewy are mostly just inept.

We the people, the little common people, could certainly survive and thrive under virtually any conditions but in the last 110 years we've allowed any fool to jump in front of us and yell "follow me". We've stopped believing the ability of some people to generate good results and this is one of the greatest threats to humanity. We allow schools that don't teach and Congresses that don't lead. Everything exists principally to make a few wealthier and to destroy ever more resources.

 

[cladking]

I will clarify the above statement to say that I am fully aware and completely agree that there are currently people living in a dystopian nightmare, and that historically there have always been those who have had to endure a bleak and hard existence, with actual percentages of overall population in those conditions varying over time. I see no foreseeable way to eliminate all pain and suffering, so my optimism is a statistical one, if you will.

Historically even those with the hardest lives had choices. This is less true today.

 

[cladking]

We have reached some common ground on science! In future, I will simply attribute all your complaints about science to your being an old curmudgeon.

I never thought it would happen to me since I have always had a Pollyanna attitude. Live and learn.

see the phrase "self interest" as a more neutral term and one that speaks to one of our primary instinctual drives.

NO. Absolutory not. There are those who will destroy a product, company, stock holders, and suppliers; who will destroy billions of dollars in wealth as well as thousands of lives to make a lousy million dollars. There was once a time that companies competed to build a better mousetrap but now they compete to build ever worse garbage. It used to be usurpers had to pay a 95% tax on their ill gotten gains so it was easier to make money competing successfully but now they pay lower taxes than their secretaries so an easy million destroying things is an easy million.

The economy is like a thief who smashes your windshield to get a dime off the dashboard. It's barely worth a few seconds but a dime's a dime.

 

[shunyadragon]

Certainly the insults and snide attacks will never get old.

Yes it is a real problem for concerning the treatment of science and others in the forum.

 

[MikeF]

I used to be a lot more optimistic. I used to believe that scientists want to learn truth and would never suppress it or avert their eyes from it. ...All scientists. ...Even those scientists I used to think of as soft scientists and now think of as anti-scientists at worst and pseudo-scientists at best. It never occurred to me that anyone who was trained in any specialty at all wouldn't value truth and the discovery of reality over things like blind superstition and their own petty careers. It never occurred to me that people would tolerate mysticism among leaders.

Now that I know better others of my assumptions are cast in doubt. I wonder how robust the internet is some branches of "science" can't even support their own weight. How long until some real scientist creates an experiment that destroys the planet or the ability of humans to exist on it?

I once believed that our leaders were inept but had the interests of most of the people at heart. Now it appears thewy are mostly just inept.

We the people, the little common people, could certainly survive and thrive under virtually any conditions but in the last 110 years we've allowed any fool to jump in front of us and yell "follow me". We've stopped believing the ability of some people to generate good results and this is one of the greatest threats to humanity. We allow schools that don't teach and Congresses that don't lead. Everything exists principally to make a few wealthier and to destroy ever more resources.

Yep, I get where you're coming from.