Poor and Homelessness

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel, I don't think you even read what I write. If ethics is a subjective construct, as I said, then folks have to come to some agreement on what it entails, or alternatively, those with enough power can simply force their subjective construct on to the whole group. Either way, the construct must be created. Once created however, one can objectively consider its affects and outcomes. When formulating an ethical construct, one can use objective information to support or critique a construct or a specific aspect of an ethical system.

As to their being different versions of science, I really don't know what you mean by repeating this. We group and categorize things in all sorts of ways. We can create hierarchies of categories to help us understand how similar activities or things can be related yet have distinct aspects. All of it are abstractions we create to organize and help us think about things.

If you are saying there are different versions of science in that we can differentiate physics as a category, biology as a category, chemistry as a category, etc. then yeah, we can group and divide scientific investigations in all manner of ways. If, on the other hand, you mean to say there are 'sciences' that would not be considered science by reputable academic institutions, then I would take issue with that.

When I speak of science, I refer to any legitimate scientific inquiry that adheres to standards and principles designed to mitigate the fallibility of a human investigator.

There have in history for all humans for all time been no single ethical construct for a "we". So you are going to do it, right.
As for science, in my culture there are 7 kinds and natural science is only one of them.
As for philosophy of science there are currently 5 different ones if not more.

Your own culture is showing.

 

[MikeF]

There have in history for all humans for all time been no single ethical construct for a "we". So you are going to do it, right.
As for science, in my culture there are 7 kinds and natural science is only one of them.
As for philosophy of science there are currently 5 different ones if not more.

Your own culture is showing.

But Mikkel, science is not culturally specific. The whole point is to mitigate bias in the investigator, not wallow in cultural baggage.

As for ethical constructs, they are a constant work in progress. In my subjective opinion, ethical systems have improved over time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But Mikkel, science is not culturally specific. The whole point is to mitigate bias in the investigator, not wallow in cultural baggage.

As for ethical constructs, they are a constant work in progress. In my subjective opinion, ethical systems have improved over time.

Science is cultural. There are different cultural traditions for it. Just read some actual sociology on science or the history of science.

Even this quote will do:
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

 

[MikeF]

Science is cultural. There are different cultural traditions for it. Just read some actual sociology on science or the history of science.

Even this quote will do:
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

Human beings are imperfect and fallible creatures. That is the whole point of taking a scientific approach, one is actively trying to identify sources of bias and mitigate them. Your quote simply highlights some of the sources of bias that must be overcome.

The fact that these influences described by Gould have been realized and identified, one can evaluate past investigations for signs that they have been adversely affected by such bias, and future investigations can take steps to counter such bias in the design of the investigation and in drawing conclusions.

This is how science works. Realize a source of human error affecting the investigation or conclusions drawn and try to mitigate it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Human beings are imperfect and fallible creatures. That is the whole point of taking a scientific approach, one is actively trying to identify sources of bias and mitigate them. Your quote simply highlights some of the sources of bias that must be overcome.

The fact that these influences described by Gould have been realized and identified, one can evaluate past investigations for signs that they have been adversely affected by such bias, and future investigations can take steps to counter such bias in the design of the investigation and in drawing conclusions.

This is how science works. Realize a source of human error affecting the investigation or conclusions drawn and try to mitigate it.

But we can't do it with science right now, right? It is not also a process in the present, for which you are a product of one culture and I of another, because your culture is all of humanity.
Learn to check your own culture and thinking.

 

[MikeF]

But we can't do it with science right now, right? It is not also a process in the present, for which you are a product of one culture and I of another, because your culture is all of humanity.
Learn to check your own culture and thinking.

Again, this is the point of science. It is not just Americans doing science and writing about science for Americans, or [Name A County] doing science for [That Named County]. Science is published and widely disseminated. There are international conferences and symposiums. If there is a problem or discrepancy that seems to be culturally related, it will be highlighted and challenged, or at least that would be the goal.

This also highlights why science is an improvement over philosophy. Science acknowledges fallibility in the human investigator and endeavors to mitigate that fallibility.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, this is the point of science. It is not just Americans doing science and writing about science for Americans, or [Name A County] doing science for [That Named County]. Science is published and widely disseminated. There are international conferences and symposiums. If there is a problem or discrepancy that seems to be culturally related, it will be highlighted and challenged, or at least that would be the goal.

This also highlights why science is an improvement over philosophy. Science acknowledges fallibility in the human investigator and endeavors to mitigate that fallibility.

Yes, but that fallibility changes when you leave natural science.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, but that fallibility changes when you leave natural science.

Every question or problem will have its unique challenges and methods required to investigate it. But whatever the question you are trying to answer, it is a human being asking and answering, and it is the potential impact of a fallible investigator that must be mitigated. Whether in physics, psychology, economics, politics etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Every question or problem will have its unique challenges and methods required to investigate it. But whatever the question you are trying to answer, it is a human being asking and answering, and it is the potential impact of a fallible investigator that must be mitigated. Whether in physics, psychology, economics, politics etc.

Have you ever read cross discipline books including several different versions of science?

 

[PruePhillip]

Nope. Fascism is far right, and socialism is left with communism being far left. Marxism is more of a philosophy based on Marx's teachings that encompasses many factors.

Communism and Fascism are remarkably similar. In fact Nazism was called National Socialism. This constrasts with the Soviets international Socialism.

Please note the political wheel. IMO the best politics is the politics of MODERATION. The absolute worst is Fascism/Communism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Communism and Fascism are remarkably similar. In fact Nazism was called National Socialism. This constrasts with the Soviets international Socialism.

Please note the political wheel. IMO the best politics is the politics of MODERATION. The absolute worst is Fascism/Communism.

View attachment 68056

What is science, intelligence and logic when it comes to politics?

 

[PruePhillip]

What is science, intelligence and logic when it comes to politics?

The question is vague, but IMO it leads people to adopting moderate political positions. I for one support business and trade unions, profit and welfare nets. So I am a voter who can vote for center right and center left. And understanding someting of history and human nature leads me to reject popularism and Marxism. And of course, my political enemy is the Extremist or Radical the 'Haters' as I call them.

 

[rational experiences]

The rich man hypocrite stopped nuclear science as he didn't want to be science caused poor and homeless.

As he is a hypocrite on both sides of the coin.

Just a man who said living celled microorganisms in water saved his machines reaction from blowing up...power plant advice.

As now flooding extra water mass cools earth mass machines natural position... life's water and reactions beginning position as his man's science. How life saved his machine. Told first theoried second..

 

[metis]

Communism and Fascism are remarkably similar. In fact Nazism was called National Socialism. This constrasts with the Soviets international Socialism.

The NAZI's used "Socialist" in their name because it had grown increasingly popular as a response to the ills of capitalism. The reality is that they were certainly not socialists.

As far as the rest, here:
Nazism is a form of fascism,[4][5][6][7] with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system... Hitlerfaschismus). The later related term "neo-Nazism" is applied to other far-right groups with similar ideas which formed after the Second World War... -- Nazism - Wikipedia

otoh:
Socialism is a left-wing[1] economic philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic systems characterized by the dominance of social ownership[2] of the means of production[3][4] as opposed to private ownership.[5][6][4] ... -- Socialism - Wikipedia

 

[PruePhillip]

The NAZI's used "Socialist" in their name because it had grown increasingly popular as a response to the ills of capitalism. The reality is that they were certainly not socialists.

As far as the rest, here:
Nazism is a form of fascism,[4][5][6][7] with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system... Hitlerfaschismus). The later related term "neo-Nazism" is applied to other far-right groups with similar ideas which formed after the Second World War... -- Nazism - Wikipedia

otoh:
Socialism is a left-wing[1] economic philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic systems characterized by the dominance of social ownership[2] of the means of production[3][4] as opposed to private ownership.[5][6][4] ... -- Socialism - Wikipedia

It's been said that Communism OWNED the means of production, and Fascism CONTROLLED the means of production.
Both are dictatorships. Both appeal to the working class (for Hitler look no further than his 'people's car', the VW beatle)
Both have trade union grass roots.
And both started WW2 when Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland.

 

[metis]

Both have trade union grass roots.

Both eliminated trade unions while pretending to be pro-union when campaigning prior to their taking power.

And both started WW2 when Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland.

Nope, it was the NAZI invasion moving east that started WWII.

BTW, you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong when you said both were leftist, so I couldn't help but notice that. Confession is hot a weakness-- it's a strength.

 

[PruePhillip]

Both eliminated trade unions while pretending to be pro-union when campaigning prior to their taking power.

Nope, it was the NAZI invasion moving east that started WWII.

BTW, you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong when you said both were leftist, so I couldn't help but notice that. Confession is hot a weakness-- it's a strength.

Stalin and Hitler started WW2 by invading Poland. Russia then attacked Finland and Germany attacked France.
Russia was an internationalist socialist party and Germany was a nationalist socialist party.
Russia owned industry, Germany controlled industry.
Both appealed to the working class and both crushed the working class
Both fought their own minorities
Both had utopian goals
Both sought for revolution
And Nazism also fought the bourgeoisie, money, parliaments, parties, and all the other "decadent," "Judeo-plutocratic" elements.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Stalin and Hitler started WW2 by invading Poland. Russia then attacked Finland and Germany attacked France.
Russia was an internationalist socialist party and Germany was a nationalist socialist party.
Russia owned industry, Germany controlled industry.
Both appealed to the working class and both crushed the working class
Both fought their own minorities
Both had utopian goals
Both sought for revolution
And Nazism also fought the bourgeoisie, money, parliaments, parties, and all the other "decadent," "Judeo-plutocratic" elements.

So all dictatorships are left, is that it?

 

[PruePhillip]

So all dictatorships are left, is that it?

Nah... dictatorships come in all shapes, sizes and political orientation. Is Iran left or right?

But... Hitler joined the German Workers Party. It was anti-Capitalist.

 

[metis]

Stalin and Hitler started WW2 by invading Poland.

Nope:
In Europe, Germany and Italy were becoming more aggressive. In March 1938, Germany annexed Austria, again provoking little response from other European powers.[52] Encouraged, Hitler began pressing German claims on the Sudetenland, an area of Czechoslovakia with a predominantly ethnic German population. Soon the United Kingdom and France followed the appeasement policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and conceded this territory to Germany in the Munich Agreement, which was made against the wishes of the Czechoslovak government, in exchange for a promise of no further territorial demands.[53] Soon afterwards, Germany and Italy forced Czechoslovakia to cede additional territory to Hungary, and Poland annexed Czechoslovakia's Zaolzie region.[54]... -- World War II - Wikipedia

and:
Germany started World War II by invading Poland on September 1, 1939... -- World War II in Europe | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)