> That may be true, but at least it's a belief
> system that conjures up results that can be
> independently verified and not simply taken on
> faith. Science comes up with results that can be
> authenticated, e.g., as being safe and effective.
> For many of us, that's enough of a justification
> to keep scientific researc alive and well.
I'm by no means suggesting we abandon modern science. I'm merely suggesting we each have our own models and perceptions of scientific results. "Any" scientist can predict how far a heavy weight will fall in one second but no two will agree on how or why this occurs and won't model it identically. Most will be incapable of combining this model with all their other models so will never agree on the outcome of complex processes or on predictions of complex or long term events. They won't agree on the causations of things which have happened.
This hardly means we abandon science but merely that we better understand the metaphysics that define experimental interpretations and model formation. It also suggests we develop another scientific language which can reduce poor communication.
> Well, one could argue that the first part --
> experiment makes no value judgement -- is one of
> the virtues of scientific research.
To some extent this depends on how we frame and interpret experiment. That we can show a weight accelerates steadily does not prove that the object attracting it isn't also accelerating toward the weight. Indeed, this is "known" to be true. That we usually dismiss this other acceleration serves to hide the nature of the reality.
> The second part -- that it doesn't confer
> understanding -- is a subjective value judgement!
> I believe science is a necessary, but perhaps not
> sufficient, tool to increase our understanding of
> the world around us.
I don't believe it is at all subjective. It is principally understanding that drives hypothesis formation, experiment design, and even the invention of technology to some extent.
Of course you're right that science isn't the end all, be all of understanding. Most of life can't be reduced to things that can be calculated by science.
> > They are simply a means to allow reality to
> impose its presence in
> > scientific results.
> As opposed to what?
> And what's wrong with that?
As opposed to direct understanding of reality (its aspects) through observation like an animal. There may be no other science possible to modern humans.
There's nothing wrong with it and it's simply how science works. People forget this and then believe in things with no substantiation in reality; like interpreter assisted writing by autistic people, global warming, or whatever the flavor of the day is in science. One crackpot idea comes down the pike and becomes popular among "scientists" and laymen alike. We now live in a world where there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps because we don't understand the nature of the mathematical concept called "infinity". This must put a huge burden on God who can't make a stone so large even He Himself can't move.
The level of nonsense seems to continually increase but no one notices.
Metaphysics is the answer.
> Please clarify "victim" in this context.
As in a sacrificial guinea pig or mebbe even the member of a control group being treated for a fatal disease.
> Sure some
> people exploit science and develop a swampy water
> balloon that they fool us into thinking is a
> tomato, but they also develop diagnostics,
> therapeutics, surgeries, transportation, energy,
> and this funny thing we are tapping on as we
> attempt to communicate with each other here at
> GHMB, etc. All of the latter arguably dwarfs the
> former, especially if you're an educated
You don't need to sell me on science but you're talking more about technology here. Technology is an order of magnitude easier than real science. Many people can easily see how new knowledge can be applied to machines, materials, instrumentation, etc. Technology is a sort of magic trick and there are lots and lots of magicians.
If you want something hard try to figure out the unified field theory or machine intelligence. Try to figure out how to crack them.
> I admit, though, that I'm not that enthusiastic
> about boarding a pilotless jet or even a
> driverless car.
I plan to not travel a whole lot.
> In fact, one could argue that an excess of
> individualism can put the stability of
> civilization in jeopardy.
Until someone volunteers to leave the world a better place I hope we keep the lawyers.
Of course we don't need so many.
> Again, one could just as easily argue that
> individuals who do NOT understand science are at
> least as much of a threat.
I believe none of us really understands science and if he did then he'd realize he's nearly as ignorant as I am.
> > We are truly homo omnisciencis.
> > So we use science as a weapon and
> > impose experiment on people.
> Not sure what that's referring to.
Since we believe we know everything we are careless in all meaningful ways.
> That's a good question, but that's not a reason to
> presume the answer to the point of vilifying
> science for pre-crime.
Again, I am science's biggest fan. Hell, I'm such a big fan I found another kind of science and now have two metaphysics. There's the metaphysics of consciousness that works on observation and the logic of nature and there is the imposition of reality through experiment driven by observation. Coincidentally it uses this exact same logic of nature in its math.
> To what dug out, and buried, resources are you
We mine resources and convert it to garbage that should be bulldozed right out of the factory into landfill to save the costs of marketing it.
> > What happens if we deny an education to people
> in the
> > inner city for three generations and don't hold
> > the officials responsible?
> Good question, but I don't see a strong link to
It's an evil experiment.