> > "Science" as it is practiced or understood by
> > virtually all individuals is chiefly just
> > belief system.
> 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.
Science said it was safe to do nuclear tests, safe to watch the bombs with silly glasses.
> For many of us, that's enough of a justification
> to keep scientific researc alive and well.
Or it's enough of a disaster to doubt science every step of the way.
> Well, one could argue that the first part --
> experiment makes no value judgement -- is one of
> the virtues of scientific research.
> 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.
Is that the objective of science? To understand the world around us. If so, they're not close yet.
> > I no sooner want to be a victim of science than
> > the "Inquisition".
> Please clarify "victim" in this context. 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
We always love science when it makes our life easier.
Lobotomies had victims.
The Tuskegee experiment had victims.
Nuclear plant meltdowns had victims.
> > Life is individual and at least to some extent
> > human life is special or valuable and any
> > system that excludes this is dangerous. Any
> > belief system that destroys individuals is an
> > evil.
> I've often wondered about that. Ants and bees
> don't seem to complain that much, and they've been
> around for millions of years.
How would we know if an ant or bee complains?
I could say an individual bee complains when it stings you.
> In fact, one could argue that an excess of
> individualism can put the stability of
> civilization in jeopardy.
But if we were all the same, all thought the same, all felt the same, we'd be clones. Would you consider it an excess of individuality that spurred M. Curie? I would definitely say it was an excess that drove Isaac Newton. An excess is often called genius.
> Again, one could just as easily argue that
> individuals who do NOT understand science are at
> least as much of a threat. Many of them are dead
> from smoking cigarettes, denying warnings of
> fires, earthquakes, tornados, and floods, not
> understanding physics enough to appreciate the
> risk of going 100 mph in a 50 mph zone, not having
> that pain on the lower left abdomen looked at by a
> scientific professional...
Silicon Valley is built on top of faults, not beside faults, but on top of. Because there is no place else to build, they are out of room. It is thriving because the world loves computers. It would not have succeeded if the brain power had been scattered across the states. Concentrating it into one location intensified the competition, it put the brains in close proximity to share and grow. Do they worry about earthquakes? No. They have the 'it will never happen to me' syndrome.
> > Most people don't understand metaphysics so
> > impossible to understand the science which
> > from it.
> This may be true.
I'm still trying to figure out ck's definition of metaphysics. The way he uses the word is nothing like I've seen, and I've been deep into metaphysics, without drugs I might add.
> > 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
In a way there is a direct link. The cost of an education in the US is prohibitive. Partly because the sciences have become an elite field and evidently think their knowledge should be taught at the more expensive universities. How much more weightier is a resume with Harvard on it, vs. one with UBW (university behind Walmart)? This cost is why the US isn't cranking out scientists. And who's responsible for these costs? This cycle of poverty breeding poverty will not be broken until the US changes it's attitude about knowledge. The internet was designed to share knowledge, with no limitations. Education should be designed the same. As long as we think knowledge (science) is a personal property/asset, we will have those who wish to benefit financially from it, making the spread of it impossible. Yes, it is the officials in every capacity that control education which controls science.
I keep saying this...... we are an authoritarian society. Authorities cannot exist if they are not privy to knowledge that the general public is not.