Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
BASE, between you and me, I don't think your encouragement in past posts to read Demon Haunted World has ever been more applicable / necessary than right now during these Trump years.
Of course it's not the caring, engaged science types whom the book most pertains to. Thus the irony that comes along with it.
HF, it falls on deaf ears. I doubt that I've convinced anyone to read it.
As for the disinterest of our president, you are correct that it is a good example of disengagement. At this point in time we have almost unlimited data at our fingertips, but you have to be curious to read. Trump is apparently not curious, except perhaps what the cable news networks are saying. I don't know why he doesn't just set up another red phone, one that would connect him directly to Hannity. Do you ever listen to that guy? News story after news story tells us how unfit Trump is to run this country, but he hangs back and parrots the same old "deep state" garbage. I believe it was Gingrich who coined that term. He hasn't accomplished any of his goals. All he does is what the talking heads tell him to, Tweet all day, and sign whatever congress sends him. Of course the shut down was his idea. The spending bill that he refused to sign was passed in both houses by voice vote.
Why do people prefer to be ignorant? Even Wikipedia is filled with fascinating information. I can spend hours on it if I have free time. I recently read about Therapods. Pretty fascinating. I ran into a guy using the SEM once, and he was doing his thesis using Therapod teeth. Kind of complicated.
We are in a group that hates science, loves religion, and everyone thinks that what they are saying is VERY important. Maybe Largo will read it and give them a pat on the back. They can print it out and put it on their wall.
I assume that Werner will say that I am St00pid now. I would take him on at Trivial Pursuit and put a grand in the pot if he would match it. You see, I read everything. I can't go to sleep without reading.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
I have a proposition:
For those who dislike science, they should start a different group. They should burn their computers and converse via mail, using pen and paper.
Maybe someone could volunteer to transcribe whatever showed up in the mail.
Of course, they would have to use the postal service of several decades ago.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
American Council on Science and Health: https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrition-science-13357
John Ioannidis is like the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse. When he comes riding in, scientists tremble in fear.
This is for good reason. He first burst onto the national scene in 2005 with a groundbreaking paper titled simply "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." His statistical analysis and logic are impeccable, and his paper has never been seriously refuted. Furthermore, he has had a tremendous impact: The paper has been viewed more than 2.5 million times, which is the scientific equivalent of a viral Katy Perry video.
Since then, Dr. Ioannidis has gone on to show that the best scientists don't always get funded, why neuroscience is unreliable, why most clinical research is useless, and that most economics studies are exaggerated. In other words, the process by which we acquire new knowledge is fundamentally flawed and much of what we think we know is wrong. Dr. Ioannidis is not just a bull in a china shop; he's a bazooka in a china shop.
And now the bazooka is aimed at nutrition research.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
We are in a group that hates science, loves religion, and everyone thinks that what they are saying is VERY important.
See the current "Paranormal, psychic, precog & supernatural stuff" thread for affirmation.
...
One more podcast featuring Jack Dempsey...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
https://youtu.be/U7u2oJ_HX3U
It seems to me a lot of Jack's critics grossly underestimate what it takes in both scope and depth to run twitter as a service in public conversation, in real time and worldwide no less.
Towards the end of the dialog there are some interesting bits on Jack's interests and upbringing, his life now as a billionaire, mind stuff incl meditation and health, future, etc. I like him.
...
re: 1 reality maps (up-to-date vs old) 2 meaning maps (up-to-date vs old) 3 education systems (up-to-date vs old)
"Yuval doing interviews in India telling us we should teach kids stuff that will be relevant in 2050, yet our education system teaches 1960's syllabus." -Sourabh Mithril
[Click to View YouTube Video]
https://youtu.be/K9dlMMI-Dmo
Sourabh, at least it's 1960s syllabus... and not 2500 yr old "sacred text" - still considered by umpteen millions "educational" even in C21.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Base: You have to be interested [in geophysics] first. For some reason, I doubt that you have that, Mike.
I guess I’m interested in just about everything, Base, but I have limited resources in terms of my attention. Like you, I appear to make choices, but one could argue that so-called choices seem to be made by entities before they are aware of them.
When it comes to “understanding of the world,” which world would you be referring to? You seem to be arguing that there is only one world to understand, but if I read literature from various fields, I find different theories of what is real, along with different concepts and constructs which do not match up among fields. Each field appears to present different worlds. For example, there are psychological worlds, sociological worlds, physics worlds, chemical worlds, worlds of literature, and on and on. If each field were using the same concepts and constructs, then I would think there is only one world, but that’s not what I se or read. Once again, it appears to be an issue of what constitutes a “general understanding of the world.” Loosely read and conceived, science appears to be talking about the same world, but you should know (as a professional) that when the conversations get detailed and in the thickets of the data, there is very little agreement at all.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Base: For those who dislike science, they should start a different group.
Reminds me of a saying back during the Viet Nam era: "Our country, right or wrong . . . but our country!"
Your reading skills seem poor. A person needs to try to understand the objects of conversation of others. (It takes work.)
I don't think that anyone here *dislikes* science, per se. I think that some readers are expressing skepticism about over-arching claims that some people have here about the certainty of science as a means of knowing.
As was said about economics, science has its place--just no the whole place, please.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
friggin hilarious
Your reading skills seem poor. A person needs to try to understand the objects of conversation of others. (It takes work.) -MikeL
Reminds me of Trump calling others out as liars and crooks. Or another calling people out as... stoopid.
Folks end up using the language and habits of thought that they're most familiar with. Folks sooner or later learn the strategic value of flipping scripts on their opponents, the very ones that applied to them.
I don't think that anyone here *dislikes* science, per se. -MikeL
MikeL's phrasing... per se... is the tell here.
He *likes* science about as much as I *like* WWE. Perhaps better, He *respects* science about as much as I *respect* WWE. Anyways that's the impression I've gotten. But who knows, it could all change tomorrow, eh?
cf: "I don't think that anyone here dislikes climbing, per se."
...
Finally...
A question in my mind: Which has more staying power... religion (in America) or WWE (in America)?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
The problem isn't liking or disliking science. I love science as I'm sure most on this thread do. The problem is the very kind of fundamentalism you dislike so much in born again Christians: the absolute myopic certainty of their position. In your case scientism. That is the belief that science can answer all our questions regarding our existence and in that is a kind of reconciling meaning.
Science can't do that. And your generalities and exaggerations are infinitely more Trumpian than M.L.'s
As was said about economics, science has its place--just no the whole place, please.
Couldn't agree more.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
paul roehl, I'd love to respond once again to your clearly baseless and far out left field caricatures and hyperbole re scientism and fundamentalism but I think I'll give you and them a rest...
...so that L (from another thread) doesn't get around to claiming that I follow you too... "from thread to thread" "harshly critiquing and humorously criticizing" your "every post".
But I will say this: If after more than 10 15 years you don't sense that the world religions are giving way - brick by brick - to more advanced life management systems... beta... you need to get out more.
...
Finally, riffing off of Harari's comment above...
"Humans are animals, storytelling animals. We think in stories. To understand the world we need a story." -Harari
https://youtu.be/K9dlMMI-Dmo?t=1122
if you think religion... in partic Abrahamic religion Christian or Muslim... is going to remain the dominant, leading story... for sense making or reality-map building, for community, resilience, comfort, guidance counseling, productivity, etc... going forward... you're fooling yourself, imo, along with anyone who would follow you.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
For those who dislike science, they should start a different group.
What a st00pid thing to say. ( You've lost your mind and have become insane)
No one here dislikes science.
It is science itself that reveals itself the absolute truth.
Modern science doesn't use all methods of science.
They only cherry pick a certain method.
That's why you people make sh!t up all the time like (They should burn their computers and converse via mail, using pen and paper.)
Just like your defective methods in your so called science .....
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
Narratives of all sort (mythical, scientific, instinctual, psychological, literary) provide heuristics that can be fruitfully employed: when should we plant crops, how should we build buildings, how should one raise children, what kind of mate should one seek, what are the chief characteristics or attributes of human beings, what kind of social organization should people pursue, and on and on.
One might speculate what the primordial elements of reality are and how they arose (and all of that is interesting), but scientific research studies have not answered or gotten to the bottom of any of the questions above.
Really. So instead of using scientific understanding of the strength of steel, and the wind forces from storms, or the lateral loads from earthquakes, we should design and build 30 story building on heuristics?
I am not with you on that.
As far as questions such as raising children, no science doesn't tell you what is best to do. But it might have useful information such as what are strategies to take with autistic children. Etc.
But I agree that science is not philosophy. Philosophy has a great deal to teach the world. I'm not opposed to exploring Christian philosophy. I am opposed to teaching children to have supernatural beliefs (eg, life after death) and anti-science beliefs (eg, rejection of evolution).
And again, I don't see that religion has anything useful to teach science. Society, maybe. But science, I don't see it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
re: Distinguishing between religious and prosocial
"It’s also crucial to avoid the fallacy of equating “religious” with “pro-social,” which you imply when you write, “when it comes to the question of how we might all get along on this planet, that’s an issue religions have been struggling with for millennia.” Well, some religions do sometimes, but the vast majority of religious practices are not about “how we might all get along,” but rather about how our tribe can keep in defectors, punish non-conformists, reinforce ecclesiastical authority, satisfy people’s curiosity about the world in the absence of science, and other rationales."
email exchange between Pinker and DeSteno, preceding last week's NYT opinion piece, What Science Can Learn From Religion
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
Do you require knowing exactly what things are and how they manifest, or are you satisfied that most of the time X or Y seems to explain things well enough to increase your chances that you can get what you want (instrumentalism)?
I would rather take an explanation that is 'well enough' over telling myself lies that we can know exactly what things are.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
No one here dislikes science.
I don't know about that. A lot of creationist and climate deniers seem hostile to at least some parts of science.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
"New school curriculum will teach B.C. students computer coding."
About time. Although I would hope they teach algorithmics and programming as well. Coding is sterile without the intellectual underpinning. Even in the sciences programming and coding are far from universal. For example, occasionally mathematicians who find my images of infinite compositions interesting will ask me, What [commercial] program do you use?
When I explain that I write all my programs in BASIC they lose interest. But then I'm a bit peculiar. I enjoy building up a mathematical process using relatively elementary blocks. (And, yes, I've dabbled in Fortran, Pascal, C++, Mathematica, and other languages. But high level languages too often are geared to popular or trending applications.)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
I don't know about that. A lot of creationist and climate deniers seem hostile to at least some parts of science.
I don't see anyone on this thread who doesn't acknowledge the benefits of science.
With regard to engineering a building and knowing steel and so on from a scientific view. Who would argue the benefits of proper engineering. On the other hand there's much more to a building than the need to support itself. Design, meaning, practical relationship to human activity. Knowing the strength of steel is important but so is the meaning of architecture and our relationship to it. There is the old adage: "some prefer to sacrifice comfort for style.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
re: What science Can Learn from Religion, by David Desteno
re: "I'm and atheist, but..."
Note here it is AS IF Steven Pinker is talking not to David DeSteno but directly to our very own Paul Roehl...
"And more generally, I’m suspicious of the move among many academics and intellectuals to engage in a kind of apologetics for religion by cherry-picking the most pro-social practices they can think of and then spin-doctor them as beneficial, rather than taking a full sample of religious beliefs and practices and scrutinizing them objectively. (Jerry Coyne calls this “faitheism” or “I’m-an-atheist-but.”) Your response to this problem—“But science too can and has been used for ill”—strikes me as a tu-quoque non sequitur. It’s like a post-truth Trump supporter saying, “But facts too can and have been used for ill”—true, but missing the point. I’m not aware of any scientific society that has called for violence or oppression (though of course tyrants can use or invoke science). But religious scriptures specifically call for genocide, mutilation, capital punishment for non-conformity, and so on. Science is not a moral system, whereas religion aims to be."
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/steven-pinker-on-religious-belief-rituals-what-can-science-learn-from-religion/
Darn that sounds familiar!
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Eugenics was the very foundation of Nazi notions of a superior race and eugenics was a science fail of horrific potential. Non sequitur? I don't think so. Ask Dr. Mengele, he thought himself a scientist. Check out his rigorous studies and notes all in the scientific method or perhaps the many Nazi scientists imported into the U.S. for a variety of scientific efforts to blast humanity from the face of the earth. Pinker may just be as myopic in this regard as you are.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
religious scriptures specifically call for genocide, mutilation, capital punishment
If someone is doing this then it's NOT religion but masqueraded as religion.
Fruitloop doesn't even know what religion is, to begin with.
he only knows what he's been told by other brainwashed nutcases (all his YouTube brainwashing) posing as learned.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!