A rather remarkable essay at Science Friday, with my commentary.
And much of knowledge in other massive spheres of human understanding-- theology, literature, art, philosophy, history, were far beyond Jefferson's purview. He had some wisdom-- political wisdom for sure-- but he was a man for a season. His knowledge of theology, for example, was sophomoric.
No kind of knowledge is an island.
Just say it, Shawn. We know where this is going.
Much of the radical improvement in our health and longevity has come about because of a reduction in childhood mortality, largely as a result of prevention of epidemics by effective public health measures-- good sewage systems, etc. Actually, rather low tech stuff.
Relativity and quantum mechanics and human genetics are fascinating and important, but have not played a significant role in human longevity.
Evolutionary biology has contributed nothing at all to human flourishing, and applied evolutionary biology-- eugenics-- has caused much suffering. (contra the Darwin fan-boys, the management of microbial resistance to antibiotics is dependent on microbiology, pharmacology, physiology, etc. 'Just-So-Stories' about survivors surviving play no role).
The most environmentally filthy places on earth are in the old socialist/communist paradises, ruled by scientific socialists (like Mr. Otto).
1) It would be irresponsible to acquire the power to eradicate malaria, and then for ideological reasons ban the agent most effective for that eradication. That could kill a lot of people.
2) It would be irresponsible to acquire the power to control human reproduction, and then for ideological reasons based on politicized junk science impose totalitarian control of reproduction on billions of people. That would be a crime against humanity.
3) It would be irresponsible to acquire the power to make fuel from corn, and then for ideological and crassly political reasons to jack up the price of corn by converting a major portion of the United States' corn crop to ethanol. That could cause food riots.
Luckily environmental scientists were on the right side of these issues, right?
Perhaps Mr. Otto is saying that now that he is on the scene, we're finally getting smart.
:)
Hmmm...
Of course, Mr. Otto wouldn't be advocating an economic system based on science and... socialism.
Thank goodness we have scientific socialists to help us muddle through.
The theme of Shawn's book tour is "If voters don't appreciate science like Shawn L. Otto, let's question the relevance of democracy".
So, back to Shawn's original question: "has science outgrown democracy?"
Nah.
It is imperative, however, that democracy outgrow scientism.
(HT: Wesley Smith @ Secondhand Smoke)
Has Science Outgrown Democracy?
BY SHAWN LAWRENCE OTTONonsense. No library has contained even a miniscule fraction of human knowledge. What Otto is referring to is mostly knowledge of natural science, which, even in the late 18th century, far exceeded anything that Jefferson could hoard or even understand.
"Whenever the people are well-informed," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "they can be trusted with their own government."
If you are in Washington D.C., you can step inside Jefferson's library -- it has been recreated at the Library of Congress. It's a roughly round room that contains books outlining virtually the entirety of what was know in Jefferson's day. It was his version of the Internet.
And much of knowledge in other massive spheres of human understanding-- theology, literature, art, philosophy, history, were far beyond Jefferson's purview. He had some wisdom-- political wisdom for sure-- but he was a man for a season. His knowledge of theology, for example, was sophomoric.
But today it's no longer possible for one person -- even a scientist and someone as well-read as Jefferson -- to know all that there is to know.It never was, at least not since Aristotle.
And for the rest of us who lead busy lives outside the spheres of science and policy, it's virtually impossible to keep up with the pace of science, much less to actually read scientific papers and understand what scientists are basing their conclusions on. Science is increasingly becoming a matter of belief.Science always was, and always will be, a matter of belief. The sharp "demarcation" between science and other kinds of knowledge is a fallacy. Science is a discipline of philosophy-- natural philosophy-- and is a node in the web of epistemology and metaphysics and theology and logic and ethics that constitutes human knowledge.
No kind of knowledge is an island.
So what happens to Jefferson's insight today, in a world dominated by complex science?Thomas Jefferson... 'Endowed by our Creator"... "unalienable rights"... "We the People"... times have changed... irrelevant to the modern world... everything is different...
Just say it, Shawn. We know where this is going.
Science influences every aspect of life, yet very few people have a good understanding of most science.
Actually, logic influences more areas of life than science. Mathematics does too. Religion too. Philosophy too. Ethics too.
Especially ethics. We lived for millennia without science. How long would we last without ethics?
Perhaps we'll find out.
Is the ever-increasing burden of education that science places on the people making it hard for democracy to continue to function as a viable form of government? And if it is, what's the alternative?The alternative is rule by self-appointed elites.
Using science, we've vastly multiplied our power over nature. Science has given us control over the reproductive cycle, it has doubled our average lifespan and it has multiplied the productivity of our farms by some 35 times -- all in the last 140 years.Science has many blessings. And curses. Just like religion. Just like every kind of knowledge.
Much of the radical improvement in our health and longevity has come about because of a reduction in childhood mortality, largely as a result of prevention of epidemics by effective public health measures-- good sewage systems, etc. Actually, rather low tech stuff.
Relativity and quantum mechanics and human genetics are fascinating and important, but have not played a significant role in human longevity.
Evolutionary biology has contributed nothing at all to human flourishing, and applied evolutionary biology-- eugenics-- has caused much suffering. (contra the Darwin fan-boys, the management of microbial resistance to antibiotics is dependent on microbiology, pharmacology, physiology, etc. 'Just-So-Stories' about survivors surviving play no role).
The population increase of the past century is leveling off, and is becoming an implosion in many parts of the world. Our environment is doing just fine-- technological advance and free markets have made our environment much cleaner and healthier.
It has also enabled a population explosion. We have created a system that cannot support our population without posing serious challenges to our environment.
The most environmentally filthy places on earth are in the old socialist/communist paradises, ruled by scientific socialists (like Mr. Otto).
That's the way it is with power: it carries with it responsibility.For example:
1) It would be irresponsible to acquire the power to eradicate malaria, and then for ideological reasons ban the agent most effective for that eradication. That could kill a lot of people.
2) It would be irresponsible to acquire the power to control human reproduction, and then for ideological reasons based on politicized junk science impose totalitarian control of reproduction on billions of people. That would be a crime against humanity.
3) It would be irresponsible to acquire the power to make fuel from corn, and then for ideological and crassly political reasons to jack up the price of corn by converting a major portion of the United States' corn crop to ethanol. That could cause food riots.
Luckily environmental scientists were on the right side of these issues, right?
Just now? What the hell have we been doing for the last few centuries, if we haven't been "understanding complex systems" and "understanding how to manage our power in sustainable, responsible ways".
Using science, we are just now coming to understand complex systems and how to manage our power in more sustainable, responsible ways.
Perhaps Mr. Otto is saying that now that he is on the scene, we're finally getting smart.
:)
But with a democratic form of government that relies on the votes of the people, we've been increasingly unable or unwilling to enact regulations that help us act responsibly in our use of power.'We've been increasingly unable or unwilling to enact regulations preferred by Shawn L. Otto."
We have created a global economy with no global regulatory systemGlobal regulatory system? Chosen by... whom? Run by... whom? Accountable to... whom?
Hmmm...
and placed our corporations in a feudal chase after the cheapest labor, the least-restrictive environmental regulations, and the easiest methods of exploiting natural resources.Free enterprise. The most effective method ever found for human flourishing and maintaining a healthy environment. If you don't believe me, visit any city saddled with 80 years of "scientific socialism".
Of course, Mr. Otto wouldn't be advocating an economic system based on science and... socialism.
And those are just the problems left over from the last century of science. In the next 40 years, we are poised to create as much new knowledge as we have acquired in the last 400.Doubtful.
Imagine the policy challenges that new knowledge will create as we master genomics, neuroscience, and nanotechnology -- just to name a few emerging fields that have huge public policy implications.
Thank goodness we have scientific socialists to help us muddle through.
So what's the answer?Shawn's gonna tell us. Let me guess: it has something to do with giving unprecedented power to guys like Shawn L. Otto.
Has science outgrown democracy?Getting closer...
Should candidates for public office be required to have degrees in science?Or at least 'should politicians who hawk scientific theories be required to get more than a "D" in college science?'
Should we require everyone to have more science education?They need to be taught the stuff that Shawn L. Otto believes!
Even when they do have an adequate foundation of science knowledge, why do so few people seem to understand how important science is?Only people like Shawn L. Otto understand how important science is.
Should we have science-civics classes?Why not science-civics camps, for deniers.
Or do scientists simply need to be more communicative?They sure don't talk enough.
Of course these are questions I delve into in my new book, Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America.Shawn's been fooled a lot more than twice.
The theme of Shawn's book tour is "If voters don't appreciate science like Shawn L. Otto, let's question the relevance of democracy".
But they are also questions that I and others are seeking to address by creating a new form of political debate -- a presidential science debate -- to tackle the big unresolved questions that increasingly revolve around science.This year's big science question in politics: "How can we keep spending more money than we have?" Actually, it's a math question.
We want to address these questions in a way that adults are used to taking in complex information -- within the context of our national public policy dialogue.That's why science guys like Shawn and his Darwinist/warmist buddies keep trying to stop people from discussing controversies in science classrooms.
Right, Shawn. We need a debate organized by a coven of half-educated narcissists with science degrees and undiagnosed Asperger's to tell us how important it is to give them more money and do everything they say.
A presidential science debate isn't some wonky quiz about the third digit of Pi; it's an exploration of our greatest aspirations as a country, and a chance to reorient our discussion on not just the next election, but also the next generation.
So, back to Shawn's original question: "has science outgrown democracy?"
Nah.
It is imperative, however, that democracy outgrow scientism.
(HT: Wesley Smith @ Secondhand Smoke)
Oh good. Another book recommendation. Purchased sight unseen, but based solely on your glowing recommendation.
ReplyDeleteJust for interest sake ... How do you think that malaria could be eradicated? Or are you just ignoring science and simple logic?
Smallpox was easy to eradicate. Humans are the only hosts. There are no healthy carriers of smallpox. If you catch it, you either die very quickly or you recover and become immune for life. There's an effective vaccine. Smallpox hasn't changed in the millennia since it started infecting humans. Eradicating smallpox just involves quarantining outbreaks and vaccinating the surrounding population.
With malaria, there's 4 (falciparum, malariae, vivax and ovale) forms, with perhaps a 5th on the verge of crossing from a monkey species to humans. Humans aren't the only host. There are healthy carriers of malaria. Eradicating malaria involves the prevention of transmission of malaria by mosquitoes for a prolonged period while at the same time finding and treating all cases of malaria, including healthy carriers, a difficult task in a poor third world country. Both malaria and the mosquitoes develop resistance either to antimalarials or insecticides.
In the 20th century it has been eradicated in few places, such as the island of Sardinia. You need to treat the entire malarial area, a difficult task if it crosses national borders, since mosquitoes rarely if ever apply for visas.
Malaria must be an embarrassment for theists. God intelligently designed mosquitoes and malaria parasites to cause humans to suffer. He also intelligently designed the malaria parasite to become chloroquine resistant (your friend Michael Behe's reckons that it's impossible for natural selection to engineer the 2 mutations necessary). He allowed humans to gain some resistance by intelligently designing sickle cell trait, a nasty defence when homozygous, since it results in sickle cell anemia. But it's OK, He intelligently designed a specific antimalarial, quinine, in the bark of a South American tree. But made South America malaria free, until Portugese and Spanish Catholics decided it was a good idea to abduct Africans for slavery and drag them across the Atlantic.
Dr Egnor,
ReplyDeleteYou nailed this one. These characters all have a very political view of history. They see all past achievments as building up to THEM. Personally, that is. 'Science' is often a metaphor for their own personal conceit.
Your dissection of the various fields of knowledge are also spot on.
I will spare Jefferson my critique out of respect for my American friends on this blog. Sufficed to say, I feel you're completely correct in assuming that he could not have had his own 'personal internet' in a library, or even that the internet can provide such knowledge.
As for scientism, there is a control in this that these people never seem to think of, but is on my mind (professionally) every day: War.
Conflict has a way of introducing the hard (and sometimes very beautiful) realities of what we call life. Scientism promotes an intellectual weakness that will always put the adherents to a MASSIVE ethical and tactical disadvantage.
Examples? The Third Reich and USSR. Their advantage is a weakness disguised, much as with the fanatical Islamic states.
Such nations may produce excellent weapons and even fanatically devoted classes of warriors, but they have no centre. Consider the events we now call 'The Battle of Britain'. 'Science' was on the Nazi side, RESOLVE was on the Empire's. More recent example abound as well.
So what if I was to suggest that ALL elected presidents or pm's be of military education? I think that would be just as valid as what Otto forwards, and just as elitist. But, perhaps somewhat more practical.
I recently watched an excellent film piece called 'Hope and Glory' (had not seen in ages) and one of the characters says at the outbreak of war 'We've been DREAMING for 20 years' (ref to the Great War and the 'peace' in between).
Well, we (the West) have been dreaming for over 60 years, and one of the more nightmarish fantasies we have indulged in is scientism.
I would rather not wake up with one of the dreamers at the helm.
Brilliant reposte, Dr Egnor.
Well done, as usual.
This is why we ALL read your blog.
“Consider the events we now call 'The Battle of Britain'. 'Science' was on the Nazi side, RESOLVE was on the Empire's.”
DeleteFor a professional soldier who has war on his mind every day you certainly are ignorant of military history. The advantage the Nazis enjoyed at the beginning of the battle was numbers, not science or technology. The Germans deployed over twice the number of aircraft as the British. The aircraft themselves where very evenly matched in performance and technology. If anyone had a “science” advantage it was the British, who where operating under the control of the world’s first sophisticated radar based air defense system.
You can’t even get the basic history of your chosen profession right.
-KW
KW,
DeletePoint by point.
"For a professional soldier who has war on his mind every day you certainly are ignorant of military history."
Eh? Military history to you, maybe. FAMILY history to me. But that aside, I have instructed in history for years. Have you?
"The advantage the Nazis enjoyed at the beginning of the battle was numbers, not science or technology. "
Are you suggesting the RAF was as developed as the Luftwaffe? That the Hurricane was comparable to the BF 109 E? That Spitfires were the mainstay of the RAF in those days? If you answer YES to any of these questions, you need to hit the books.
"The Germans deployed over twice the number of aircraft as the British. "
They had almost three times the number of serviceable aircraft to deploy for battle and immediately targeted all production and repair facilities.
"The aircraft themselves where very evenly matched in performance and technology."
The Spits and the Me's were comparable, the Hurricane was intended to be used only for bomber defence...but they got the job done ANYWAY. That's called RESOLVE.
"If anyone had a “science” advantage it was the British, who where operating under the control of the world’s first sophisticated radar based air defense system."
Nonsense. Strange nonsense coming from a guy who worked on a flat-top, at that.
The Germans not only had their own radar coverage (the Frejya which could be deployed on naval vessels - interesting name, eh?), but also had excellent intelligence on the British radar arrays. Radar sites were targeted and reduced.
The Germans made the error that the RAF was 'tied' to the RF and Radar.
It was the DOWDING system that stumped the Germans, not some wonder technology.
The Dowding system was a human intelligence system of spotters, pilots, and scouts. TACTICAL, not scientific.
All the wunderwaffe in the world did not get Herr Hitler his victory, rather allied RESOLVE won the day. Look it up.
"You can’t even get the basic history of your chosen profession right."
In lieu of your lame comment this is a comical attempt at insult. You'll have to try harder than that, KW.
But as for the history of my profession: This is the history of my people, actually. My homeland, my family, and my military. My Grandfather (RIP) SERVED in the RAF and was decorated in the Battle of Britain (it began on his BIRTHDAY), and he raised me for more than half of my youth. I was literally weaned on this stuff.
I need neither your confirmation or support in my analysis. I have the history to do both. Anyone reading this can EASILY confirm the thesis I have put forward here.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteYou're comments, as per usual, are largely irrelevant to the topic at hand: Scientism.
Science has it's role, and it is an important one. Science is NOT the only way.
But, I understand why you choose NOT to defend your monism, but instead build straw men. The truth is that scientism is indefensible.
It is an obvious intellectual dysfunction.
Once you are able to throw off your academic conditioning and wrap your mind around those simple facts, then we can begin to discuss the issues at hand.
Perhaps try to spend a little more time in the real world, and a little less in the theoretical?
Just a thought.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteI was commenting on Michael's inability to understand science, when he claims yet again that DDT was banned in malaria control (it wasn't) and as a result we missed the chance of eradicating malaria globally (we didn't, because we didn't have the means or will to do so).
I don't use the term Scientism. There's just science, which often, though not always, gives answers to problems. I much prefer solutions to problems to be based on science (such as the control of malaria) with its empirical foundation, than on wishful thinking, as Michael engages in.
CrusadeRex,
ReplyDeleteScience was on the side of the Third Reich in the Battle of Britain???! Ever heard of radar? The decoding of Enigma using cryptology (which is applied science)? The technological superiority of the Spitfire fighter plane? The Germans largely lost the Battle of Britain because they went into the battle with inadequate weapons. The Messerschmidt 109 was inferior to the Spitfire. Their bombers were inadequate carrying small bomb loads. Any pilots shot down over Britain were lost permanently. Pilots in British planes shot down over Britain were able to return to service.
Anon,
Delete"Science was on the side of the Third Reich in the Battle of Britain???"
For the entire war, actually.
You may want to read my comment again. Maybe even read a book or two on the subject. I have a LIBRARY of them.
Being British by birth and the son of a son of British airmen who were veterans of that conflict (and specific battle), as well as active military myself (veteran), and a historian I think I know something about the resolve of those terrifying days.
You need to educate yourself if you think 'science' won the Battle of Britain. It was not technology or geology that beat Hitler's Reich. It was the moral will of my people, DESPITE a German advantage.
NOBODY with the slightest education the period would suggest that Britain and her Empire had the overall technological advantage. The Nazis clearly did. That's just the facts, Anon.
Sure we pulled ahead in certain areas (defensive), by necessity. Sure we reverse engineered German materiel. Sure we got better as the war went on.
As for the planes: The Me 109 was an excellent fighter and it's sheer numbers should have negated the very slight technical advantage of that single model of the greatly diminished and widely dispersed British aircraft fleet.
It was the resolve of the RAF that won the day, not science. You talk about pilots being shot down.
What of their PLANES, Anon?
What about their numbers? What about Op Sea Lion?
Further, radar was a new technology and under development by ALL powers during the war. The Germans targeted the towers, and entire arrays were destroyed within hours.
When Churchill gave his speech about the 'few', he was not referring to aircraft designers. He was talking about the fighting resolve of the Air CREWS.
It must also be noted that your use of the enigma code and it's breach as some sort of example of British technical superiority are clear indicators of your own fallacy.
Technology beaten by resolve and applied LOGIC.
The arrogance of the German confidence in their science was their Achilles heal. This monistic, blind worship of 'German Industry' (Science) was a weakness.
The code/cypher was broken, not invented by the British. The Enigma Machine was a German tech advantage that the British EXPLOITED.
Get it?
“The Me 109 was an excellent fighter and its sheer numbers should have negated the very slight technical advantage of that single model of the greatly diminished and widely dispersed British aircraft fleet.”
Delete“That single model” You mean the Spitfire you nimrod? God you don’t even know the name of one of the most significant fighters of the war! It’s apparent from your rambling post that I could school you in military history.
WWII spawned an incredible arms race. The war started with biplanes and horse cavalry still in service, and ended with jet planes and atomic bombs. Both sides made great technological leaps, with the Germans leading in a fair number of fields, most notably in rocket and submarine technology. The allies on the other hand, had the lead in electronics, and of course atomic weaponry. Somehow you seem to forget the ultimate war winning achievement of science, the atomic bomb.
There’s more Arian pride in your comments than objective analysis.
-KW
KW,
DeletePathetic. LITERALLY pathetic: I feel sorry for you. You can't even insult a man properly. Is it a lack of testicular fortitude, or sheer ignorance.
No mind.
The specific model I refer to is the Supermarine Spitfire Mk I.
You could not deduce that, and I am a fool?
Regarding the A-bomb and Manhattan/Trinity, they did not win the war in the pacific, allied servicemen did.
Fat-Man and Little Boy hastened the unconditional surrender of Japan, and was intended to reduce allied casualties.
These little wonders of science also began the nuclear arms race that is still going today.
Look it up.
"There’s more Arian pride in your comments than objective analysis. "
It is spelled Aryan, unless you refer to Arius. Either way your talking utter shit. I am neither an Aryan or an Egyptian 4th century heretic.
You're a sore loser, KW.
Get over yourself.
As for the planes: The Me 109 was an excellent fighter and it's sheer numbers should have negated the very slight technical advantage of that single model of the greatly diminished and widely dispersed British aircraft fleet.
DeleteAt the outset of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had about 900 serviceable fighter aircraft while the Luftwaffe had about 1,200, hardly a huge disparity in numbers. When coupled with the fact that the Bf109e was only able to fly limited operational time over Britain on each flight resulting from the lack of a drop tank, this edge in numbers becomes less significant. Given the British superiority in aviation fuel grade, a lot of the performance differences between the Bf109e and the Hurricane MkI are eradicated.
The Germans targeted the towers, and entire arrays were destroyed within hours.
The Dowding system relied upon the RDF. The Luftwaffe sporadically targeted the towers, but due to disagreements among Luftwaffe command, they never actually took the system out of operation for any appreciable length of time.
"At the outset of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had about 900 serviceable fighter aircraft while the Luftwaffe had about 1,200, hardly a huge disparity in numbers."
DeleteTry 660-700 versus 1600+ (let's not forget the German's allies), unless you buy the German estimates (that we fed them). Did you forget what the fighters were escorting, maybe? They did not pop over the channel for a quick dogfight, you know...
"When coupled with the fact that the Bf109e was only able to fly limited operational time over Britain on each flight resulting from the lack of a drop tank, this edge in numbers becomes less significant."
As opposed to the British fighters that could be refuelled while in flight???
Sorry, but that is just silly. Refuelling and refitting was a very rough go for the RAF crews and Calais was NOT being bombed flat.
The biggest problem the Luftwaffe faced was the engine life of the 109. Hardly a problem when you have all of occupied Europe and a mass of support crew and military to rebuild and refit them, not to mention safe landing strips for your swaps, repairs and refits.
"Given the British superiority in aviation fuel grade, a lot of the performance differences between the Bf109e and the Hurricane MkI are eradicated."
By 1940 the Germans had achieved a 100 octane synthetic. Look it up.
The disparity between the 109 and the Hurricane was VERY real. I don't need a book to tell me this (although I do have several that do), I had close family in a cockpit and family in the ground crews.
"The Dowding system relied upon the RDF. The Luftwaffe sporadically targeted the towers, but due to disagreements among Luftwaffe command, they never actually took the system out of operation for any appreciable length of time."
The Dowding system utilized the RDF system, despite it's many flaws and errors, but did not rely on it. It was a system replete with contingency.
Observers and crews played a much more significant role. More central to the system was the 'Huff Duff' and later utilized VHF radio systems used to communicate command and intel.
This aspect was also very limited, but was used to that limit.
The intercept rate was thought to be above 80%.
As for the RDF system being rendered completely inoperative, you're quite correct on that point.
The simple reality is that you cannot blame the German defeat at the Battle of Britain on German (lack of) technology, sloppiness, or laziness. It was the British who WON the day, not the Germans who somehow failed to meet the requirements set out for them.
The Germans were executing a pre invasion strike. The RAF were defending their home, their families, and their very way of life.
THAT is the defining difference: Resolve.
Not fuel. Not radar. Not the calibre of rounds. Certainly not numbers.
To pretend otherwise is a futile attempt to diminish one of the greatest 'upsets' and victories in modern warfare.
"Try 660-700 versus 1600+ (let's not forget the German's allies), unless you buy the German estimates (that we fed them)."
DeleteTake up the relative estimated operational strengths with authors like Stephen Bungay or Derek Wood and Derek Dempster. Your estimates as to relative operational strengths are wildly at odds with those found in the works of actual historians.
"As opposed to the British fighters that could be refuelled while in flight???"
As opposed to British fighters that didn't have to spend much of their fuel capacity simply getting to the battle. The Bf109e was only able to operate for about over Britain only about twenty minutes per sortie before needing to return to their French airfields.
"By 1940 the Germans had achieved a 100 octane synthetic."
And had comparatively very limited supplies of it, making it something of a hollow achievement.
Anon (Bach),
ReplyDelete"I was commenting on Michael's inability to understand science,"
How do you equate what you perceive as a misunderstanding of a specific effort (malaria control) as an 'inability'? This comes off as purely invective.
"I don't use the term Scientism."
An ostrich comes to mind, for more reasons than one.
Why not? You should own your faith with pride, if it worthy of your devotion.
Further, you may wish to consider the SUBJECT of the post.
Then
"There is just science"
No. There is a lot more to life and the human condition than that single mental process/tool. Science is 'just' science. Scientism is the idea that ALL inquiry should be based on science. It is akin to hard evidentialism or positivism.
"I much prefer solutions to problems to be based on science (such as the control of malaria) with its empirical foundation, than on wishful thinking, as Michael engages in."
Eh? Based on science? Do you mean solutions that take the scientific realities into account? Surely they must be based on morality and compassion, and science is a method/tool/guide to implement the solution.
Example? A hundred hungry people, who will become problematic if left unfed. The BASIS of the solution should obviously be to feed them, and is a moral and compassionate basis. The solution may come in many forms, but lets say for arguments sake, the answer is a purely scientific one. Science is not the basis or reason for the solution, it is merely a means to an ends - a TOOL.
Many other such tools are available. Not all solutions require Sir Francis's method.
Not even most.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteWell actually Michael suffers more from 'Scientism' than I do; the idea that problems can be solved by technological fixes, such as his bizarre idea that malaria could have been eradicated with DDT, but because DDT was banned (it wasn't), the eradication program failed (it couldn't succeed in the first place).
I prefer to trust science rather than wishful thinking. The science has to be solidly based though. As a rule of thumb, all scientific theories are either incorrect or incomplete. All actions, no matter how well intended, have unintended consequences. Having a science solution doesn't mean that you should promptly go looking for a problem for it to solve, because you might be working on the basis of incomplete or incorrect information and may not have considered all the consequences.
Such as the aerial spraying of insecticides in America to control Japanese beetle (a non-problem if there ever was one). Or eugenics (based on a completely inadequate understanding of genetics).
Also your assertion that Hitler had science on his side is just wrong. He spent most of the '30s gutting German science, firing and forcing into exile professors of Jewish descent, making university students ideologically rather than scientifically sound. All of this is discussed in great detail in Richard Evans' 'the Third Reich in Power'.
You're right about the nuclear bombs not winning the Pacific War. It had already been won, largely by the conventional bombing of Japanese cities and the naval blockade of the Japanese home islands. Destroying a further two Japanese cities in addition to the 60 already destroyed was not decisive. The Japanese inner cabinet were meeting when news of Nagasaki came through; they spent very little time on this before returning to what they regarded as the real problem - the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the collapse of the Japanese armies there.
That was the real cause of the Japanese surrender. The nuclear bombs were just a convenient pretext. The nuclear bombs didn't save lives. They took them. They were a war crime of hideous proportions. To give Pope Pius XII credit, he was one of the first if not first public figures to condemn the nuclear bombing.
Bach,
DeleteI am happy to read your concession on the limits of scientific theory. There is hope for you yet! :P
I know little of the DDT debate, and will leave that for you and Mike to battle out.
With regards to your comments on Hitler and the Reich:
My comments are directed toward scientism, not the tool that is science.
I agree that Hitler gutted the German scientific community. He could have had an even greater advantage, had his minions not purged the German academe of some of it's most talented minds based on racial and ideological nonsense.
But that does not take away from the LEAPS in the various arms industries that Germany experience in the Inter-War period or even during the conflict. Nor does it diminish the fantastic talent they had - and we later 'borrowed' for our own post war, space, and cold war programs. Some of those programs are STILL being reverse engineered to this day.
The Nazis blind faith in their science is what I am driving at. Their scientism.
Super-Men operating Wonder-Weapons was the idea.
It did not work against a doggedly determined foe with a fierce resolve for victory. Not even sheer numbers did it.
This faith in gadgets and technology to be a 'war decisive' factor was a weakness, in retrospect.
The science was only as good as the men behind the machines. Those men did not equate to some ideal super-man, it was NORMAL Britons and their polyglot and multiracial allies that managed the day.
As I originally stated the moral resolve was the key to that specific victory, not some form of technology.
I think it will always be so.
Good lit ref, btw.
As for the bombs, I tend to wonder on these matters myself. I know the pretext was to save allied lives in an invasion of the mainland of Japan, but I often wonder if a demonstration off the coast or even on a strictly military target could have achieved the same.
We'll never know, I suppose...
"Also your assertion that Hitler had science on his side is just wrong. He spent most of the '30s gutting German science, firing and forcing into exile professors of Jewish descent, making university students ideologically rather than scientifically sound."
ReplyDeleteOther than forcing Jewish professor into exile, that's exactly what the Left is doing today.
I'm one hundred percent pro-science. The true science haters are the ones whose agenda requires them to pervert the scientific method and who permit no debate.
If you've ever heard, "The science is settled! The debate is over!" you know you're dealing with a true blue science hater.
TRISH
You're right about that, TRISH.
DeleteThe Torch
"You're right about the nuclear bombs not winning the Pacific War. It had already been won, largely by the conventional bombing of Japanese cities and the naval blockade of the Japanese home islands."
ReplyDeleteLargely won is not won. It was won after the Japanese surrendered on the deck of the Missouri, not a second sooner. That happened after two nuclear bombs. If they were so defeated, why then not after the first?
You're reading you Soviet misinformation a little too verbatim, Anonymous. If you want to preach the (communist) party line, at least disguise the source a little better.
The Torch
Torch,
DeleteMy source is the book 'Hiroshima Nagasaki' by Paul Ham. I don't follow Soviet propaganda. An allied invasion was never on the cards. The estimated casualties of 500,000+ on the allied side alone precluded that. Why invade when you could continue to bombard Japanese at will and without much cost and the naval blockade was starving Japan of fool and fuel, with winter rapidly approaching?
In other words, it was necessary because a land invasion would have been too costly in terms of life. Which is what I said.
DeletePerhaps you think that a long harsh winter in isolation would have caused the Japanese to surrender. That sounds like a lot of conjecture, and not even good conjecture.
Bombarding them, this time with a nuclear bomb, convinced them to surrender. The nukes did it. They may have been battered with conventional bombing but the fighting wasn't over until it was over.
500,000+ casualties--only on the allied side--is more than died in the combined bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Wikipedia has a figure of 60,000-80,000 dead in Nagasaki, 90,000-166,000 dead in Hiroshima. In other words, the bombs saved lives. That's a logical conclusion based on your own numbers. The 500,000 figure does not account for Japanese deaths, both military and civilian which would have been much, much higher.
The idea that the bombing of those cities was unnecessary because the Japanese were already defeated has been a communist trope since the time of Stalin and probably came from the KGB. Don't underestimate the fanatical dedication of the Japanese people. They were not about to let us walk into their country. They also weren't going to come to their knees because winter was coming (it was August, by the way), or because food was scarce, or because they were isolated. North Korea has been living under those exact conditions for about sixty years now.
You mention that an allied invasion--or as we should say--an American invasion--was "never in the cards." Actually, detailed plans were drawn up for exactly that contingency. It was called Operation Olympic. It would have been awful, but luckily it was averted because the a-bomb came on line in time. The bomb was also a secret at the time. Everyone was preparing for Operation Olympic without knowledge that the weapon that would end the war in a much quicker and less bloody fashion was on the way.
The Torch
Torch,
DeleteThe invasion was planned. But that doesn't mean that it was going to be carried out. The estimated casualties precluded that. The inner Japanese cabinet were meeting on the morning of Nagasaki to discuss the soviet declaration of war, the invasion of Manchuria and the collapse of the Japanese armies there, when they were informed of the bombing of Nagasaki. Their reaction? Another destroyed Japanese city to add to the list of 60+ Japanese cities already destroyed, and they went back to their serious concern, the defeat of their armies. If the destruction of 60 Japanese cities didn't cause Japan to surrender, then how was another two going to do it?
The full horror of the nuclear bombs wasn't known at the time, not even to the Americans who dropped them. The nuclear bombs were a useful pretext for the Japanese to surrender, but not the real reason. They'd already had lost the war, and we're being starved into submission. Retention of the emperor or was the only sticking point, which was conceded by America only after the surrender.
I don't hate Michael Egnor, but I certainly hate spell check with its insistence on putting apostrophes in all the wrong places. Since when has 'were' not been a word, and 'we're' been the correct form? CrusadeRex had a bad case of it earlier. I didn't comment on it, knowing perfectly well that it would attack me too eventually.
DeleteBach,
DeleteWe are both victims of incurable keystroke dysfunction. Could it be genetic, or perhaps a metaphysical explanation? Or could it just be we need better PC's or a prescription for reading glasses? A mystery for the ages :P
More seriously, now.
On the bombings: The real question to me is the civilian death toll. I do not question the need to break the resolve of the enemy, and the Japanese Empire was resolute. I do not question the need to reach Tokyo before the Soviets (what type of losses would THAT have incurred? What effect on the Cold War?).
I do wonder if better targets could have been chosen, and I do wonder if there could have been another, better way.
As I noted before, we will never know.
Perhaps the atomic bombings were the correct decision, perhaps the only way to break the Japanese resolve was to humble the Emperor himself and terrify the people into submission. After all is it wrong to value the life of your own sons above those of a declared and vicious enemy?
I can see the logic and reasoning, but I have the luxury of doing so in retrospect. I was not in the war room, I had not buried and mourned battalions of young men under my command. My own, far more limited experience, with such nightmares combined with the fatigue that war brings on could very well have convinced me 'better them than us'.
That said...
Having visited Nagasaki while in Japan (to see the Urukami Cathedral), I can only say that the event - whatever the reasoning, and whatever the outcome - was utterly horrific. Such vast suffering concentrated in a few moments seems to me the perfect illustration of the evil of atomic/hydrogen/nuclear weapons and warfare in general.
Such is the human condition, I suppose.
I pray we learn to be better brothers and sisters.
Perhaps the most evident blessing / silver lining of the bombings is that they have NEVER been repeated since 1945. The demonstration did not only humble the Japanese, but the nuclear (and soon to be) powers of the world from 1945 till today.
Again, I pray they will never forget the consequences of the use of such a device; that the balance of terror forever holds.
Two nuclear bombs caused them to surrender. A land invasion may also have caused them to surrender, but after how many casualties?
ReplyDeleteThe Torch
Your style of taking snippets of an article and responding with your own supercilious little snipes is childish, ineffective and a terrible bore to read. If you take a substantive point from the piece you are critiquing and then address it in a detailed way, then you will have more chance of convincing people to come to your point of view.
ReplyDelete"Your style of taking snippets of an article and responding with your own supercilious little snipes is childish, ineffective and a terrible bore to read."
DeleteThen stop reading it. Why waste your time with stuff that bores you? I don't.
Your style of being persnickety and denying basic facts is pretty childish and ineffective too.
"If you take a substantive point from the piece you are critiquing and then address it in a detailed way..."
Sometimes he does when it merits it. And other times the point can be made with a one-liner.
@anon:
Delete[Your style of taking snippets of an article and responding with your own supercilious little snipes is childish, ineffective and a terrible bore to read. If you take a substantive point from the piece you are critiquing and then address it in a detailed way, then you will have more chance of convincing people to come to your point of view.]
I enjoy it, so I do it. And my point is not to convince you. If you are foolish enough to believe that science has outgrown democracy, nothing I can say will be of use to you.
Such viewpoints deserve two replies: ridicule and defiance.
I do my best.
"Scientism" is a term used primarily by people who don't like some of the information that comes from science. Conservative Christians are apoplectic about the common descent of man and apes, tobacco companies yearn for the days when the dangers of smoking were unknown, and oil companies find global warming rather inconvenient. Ho-hum.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, most of the antiscience propaganda is concentrated on the right side of the political spectrum. I can only think of the anti-vaxers, who tend to lean left, as a counter example. But the situation is fortunately starting to change as some people on the right are waking up.
Eli Lehrer and his group have quit the Heartland Institute, following the Unabomber ad fiasco. They formed a new R Street Institute, which will continue the same work they have done at Heartland, with one exception: "There is one thing that will certainly change from ending our association with Heartland: R Street will not promote climate change skepticism."
The writing is on the wall, guys. You can deny scientific findings all you want, but in 20 years you will look like the young-earth creationists or tobacco lobbyists. Which is to say, pig-headed.
@oleg:
Delete[Eli Lehrer and his group have quit the Heartland Institute, following the Unabomber ad fiasco. They formed a new R Street Institute, which will continue the same work they have done at Heartland, with one exception: "There is one thing that will certainly change from ending our association with Heartland: R Street will not promote climate change skepticism."]
Large social and political movements have many different factions that use an array of tactics. The Heartland campaign is a good example of one tactic, and within the AGW skeptical movement there are many other factions and tactics.
Good. It is a sign of a flourishing movement, to take back science and restore integrity. We're going to hit the AGW frauds from all sides-- with ridicule, reasoned argument, political pressure, and science.
Celebrate diversity, oleg.
Michael,
DeleteSo which tactic are you using to deny AGW? It's obviously not the science, or reasoned argument, or political pressure. Therefore, it must be ridicule. That sounds about right. All of your arguments are ridiculous. You've never attacked the science of AGW; the well known and well understood physics of greenhouse gases in absorbing certain frequencies of infrared radiation resulting in retention of heat and hence global warming. Instead, you've attacked the statistics and computer algorithms involved in condensing a large number of temperatures, both instrumental and proxy based estimates, to a temperature curve.
AGW is a science question. To disprove it, you need to address the science. The science of AGW is the physics of greenhouse gases, not temperature curves or hockey sticks. Arrhenius worked out what the results of doubling CO2 levels in 1896, giving an estimate of global warming which even today is still regarded as being about right, based purely on the physics of CO2.
Actually, despite this thread being about 'Scientism', you're more guilty of Scientism than any scientist. You're convinced that malaria could have been eradicated by the technological fix of DDT, and persist in your unfounded assertion that 'Silent Spring' resulted in tens of millions of deaths. Anyone with any knowledge of the science of malaria would disagree with you.
Bach,
DeleteAgain, I am largely ignorant of the DDT situation, and I don't really have the time to research it before I could reasonably respond to the assertions made here.
I would point out one thing though.
You state that 'Anyone with with any knowledge of the science', when in fact you're talking about the historical effects of a program. It is the history of the science (ie the practical results and consequences of the application of theory), not the science itself, that is being discussed by both parties.
Do you see my point?
This appeal to the science, as you yourself have noted, is inconclusive and could very well be wrong.
It is HISTORY that both sides of this argument appeals to, not raw data collected at the time, or theories that may adapt and change with new discoveries.
Oleg,
DeleteI hope you had a nice time in BC. It is a truly beautiful part of this country.
I am headed out that way soon myself. I have an old friend in Terrace (Northern Interior), and another in Western Alberta... and will head out to see them at the end of summer.
Good to see you back home safely.
The term 'scientism' is in fact a descriptive of a mindset. It holds as much credibility and is as real as any other descriptive.
Scientism is the worship of a tool, the reverence of system above all others. It is a form of monism.
I realize it is a buzz-word these days and used by many diverse groups when they are critical of various proponents of ideas or theory, but that does not invalidate the concept.
Scientism speaks to the motive of many modern academics, and is as evident as the sun in the sky to most people not living within that cocoon that is academia.
Scientism is the nursery of many a modern fallacy, and needs to be shown for what it is. It is not a crime, nor is it a mental disorder. Nobody will be locked up for scientism, nobody will be hung. The idea is that scientists need to get their heads back on. That does not mean they need to rush out to a Church or synagogue, stop believing in AGW, smoke, or any of the other things you mention.
To be free of the accusation of scientism, all the scientist (or academic fanboys, youth, and lobbyists) has to do is knowledge the limits of that (usually specific) discipline and the potential veracity of others.
Science is held in very high esteem at the current juncture, and may well so for a long time to come. But in order to maintain that credibility and popularity - and thereby the grants and will to research - the SCIENTISTS must deter from scientism. Real lovers of inquiry hope and pray this can be achieved before the scientific community is reduced from within.
Any such highly vaunted system of thought as 'science', including philosophical and religious thought, must be introspective and recognize it's limitations, or be seen as a 'universal' (total and ONLY) road to truth: A monism.
When applied to the scientific mind, this is known as scientism.
Oh and Oleg,
DeleteOne (long) further thought.
You state:
"Conservative Christians are apoplectic about the common descent of man and apes.."
I don't think many of us (if I am correct about your definitions - I must include myself) even worry about it.
The theory of common descent does not simply mean man and apes, but ALL life.
Most Christians believe all life came from a single source and is made with common elements. The notable difference between the theory and the teachings are the CAUSE, or nature of that source. We see God and justify that with various forms of logic, philosophy, reason, and experience. The scientistic mind sees only science and claims that science has proven their position (ie itself) - that the matter is settled.
We theists (left or right politically) are upset by the notion that a number of our fellow men are being self convinced (or deceived, if you like) by the same patterns we see that there is no purpose, meaning, or truth - just random events and the occasional 'emergent phenomena' (ie a wtf!).
The implications of a amoral and purposeless existence should be self evident.
That monkeys and men have the same designer (Creator in our understanding) is not at issue, it is the nihilism that is.
Why? That is question best answered by the history of that BELIEF which is most evident in theatre of politics and it's father, war.
Scientism is a phase for most young academics that is quickly shattered by real life experience. Most of my friends and associates involved in the world of science and academics recognize this issue regardless of their religious or political slant.
Our concern is for the adults in positions of influence that hold on to these quirky and frankly superstitious beliefs about their favourite tool for inquiry.
A scientist OBVIOUSLY prefers science to the broader philosophies, just as a philosopher prefers philosophy... but that is not scientism.
Scientism is the belief that science (think about the arbitrariness of that term!) is the ONLY path of inquiry. By worshipping the tool, these people themselves become tools of anyone who is intent on manipulating them and have the power to do so.
When I use the term scientism, it is not out of some emotional reaction to 'proofs' against my beliefs, it is out of concern for the academic freedom of those interested in perusing that avenue of inquiry.
crus: The idea is that scientists need to get their heads back on. the SCIENTISTS must deter from scientism.
DeleteCrus,
BC is nice, particularly so because the weather has been unseasonably sunny and relatively warm the last week or so. We spent our last night on the West coast of Vancouver island and will be heading back inland today.
I am not even sure you yourself understand what you're saying. If by "having our heads on" you mean scientists should replace the scientific method with "common sense," it ain't gonna happen. Science got where it is by following a certain set of rules. Abandoning them will not improve science. We don't "worship" science, we know full well that scientific knowledge has limitations. We also know that it is a rather reliable method.
But as Egnor's latest comment shows, this is not about "scientism," it's about hitting those parts of science (and scientists) that this or that political group finds inconvenient. By any means necessary. He doesn't know squat about climate science, but he would very much like to see MIchael Mann in jail. This is the mindset conservatives should abandon. It will damage their credibility in the long term.
crus: That monkeys and men have the same designer (Creator in our understanding) is not at issue, it is the nihilism that is.
DeleteBut that's not quite what I said. I mentioned common descent, not common design.
Scientism is the belief that science (think about the arbitrariness of that term!) is the ONLY path of inquiry.
Science is not the only path of inquiry, but for many things it's the most reliable path. Here is a simple example. If you are interested in the workings of the solar system, science is your best bet. Creation myths are not.
Oleg,
DeleteI trust you enjoyed BC.
When I made the above comment I was positing our view of the designer is God, yours is nature. You see nature and natural process as the guiding forces (ie natural selection, RM etc) that determine our physical form. Deists do too, for example. Many theists see those same forces as agencies of Creation.
The beef is not with the 'how', as that is all conjecture, but the WHY. You see? I am sorry if I obscured this point in my own musings. I am often guilty of that.
"Science is not the only path of inquiry, but for many things it's the most reliable path."
Conceded. I am delighted you admit this limitation.
With recognition we can both declare we are not Monists.
"Here is a simple example. If you are interested in the workings of the solar system, science is your best bet. Creation myths are not."
Sure. The myths speak to the great 'why' is there, the science speaks to the 'how' it functions. They are both 'bets' or wagers, but on different matters.
The remarkable thing is how well they concur. That speaks to truths, however diminished, in both those studies.
Oleg,
DeleteStrange, I saw your second comment first?!
Glad you're enjoying yourself. The Island Is GORGEOUS. If you get a chance to drive a few hours north into the interior - do it! Make a day of it, you'll not regret the memories.
We spent a few days there recently. Victoria is a wonderful little place, we spent our rainy day there and my wife fell in love with it.
I found an excellent little surfing spot too ;)
Again, glad your enjoying yourself.
Anyway, to the red meat.
"I am not even sure you yourself understand what you're saying. If by "having our heads on" you mean scientists should replace the scientific method with "common sense," it ain't gonna happen."
I am referring to the scientism, not the method. They must recognize the limitations of their profession and the method it entails.
That is what I mean.
"Science got where it is by following a certain set of rules. Abandoning them will not improve science. "
EXACTLY!
"We don't "worship" science, we know full well that scientific knowledge has limitations. We also know that it is a rather reliable method. "
I am glad you feel that way. Such a concession speaks volumes on your own position.
'But as Egnor's latest comment shows, this is not about "scientism," it's about hitting those parts of science (and scientists) that this or that political group finds inconvenient. By any means necessary. He doesn't know squat about climate science, but he would very much like to see MIchael Mann in jail. This is the mindset conservatives should abandon. It will damage their credibility in the long term."
I don't want to see anyone in prison, but I do not buy the AGW stuff either. I see it as a politically motivated dialectic approach. I an not 'anti warming', but I do not see anything more than the need to understand and debate these issues. I see the suggestions being made by many people in the 'sustainability' camp as Orwellian and evil.
That said, I am a 'paleo-green' (new term) in the respect that I am a conservationist. I think consumerism is JUST as Orwellian and evil. I refused to be forces into a mental synthesis by the opposing camps in this farcical debate.
Also, do I think you have Doctor Egnor's motives clearly pegged. Your perspective on this is not what I would call 'objective', but rather partisan. You suggest the Doctor is also partisan? That may be, but I do not think either side truly understands the motive of their opposites and that they are being played off in a drama for votes, money, and power.
crus: I am glad you feel that way. Such a concession speaks volumes on your own position.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a concession on my part, crus. It's a revelation for you. You don't even know what scientists think about the subject of our discussion. You seem to take what Egnor and the like on face value. Well, maybe you should learn what we think straight from the source.
Also, do I think you have Doctor Egnor's motives clearly pegged. Your perspective on this is not what I would call 'objective', but rather partisan.
One need not lean to the left in order to condemn what the likes of Egnor and Heartland do. Eli Lehrer, formerly a member of Heartland, did the same as I pointed out above. He is certainly no lefty.
I do not think either side truly understands the motive of their opposites and that they are being played off in a drama for votes, money, and power.
Then apply this principle to your own understanding of what drives scientists. Money it ain't. If we were driven by greed, we'd be working on Wall street. Quite a few science graduates and PhDs take that road. They earn an order of magnitude more than I do. Power? What power? Having a handful of grad students and a postdoc or two doesn't make you a pinacle of power. Votes? You've got to be kidding me.
Oleg,
ReplyDelete"It's not a concession on my part, crus."
You do not concede that science has limits? It sure read like you did. No need to be upset. A concession of truth is a GOOD thing, not a shame or defeat. We AGREE on one of the points I have forwarded. Is that such a terrible thing?
"It's a revelation for you."
Your personal position is, sure. A happy one.
"You don't even know what scientists think about the subject of our discussion."
You know that HOW? Are you suggesting the physicists, bio tech researchers, engineers, etc that I know are not scientists? That the people I went to school(s) with are not scientists? My own brother in law was the head of a space-robotics division at Spar and now works for the DnD, for goodness sake (he is a RC like Dr Egnor, btw).
I am an interested party, for many reasons.
I am not a scientist, nor do I need to be to understand scientism.
But....Come on Oleg. You disagree with me? Fine. Okay. PLEASE knock off the whole 'you're dull' , 'you're ignorant' stuff. You and I have had many engaging discussions. I do not see you as an idiot, and do not suggest as much. Why do you insist on responding with lines such as the above. I don't think you actually believe that I am a fool due to my choice in profession, education, nationality, or religion...do you? So why infer it consistently?
"You seem to take what Egnor and the like on face value."
No. I am afraid you're completely wrong there. I agree with Dr Egnor on many issues, but not all. I think he is a very intelligent person and find his blog fascinating and often controversial. I enjoy the comments too. They are engaging and often thought provoking.
Read some of my posts, Oleg.You will surely note the occasions where the Doctor and I do not agree.
We simply do so respectfully and without the attacks.
"Well, maybe you should learn what we think straight from the source. "
What/which source? Do you men YOU? I did learn something about you today: You do not agree with scientism. That choice is an individual one. I applaud it. The only criticism is that you seem to think it does not exist. That would be akin to a person like myself denying the reality of religious 'fundamentalism'. In truth, I don't like EITHER of those words/descriptives. Positivism and fanaticism work much better for me. Why? The 'scientistic' mind is not very scientific, and the 'fundamentalist' often disregards the fundamentals of their own faith. But both parties pretend to be masters of their art.
Sadly, however this is the double plus good language of the day.
"One need not lean to the left in order to condemn what the likes of Egnor and Heartland do."
No, surely not. One need simply look at Dr Egnor's bio to know what he does: Brain surgery and the instruction of brain surgeons. As for the Heartland Institute, this is an American organization for Americans to debate. I have little interest in the dialectics of US partisanship other than the EFFECTS of the process on the overall direction of that Nation.
"Then apply this principle to your own understanding of what drives scientists. Money it ain't. If we were driven by greed, we'd be working on Wall street. Quite a few science graduates and PhDs take that road. "
I understand what you're saying entirely. I am not in the military for the money either. I could be making a LOT more in the private sector...or as my sister in law would say 'putting your degrees to good work'. I am where I am because I love my duty. It is a calling, not a job.
But to the point: You seem to think I am saying the scientific elite (those with influence and power) ARE the political elite. That is a misunderstanding. I am suggesting they have the potential to be TOOLS for the political elites, especially when they suffer from an ideological tunnel vision such as that of 'scientism'.
@All,
ReplyDeleteI have come to a decision.
I am tired of all the insults and personal inferences etc. I need a break.
I have just about had enough of all the personal bullshit, and I have a very serious task ahead of me professionally.
I think I will pull an Edward and take up my conversations with people who do not have some agenda, or resort to snide and arrogant attacks.
At least I will only have to interact with those snarks that I am commissioned to deal with.
Much thanks to the good Doctor for the good times, as well as to those commentators who interacted with me.
For those who still wish to interact in a civil and intelligent manner, you know were to find me.
Adieu.
Been a laugh riot folks.
God bless you all,
Enjoy.
crus,
DeleteI'm sorry to hear of your decision, although I can certainly understand both the frustration and the pressure from other responsibilities.
Your voice has been very welcome here. Your insights have been very helpful to me and to many others. Please feel free to come back whenever you can and want to.
Blessings to you and your family. I'll miss you.
Mike
Cheers, Mike.
DeleteI'll be back. (Arnold voice over!)
I have a lot to do before Chicago. I'll keep reading your posts in the meantime, I just don't have the energy to keep up with all the arguments (especially the types noted above).
Thanks for the kind words.
God bless you and yours.
Talk soon!
crus:
DeleteWhew! On reading your prior post, I actually felt a bit depressed, like I was losing a friend (or a comrade!).
Please chime in as often as you can. There's a wisdom shortage in this world, and we need as much of it as we can get.
Mike
crus: You know that HOW? Are you suggesting the physicists, bio tech researchers, engineers, etc that I know are not scientists? That the people I went to school(s) with are not scientists? My own brother in law was the head of a space-robotics division at Spar and now works for the DnD, for goodness sake (he is a RC like Dr Egnor, btw).
ReplyDeleteThat lone example of your brother doesn't make me optimistic. He is an engineer, not a scientist.
You disagree with me? Fine. Okay. PLEASE knock off the whole 'you're dull' , 'you're ignorant' stuff.
I don't think I accused you of being dense, crus. I said that you aren't familiar with the inner workings of science. That isn't an insult. You might also say that I am not familiar with the inner workings of the military. And that would be true and I would not take offense. You do say preposterous things about scientists and act surprised when I tell you that I, in particular, do not fit your model. Doesn't it mean that you really aren't familiar with the subject? Don't take offense in that and use this as a chance to learn.
I don't think you actually believe that I am a fool due to my choice in profession, education, nationality, or religion...do you? So why infer it consistently?
I neither infer that, nor so I say anything of the sort.
I have come to a decision.
I am tired of all the insults and personal inferences etc. I need a break.
I have just about had enough of all the personal bullshit, and I have a very serious task ahead of me professionally.
Nothing personal, crus. I do not criticize you as a person. I point out where your understanding of certain things is wrong.
Oleg,
DeletePerhaps your definition of a scientist is different than mine. Perhaps only researchers are scientists to you? Generally I would call anyone qualified and engaged in the pursuit or application of science as a 'scientist'.
At any rate, I also work with people of very much more mainstream and theoretical sciences on a daily basis. Brilliant men in service of their nation.
I am hindered in discussing that aspect, as I cannot discuss the details. Sufficed to say I know a few people you would also describe as scientists personally and am familiar with their positions and their ideas regarding some of these topics we discuss.
Anyway, it is not this series of comments that brought me to this decision, it was actually others - on other posts, and even on different forums. I am buried with work before the upcoming summit, and I have a new project coming in to boot.
I will be back.
You can get back to correcting my understanding then.
Enjoy your remaining time in BC. Hope you get to stay for Victoria Day, lots of fun.
God bless you and yours,
Talk soon.
Decide Humanity: Scientism, Or Natural Selection
ReplyDeletehttp://universe-life.com/2012/05/19/decide-humanity-scientism-or-natural-selectio/
Humanity Must Decide: Scientism Or Natural Selection
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/conflict/index.xhtml
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/roots-of-racism.html?ref=em
Scientism: A doctrine and method characteristic of scientists, and the proposition that scientific doctrine and methods of studying natural sciences should be used in all areas of investigation and in conduct of politics-social-cultural-civil affairs in pursuit of an efficient practical, as fair as possible, civics framework.
Natural Selection: All mass formats, inanimate and animate, follow natural selection, i.e. intake of energy or their energy taken in by other mass formats.
All politics, local, national and international, are about evolutionary biology, about Darwinian evolution, about survival, about obtaining and maintaining and distributing energy.
Religion: is a virtual factor-component in human’s natural selection. Its target-function is to preserve-proliferate specific cultural phenotypes.
Natural selection-religion are compatible with technology-capitalism but are obviously incompatible with science-scientism, that targets preservation-proliferation of the genotype.
Science-scientism is an obvious threat to the survival of a cultural phenotype.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
For A Scientism Culture
http://universe-life.com/2011/06/11/for-a-scientism-culture/