Technorealism

[Citta]

I explained that. There is no science without humans. Science, as a practice, is per definition a human practice. It is why I quoted someone saying that guns don't need minds, they use ours. I cannot make it clearer then this...

So because science is a human endeavour (nobody have denied it is), it should be, by this very fact, held accountable for that the knowledge it produces can be used in a destructive manner? Am I getting you right? Because that just doesn't make any sense at all.

That does not mean it is the right way to go about science. If scientists cannot predict the harm that may come of it, which is a real good cover that allows them to basically just do whatever they want, then perhaps science is flawed. Insofar as the future cannot be predicted, perhaps so. But there are ways to minimize the harm. One such thing is the practice of technorealism.

Do you know any other methods that produces knowledge the way science does? Have anything teached us so much about the universe as science has? Do you know better methods that can produce the degree of objectivity, reliability and ability for predictions that science does? If so, the whole world would love to hear of it. Please share! And please, don't come up with the good old method of just tripping balls on shrooms or whatever, because that doesn't cut it.

Science is not flawed because it cannot predict possible applications of its knowledge. How can it even do this? How can it even be reasonable to require this? How could Einstein have predicted that someone would find it a very good idea to build a bomb because of his equation, E=mc^2? How could Max Planck have predicted that his quantum hypothesis would lead to a revolution in technology a few decades later? The ideas that scientists produce are very different from the ideas that other people produce in technology on the basis of them. To require that science can say that this or that will lead to such and such applications is like shooting for the sun and ending up on Pluto. It's not reasonable at all.

Also, technorealism doesn't spesifically mention science at all, but technology. The distinction is clear even in the stuff that you propose. "The technorealist approach involves a continuous critical examination of how technologies might help or hinder people in the struggle to improve the quality of their lives, their communities, and their economic, social, and political structures." It talks about technology, not science. Why do you think it does? The answer is simple; the distinction between knowledge and understanding (science), and the application of such knowledge and understanding, (technology) is fundamental. But you delibirately miss this distinction, blaming pure knowledge and understanding of the possible destructive application someone might find for them. As I have said, the blame is not on the knowledge itself, but on facets of human nature and in some cases a faulty moral judgement.

I do not think it is trivial when technology, coming out of fundamental understanding of nature, at least understanding in a scientific framework, impacts our world so profoundly.

You misunderstood me, I'm sorry to have not made myself clear. The triviality I was refering to was the simple fact that science opens the door to technology, a fact that is easy to observe and that no one can deny. I didn't mean to imply that technology doesn't profoundly impact our lives. I understand that I articulated myself poorly there, so I hope I cleared that misunderstanding up

This is where most of you and I fundamentally disagree on. At this point we are simply restating our view. What is the root cause of our views being so different? Am I just completely weird? Or are the rest not seeing things quite right? Who can say.

The root cause of our views being so different is that you don't acknowledge that knowledge, in and on itself, doesn't encourage or automatically lead to destructive applications. I do not disagree with the fact that our current technology leads to a great many problems concerning the environment, our lives and the lives of other plants and animals - because it does. But I don't blame science for this, I blame facets of human nature, lack of knowledge and understanding, faulty moral judgements, incompetent leaders, fucked up industries and so on and so forth.

But let me restate this, that in a court room you WILL get convicted for handing someone in rage the gun that kills someone. That as a gang leader you will be put in jail for leading people to commit crime. That failing to follow safety protocols on the work floor resulting in injury, WILL get you fired and prosecuted. That as a minister, guru, person of import and with that the responsibility as such, you will be prosecuted for people suiciding because you tell them the end of the world is nigh.

We apply responsibility all around. In your view, the person handing a gun goes free on the reasoning that he didn't pull the trigger, he merely gave someone access to a tool. In your view, the gang leader is innocent because despite him telling people where to go to commit a crime, he did was not present at the crime scene. In your view the person causing injury to self or others on the work floor will have an insurance company pay his medical costs fully and won't be held accountable in court because not following safety protocols say nothing about the machines he used that caused injury. In your view the spiritual leader goes free because even though he believes the end of the world is nigh, he did not command or suggest people to commit suicide.

But yet when it comes to science, all ties are severed. And science is carried by people, just like all those situations I meant involve people. Science therefore is not severed from the person doing the research.

And I have not seen any argument opposing this at all.

Okay, let me just follow your reasoning for a bit; Einstein then, should be blamed for the atomic bomb because he gave us great insight into the nature of matter and energy? Max Planck, Einstein again, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg with others should be held accountable for Iphones, transistors, pretty much everything of modern electronics because they devoloped quantum mechanics? They should be held accountable for this just because they uncovered laws of nature? Don't you see how unreasonable this is? What about the mathematicians that produced the math they used? Should they be held accountable too? Should Leibniz and Newton be held accountable because we use their calculus to model how oil flows in a resorvoar, how electric charges generate a forcefield and many other things that are used daily in technology? Newton should be blamed because we use his mechanics to fire rockets? This is essentially what you're saying, Visty, and it is such an extreme long shot. It just doesn't add up.

Furthermore, your analogies doesn't hold. If I give a gun to a mad person, I should naturally be convicted for doing this. But this is not the same as me discovering some law of nature, just to share it with the world, and then to be held accountable because some smucks a few decades later used my law to fire their weapons. Leading people to commit crimes as a gang leader is also very different than discovering laws about nature. I have actually encouraged someone to do something wrong as a gang leader, but I have encouraged no one to build atomic bombs and kill another person by discovering my laws. When I say that the gravitational attraction between two objects in the distance r from eachother is F = G*m1m2/r^2 I have not said that "Hey, use this to fire your rockets! Awesome!". I have just shared a very fundamental insight of how nature works. If I say that the electric force between two point charges is Fe = k*q1q2/r^2 I haven't said that "Hey, use this for electricity and fuck up the planet!", but I have shared another fundamental insight of how charges works and interacts. When I don't follow safety protocols on the work floor I will put people in potential danger, and I should be held accountable, but when I present these laws I am not a threat to anyone.

It is inherent within it. It is an innate characteristic. As you said yourself, technology comes out of science and it always does. IF you understand that so well, isn't it time to man up and face the music? And what is the music? The music is the understanding of our nature, that we are fallible beings who compromise themselves on a daily basis by doing one thing and talking the other. That we all know climate is going down the drain because of our conduct in this world, we talk about energy saving, alternative energy, saving the forests and so on and so forth. Apart from a few hero's from Sea Shepard I don't see people consuming significantly less. We should man up and accept we are bastards. And when you do that, you can start to think about how to work with our flawed being in doing the right thing.

To man up and face the music is not to blame science for poor applications of its knowledge. To man up and face the music is, as you say, to accept that we can be bastards, and as such we can use knowledge to be bastards. But science is not the bastard. Do you seriously think the world would be better off without science? Without science we wouldn't get a lot of the good technology that we have, and we wouldn't even understand how and why some of our technologies might have or do have a negative impact! Why do we know the climate suffers? Because of science. Why do we know that radiation can be harmful? Because of science. Why do we know this or that to be bad? Most of them because of science. How are we going to fix this? Through more science, more reason, more critical and rational inquiry.

If you know so well that technology comes out of scientific understanding, then it seem logical that we should not stop at blaming technology or how we use technology. That is externalizing our own dysfunction into technology and then casting it away as examples of bad human behavior. Nice psychological trick, but I ain't falling for it boy.

It's not just a nice psychological trick, it is a fact. Science is neutral. Knowledge is neutral. Laws of nature don't speak about morals, ethics or how we should or should not apply them. People do. Industries does. Politicians does. Our psychology does. It is not about externalizing our own dysfunction as you call it, it is to acknowledge it. It is to acknowledge that we can do bad things with neutral things. We can turn facts into hell on earth, we can turn the knife into a weapon to kill instead of helping us cut up our salads, we can use a chair to kill instead of sitting on it, we can use rocks to smash a head or two, we can use our fists to strangle.. But is the facts, the knifes, the rocks, the chairs or our fists bad by virtue of what they are? No. Only the manner of its use makes it so. This is a very important distinction, and I think to get anywhere with our problems this is where the weight should be. More critical thought, more knowledge and understanding, rational discussions about morality and ethics, more insight, producing good governments, electing good politicians, knowing about science and technology to take a stance in important questions concerning it etc. Not to rage our fingers on science and blame it for everything, but to realize its potential and use it to evaluate our technological applications and its impact on the world.

If science is the root cause of a miserable world through the application of technology,then we blame not technology, we go to the root.

But science is not the root cause of a miserable world. If anything, it is a potential saviour together with rational and critical thought.

But here you show your lack of understanding. Don't mean to be harsh.
Technorealism isn't about putting labels like positive or negative on things. It means rather to overview the results of the use of technology. The conclusions that come from such scrutiny are then what we would base our position on.

I have not shown any lack of understanding. I gave you an example of how we can use insight in medicine to do good things or bad things. This is technorealism as well, as quoted above - i.e examining how technologies might hinder or help us.

All these things you name, like curing cancer, should be examined. There is a really bad side effect of curing cancer. I challenge you to name it and come back to me with the answer.

I am sorry to show my ignorance, but you need to enlighten me on this one. What can possibly be bad with developing effective ways, safe ways, to cure cancer? To save lives and help people that are in misery?

The same applies here. It would be hard to find a good use of biological weapons. But there are other things that can be detrimental to one thing yet good in another. Maybe a CAF chemo treatment in cancer. That 'F' in CAF is a highly toxic derivate of mustard gas, you remember it well...used against Kurds by the Iraqi government and before that approved of and used by the British...against the same Kurds. Which shows that society or culture has a say in what is 'bad' or not.

I have never said that we shouldn't examine how our technologies can impact us. You are arguing against a straw man here.

But if science promoted logical reasoning, then where is it? With all your love of reason science just ups the ante in the chance game of survival of nature. It does come up with perfectly logical science to create mustard gas and bio-weaponry equally as logical as they come up with a medication against small pox. So tell me how reason and logical thinking connects to conscience moral attitude?

It links us to conscious moral attitude because it enables us to understand the effects of our technologies. Without science we wouldn't know how or why something is dangerous, and in certain cases we wouldn't even know if something were dangerous at all. Knowledge, understanding and critical and rational thinking is key to developing a good, moral and functional society. Look at history to see examples of how tightly knit the degree of science, critical thinking and reason is with the degree of secularization, morality and positive functionality. It couldn't be more clear.

:lol: Well, maybe the world isn't ready yet for my point of view. I don't see the benefits myself. But to not see it, requires a utterly ruthless mind. And most people do not wish to stare into the abyss like I do. When I stare into the abyss, something flees. You want logic? I'll give you logic, superior logic.

Here you just come off as arrogant. It doesn't serve the debate.

Science is part of the human equation. We carry it and abuse it and dare not think about it, as people show in this thread. It is because most of us refuse to accept our own mortality and as a result, no one understands my point of view. It could be utterly incomprehensible. And this is because science is a transference symbol and that is why you guys keep it out of the wind in some abstract unlinked fashion and then blame the messenger, technology, which just means consumerism.

More arrogance. Run out of good arguments?

Well it took me 25 years to get to this level of understanding, this superior logic.

Arrogance yet again. Please drop it.

It is getting more and more pointless to discuss with you, and as such, I think I will leave this debate.

 

[Visty]

...

To be honest this discussion is getting quite ridiculous. It has been shown by several people now that you misunderstand certain concepts and by knowing that fact even misuse those concepts. Instead of learning and moving forward it seems that the only thing you do is getting more and more into dogmatic replies.

Are you here to have a healthy debate are are you here to 'win' a discussion and to have the last word no matter what?


Kind regards,

The Traveler

I always get into trouble in exchanges like this. Now I am accused of being dogmatic because other people cannot follow my reasoning? I have not seen any arguments rather than repeating that science is beyond reproach, whereas I give lengthy replies to try and explain my arguments. I use analogy, examples, comparisons to which few actually reply. I give supporting arguments.

I only get back that I don't understand what science is. Well, I know very well what science is. I just disagree with certain premises people have about it. And that is fundamental to my position.

Maybe my grasp of the English language isn't good enough. Possibly everyone I alienate here means 10 readers who won't help me with my tek problems. My I should quit this discussion, what do you think? People seem to put more faith in the utterly alien visions on DMT then appreciate a very strange view such as mine.

 

[SWIMfriend]

Visty, I think some of your points are good, and that others probably understand them. I think the problem is that you don't seem to be fully understanding OTHERS' points--which in many cases are very strong. I don't think you're appreciating the strength of their points.

...since you ask.

 

[Visty]

I explained that. There is no science without humans. Science, as a practice, is per definition a human practice. It is why I quoted someone saying that guns don't need minds, they use ours. I cannot make it clearer then this...

So because science is a human endeavour (nobody have denied it is), it should be, by this very fact, held accountable for that the knowledge it produces can be used in a destructive manner? Am I getting you right? Because that just doesn't make any sense at all.

Why not? I am puzzled as to why it is such a leap for you and others?

Maybe think of it is this way: knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Maybe some fields of research should be left alone. Until we can honeslty say we are ready for it. Nanotechnology has enormous potential to be destructive. Yes it can carry medicine to a tumor. But also carry poison to the heart or brain.

ICT is another field that I grow tired of on a daily basis. I am a sort of privacy fighter. But the promise of ICT has turned into the very network of privacy loss. I am not sure if this is of interest to people here, but if you read the ICT news sites on data loss, hacking, identity theft etc, then I wonder. Our laws are unable to keep up with the rapid changes. Security in ICT lags behind the novelty wave if you know what I mean. Even an 11 year old in my country can cause disaster by turning on of off pumps and flood half the country.

Do you know any other methods that produces knowledge the way science does? Have anything teached us so much about the universe as science has? Do you know better methods that can produce the degree of objectivity, reliability and ability for predictions that science does? If so, the whole world would love to hear of it. Please share! And please, don't come up with the good old method of just tripping balls on shrooms or whatever, because that doesn't cut it.

Science is a description of reality. It certainly is a nice one. I have my own description. I am sure you have yours. If you put them on a scales, which one would weigh more? Would you submit that your view on reality is of lesser wort? And if so, why?

Your emphasis is on the scientific method, you speak of objectivity, reliability for predictions. But why is that so important? As a human that is not how your mind works, at least, not only. Your mind is flexible and can take on any model. These boons of science are helpful in the scientific modeling. You can hear that doctor from Johns Hopkins about psilocybine say it: he even uses the word 'reductionist'.

I do not emphasize science anymore as the only workable methodology of finding answers about the nature of reality. A year of using psilocyine taught me that much. But I have to make clear I do not want to dislodge you from a favored anchor. I am happy floating around all sort of ideas and alternatives. So I am not here to diss science. I am here to propose that science is merely one view and that other views are of equal value.

You can see alternatives all over internet, even on here. There is my posts on Awareness, Potential, the Consensus. But so many have given their intuitions and beliefs and visions. Are these to you of lesser importance?

To me they are quite wondrous. There are 7 billion people. That means potentially 7 billion models of reality. Most will probably be similar. I explained that saying there is room in reality for as many different ideas as possible. I find that a glorious fact. So, why adhere so much to science? I can abandon my theories instantly and recretae a whole new model. Terry Prattchett sure did

Science is not flawed because it cannot predict possible applications of its knowledge. How can it even do this? How can it even be reasonable to require this?

I did not say it could. I said it could not.

How could Einstein have predicted that someone would find it a very good idea to build a bomb because of his equation, E=mc^2? How could Max Planck have predicted that his quantum hypothesis would lead to a revolution in technology a few decades later? The ideas that scientists produce are very different from the ideas that other people produce in technology on the basis of them. To require that science can say that this or that will lead to such and such applications is like shooting for the sun and ending up on Pluto. It's not reasonable at all.

That is a valid point. Einstein said he did not believe the atom could be shattered at will. Is out lack of imagination the cause of later problems? I do not have an answer apart from technorealism. Already there are concerns voiced about nano tech. So, why won't they do studies first? Some studies are being done. But at the same time universities blast large amounts of money into it nonetheless. They have to compete I suppose. They cannot feign ignorance at this point.
Same as with ICT. The market drives new ICT stuff and they hijack technology to make it all real.

It talks about technology, not science.

That is true. I tend to go off on a tangent. Technorealism is a jumping board. Before you know it you dive, well, I dive into all sorts of pools. I think the idea of technorealism does not rise above the concepts we know, it does not question after a certain point. It accepts the paradigms of society as we know it. So it does not for example go so far as to question capitalism and open markets.

But I question everything these days. :twisted: And I find that the more I question, the more society, life as we know it is utter insanity.

Why do you think it does? The answer is simple; the distinction between knowledge and understanding (science), and the application of such knowledge and understanding, (technology) is fundamental. But you delibirately miss this distinction, blaming pure knowledge and understanding of the possible destructive application someone might find for them. As I have said, the blame is not on the knowledge itself, but on facets of human nature and in some cases a faulty moral judgement.

Not so fast.

First of all I do not necessarily believe in any fundamental...whatever. Second, knowledge and understanding can be attained in other ways. Hence the DMT Nexus. Unless you think it is just all just a big joke. And a lot of semantics?

I suddenly see picture of a halter in my mind. Science on one side, moral judgment on the other. There is a rod in the middle that connects the weights. Fun with mental imagery! You can add weights on either side or remove them. But you still end up with the rod. The connection.

The quest for understanding is pure. But the method leaves much to be desired. Science is such an ingrained worldview that is is as hard to think of something else to replace it with. It is like trying to think up a new political system. Usually people tend to mix up from a list of possibilities, democracy, communism, plutocracy, meritocracy. There is like dozens of such things all from ancient Greece. Who can think up a totally new one? I can't!

So if this is so hard, the only way to find new forms is to evolve society. McKenna said that language is the limitation of societies' ability to evolve. I cannot find words to describe a new concept of government.

You misunderstood me, I'm sorry to have not made myself clear. The triviality I was refering to was the simple fact that science opens the door to technology, a fact that is easy to observe and that no one can deny. I didn't mean to imply that technology doesn't profoundly impact our lives. I understand that I articulated myself poorly there, so I hope I cleared that misunderstanding up

Yes you did and I am greatful for clearing that up and this exchange of ideas.

The root cause of our views being so different is that you don't acknowledge that knowledge, in and on itself, doesn't encourage or automatically lead to destructive applications. I do not disagree with the fact that our current technology leads to a great many problems concerning the environment, our lives and the lives of other plants and animals - because it does. But I don't blame science for this, I blame facets of human nature, lack of knowledge and understanding, faulty moral judgements, incompetent leaders, fucked up industries and so on and so forth.

I understand that. But I hope you can understand that these facets do not significantly improve things by dealing with them. I explained it by saying that we need to accept our fallible nature. That we simply are to immature to be able to foresee where knowledge takes us through the practice of the scientific method. And that logic dictates that we should put the brakes on. And I described how we should put science on a leech because understanding nature is not automatically a guarantee for moral behavior. If we as humans are prone to immorality or are amoral in many ways, then we need to take the toy of science away from the child that is humanity. Well, at least restrict it.

But implying this gets me a lot of reactions against it. As if science is god. Like I said, there are other models.

I can dream up a society where science is not the preset instinct to deliver existential questions. Surely some Amazonian tribe agrees. It is not that w e need science. Science is a few thousand years old. We lived for millions of years without it, of which the last 100k years as modern humans or so. McKenna describe a sort of Utopian society where we ate the mushroom and were chemically intervened upon by its effects to suppress the male ego domination. Intersting ideas, just a theory, and prolly not much evidence for it. But it is a novel idea so I accept it as a possibility.

Can you accept the possibility of human life on earth so radically different, where science has taken a backseat to another model providing method thats eeks to describe and understand the nature of reality?

Or am I asking too much?

... many other things that are used daily in technology? Newton should be blamed because we use his mechanics to fire rockets? This is essentially what you're saying, Visty, and it is such an extreme long shot. It just doesn't add up.

I don't wanna imply we go back to the ancient Greeks and their invention of scientific methodology. Right now I'd be delighted if every scientist knew the term technorealism. Maybe if the Greeks back then had invented that...things would be different. We might have been able to avoid a lot of crap.

Furthermore, your analogies doesn't hold. If I give a gun to a mad person, I should naturally be convicted for doing this. But this is not the same as me discovering some law of nature, just to share it with the world, and then to be held accountable because some smucks a few decades later used my law to fire their weapons.

So where is the line between consequences and responsibility? Where does one stop and the other begin?

To man up and face the music is not to blame science for poor applications of its knowledge. To man up and face the music is, as you say, to accept that we can be bastards, and as such we can use knowledge to be bastards. But science is not the bastard.

Still many people believe that the world would be better without guns. Where do you stand on that?

Do you seriously think the world would be better off without science? Without science we wouldn't get a lot of the good technology that we have, and we wouldn't even understand how and why some of our technologies might have or do have a negative impact! Why do we know the climate suffers? Because of science. Why do we know that radiation can be harmful? Because of science. Why do we know this or that to be bad? Most of them because of science. How are we going to fix this? Through more science, more reason, more critical and rational inquiry.

Hahha, now I have you in a corner Circular reasoning my peer grouped friend!

First things first. Would the world be better off? Define world. Humans I assume is what you mean. The world as in planet with spoecies, yes it would be better off. I f you talk humans only then, mmm...possibly we would be better off. Science is no requirement for human life on Earth.
So you are saying we need science to understand that science and from it, technology, harms our climate. If we had no science, we had no technology to create that harm in the first place.

Science you state is the answer to our problems, yet you acknowledge that it plays its part in the sequence of consequences. I have a description of scientism. Do you recognize yourself in it if you are honest? Science helps to create problems it then researches to resolve. How is that helping anyone? We don't need more science, we need less. Is that what a catch-22 is?

It's not just a nice psychological trick, it is a fact. Science is neutral. Knowledge is neutral. Laws of nature don't speak about morals, ethics or how we should or should not apply them.

Laws of nature are all fine. But once you start going nano tech and ICT and chemistry for the masses by posting building blocks of cellular biology on internet so everyone can put gene A in cel B and create a chimera you are asking for trouble.

makes it so. This is a very important distinction, and I think to get anywhere with our problems this is where the weight should be. More critical thought, more knowledge and understanding, rational discussions about morality and ethics, more insight, producing good governments, electing good politicians, knowing about science and technology to take a stance in important questions concerning it etc. Not to rage our fingers on science and blame it for everything, but to realize its potential and use it to evaluate our technological applications and its impact on the world.

So when are we done acquiring knowledge and understanding? Me I am quite done with the whole caboodle that tails it. It is a mimosa mix for sure. A lot of ugly chemicals like lye and naphta and the separation is never clear enough. :lol: Are we going into this spiral of scientific research only to be confronted with new levels of understanding being abused in technologies, only to have you come in and declare we need Yet More Science?

Are there 'good' politicians? I have given up on democrazy in its current form.

"If democracy is ever to be threatened, it will not be by revolutionary groups burning government offices and occupying the broadcasting and newspaper offices of the world. It will come from disenchantment, cynicism and despair caused by the realization that the New World Order means we are all to be managed and not represented."
-- Tony Benn, British Labour Party Member of Parliament

No hope for me there. I think science got 2000 years of leeway. Maybe now its time for it to step down and make room for another concept. The quest for knowledge is different then how it started out. McKenna describes it well, then again, McKenna is God For an ancient Greek scientist there was more to life than reductionism. They also made poetry or painted and whatever.

All these things you name, like curing cancer, should be examined. There is a really bad side effect of curing cancer. I challenge you to name it and come back to me with the answer.

I am sorry to show my ignorance, but you need to enlighten me on this one. What can possibly be bad with developing effective ways, safe ways, to cure cancer? To save lives and help people that are in misery?

Science dictates that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction

Mind you that my girlfriend had cancer.

To cure cancer means less people die. That means population growth. More people means more resource consumption. In todays world that still means hydrocarbons. Curing cancer means more people get older. Older people use more energy. They cost more in medical care, unfortunately, in todays world we calculate that which is distasteful yet a reality. We live in a finite world and overpopulation is a serious consideration.

Science does not seem to be able to make a stand on it. Maube it is too 'neutral' eh? Where are them statistical analysts? Demographists? The chemists who understand what hydrocarbons are and their finity?

Anyway, there is the answer. Medical science sounds awesome. It helped cure my babe's cancer. But we did more than a scientific treatment. And she cured! When scientifically trained specialists would have us cut off her breasts because the tumor could not be removed by surgery. And the tumor dissapeared, because of alchemical approach, using chemo therapy, orthomolecular intervention and something else that I did to her. Which can be described as a quantum intervention, where in I altered reality from one where she had an inoperable tumor growing into her skin, to one where she had not.

Yet still, in a world without science she might have died at an early age. And if such a society would have true values of love and care and empathy, knowing we are all vulnerable to disease, accepting disease and death as part of nature and ourselves, then I could have lived with her death and work through the suffering and sadness of losing my babe. But such a society we have not. But I WILL NOT sell out and be a hypocrite by adjusting my heartfelt intuitions about science and society and the nature of reality even for the love of my life. Even if that opinion would ultimately have been detrimental to her life. Like I said earlier. I am ruthless in that way.

Here you just come off as arrogant. It doesn't serve the debate.

Relativism don't do it for me either no more.

More arrogance. Run out of good arguments?

No, just extended reasoning following the same premises. If I believe that science cannot be regarded as separate from the human condition, then likewise someone cannot be taken separately from their opinions. I have always sought to understand the reasons why people think like they do. This was my analysis of why science is being defended in the way you and others are doing. And I believe Ernest Becker provides an answer that I then apply here.

It is getting more and more pointless to discuss with you, and as such, I think I will leave this debate.

That is fine by me. We perceive the world too differently.

 

[Visty]

Visty, I think some of your points are good, and that others probably understand them. I think the problem is that you don't seem to be fully understanding OTHERS' points--which in many cases are very strong. I don't think you're appreciating the strength of their points.

...since you ask.

But I do understand them, I just don't agree or suck up to anyone as I state my opinion. It is always an easy trickery to declare that someone doesn't understand a position because if they don't understand, you don't need to take their argument seriously. After all, they just don't understand!

I ask some very fundamental philosophical questions about science. That is all there is to it. But people seem to not want me to understand their position whereas in fact I do.

Edit:

Anyway, I am done discussing these things. It is starting to remind me of similar discussion on a Freethinkers forum. The most dogmatic clock-people I ever met! It didn't take long before my ideas were so utterly despicable to them that I was banned. And they weren´t civil about it either

So, cya in other topix.

 

[InneffableThings]

funny thing about being human -

The belief we understand another
prevents us from understanding.

Love and Peace