The New "Religion Vs Science" Thread

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1601 - 1620 of total 10585 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Jan

Mountain climber

Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa

Jan 15, 2015 - 09:43am PT

Actually, the rate of reproduction has come down in all but a few countries of the world, in some cases dramatically so, even without coercion.

Especially where women are given the means to limit the number of children, they do so. In Nepal many illiterate women walked for several days to have mini laps to cauterize their tubes without any pain killer, and then got up and started walking home again the very same day. Meanwhile, male sterilization which is much simpler and safer, is still pretty much rejected everywhere but a few advanced countries.

One of the big problems for many years, is that Aid agencies were run by men who were embarrassed to talk about these things. Only when they started hiring women to deal with women's issues, did this change. Even then, we had an uphill fight for a long time. In China, the draconian one child policies were enforced at the local level not by men but by the so called "granny brigades".

There are two main problems now. One is the huge numerical base we now start from which means that even if every couple on earth only had two children, we will still have a very large population because most countries did not address this sooner, and rising standards of living all over the world are using up more resources. A one child or no child family will have to happen on a large scale in the future to get the numbers back down.This is not implausible since declining birthrates are already happening in all the wealthy countries except for the U.S. because of immigration.Most development experts I know say that the next 100 years will be some of the most difficult the human race has ever survived, but if we can make it through, we still have a future.

BASE104

Social climber

An Oil Field

Jan 15, 2015 - 10:49am PT

Thanks, Jan, you make it sound a little less harsh. It has been a while since I last looked at it, but population growth is indeed slowing. Wiki has a good page on the topic.

Right now humans are devastating the environment. OK. This is natural. Not good, but natural. Humans just doing what humans do. We are already above the carrying capacity of the planet. This can be remedied quite easily. One child, like the Chinese, or "artificial selection." You are chosen to bear children because you have good genetic traits.

We took the wolf and created poodles in only a couple of hundred years. A blink in evolutionary time. Through artificial selection, we could improve the gene pool. With this technology, humans can now evolve and change in a second of geologic time.

Most people have no ability to imagine true, deep time. What we have done to this planet started getting really serious less than 10 generations ago.

Another thing that will happen is that humans will eventually take advantage of genetic engineering to have better babies. The movie "Gattica" is a great story about this idea. A social high class of genetically designed people being served by a lower class of normally conceived children. It is going to happen.

Through technology, we are able to produce an incredible amount of food. Much of the grain belt of the U.S. is there only because of the Ogallala Aquifer. A tremendous source of groundwater that is now becoming seriously depleted. That land is too arid for corn. Wheat is possible without irrigation, being a dryland crop. So growing corn near or west of the 100th meridian will end. Corn takes a lot of water to grow.

This is going on all around the world. We are burning through our non-renewable resources such as that aquifer, which recharges very slowly, on the scale of hundreds of years.

I remember the first time I saw Los Angeles. I did a summer class at Occidental College during my junior year in high school, for college credit.

Los Angeles is a sea of concrete. I remember being on top of antennas that we were jumping and it was lights all the way to the horizon, in every direction. It blew my mind, having come from a small town.

We already have an asymetrical distribution of food and other resources. In the U.S., even the poor are fat. At the same time, we have regular famines in Africa.

Look at all of these countries that we invade. Look at North Korea. The leaders might be fat, but the rest of the country is skinny. Food is something that we are able to produce in such great quantities...and due to modern technology, that has made humans special: We can avoid natural selection. The first species to do so.

Wolves hunt cooperatively in packs. They don't need to be taught to do this. It is part of their genetic heritage. Humans are much the same. We have nations, and within those nations, cooperatively competing groups. Tribes within tribes, but ruthless tribes nevertheless.

I would guess that this is hereditary behavior. The weapons industry is a vast embezzlement of resources, and the industry where we, Americans, spend the largest chunk of our money. Technology for killing. The reasons for many wars is just silly. However it all seems necessary, lest some other tribe blow ours to smithereens.

A one-world government would eliminate this tribalism. We are screwed unless we figure out a way to cooperate for the betterment of the species.

It would be hard to do.

I've thought about this for a long time. I had friends, mostly engineers, who went to work for the defense industry. I stopped keeping up with them. Morally, I think that it is a bad way to spend your life.

Anyway, we can now avoid natural selection in most cases. Probably the first species to manage that. We can obliterate entire ecosystems if we want to.

All of this has just happened in human evolution. A blink of the eye.

paul roehl

Boulder climber

california

Jan 15, 2015 - 10:56am PT

The idea that authority is the hallmark of science and mythology and the humanities are gripped by subjectivity and relativism is an old saw.

The scientific method as a source of pure positive authority: the notion that we collect data, draw conclusions, create repeatable experiments and discover the hard rectitude of reality, doesn’t hold up to historical observation.

How many important papers do committees disregard? The first HB theory wasn't published, to my recollection, as it was refused by committee. But we can go back further to the 17th century witch trails where crude scientific method was used to determine whether one was a witch or not: does she have a devils hole, does she float or Dr. Mengele who considered himself a scientist doing the public good as he poured chemicals into the eyes of his victims.

The discipline of science like all human disciplines is susceptible to the folks implementing it.

The relative nature of the humanities?! Look into the system of publishing scientific papers and then get back to me on that.

If you want to experience authority stand in front of Michelangelo’s David or stand beneath the Sistine ceiling… works of art that will tell you something perfectly authoritative and well beyond the reach of science. Subjective/relative? Stand at inspiriation point next time you go to the valley, work your way through the crowds and find one person who finds the view ugly. I declare with absolute certainty that view is beautiful.

The humanities are dismissed largely because they’re difficult, because their worthiness is based on argument and consensus. But science too is fraught with disagreement and petty ambitions that have historically obscured the truths it is supposed to seek.

BASE104

Social climber

An Oil Field

Jan 15, 2015 - 11:25am PT

Paul,

What is your problem? I don't think that the humanities and science are at odds. Not a teeny tiny bit.

I read T.E. Lawrence's prose and it blows me away. That guy had a command of language. My favorite writer-who only wrote one book, "Seven Pillars Of Wisdom."

I love art and have made several trips to far away museums, sometimes to see only one painting.

I also feel that science is reason. It is a way to look at the world and figure out how things work.

The idea of no more artists and writers seems to me a hollow world. Humans can do amazing things sometimes.

Tell me that art is objective. WTF? It is pure subjectivity. That doesn't diminish it a single bit. Art was never meant to be objective. If you can show me examples that are otherwise, make a list.

The Scientific Method is a way to reason objectively. It holds up to historical observation. How could you think otherwise? If you know of a better way to reach objective truth, please fill us in.

paul roehl

Boulder climber

california

Jan 15, 2015 - 11:42am PT

What is your problem?

Actually, that last post was meant for someone further up the thread. I agree with most of what you said... Whether art is a purely subjective discipline is worth a vigorous argument, however. Consensus tends to argue against such a notion.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jan 15, 2015 - 11:55am PT

The scientific method as a source of pure positive authority: the notion that we collect data, draw conclusions, create repeatable experiments and discover the hard rectitude of reality, doesn’t hold up to historical observation.

this is a philosophical interpretation of what goes on in science and is usually brought up to show that there is no philosophical basis for science that makes it different from any other human activity. It is not.

However, success in science is not measured by it's distinction from other human activities, it is measured in it's ability to predict the outcome of physical situations. In this respect it has authority, and one that the humanities eschew by claiming that what they are interested in is not predictable, and so are exempt from judgements on how well they "predict" the outcome of humanist situations.

If science was not predictive in a testable manner, it would be no different from the humanities.

jgill

Boulder climber

Colorado

Jan 15, 2015 - 12:13pm PT

The discipline of science like all human disciplines is susceptible to the folks implementing it
. . Look into the system of publishing scientific papers and then get back to me on that

It's true that the selection, refereeing, and publishing of scientific papers is imperfect. However, amid the abundance of chaff published there are gems that others can build upon to uncover the secrets of nature. The chaff is necessary, for sometimes finding a righteous path is selection. A researcher may stumble upon an interesting find, but it may take the perusal of others to discern its importance.

Chaff, like inferior art, can be fun to play with!

Ward Trotter

Trad climber

Jan 15, 2015 - 12:33pm PT

doesn’t hold up to historical observation.

Actually it holds up quite well.There are a few rare exceptions, such as when certain vested interests within the scientific community temporarily or perhaps arbitrarily exercise a type of authority way outside the strict bounds of science. Eventually these attempts are disabled by the painstaking amassing of data which ultimately corrects the situation.It is precisely this methodological progression which distinguishes Science from Art: at least when considered as collective human endeavors.

This is a rather complicated subject, but a wealth of differences reside in the distinction between Science and Art along these lines.
Much of the claims for objective authority within the creative life of man are profoundly influenced and conditioned and confounded by strictly cultural,ethnographic,and historical factors. That there exists as Nietzsche said: "The world is a work of art that gives birth to itself." is not a sentiment shared wholeheartedly within, say , the Muslim world.

There is, to say the least, therefore a somewhat static nature to the canonical authority of aesthetics beyond the purely subjective.

The same set of problems are not officially encountered by the objective determination of the boiling point of water, or the universal fact that the sun is a fusion engine, requiring a natty pair of fashionable sunglasses.

Tvash

climber

Seattle

Jan 15, 2015 - 01:23pm PT

I just chartresed in my lion cloth.

The conjecture that man has now escaped natural selection cannot be true - as that process remains ongoing, albeit not in as simple a form as 100,000 years ago, perhaps.

The picture becomes much more complicated when viewed from longer time scales. For example - being wealthy, all other things being equal, will provide an individual more choices with regards to mate selection. Wealth therefore becomes on objective for a large percentage of the population.

Wealth also connotes greater resource consumption - which, in the long term, destroys the planet for everyone.

Such complex selection pressures may seem removed from the basic processes of evolution - but they are not. We remain dependent upon our environment in the end, like it or not.

jgill

Boulder climber

Colorado

Jan 15, 2015 - 01:28pm PT

Why such an effort to separate science & math from the humanities? In mathematics there is recognizable artistry, even a kind of poetic aesthetic:

Mathematics & Poetry

Here is an example:

Euler's Identity

Ed might wish (or not) to comment on aesthetics in physics.

Captain...or Skully

climber

in the oil patch...Fricken Bakken, that's where

Jan 15, 2015 - 01:32pm PT

"lion cloth".....hehehe.

Tvash

climber

Seattle

Jan 15, 2015 - 01:55pm PT

Rarrrr

paul roehl

Boulder climber

california

Jan 15, 2015 - 03:13pm PT

Why such an effort to separate science & math from the humanities? In mathematics there is recognizable artistry, even a kind of poetic aesthetic:

I sure agree… there’s the ancient notion of the divinity of number in which it’s recognized that certain numerical relationships appear to be transcendent/eternal. There’s music as a kind of sensual mathematics, the golden section. I love math and science and I don’t think they should be separated from the humanities.

This idea of the subjective nature of art and the humanities I find fascinating.

Every culture on planet earth dating back to the Paleolithic has adopted what we call the humanities, art, dance, music, literature… these are universal interests that are, historically generated by mythological or religious ideas. The draw to the humanites is powerful and universal. Why?

There’s an underlying need to make art and it’s manifested in different cultural inflections. But all cultures participate. And what they produce tends to be more similar than it is different. The same is true in mythological/religious belief. Why do so many cultures put their deities in the heavans?

When a Muslim constructs what might be one of the most beautiful pieces of architecture in the world, It’s not necessary for us to convert to the prophet in order to appreciate it. The building isn’t beautiful because it’s Muslim, it’s beauty is communicated to us through its form: symmetry, line, color, etc.

The consensus among critics and the public is that it’s beautiful…

Local inflections of style and subject can be embraced or seen as superfluous to our appreciation, as each work, literary or visual, speaks to us initially on that formal level.

I have a friend who put together a photo show recently called “Rapture” which consisted of unsuspecting viewers/tourists expressions as they were secretly photographed walking into the Pantheon… none of them were Pagans but every face has an open mouth.

What is meant by subjectivity? Is this just referring to the idiosyncratic tastes of all, that each is ultimately separate and therefore has a unique set of tastes different from all others? If that’s the case then I’d agree.

But when it comes to quality and the judgment of quality there is a problem. If we’re choosing works to go on a college lit reading list we don’t confer with a five year old or take the suggestions of someone who is illiterate. If we’re choosing works for a show at the old Tate we don’t consult someone off the street with no knowledge of art. There are lines to be drawn in determining quality. Who/what is the arbiter of taste?
Personal preference without benefit of knowledge can’t pass for critical judgment in the humanities or any other field.

And yes, ideas about the nature of quality in art change over time just as ideas in science change over time, even the methodology itself.

If beauty is everything/anything to everybody then it is exactly nothing.
We can quibble over whether Beethoven or Chopin is better/more interesting/moving but in doing so we’ve already entered a realm of higher quality and expectation. Throw Justin Bieber into the mix and the whole thing becomes nonsense.

So the issue isn’t that ultimately there are subjective tastes, the issue is that subjective taste falls short when it comes to criteria for quality.

And quality in the arts is a necessity to appreciation and civilization.

And this is the most difficult aspect of the Humanities: how do we find and determine criteria for quality?

Captain...or Skully

climber

Boise, ID

Jan 15, 2015 - 03:17pm PT

Just look for the lion cloth. Sounds pretty easy peasy.

jgill

Boulder climber

Colorado

Jan 15, 2015 - 07:36pm PT

there’s the ancient notion of the divinity of number in which it’s recognized that certain numerical relationships appear to be transcendent or eternal

Oh man, that's not exactly what I had in mind. Maybe humanists and scientists are further apart than I thought.

But whatever turns your wheels . . .

;>\

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jan 16, 2015 - 09:14am PT

Jan!!!!111

"Please forgive the brevity, but because of my limitations I have to keep this short.

I did not die. I did not go to Heaven.

I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible.

It is only through repentance of your sins and a belief in Jesus as the Son of God, who died for your sins (even though he committed none of his own) so that you can be forgiven may you learn of Heaven outside of what is written in the Bible…not by reading a work of man. I want the whole world to know that the Bible is sufficient. Those who market these materials must be called to repent and hold the Bible as enough.

In Christ,

Alex Malarkey.”

“An Open Letter to Lifeway and Other Sellers, Buyers, and Marketers of Heaven Tourism, by the Boy Who Did Not Come Back From Heaven.”

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/boy-who-wrote-bestseller-on-going-to-heaven-retracts-his-claims/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/01/15/boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-going-back-to-publisher/

Remember this book raked in millions, it was months and months on the Best Sellers Lists... best of all...

...on the NONFICTION list.

You just gotta love the author's last name, too!

I (heart) the information age!

Police must clean up their act. Remember this one, pure disgrace...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/murder-charges-for-albuquerque-new-mexico-cops-in-homeless-man-shooting/

So too, the charletans, past and would-be, must also.

That sh#t don't fly like it once did - not in the internet-driven information age. :)

Tvash

climber

Seattle

Jan 16, 2015 - 09:54am PT

P Diddy's got more fans than all classical musicians combined.

They all must be of low quality...

jgill

Boulder climber

Colorado

Jan 17, 2015 - 03:49pm PT

If and when the meditators rejoin the thread, here is a question for them: Is it possible to reach the experience of "awareness without content" and the "no-thingness" JL talks about by engaging in moving meditation?

And how does moving meditation differ from a gymnast, for example, performing a routine - apart from the period of time involved in each? Can distance running be considered moving meditation?

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Jan 17, 2015 - 08:00pm PT

What is meant by subjectivity?

An equally interesting question is: What is objective, and by what psychological process do we objectify things "out there" or within our own subjective bubble.

What's more, what would an object actually be if stripped off all the projections wrought through human perception, such a shape, color, and so on.

These are not easy questions to answer.

JL