Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Brian
climber
California
|
|
So the question is, What do we do about all the scientific illiteracy in the world? How do we solve the scientific illiteracy problem?
This is a major problem that can only be addressed through education.
Why are so many from the humanities side so disrespectful of science,
engineering and technology. Oh yeah, because they're scientifically illiterate.
Many hard scientists are woefully ignorant of philosophy, literature, etc.
Just because you cannot imagine something happening doesn't forbid it from happening...
This could reasonably be addressed to dogmatic thinkers on both sides of this debate.
See I don't have any Faith. Not in science, not in any religion. None.
I doubt it. Do you believe your daughter loves you? You certainly cannot prove it. If we all took pen to paper and made two lists: one of things we know and one of things we believe (i.e., belief without understanding or proof or knowledge), the latter list would dwarf the former. I am a very, very strong advocate of science; but the fact is that most of the important things in life fall outside the realm of science. Science will never tell you if life is meaningful, or what makes a good life, or a good person, etc.
It always comes back to the Veil Darkly.
This is very wise, and I agree with Dingus here. However, that does not mean that would shouldn't try to penetrate the veil to the extent that we can...
But the facts are, this Cosmos has properties, basic properties.
Dingus' point, another good one, is "why those properties and not others?"
When I do that, I understand... and I'm only really interested in understanding, I'm not even really interested in "The Truth."
This is also very, very wise. So much so that it would take a very, very long discussion to say why it is so spot on.
Ed I am not talking about beliefs. I have none, it doesn't matter to me if you accept this or not.
Poppycock. See above on "faith."
it is not true Dingus... science has a lot to say about those questions...
I concur. However, it has not identified a first cause, which is the point, I take it, of at least some people on this thread.
The problem here, as I pointed out above, is that people often give an unjustifiable credence to anything expressed from the point of view and in the type of discourse they are familiar with. Scientists speak science and ignore philosophy. Theologians speak theology and are ignorant of science. Of course, this problem, while widespread, is not universal. Some people are willing to listen to credible outside perspectives. Open-mindedness, imagination, and a willingness to consider alternative perspectives are sorely underrepresented virtues in our culture, in many quarters.
Brian
|
|
taorock
Trad climber
Okanogan, WA
|
|
So much depends on the twists of words..
Two different paths between "survival of the fittest" and "elimination of the weakest"
As a former professional geoscientist, it was common for me to see peers get their hackles up over details. They used the word "or" too many times when they would have been better off using "and" IMHO.
I like rational. It is a wonderful tool. I use it frequently. Thankfully, not all the time.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 02:34pm PT
|
Brian, good points here.
I'm going to dig into them deeper. Oh yeah!
In the meantime, care to pipe in, answer the question of the hour:
What makes a cheetah go?
(as it races down a gazelle)
Provoking Questions: Is it a ghost in the machine?
Is a cheetah a robot, a biotic robot? Do gazelles, cheetahs
and humans have a common evolutionary ancestor?
P.S. Okay, off to the gym!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 04:10pm PT
|
Brian wrote: "Many hard scientists are woefully ignorant of philosophy, literature, etc."
I hear that! It's not only in regard to philosophy, literature, etc. either. Also, of science itself. I call it "science span." Compare "attention span." Carl Sagan had a science span wider than the Grand Canyon, others not so. Some physicists, for e.g., know next to nothing when it comes to the life sciences. It's a shame.
American culture should embrace The Scientific Story as its basic model for how the world works. A long science span (as opposed to short one) is a major stepping stone to this achievement.
(Or, it's going to get its ass kicked by Chindia (China plus India) which doesn't buy into any of that "eternal life for me" nonsense.)
The Abrahamic religious story (laid down in the bronze age) is a main obstacle to (a) science literacy, (b) science span, (c) the Scientific Story. But hopefully, times are achanging. If it's not already too late. Time will tell of course.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Dawkin's gig is to talk about this in public, kinda like Sagan. Could be worse.
"I'm for small government, fiscal responsibility" again, as others have said, those concepts run so counter to the republican party of today.
anyone hip to the etymology of the term 'Robot' fascinating and unlikely to my mind, though used remarkably appropriately in the the thread title.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 04:59pm PT
|
What do you mean... "Could be worse."
"Robot" as I use it in this thread simply means mechanistic, mechanical... in other words, not "above the law," ... the physical laws, that is.
Traditionally, the view (based on ignorance, supported by the Church) was that there is a ghost in the body (a ghost in the machine)... and that the "ghost" was above the physics and chemistry of the body.
Now we know (a) there is no ghost, that mind is what the brain does as it controls the body... (b) we're all tasked to adapt to this new understanding... (c) some are faster in the task than others.
|
|
L
climber
H2O..what the heck is this H2O thing you speak of?
|
|
What makes a cheetah go?
Why...the CHEETAH makes the cheetah go, of course.
Silly. ;-)
Now, try this little experiment:
For one week--7 puny days--see if you can go without disagreeing with anyone about anything. Just listen to what people say with a totally open mind. Maybe throw in a little curiosity even. You don't have to agree with them on their position...but do NOT allow yourself to disagee, either mentally or verbally. No nay-saying.
Go ahead. See if you can do it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hahaha! There's not a person on this forum that can do that--not for one hour--ONE MINUTE--much less one week. And do you know why none of us can fulfill this simple request?
BECAUSE WE'RE ALL CONTROLLED BY OUR MINDS...we're all a bunch of robots, so to speak.
We have mind constructs and mental patterning embedded in our physiology, much less our psychology and sociology. This entire thread is a fine example of enemy patterning (dividing the world into US and THEM) for the shear joy of labeling others, which our egoic minds thrive on.
Yes, Mr. GMO HFCS is absolutely correct on that point! We all appear to be a bunch of flesh-and-bone-and-brightly-colored-entrail-toting robots, plain and simple.
Oh...
er...
...wait a minute.
If we're all just robots, marionettes to our DNA or by-products of unconscious natural selection...then what is it that's observing our wired puppet dance? What is it that recognizes our servitude to the habitual? Sees our convict stripes from eons of conditioning...what is that?
What is it that thought--for maybe a nanosecond--that you could go one puny week without judging and labeling and discrediting an opposing viewpoint...which we all do in order to keep our viewpoints (aka our egos) valid and safe and RIGHT?
What was that?
It was not your mind.
And it certainly wasn't a ghost.
BTW...Carl Sagan was a hero of mine. Richard Dawkin's was incredible at TED a couple years ago. Sam Harris can be amazingly eloquent. It's not a question of bad or good, wrong or right...it's simply a question of your ability to do something novel: Control your own mind.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 05:18pm PT
|
Here, let's use a Sam Harris response:
When somebody steps forth and claims the Egyptians bombed Pearl Harbor in 1942, it's appropriate to object, disagree.
Also, to object, disagree, debate... in the interest of better living, solving a problem, etc.... is hardly an expression of us v. them tribalism.
It's being responsible as a citizen, better, it's "living up to" one's responsibility as an informed citizen of an informed democracy.
Distinguish between (a) respecting one's right to believe and (b) respecting a belief (e.g., one that's incorrect in a factual sense).
It's how we progress, it's how we get ahead in civilization, in cultural evolution. The sad part, hard to get used to, is it's usually 1.1 steps forward, one step backward, very inefficient, very painful.
"It's not a question of bad or good, wrong or right..."
It could be a question of right and wrong, good or bad, etc. It's a function of what one's goals are. Which by the way is a subject innately on the mind of engineering, for example, more than science or philosophy.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Cheetah Power!
Robots have their moment, too
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Now we know (a) there is no ghost, that mind is what the brain does as it controls the body... (b) we're all tasked to adapt to this new understanding... (c) some are faster in the task than others.
Oy vey.. tisk tisk tisk. So you know there is no ghost/spirit. how do you know? Is it because you could not find it? Man knew about the atom long before he could say he saw it.
Perhaps your tools are not capable of finding spirit. What then?
You don't "know". You theorize. You suppose. So your theory of life says there is no spirit, and thus all further suppositions are based on that.
but what if your original supposition is incorrect?
|
|
Brian
climber
California
|
|
"Robot" as I use it in this thread simply means mechanistic, mechanical... in other words, not "above the law," ... the physical laws, that is.
We are not "above the law," but that does not necessarily lead to a strong sort of eliminative materialism a la Paul and Patricia Churchland.
To say that there is nothing other than matter and motion, which I not exactly sure if you are saying, is a stronger claim than I am willing to endorse.
Moreover, I'm willing to wager there is not a single person who actually lives as a coherent eliminative materialist. I've hung out with the Churchlands, and while they are clever folks they don't live as coherent eliminative materialists. They say they love each other, they don't claim that they are experiencing a particularly high dopamine surge or whatever.
To live as a coherent eliminative materialist you would, among other things, have to dismiss free will and many folks have correctly pointed out that while that is an interesting intellectual bit of jujitsu, you can't actually live as if it is true...
I'm all for more science education, more science in public discourse, etc. But that does not, for me, mean that I think there is nothing more than matter and motion. There certainly is.
As for the repeated question regarding the cheetah, you need to clarify what you mean by "why." Why does is it animate rather than inanimate? (chemistry and biology, developed by evolution) Why does it chase the gazelle rather than an elephant or a ant? (instinct, likewise developed over time) However, my belief that the chemical-, biological-, evolutionary- description for why the cheetah chases the gazelle is "true" (or, as Ed points out, the "best way to understand" why the cheetah chases the gazelle) does not in any way contradict my belief that there is more to things than matter and motion, nor need it contradict in any way someone's belief in God, or Creation, or a variety of other things.
Most people discount science out of bald ignorance or a woeful lack of understanding. This is dangerous on many levels, as it leads to a fundamental lack of understanding (there we are, back to Ed's good point) of how the world works. We need more science education to address this.
Most people discount religion (and belief or faith of all sorts) out of a intellectually sloppy tragi-comic caricaturing of religion. Not all religious people reject evolution, believe the Earth was made 5000 years ago in 6 24 hour periods. Knuckleheads like Dawkins take the most extreme examples of religious anti-rationalism and paint all religion with the same silly, broad brush. I'm an academic and almost no one I know (i.e., lots of other academics) in the sciences or humanities, at religious universities or secular universities, take Dawkins at all seriously. I mean really, his intellectual tactics (at least recently) take more from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity than they do from Darwin, Newton, or any of the other scientists he is fond of citing.
Brian
|
|
L
climber
H2O..what the heck is this H2O thing you speak of?
|
|
It's being responsible as a citizen, better, it's "living up to" one's responsibility as an informed citizen of an informed democracy. -- HFCS
I believe those were the exact words used by Hitler and the Gestopo to promote their cause...
You are ARGUING against a 7-day experiment...because you, in fact, cannot control your mind.
If a person in a mental ward said the Egyptains bombed Pearl Harbor, would you feel the need to correct him?
Of course not.
It's an EXPERIMENT, HFCS...just an experiment. You don't have to validate your reasons why to me...just try it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 05:39pm PT
|
Geez John,
Give science and engineering SOME credit. There's a whole discipline out there now called neuroscience. Be honest. How much time have you given this subject? To make a long story short, this IS the stance in neuroscience, it's theory (a putforth of knowledge) and fact: there is no ghost in the machine. Memory has a neuro basis. Thought has a neuro basis. Feeling has a neuro basis. Mind is mental function. That three pound marvel in the skull steeped in 10 trillion interconnecting neurons is doing something! It's processing signals, interpretting them, controlling body behaviors. That's it.
And I loved Bill Clinton. That man knows how to talk. If I could talk like him before thousands of people, I would've been the next Carl Sagan! But I liked engineering, building things and climbing in the outdoors too much, I bet Bill and Carl didn't.
Brian-
"We are not "above the law," but that does not necessarily lead to a strong sort of..." Sure it does, Brian. it leads to the mechanistic understanding of engineers, cellular biologists, chemists, etc.
So what follows is to adapt to this understanding and realize even in a mechanistic world, functionality (the power of functionality) and forms of freedom (I'm "free" to climb 5.11 but not 5.12) STILL exist. Think about it.
You write: "To say that there is nothing other than matter and motion..."
That's the old trap, don't fall into it! Break out of these merely, just, nothing more than figures of speech. Life is physics and chemistry. Moreover its functionality, powers and freedoms, adventure, etc. I hope you get my point.
I wouldn't hang out with philosophers. They over-philosophize. Thank goodness philosophy like theology is a dying discipline. Science and engineering education and savvy are taking over. Just saying.
|
|
taorock
Trad climber
Okanogan, WA
|
|
Mr Fructose,
That's it? You just wrote a lot of words that say nothing.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 05:49pm PT
|
Thanks Taorock.
Memory has a basis in brain matter. I wrote that. That's a stance in neuroscience. My stance, too. Is it yours?
If not, go back to your bronze age Way.
L- I agreed with a lot of what you wrote. Moving forward, this is a forum, a place to air thoughts, stances, etc. This isn't a psych ward. Or is it?
|
|
taorock
Trad climber
Okanogan, WA
|
|
no matter, never mind.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 05:59pm PT
|
Ding- that's Asimov's definition. I'm using the term robot to mean mechanistic, to mean not above cause and effect, that's all, nothing more than that. (Call it the bio-engineer's definition.) As a literary man you know a word can have extended definitions.
Certainly I'm not using robot or robotic in any cheap tin-can simple machine sense.
Don't forget: "You are what you eat."
BTW: Corn syrup has no cholesterol, no animal products. Consumed in meager amounts, like soybean, it's body building.
|
|
L
climber
H2O..what the heck is this H2O thing you speak of?
|
|
L- I agreed with a lot of what you wrote. Moving forward, this is a forum, a place to air thoughts, stances, etc. This isn't a psych ward. Or is it? -- Corn
Aaaaah Gasshoppa...now you catchink on.
Petri dish. Not psych ward...petri dish.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
What about the Zeroth law of Robotics? And the Dingusoth law?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 06:03pm PT
|
Simple question for you L:
Does Sam Harris (and his fellow Horsemen) have a place in American culture? or are they doing more harm than good. What say you?
Tao- He's found his place. On his Tao pillow.
P.S. "Knuckleheads like Dawkins..."
Alright, Brian. What kind of an "academic" are you? C'mon, man, tell us.
In my experience, as far as scientists go, the only ones who think Dawkins is a knucklehead are "girly scientists" who don't like controversy, even in high school didn't like controversy.
I'll say again... there's more than matter and energy. There is functionality, evolved functionality. Nobody in the scientific model is saying there is "just" matter and energy. Only its opponents frame it that way (e.g., the Bill O Reillys and Laura Ingrahams) and sadly audiences eat it up.
We're evolved functional beings. Functionality in the machine. No ghost in the machine. It's time we spent our energies adapting to this understanding rather than fighting it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!