Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Libs possibly would have voices asking them questions all the time. And people very conservative in their outlook have voices speaking very assuredly at all times.
Sorry to say considering the source, but that is about the silliest statement so far in this thread and really says more about the bias of the author than any reality.
I've generally seem more diversity of thought and rationale for opinions from conservative thinkers and associates than from the liberal orthodox.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 7, 2011 - 12:39am PT
|
Unless you reckon that science is the only valid story (scientific fundamentalism), and physical reality is the only subject worth investigating. But you’d be betting against yourself on that one.
I hope I didn't say that it was the only valid story.
However, I do wonder why it is so important that understanding ourselves and the odd things that go on in our experience, have to be interpreted as having a reality that is more than the just that, what we experience...
...what we experience is not always real, in the physical sense. And figuring out how that happens could be very interesting science, certainly it is accessible through the scientific method, it is hugely difficult.
Humans have figured out a way of coping with those experiences, and there are many wonderful "stories" that are told, compelling, poignant, immediately identifiable by our own human experience. Nothing invalid there.
I guess my objection is that once you require that those experience must be "real," somehow sharing a part of the physical reality, you play by the rules of that reality... that is, it is physical, it is open to measurement, to experimentation, to observation. And so your hypotheses are legitimately the subject of scientific investigation.
The idea that we are not physically different as an evolved life form from other life forms would suggest that our capacity to have these thoughts, feelings, emotions, curiosities, etc, evolved along with us... it is certainly not ruled out, and it is the presumed scientific "story" of how we came to be.
This, of course, does not help explain our day-to-day trials and tribulations, which we'd dearly like to understand... it is not a compelling personal philosophy, and it probably never will be (though I don't have a problem with it...). But as such, I can understand the impatience with wanting to "know the answer" to these spiritual questions, these personal questions, and not wanting to wait for an answer from that quarter... that is a very human reaction.
Perhaps I look too much like the western image of the Taliban to not evoke the title "scientific fundamentalist"
I'm sorry that you'd say that, though I think I understand the point you're making in the telling, it is, after all, a story telling device to stretch and exaggerate personal traits to make a character... and once successfully finding a voice as a story teller, it is sometimes hard to use another voice, or to be convinced that an other voice might be more effective in a discussion.
Not all discussions are the same, after all.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
Fort Mental wrote-
Science isn't a story. It's a method.
This reminds me of Blondie who says, This house isn't a home, it's a shelter.
Science is (a) a method, (b) a word, (c) a school course, (d) a community, (e) a story, (f) Abrahamic supernaturalists worse nightmare, (g) all the above. Depends on context.
Science reveals a story, indeed numerous stories. Ever watch Cosmos? If science reveals a story, tells a story, then mind and language what they are, it's easy to see it (or think of it) as a story, too.
EDIT
cf: (a) The Scientific Story (b) The Universe Story (c) the Evolutionary Epic (d) The Human Story (e) The Earth Story (f) The American Story (g) The Fort Mental Story (h) The Britney Spears Story
The Scientific Story is the story (e.g., of the Universe) told by science (or the sciences).
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Since we are so rapidly reaching agreement on the present topic we have a need to prepare for the next one. I took a look at population changes, a topic of relatively low importance. There are a pot load of countries so I randomly chose a set that I thought might have a high rate and another set that might have a low rate. My random choice was guided by advanced new technology I am not at liberty here to describe.
The plots all show projections to 2050, but the methods for performing those projections are not known to this observer, which protects me personally from all blame. It is a good rule however in general to look askance at data having little noise on it.
We first look at the low rate countries. I plotted many more than are shown here but we need to make the plots readable.
At about 1% / year the US is the highest and shows the least projected decrease in the out years. Russia and Japan, as might have been expected are lowest with a contraction of around one half a percent per year. China has decreased from around 3% / year in 1960, was equal to that of the US around 1990, but only twenty years later is presently about one half of that in the US.
Now for the high rate set of countries:
In 1960 Mexico grew at about 3 % / year but has dropped steadily until its growth rate is now very similar to that of the US. Haiti’s and India’s experiences are very similar, are presently about 40% higher than that of the US but are projected to be very comparable to that of the US in 10 more years and fall below the US in 20 more years. The Central African Republic and Honduras presently are about twice that of the US. Honduras is projected to fall below the US before 2050.
So there you have it. We are in the middle of the pack but unique in that we are not showing the future decreases projected for all the other countries plotted.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
A more immediate demographic issue, in terms of world stability, is the growing disparity between male and female births in several countries of south and east Asia, including China and India. This is caused primarily by selective abortion. Within the next decade, both countries will have millions more men aged 15 - 40 than women. Many will be from lower socioeconomic status to begin with, with less lose. This may prove very destabilizing for these countries.
But yes, population and population growth rates are still a huge concern.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Age structure - Chinese Population
0–14 years: 19.8% (male 140,877,745/female 124,290,090) (2009)
15–64 years: 72.1% (male 495,724,889/female 469,182,087) (2009)
65 years and over: 8.1% (male 51,774,115/female 56,764,042) (2009)
By these 2009 estimates there are potentially 44,000,000 middle age to juvenile males with no mate.
If so, just under 14% of the male population is middle age or younger and without a mate.
When you factor in the single child policy this means as many as 14% of the immediate family lines will terminate in one generation.
While national policy has been to extend economic development geographically as possible, the bulk of the development has involved movement of people out of rural areas and into the cities.** That massive transformation would tend to move people away from their extended families and into urban life. Work schedules are all consuming.
While it could be argued these two changes may decrease the value the people place on continuation of family lines, counting on this may not be a good bet.
Typically a worker leaves the plant, has access at the door to quite a good dinner at what we call a roach coach, and has shops also close by to get whatever else is needed before going to sleep.
The routine is similar to that advocated by Thomas Edison at his lab in the 19th century. Except he made it even more convenient by sleeping on his desk. Ultimately though he put in cots for workers to use as needed.
**Footnote: China is rapidly completing 14 different rapid rail systems to increase decentralization and move activities into the interior. As I posted earlier, one of these lines has been tested at 300mph, operates routinely at 200mph, and charges $10 to take a person 100 miles. A 30 minute ride. I am told the ride is smooth and extremely quiet. The trains are suspended from an elevated structure with the wheels above the passenger compartment. Presumably this makes easier the precise physical alignment required for smooth travel at such high speeds. Coincidently with these structures, later improved alignments may make even higher speeds economically achievable. All lines are electric.
One more thing I almost forgot. These lines have to be almost rectilinear. To reduce the disruption imposed upon local uses of land the trains are elevated so that cattle may safely graze beneath the trains as they pass overhead. And no traffic has to be stopped on roads crossing the rail line.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
The “story” for working with the unconscious has traditionally been ritual, dreams, myth, certain canny cognitive/emotional processes, and so forth.
You mean, "The method by which some think they understand the unconscious...."
Unless you reckon that science is the only valid story (scientific fundamentalism), and physical reality is the only subject worth investigating. But you’d be betting against yourself on that one.
Physical reality IS the only subject worth investigating, as far as scientific inquiry goes. If you want to spend time wondering what color panties the The Queen of England will be wearing 5 days from now, fine. Just don't confuse that with the scientific process of understanding physical reality, the natural world, and our place in it.
-----
The problem with the above is what I was saying earlier: When all you have is a hammer (scientific), the whole world looks like a nail. Bit it ain't.
But the larger problem with this approach is that the people involved insist it is the only game in town, a belief not based on experience but the lack of experiences that might lever them out of their own corner. But when someone begs to stay in, and insists that said corner is the whole of existence, you just let them sit there and rant. Remember Plato's Cave?
Now when you say, "Physical reality IS the only subject worth investigating, as far as scientific inquiry goes." I would say, of course. How can it be otherwise, since scientific method deals with physical reality. The next leap is where you betray your inner silly rabbit: "If you want to spend time wondering what color panties the The Queen of England will be wearing 5 days from now, fine." This implies that anyone not doing science is, perforce, spending their time reckoning the mysteries of royal underwear. Where, might I ask, did you ever get such a notion?
It's hilarious, it is true, but rather silly wouldn't you say.
And if you think you will solve the ageless question of understanding our place in the world, and life, and infinity, through measurements and evaluations alone, then good luck on that.
And BTW, I use the term Scientific Fundamantalism only in the sense of the psychological process by which some people proffer Science, especially the universal impulse to say, "But I am actually correct and other are truly wrong." Science has merely swapped out "God" for some terrifically accurate numbers, whereby the numbers are the new end-all and not a man in a while robe.
And Fructose, if you're gonna prattle on about western religion any more, bone up on something else beside Abraham. You sound like a broken record and are catagorically incorrect in your appraisals of what I say and mean, bending my drift into your own understanding. If you're actually curious, then ask a question about something you know nothing about but want to know. Who knows if it can be answered but the asking might break your trance and fixation.
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Largo said:
"And Fructose, if you're gonna prattle on about western religion any more, bone up on something else beside Abraham. You sound like a broken record and are categorically incorrect in your appraisals of what I say and mean, bending my drift into your own understanding.
If you're actually curious, then ask a question about something you know nothing about but want to know. Who knows if it can be answered but the asking might break your trance and fixation."
This actually very true for a lot of people here especially;
bending my drift into your own understanding
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
And Fructose, if you're gonna prattle on about western religion any more...
Sorry, there, but the only way to break a bad habit is to replace it with a good habit. As you know, the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are in the blood of Western civilization. Next to impossible to get them out. The only way even remotely possible is to go on and on (to prattle, perhaps like a broken record) with criticism and alternatives (e.g, the Scientific Story, the Evolutionary Epic, whatever you want to call it). "Repetition is the mother of skill." Kinda an intervention of sorts.
bone up on something else beside Abraham
If you only knew...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
ask a question about something you know nothing about
Alright, I'll bite, I'll ask two:
To the Great Ominiscient or ETI who might be channeling me now:
(1) How many planets in the Milky Way (just one galaxy amonst billions) are populated with microbial lifeforms?
(2) How many planets in the Milky Way are populated with intelligent "big beasts" (as a minimum, reminiscent of Earth's apes or humans)?
Thanks for considering these questions I'd give everything I own to have the answers to.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
Science has merely swapped out "God" for some terrifically accurate numbers, whereby the numbers are the new end-all and not a man in a while robe.
This statement is glaring in that it doesn't address the engineering disciplines (historically, relatively a new development) at all which add a whole other dimension to the discussion and are results based. Engineering disciplines are so-called "applied sciences" that speak volumes - through their developed theories, developed knowledge systems and applications that work- to materials, energies and forces, causality, natural laws, the constancy of the natural laws, etc..
Regarding science... It's not just about the numbers. Or even predictability, predictive value or ability to predict. (Two concepts theoretical physicists emphasize.)
Look around for chrissake - engineering products around the world are the proof in the pudding that science works, the proof in the pudding that the sciences are doing a most excellent job reflecting and tracking reality. The computer before you, for instance, is proof that the nanosecond and picofarad really exist. What Benjamin Franklin would have given to have this "knowledge" and "proof" from a machine we can only guess.
Hear, hear! for science and hear, hear! for the engineering disciplines - the everyday real-time proof in the pudding that the sciences are on to something.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 7, 2011 - 02:12pm PT
|
I am not sure that science is the "end-all" but I'm willing to push it that way, I am quite fine with others pushing it anyway they think will be productive...
Largo has been studying this seriously for probably 40 years, I'd be interested in a summary of what he's found...
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
I say Largo is right that science is often seen as a Universal Hammer, but not by the few who actually do Science. Science is a way to answer clearly defined questions and the accumulation of answers tend to build into grand stories when the Science is good. The story grows out of new knowledge as it connects to old knowledge. The story is a natural way to make sense of and transmit what we know.
I saw at firsthand good science being done at University of Chicago. Later in life I had to read research done by nurses who apparently thought that because they had measured stuff and used statistics they were doing science. Some nursing research is fine but a lot is not. Remember that science is also an industry these days, with so many agencies clamoring for 'evidence-based practices'. Sounds good, but informed skepticism and criticism are necessary and too often neglected. Science has a huge subjective element and being human we bend things to suit what we want to hear.
Back at Chicago in 1977 Jon Art did say that we scientists might be like cavemen sitting around the fire telling each other stories, only today it was a bunsen burner in the lab and we were wearing white coats.
Ultimately, science is about ideas and where they can be taken further.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!