Re: Delighting in not having anything to say

On 2010-04-23 16:43:46 -0700, "Kalkidas" <eat@xxxxxxxx> said:


"Robert Camp" <robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2010042312355116807-robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2010-04-23 11:03:21 -0700, "Kalkidas" <eat@xxxxxxxx> said:


"Robert Camp" <robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2010042309161116807-robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2010-04-22 16:50:59 -0700, "Kalkidas" <eat@xxxxxxxx> said:


"Robert Camp" <robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2010042215401716807-robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2010-04-22 14:17:46 -0700, "Kalkidas" <eat@xxxxxxxx> said:


"Robert Camp" <robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2010042212061616807-robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2010-04-22 11:37:00 -0700, "Kalkidas" <eat@xxxxxxxx> said:


"Robert Camp" <robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2010042211040316807-robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

Someone's self-interest is being
served by the modern scientific paradigm. Who would that be?

Why, all of us, of course.

That's not true. Most of the resources of "big science" come from
governments which take money from the citizens whether they like it or not,
or from corporations and foundations controlled by a small number of people.
"We" were not consulted nor was our permission sought.

I don't know that that's true ("Most of the resources...etc.") but it's not germane to your earlier question. You were asking about modern science, not some particular instance of political inequity. Please stop blaming science for the failings of man, or at least remember to curse your thermometer next time you're not pleased with the temperature.

The real agenda of the modern paradigm is the desire to control nature, and
by that control to control others. But nature does not belong to us, nor can
she be controlled by us. Therefore the modern paradigm is (a) stealing, and
(b) doomed to failure.

There's so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. First, there is no "real agenda" of modern science beyond the ubiquitous desire to know more about the world. Your assertions to the contrary are the product of a noxious mix of ideology and imagination. If, as they say, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then certainly conspiracy theories must be the last refuge of a science-denialist.

Second, there is a very real sense in which nature does belong to us. In fact many environmentalists wish to cultivate this approach in the hope that people will feel obliged to act as custodians rather than uninvolved consumers. Regardless of that question, however, we do currently control much of what we call "nature," and will eventually be able to control much, much more. It's best that we wrap our heads around this now so that some care is taken to develop the discipline and regulation that helps direct that control to the benefit of all.

Last, re: "stealing" and "failure," well, all I can say is that such silly hyperbole is the inevitable result of warped premises and situationally convenient logic.

Consider current life expectancy compared to a century ago. Consider
current access to knowledge compared to a half-century ago. Consider what
we've seen from Hubble and Cassini and Kepler. We live longer, we know
more, and even though we seem to keep getting smaller compared to the
vastness of the universe, we are actually "bigger," more than we were,
because we understand our place in it so much better.

You'd be quite surprised of you figured the number of abortions into the
life expectancy formula. Works out to about 55 years in the U.S.

Do you suppose we invented abortion just, say, in the last century? Really? You think unwanted pregnancies haven't been terminated since the beginning of our understanding of human reproduction? And what about miscarriages, or even male masturbation? Should we factor those loss numbers into the formula as well?

It inevitably leaves me speechless (well almost) when evangelicals knock
on my door and lead with the argument (which they often do) that I should
just look around and see how this world is going to hell and wouldn't it
be better if we went back to a simpler, more "moral" time? The answer to
that is a resounding "Are you kidding me?"

What is this supposed to demonstrate? To me it only shows that you are
cynical beyond measure.

Well, it's supposed to demonstrate exactly the opposite. In fact I don't really how you could come to the conclusion you've just expressed unless you also feel it's best to plunge one's head into the sand and pretend to live in a world where no one says or believes anything that upsets your view of reality. Now *that* is the approach of a cynic.

What they're really saying is they want to return to a time when religious
doctrine was unquestioned, when they weren't forced - by technology, by
growing populations, by the interconnectedness of a smaller world - to
acknowledge and consider ideas antithetical to their own. I can understand
and empathize with this perspective. Most of the time these are not people
who want to live in a totalitarian state. They just want to be able to
raise their kids as they were raised.

Well as long as we're guessing what other people are "really saying", what
you're really saying is not that you want to "question" religious doctrine
but to deny it. And you don't just want people to "acknowledge and consider"
ideas antithetical to their own, but to capitulate to them and abandon their
own ideas.

So unless one becomes an atheist and a believer in materialistic science,
one is, what, against progress?

To whom do you address this comment? I ask because I don't see how it can possibly be related to what I wrote. I never said, or even implied, anything about questioning religious doctrine. I wasn't talking about that at all. In fact all I was trying to do was put myself in the shoes of others and understand their perspective (which, in the context of our discussion, had to do with an appreciation, or not, for the times in which we live), one that is quite different from mine.

How you get from that to me wanting others to capitulate and abandon their beliefs is, frankly, stunning to me. I have to wonder if you're even bothering to read before you reply.

But in my opinion those days are almost gone. The world we live in is too
small and crowded and full of ideas (yes, some of which will promote
unspeakably horrible effects). I see the navigation of this growing
network of information and understanding as a sometimes frightful but
mostly enlightening and compelling endeavor. It seems to me science has
served my, and everyone else's, interests by offering up the opportunity.

Science is good, materialism is bad. And materialism disguised as science is
worst of all.

"One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back."

RLC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Delighting in not having anything to say
    ... served by the modern scientific paradigm. ... science, not some particular instance of political inequity. ... it's nature is the reason it works. ... by that control to control others. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Delighting in not having anything to say
    ... served by the modern scientific paradigm. ... science, not some particular instance of political inequity. ... by that control to control others. ... But nature does not belong to us, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Delighting in not having anything to say
    ... served by the modern scientific paradigm. ... science, not some particular instance of political inequity. ... by that control to control others. ... That's my attitude toward materialism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Babel Science
    ... Modern Science is in fact based, in varying degree, upon their answers. ... Most modern scientists believe their assessment of the empirical evidence is correct. ... Einstein accounted for the evidence of the rotation of the earth on its axis by the false assumption that the universe rotates around the earth. ... If scientists cannot see or touch an object or get it to cooperate in repeatable experiments and tests, it cannot be the subject of scientific study. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Ebooks Forum
    ... A Jewish Approach to Modern Personal ... Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion ... Remote Sensing and Climate Modeling: ... Fluorides in the Environment: ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)