Controversial Opinions on Life

[skeptik]

I do not view "Science" as an institution by any means. Science is an abstract ideal, and there are institutions that engage in that ideal to varying degrees of success and faithfulness.

Regarding your explorers analogy, I question its merit on the grounds that the exploration of the cosmos, especially at this stage, is by and large conducted by non-invested agencies with knowledge gathering in mind. We are not at a stage in which governments have designs of harvesting resources and colonizing inter-galactic planets, so I don't think human expansion is, as of now nor in the near future, a relevant facet in this discussion. And I certainly would expect that we would investigate whether another universe is habitable before attempting to advance into it for selfish purposes.

 

[TheInsane]

As soon as you look towards directing progress in any manner other than purely the technological, you end up getting into left wing politics, or at least coming into conflict with laissez fair liberalism.

I am in conflict with liberalism - moreso the extreme variations of course. I am not left wing however.

 

[Dak]

Oh, I forgot, I have no information on hand at all on this, but man-made global warming is manufactured "scientific" bullshit. That said, pollution effects on health are an entirely different matter.

 

[Einherjar86]

I do not view "Science" as an institution by any means. Science is an abstract ideal, and there are institutions that engage in that ideal to varying degrees of success and faithfulness.

Well, then it's my controversial opinion that science only ever manifests as concrete institutions with either private or public interests in mind, both of which can only be funded by an always limited amount of capital that demands results.

We see this structural opposition in popular cinema and literature all the time: the free-spirited, mentally gifted academic researcher who wants to explore some obscure or ridiculed facet of science/technology, gets laughed at by the higher-ups who constantly restrict her cash flow, always threatening to cut it off completely; but in the end she prevails and those greedy bureacrats are proven wrong.

That's the movies; in real life, science isn't that idealistic.

Regarding your explorers analogy, I question its merit on the grounds that the exploration of the cosmos, especially at this stage, is by and large conducted by non-invested agencies with knowledge gathering in mind. We are not at a stage in which governments have designs of harvesting resources and colonizing inter-galactic planets, so I don't think human expansion is, as of now nor in the near future, a relevant facet in this discussion. And I certainly would expect that we would investigate whether another universe is habitable before attempting to advance into it for selfish purposes.

The colonization of the Americas was a politically and economically inspired endeavor. I don't think it matters that political institutions aren't concerned with efforts to colonize intergalactic planets or systems. Even if we're discussing privately-funded corporations or initiatives, these can't just aimlessly set off on capricious expeditions for the idealistic scientific pursuit of new knowledge. They need conclusive, material findings that they can present to society and to the market; otherwise, the money is eventually going to run out.

 

[skeptik]

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that an ideal only manifests itself into actuality in corrupted and corruptible forms.

I do not see your elaboration on the colonization analogy to further strengthen the analogy. The colonization of the American continent was entirely imperial and had no basis in scientific curiosity, whereas the exploration of potential universes quite obviously does. Do not mistake this as me being naive that scientific inquiry more often than not is dependent upon funding from agencies that generally have ulterior motives. However, I still none the less fail to see your concern as one that is likely.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The danger lies in casually accepting a hypothesis or theory for so long that it eventually becomes an axiom, or an acknowleged truth. This was exactly what happened during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, until the Scientific Revolution occurred and we had skeptical thinkers questioning previously held truths that dated back to Aristotle.

Now, in a new ironic twist of history, science itself is beginning to question its own truthfulness. It has, in a certain sense, become the new dominant religion.

This danger you speak of seems to me like a problem with intellectual laziness and not with the scientific method(s). If new evidence contradicts old theories, it's not "science's fault", because the appropriate application of science would be to reproduce the new evidence, confirm that it isn't explained by existing theories, then create a new theory and test it with the new evidence. As long as this is done, I don't see how science could justifiably be compared to religion.

I know you and Matt are on a similar tangent with this discussion of "ideals" versus "institutions", but I think it's slightly absurd to suggest that because science "only manifests in corrupted forms" it is in danger of becoming a "religion". We may not have a perfect instance of The Scientific Method on paper today, but as long as it's applied by people intelligent enough to understand its intent of transforming observations into a useful system of rules for predicting events with the limits of human reason in mind, the methodology should evolve in step with the theories it produces.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Oh, I forgot, I have no information on hand at all on this, but man-made global warming is manufactured "scientific" bullshit. That said, pollution effects on health are an entirely different matter.

I used to share your opinion, but I've actually been sold on global warming. Just because a problem becomes politicized doesn't mean it becomes a non-issue.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that an ideal only manifests itself into actuality in corrupted and corruptible forms.

I do not see your elaboration on the colonization analogy to further strengthen the analogy. The colonization of the American continent was entirely imperial and had no basis in scientific curiosity, whereas the exploration of potential universes quite obviously does. Do not mistake this as me being naive that scientific inquiry more often than not is dependent upon funding from agencies that generally have ulterior motives. However, I still none the less fail to see your concern as one that is likely.

I disagree with the highlighted portion of your post, and I think there might be some naïveté involved in that statement (no offense). Even while privately funded and apolitical initiatives might be foremost in the exploration of the known (and unknown) universe, as soon as tangible discoveries are made or new potential territories identified (or even rudimentarily settled) you have to acknowledge that political institutions will intervene and commandeer the initiative.

Even during the colonization of America, private individuals were instrumental in the settling of new lands. It was an imperial effort, but it was fueled by individual entrepreneurs and prospectors. During the 18th and 19th centuries, these private enterprises were closely tied with American imperialism.

I don't think science is effectively separate from governmental influence now. If it appears so to us, that's only because science hasn't yielded any results particularly useful for political regimes. Furthermore, I think the appearance itself is an illusion. To believe that significant scientific pursuits in interplanetary expansion would remain private is incorrect, in my opinion.

This danger you speak of seems to me like a problem with intellectual laziness and not with the scientific method(s). If new evidence contradicts old theories, it's not "science's fault", because the appropriate application of science would be to reproduce the new evidence, confirm that it isn't explained by existing theories, then create a new theory and test it with the new evidence. As long as this is done, I don't see how science could justifiably be compared to religion.

I know you and Matt are on a similar tangent with this discussion of "ideals" versus "institutions", but I think it's slightly absurd to suggest that because science "only manifests in corrupted forms" it is in danger of becoming a "religion". We may not have a perfect instance of The Scientific Method on paper today, but it should be clear that the basic function of science is to transform observations into successful predictions, that anyone with moderate intelligence understands this basic function, and that scientific methodology, like all of the theories it produces, will evolve over time by whatever means available to humans to further that function.

My statement about science as a religion might have been misleading.

Traditionally, religion (and I mean the Judeo-Christian tradition) posits itself as a cosmic narrative that progresses toward an inevitable omega point.

Science has achieved much the same status today, and Matt's comment about science being a "self-improving" institution supports this, in my opinion.

Science as a self-improving institution posits that it is progressing toward an ultimate telos or ultimate comprehension of the universe as a whole; a totality of knowledge. This is a flawed approach to science, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that science moves in any kind of progressive way. Scientific forms of knowledge are merely projections of human consciousness onto a chaotic world. Of course, this doesn't mean that knowledge doesn't provide us with the ability to effectively navigate the world. What it means is that it is incorrect to assume that knowledge is moving in a measurably progressive, improving manner, toward some ultimate totality.

 

[skeptik]

I disagree with the highlighted portion of your post, and I think there might be some naïveté involved in that statement (no offense). Even while privately funded and apolitical initiatives might be foremost in the exploration of the known (and unknown) universe, as soon as tangible discoveries are made or new potential territories identified (or even rudimentarily settled) you have to acknowledge that political institutions will intervene and commandeer the initiative.

Even during the colonization of America, private individuals were instrumental in the settling of new lands. It was an imperial effort, but it was fueled by individual entrepreneurs and prospectors. During the 18th and 19th centuries, these private enterprises were closely tied with American imperialism.

I don't think science is effectively separate from governmental influence now. If it appears so to us, that's only because science hasn't yielded any results particularly useful for political regimes. Furthermore, I think the appearance itself is an illusion. To believe that significant scientific pursuits in interplanetary expansion would remain private is incorrect, in my opinion.

I don't see where you are even responding to the part of my post that you claim to disagree with. The nucleus of the bolded statement was that, while the American colonization was not driven by scientific curiosity, the study of a foreign universe inherently would be. After all, scientists would be the only ones even capable of undertaking the study. I even clearly stated that you should not mistake my statement as reflecting an ignorance of the involvement of exterior agencies with their own motives.

To be quite honest, I would like to drop this colonization analogy all together, because it is asymmetrical and unwieldy. Scientific institutions as they are now did not even exist then. Quite frankly, I find the idea that the scientific community would allow a for-profit agenda to jeopardize their own research and understanding and ultimately act before having a sufficient working knowledge of what they are dealing with to be utterly absurd.

I mean, if you actually mean to engage in the conversation of the colonization of alternative universes, which is so excruciatingly hypothetical as to hardly be worth discussing, then I think we have to accept that the prospect of doing so is so well beyond the normative human experience that even the most eager profiteer would probably take the time to make sure that stepping into another universe isn't going to obliterate one into so many millions of molecules. Beyond that, I'm not really even sure what we're trying to discuss any more.

My statement about science as a religion might have been misleading.

Traditionally, religion (and I mean the Judeo-Christian tradition) posits itself as a cosmic narrative that progresses toward an inevitable omega point.

Science has achieved much the same status today, and Matt's comment about science being a "self-improving" institution supports this, in my opinion.

Science as a self-improving institution posits that it is progressing toward an ultimate telos or ultimate comprehension of the universe as a whole; a totality of knowledge. This is a flawed approach to science, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that science moves in any kind of progressive way. Scientific forms of knowledge are merely projections of human consciousness onto a chaotic world. Of course, this doesn't mean that knowledge doesn't provide us with the ability to effectively navigate the world. What it means is that it is incorrect to assume that knowledge is moving in a measurably progressive, improving manner, toward some ultimate totality.

I think you're doing a bit of pounding a square peg into a round hole here. By using the term 'progress', you've made a parallel between science and religion that I consider fraudulent, and in my mind you've used the term with multiple definitions. Religion does not 'progress' as science does, namely, as a synonym for 'evolve'. Science and religion are polar opposites in this regard, as religion holds that it is the infallible, infinite, unchanging wisdom, whereas science is self-admittedly fallible, finite, and constantly changing. Science consistently evolves and corrects itself as it discovers its own flaws, and it also accepts that its knowledge is subject, and even likely, to change over time.

I do not agree with you that science posits itself as an agency toward achieving "some ultimate totality". The scientific praxis is self-aware that it is a human tool that serves human ends, and that human ends are limited, and thus far from achieving any type of ultimate anything. Quite frankly, I think your religion and science analogy is another one that would be better to be done away with, as, from my perspective, it advances nothing and merely muddies the waters. It would be more useful to shift the conversation back to its essential argument, whatever that may have been, which I don't even remember.

 

[Dak]

I used to share your opinion, but I've actually been sold on global warming. Just because a problem becomes politicized doesn't mean it becomes a non-issue.

Im curious as to what sold you.

 

[King Richard]

I am of the opinion that ancient civilizations were more technologically advanced than we give them credit for, but not because of aliens. Look how much technical and scientific knowledge was lost after the fall of the Roman Empire. Surely a similar "brain drain" happened after the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Mayans (as a few examples) lost their dominance. Considering what has happened since the Renaissance, and especially the Industrial Revolution, it is obvious to me that technology advances quickly rather than slowly.

Not only that, but what about the burning of the Library of Alexandria? God only knows what was lost there.

If you're interested in ancient history I highly recommended reading a book called Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock. It's an absolutely fantastic book about ancient history that turns a lot of the traditional timelines completely on their head.

Graham Hancock himself is basically the real life Indiana Jones, no shit. He's traveled the world exploring ancient sites and has attempted to put a shit ton of puzzles together with his work. If you're interested, here's a good generalization of some of the work he's done:

http://vimeo.com/29634288

This shit is totally fascinating to me and I'm hooked. I've read all but one of his books (which I'm doing now).

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Im curious as to what sold you.

More and more skeptics are recanting. The only undefined variable left, it seems to me, is if climate change is exclusively man made.
Also, thanks for the recommendation, King Rich!

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see where you are even responding to the part of my post that you claim to disagree with. The nucleus of the bolded statement was that, while the American colonization was not driven by scientific curiosity, the study of a foreign universe inherently would be. After all, scientists would be the only ones even capable of undertaking the study. I even clearly stated that you should not mistake my statement as reflecting an ignorance of the involvement of exterior agencies with their own motives.

And I clearly stated that I think colonization of the cosmos (if that's what we're calling it) would be motivated by imperial desires. Why would a study of the universe not be prone to political and imperialistic motives, even if it might also house some truly "scientific" ones? I don't see any separation between the two.

To be quite honest, I would like to drop this colonization analogy all together, because it is asymmetrical and unwieldy. Scientific institutions as they are now did not even exist then. Quite frankly, I find the idea that the scientific community would allow a for-profit agenda to jeopardize their own research and understanding and ultimately act before having a sufficient working knowledge of what they are dealing with to be utterly absurd.

Then I'm sorry, but I perceive this as ignorance on your part. The scientific community cannot help but be influenced and potentially "jeopardized" by (if by jeopardized you simply mean to suffer the intrusion of) financial motives. I think it's misguided to believe that the scientific community somehow exists separate of political and financial entities. I'll explain more below.

I mean, if you actually mean to engage in the conversation of the colonization of alternative universes, which is so excruciatingly hypothetical as to hardly be worth discussing, then I think we have to accept that the prospect of doing so is so well beyond the normative human experience that even the most eager profiteer would probably take the time to make sure that stepping into another universe isn't going to obliterate one into so many millions of molecules. Beyond that, I'm not really even sure what we're trying to discuss any more.

I never implied we would step in without knowing whether or not we could even survive (and if I did imply that, or you inferred that, I apologize); all I mean to say is that scientific "progress" does not take into consideration that our orders of knowledge or epistemological structures will more than likely be inherently opposed to and potentially violent toward the life-forms and environment of an alien world.

This is where the colonization analogy does work. Even Stephen Hawking has compared human interaction with an alien race/environment to the Spanish colonization of the Americas (in a negative way). We perceive (just as the Europeans did) that our scientific knowledge and methods will inevitably result in "progress" if applied to material forms and objects, regardless of what those objects are or where they are located.

Furthermore, as to your claim that scientific institutions as they are now did not exist then; I don't think the institutions are all that different in how they are related to us and situated within the apparatus of society. We have indeed uncovered new forms of knowledge and countless new facts and theories, but they serve the same purpose as they did then. The Royal Society still exists, as does the French Academy of Sciences. These institutions are politically and economically affiliated groups and are considered some of the most prestigious academies of sciences in existence today.

I think you're doing a bit of pounding a square peg into a round hole here. By using the term 'progress', you've made a parallel between science and religion that I consider fraudulent, and in my mind you've used the term with multiple definitions. Religion does not 'progress' as science does, namely, as a synonym for 'evolve'. Science and religion are polar opposites in this regard, as religion holds that it is the infallible, infinite, unchanging wisdom, whereas science is self-admittedly fallible, finite, and constantly changing. Science consistently evolves and corrects itself as it discovers its own flaws, and it also accepts that its knowledge is subject, and even likely, to change over time.

I do not agree with you that science posits itself as an agency toward achieving "some ultimate totality". The scientific praxis is self-aware that it is a human tool that serves human ends, and that human ends are limited, and thus far from achieving any type of ultimate anything. Quite frankly, I think your religion and science analogy is another one that would be better to be done away with, as, from my perspective, it advances nothing and merely muddies the waters. It would be more useful to shift the conversation back to its essential argument, whatever that may have been, which I don't even remember.

I was invoking poetic license. Science has become "the new religion," so to speak, in that it's awarded the reverence that was once reserved for religion. In the Middle Ages, people took religion at its word; this was eventully regarded as dangerous and was criticized by the Enlightenment thinkers. Science came to replace religion as the explanation for natural phenomena; and today, science is held up in much the same way that religion was (albeit for much more legitimate and convincing reasons).

Coincidentally, David Hume himself also began questioning scientific discoveries in his own lifetime, famously criticizing what we've come to identify today as the theory of causality (Hume said that we cannot prove causality, we can only ever observe it). Hume, of course, is the greatest skeptic.

I think your position on science is too idealistic; and I don't think that science is as self-aware as you claim it to be. My primary evidence for this argument is that science proposes to illuminate knowledge that was already in existence, but required science to enlighten us stupid subjects to its presence.

On the contrary, I don't think that knowledge resides in nature waiting for us to discover it. I actually agree with Michel Foucault, who writes, invoking Nietzsche: "Nietzsche means that there is not a nature of knowledge, an essence of knowledge, of the universal conditions of knowledge; rather, that knowledge is always the historical and circumstantial result of conditions outside the domain of knowledge."

 

[skeptik]

And I clearly stated that I think colonization of the cosmos (if that's what we're calling it) would be motivated by imperial desires. Why would a study of the universe not be prone to political and imperialistic motives, even if it might also house some truly "scientific" ones? I don't see any separation between the two.

I never even brought up all of this extraneous influence stuff, you're the one that did that. And I never claimed that political and other motivations would not come into play. I stated simply that scientific curiosity was inherent to the exploration of the cosmos; and it is. Also, I was talking about "exploration", research, discovery, etc. Not colonization. As I've previously stated, I see no use in talking about that in the context of this discussion right now. I don't think we're anywhere near even landing a man on Mars yet.

Then I'm sorry, but I perceive this as ignorance on your part. The scientific community cannot help but be influenced and potentially "jeopardized" by (if by jeopardized you simply mean to suffer the intrusion of) financial motives. I think it's misguided to believe that the scientific community somehow exists separate of political and financial entities. I'll explain more below.

Look, where are you even drawing this scientific work in a vacuum stuff that you're responding to? I never said any of these things. There is no ignorance here at all. You are simply attributing things to me that I never said. You make it sound like a government is going to forcefully send troops into a black hole because they think there's a gold mine in there and just assume that nothing will happen. I also think it would be misguided to believe that the scientific community somehow exists separate of political and financial entities, and I'm starting to get aggravated that you keep implying otherwise. I'm not even sure what the source of this misunderstanding is.

I never implied we would step in without knowing whether or not we could even survive (and if I did imply that, or you inferred that, I apologize); all I mean to say is that scientific "progress" does not take into consideration that our orders of knowledge or epistemological structures will more than likely be inherently opposed to and potentially violent toward the life-forms and environment of an alien world.

On what basis do you claim that scientific progress does not take into consideration that our orders of knowledge or epistemological structures will more than likely be inherently opposed to and potentially violent toward the life-forms and environment of an alien world? First of all, you would have to provide some kind of supporting evidence that it is more than likely that an alternate universe would be incompatible with ours. Second, you have to display a reasonable basis for your claim that the scientific community is too stupid to realize that something that we hardly know anything about might be a lot different than what we know. You seem to have a very low opinion on the common sense abilities of scientists. Why would it not occur to at least somebody in the scientific community that things in another universe might be different? I'm really missing something here, because you sound so excessively pessimistic that it is troubling.

This is where the colonization analogy does work. Even Stephen Hawking has compared human interaction with an alien race/environment to the Spanish colonization of the Americas (in a negative way). We perceive (just as the Europeans did) that our scientific knowledge and methods will inevitably result in "progress" if applied to material forms and objects, regardless of what those objects are or where they are located.

I think that your claim is incorrect. You repeatedly portray the scientific community and process as some rigid dogma that is static and inflexible. Why are we even talking about an alien race anyway? So far as we know, there are none. Besides, "progress" is relative anyway.

Furthermore, as to your claim that scientific institutions as they are now did not exist then; I don't think the institutions are all that different in how they are related to us and situated within the apparatus of society. We have indeed uncovered new forms of knowledge and countless new facts and theories, but they serve the same purpose as they did then. The Royal Society still exists, as does the French Academy of Sciences. These institutions are politically and economically affiliated groups and are considered some of the most prestigious academies of sciences in existence today.

I disagree and think that the scientific community of today is vastly different than what it was centuries ago. So much so that it makes comparisons messy and a waste of time. Especially comparisons that are not even comparison scientific events.

I was invoking poetic license. Science has become "the new religion," so to speak, in that it's awarded the reverence that was once reserved for religion. In the Middle Ages, people took religion at its word; this was eventully regarded as dangerous and was criticized by the Enlightenment thinkers. Science came to replace religion as the explanation for natural phenomena; and today, science is held up in much the same way that religion was (albeit for much more legitimate and convincing reasons).

Science is rigorously peer-researched and critiqued, refined, reshaped, re-examined, tested to assure that the data can be replicated, and lives under the assumption that nothing can ever be proven infallibly true, only false. The only people to which science is dogmatic are stupid people. There is never a discussion among clergy about the accuracy and legitimacy of religious 'facts' in the same way that scientific discoveries are challenged, so I would not agree that science today is regarded with the same carte blanche that religion was in terms of explaining things. There is no unquestioning acceptance.

Coincidentally, David Hume himself also began questioning scientific discoveries in his own lifetime, famously criticizing what we've come to identify today as the theory of causality (Hume said that we cannot prove causality, we can only ever observe it). Hume, of course, is the greatest skeptic.

I am a Humean and nearly brought up this exact point myself, so you do not need to explain this to me. You mistake healthy skepticism with practical pessimism, however. Hume said that we cannot prove causality, but that we also accept and live by it because it is what we perceive to have worked. I would suggest that the scientific community still holds this Humean principle close to its chest.

I think your position on science is too idealistic; and I don't think that science is as self-aware as you claim it to be. My primary evidence for this argument is that science proposes to illuminate knowledge that was already in existence, but required science to enlighten us stupid subjects to its presence.

I do not believe that science 'proposes' this at all either. I do not understand the origins of a lot of your claims about 'science', and I think that they are inaccurate.

On the contrary, I don't think that knowledge resides in nature waiting for us to discover it. I actually agree with Michel Foucault, who writes, invoking Nietzsche: "Nietzsche means that there is not a nature of knowledge, an essence of knowledge, of the universal conditions of knowledge; rather, that knowledge is always the historical and circumstantial result of conditions outside the domain of knowledge."

I don't think that science thinks that "knowledge resides in nature waiting for us to discover it" either, at least not in the sense that you intend to present this idea. Science observes and reports and tries to identify properties that have proven to be consistently reliable over the course of time on which to base conclusions, always with the assumption that that could ultimately be wrong. Do we know for a fact that the sun is going to rise? No, but to act under the assumption that it will has so far been reliable and consistent with scientific predictions based on observations (the rotation of the earth on its axis and around the sun, etc.).

I'm going to be honest here. I think that your characterizations of "science" are pretty off base, and your repeated assumptions that I am ignorant that some scientific proceedings can be entangled in other affairs I found rather annoying and insulting. In addition to that, I don't see this developing into anything, and it seems that every turn offers new tangents that continue to stray from the original premise, so I am not going to continue this conversation. We started off talking about whether or not scientists are too stupid to realize that an alternate universe may have similar yet ultimately different properties and we ended up talking about Native Americans and invading alien civilizations.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, I'm sorry if I offended you.

I never even brought up all of this extraneous influence stuff, you're the one that did that. And I never claimed that political and other motivations would not come into play. I stated simply that scientific curiosity was inherent to the exploration of the cosmos; and it is. Also, I was talking about "exploration", research, discovery, etc. Not colonization. As I've previously stated, I see no use in talking about that in the context of this discussion right now. I don't think we're anywhere near even landing a man on Mars yet.

You're right, scientific curiosity would be inherent in interplanetary explanation. I also think colonization would be inseparable from the process of exploration.

Look, where are you even drawing this scientific work in a vacuum stuff that you're responding to? I never said any of these things. There is no ignorance here at all. You are simply attributing things to me that I never said. You make it sound like a government is going to forcefully send troops into a black hole because they think there's a gold mine in there and just assume that nothing will happen. I also think it would be misguided to believe that the scientific community somehow exists separate of political and financial entities, and I'm starting to get aggravated that you keep implying otherwise. I'm not even sure what the source of this misunderstanding is.

I apologize. I am extremely skeptical of forms of knowledge because I don't see them as independent of political and economic institutions, but as influenced by those very institutions. Therefore, I'm also skeptical of science's ability to successfully allow us to navigate new environments and interact with new species. Any claim that science can only ever benefit us is doubtful, in my opinion. I likely read this into your posts.

On what basis do you claim that scientific progress does not take into consideration that our orders of knowledge or epistemological structures will more than likely be inherently opposed to and potentially violent toward the life-forms and environment of an alien world? First of all, you would have to provide some kind of supporting evidence that it is more than likely that an alternate universe would be incompatible with ours. Second, you have to display a reasonable basis for your claim that the scientific community is too stupid to realize that something that we hardly know anything about might be a lot different than what we know. You seem to have a very low opinion on the common sense abilities of scientists. Why would it not occur to at least somebody in the scientific community that things in another universe might be different? I'm really missing something here, because you sound so excessively pessimistic that it is troubling.

I'm of the opinion that scientific processes into the formulation of new knowledge are inherently violent in nature. I'm not saying we shouldn't participate in them, but I don't think science is as innocent toward its subjects as many of its practitioners would claim. There's not much more to object to, because this is obviously the only way we have of practically understanding things. We just have to acknowledge that our approach enacts a form of violence on objects.

Furthermore, "at least somebody in the scientific community" would not be enough to change the general atmosphere of the entire community. Individual consciousness doesn't alter the objective state of things in society.

I think that your claim is incorrect. You repeatedly portray the scientific community and process as some rigid dogma that is static and inflexible. Why are we even talking about an alien race anyway? So far as we know, there are none. Besides, "progress" is relative anyway.

I don't think it's rigid and inflexible; I do think it's determined by institutions that are.

I disagree and think that the scientific community of today is vastly different than what it was centuries ago. So much so that it makes comparisons messy and a waste of time. Especially comparisons that are not even comparison scientific events.

Fair enough.

Science is rigorously peer-researched and critiqued, refined, reshaped, re-examined, tested to assure that the data can be replicated, and lives under the assumption that nothing can ever be proven infallibly true, only false. The only people to which science is dogmatic are stupid people. There is never a discussion among clergy about the accuracy and legitimacy of religious 'facts' in the same way that scientific discoveries are challenged, so I would not agree that science today is regarded with the same carte blanche that religion was in terms of explaining things. There is no unquestioning acceptance.

Why do you think there was unquestioning acceptance in the history of religion? What about the theological debates of the Middle Ages? What about the Aquinas-Bonaventure debate? What about the Protestant Reformation?

Scientific knowledge is constantly peer-reviewed and re-examined, but by individuals who are within these institutions, and who are influenced by them. I agree that these individuals are constantly questioning each other and previously posited theories, but they aren't thinking outside the "scientific box." The new theories and new ideas are certainly more progressive and revolutionary by today's standards, but they're just as ideologically determined.

I am a Humean and nearly brought up this exact point myself, so you do not need to explain this to me. You mistake healthy skepticism with practical pessimism, however. Hume said that we cannot prove causality, but that we also accept and live by it because it is what we perceive to have worked. I would suggest that the scientific community still holds this Humean principle close to its chest.

I think I am a healthy skeptic, and I think that it's possible to maintain a positive existence whilst being a skeptic. I also think that the scientific community aspires to the Humean principle, but I think it might not be as faithful to that principle in action (possibly by the very nature of the scientific method and process itself).

I don't think that science thinks that "knowledge resides in nature waiting for us to discover it" either, at least not in the sense that you intend to present this idea. Science observes and reports and tries to identify properties that have proven to be consistently reliable over the course of time on which to base conclusions, always with the assumption that that could ultimately be wrong. Do we know for a fact that the sun is going to rise? No, but to act under the assumption that it will has so far been reliable and consistent with scientific predictions based on observations (the rotation of the earth on its axis and around the sun, etc.).

The very process of knowledge logically implies that knowledge exists in nature, waiting to be discovered. It's the structural logic of the methodology. Properties and reactions that are observed and recorded by scientists are, in turn, believed to have been inherent in the objective environment itself. Individual scientists can claim this is untrue, but their actions speak differently. People like to believe the knowledge they possess is the result of their faithful observation of reality, and not the result of cultural ideology.

I'm going to be honest here. I think that your characterizations of "science" are pretty off base, and your repeated assumptions that I am ignorant that some scientific proceedings can be entangled in other affairs I found rather annoying and insulting. In addition to that, I don't see this developing into anything, and it seems that every turn offers new tangents that continue to stray from the original premise, so I am not going to continue this conversation. We started off talking about whether or not scientists are too stupid to realize that an alternate universe may have similar yet ultimately different properties and we ended up talking about Native Americans and invading alien civilizations.

I apologize again for calling you ignorant; I actually don't think you're ignorant, and I was trying to direct that accusation at certain points you made in general, rather than at you specifically. In discourse like this, I always make a point to separate the argument from the arguer.

I also gave multiple reasons why I thought my analogy works; I also provided evidence that (I think) serves to support my claims. You haven't. All you've done is disagree.

I think your argument is well-conceived and also a popular outlook on science; but I think, given its own history, as well as the critical discourse concerning the history of science and ideas from the past two centuries (I'm referring primarily to Nietzsche and Foucault), science deserves more skepticism than it receives.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

New controversial opinion: Zionists (particularly Israeli orthodox Jewish ones) are basically the mirror image of the Nazis of the 3rd Reich.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Science as a self-improving institution posits that it is progressing toward an ultimate telos or ultimate comprehension of the universe as a whole; a totality of knowledge. This is a flawed approach to science, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that science moves in any kind of progressive way. Scientific forms of knowledge are merely projections of human consciousness onto a chaotic world. Of course, this doesn't mean that knowledge doesn't provide us with the ability to effectively navigate the world. What it means is that it is incorrect to assume that knowledge is moving in a measurably progressive, improving manner, toward some ultimate totality.

I am willing to believe that there are people in the world with the "insight into the fundamentals of the universe" scientists claim, and who aren't scientists. The thing is that behind science is a very detailed and cognitively multifaceted process, and there is generally much more information in science to report on than in non-scientific fields, so that may have an effect of giving science more air time on the public stage.

 

[Dak]

New controversial opinion: Zionists (particularly Israeli orthodox Jewish ones) are basically the mirror image of the Nazis of the 3rd Reich.

They are backed by the same Jewish bankers. The persecution of Jews by Hitler was a critical part of the plan of the banking class for the future creation of the state of Israel.

More and more skeptics are recanting. The only undefined variable left, it seems to me, is if climate change is exclusively man made.
Also, thanks for the recommendation, King Rich!

Skeptics recanting can just easily mean the data supports it, as it can mean they are being informed of the consequences of bucking the official position, which would turn into a massive gravy train for the inside crowd, as well as excuse for more global control with the excuse of oversight in "Saving the planet".

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

That is the difference between us brother. I'm a conspiracy theorist and you're a paranoid schizophrenic.

 

[Dak]

That is the difference between us brother. I'm a conspiracy theorist and you're a paranoid schizophrenic.

At what point have I appeared to possess different personalities and a concern that someone is specifically out to get me?

Edit: BTW, schizophrenia =/= MPD, but I have to assume that was your meaning because "paranoid schizophrenic" is , in actuality, somewhat redundant.