Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

I think it's pretty obvious that people in such places do feel thoughts of dissatisfaction though. Hence you have feminist movements in Islamic countries, self-immolation in the Arab Spring, refugees fleeing in masses to come to European countries, etc. It seem to me that people can acknowledge their dissatisfaction just fine.

 

[Dak]

I think it's pretty obvious that people in such places do feel thoughts of dissatisfaction though. Hence you have feminist movements in Islamic countries, self-immolation in the Arab Spring, refugees fleeing in masses to come to European countries, etc. It seem to me that people can acknowledge their dissatisfaction just fine.

I see your examples as proof of one of the points. The primary point is that our empty comfort is fertile ground for upheaval.

 

[Einherjar86]

Whose empty comfort? Whom does "our" refer to? Because while I agree that you and I experience comfort in relation to women in Islamic countries, I'd say that their resistance is due more to their discomfort than our comfort.

 

[Dak]

Whose empty comfort? Whom does "our" refer to? Because while I agree that you and I experience comfort in relation to women in Islamic countries, I'd say that their resistance is due more to their discomfort than our comfort.

If you seek examples of these resistors, what you will most likely find are women in, say, US occupied countries (or in the somewhat occupied portions), or in countries which are more liberal (ie Iran or Jordan).

I'm looking at the West though. We have killed transcendence with god, and with transcendence, purpose. That's why you get stories like these:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/europe/isis-behind-the-mask/index.html

He says Islam offered him the promise of purpose and structure, providing strict rules and moral clarity in a world where the prevailing liberalism favored shades of gray over black and white.

Michael became Younnes, Arabic for dove.

He saw his new religion as a step up from Christianity: “I can compare it with buying a computer. If you know there’s a Windows 10, you’re not going to go with Windows XP … It’s an upgrade.”

The man, being fed, housed, and clothed by the child of Christianity (secular humanism) and in the shadow of the grand works past, longs for the dirt and violence of the Levant - for there is purpose there. Christianity has castrated itself, and Islam is virile.

Of course, that is one direction to go. Another is some form of populism - nationalistic or racial. Maybe the emergence of the religious left
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-religion-idUSKBN16Y114
or atheist churches
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21319945
or maybe any number "movements". Maybe go trash the Dakotas to prevent an oil pipeline from trashing it later. Maybe Occupy a Street. Maybe go to the same place as a bunch of other people while carrying signs.

And yet the emptiness lingers and grows. Because in the end it's all for dust and ash, and we know it. Tyler Durden laughs and knows time is on his side.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/0...ow-leading-cause-of-ill-health-worldwide.html

Depression has become the leading cause of ill health and disability across the world, now affecting more than 300 million people globally, the World Health Organization said Thursday.

The worldwide depression rates increased 18 percent between 2005 and 2015, according to the WHO.

 

[Einherjar86]

So, protesting the DAP, or going to the Women's March, or the March for Science (happening later this month), aren't in response to actual problems, but because we actually don't have anything to complain about. Sounds about right.

 

[Dak]

So, protesting the DAP, or going to the Women's March, or the March for Science (happening later this month), aren't in response to actual problems, but because we actually don't have anything to complain about. Sounds about right.

The potential problems of the DAP were overshadowed by both the need for the oil and the actual trashing of the area by activists. As for the Women's march, it isn't in response to any actual problems (in the US anyway - they should have flown to Saudi Arabia and marched there). The scientific method cannot be "endangered", and even if it were, a march wouldn't protect it.

Edit: Objective, material indicators show the world is in better shape than ever before (for example, world poverty has been cut in half in the last 25 years), yet people are increasingly unhappy and prone to radicalization. US women under the age of 30 are out performing male peers in school and at work, but we need a pussy hat march. Oil pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to transport a vital resource (albeit not a perfect way), and yet it's ok to swarm and trash an area to try and stop it from maybe trashing that area.

 

[Einherjar86]

Wow. You're incredible. Not only did you just admit that poor response toward an issue negates the importance of an issue (not a logical conclusion at all, which you should know), but you also somehow managed to completely miss the point about a march for science. Do you really think it's about the endangerment of the scientific method? Are you being serious?

 

[Dak]

Wow. You're incredible. Not only did you just admit that poor response toward an issue negates the importance of an issue (not a logical conclusion at all, which you should know), but you also somehow managed to completely miss the point about a march for science. Do you really think it's about the endangerment of the scientific method? Are you being serious?

I don't see how science is in danger. I do know that certain government funding sources are threatened. Government funding =/= the thing itself (unless, of course, we mean a government-exclusive service, like letter mail delivery and the uniformed services).

Pipeline spills being negated by the absence of pipelines is equivalent to killing people to prevent them from dying of any number of illnesses. Calling the DAP protests a poor response is an understatement.

This is all, still, beside the point. These movements are stabs at finding a purpose in fleeting events, in misidentified solutions to potentially inescapable trade-offs if not outright non-problems (obviously if your job is threatened by government fundings cuts or changes, these are certainly personal problems even if not systemic threats to the field). The secular/christian west lacks meaning and purpose, and ideologies (including other religions) offer Hope and Change, even (and maybe especially) if it comes with a bloody cost. There's a reason why women voluntarily don hijabs. There's a reason why people will vote in populist demagogues. There's a reason why people will blow themselves up or self-immolate, and it isn't ultimately material comfort, which is all the West has left to offer at this point.

If science is in danger, it is because it offers no meaning or purpose. Science is a tool, not an end. The West has confused this.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see how science is in danger. I do know that certain government funding sources are threatened. Government funding =/= the thing itself

The thing itself? Dak, come on. There is no science "in itself." Science is a social practice and can have various sources of funding. Privately-funded science is fine, but it needs to be supplemented with scientific research not inhibited by corporate interests. Stop deluding yourself by promoting this ridiculous "Trump's not all that bad" political stance.

Pipeline spills being negated by the absence of pipelines is equivalent to killing people to prevent them from dying of any number of illnesses. Calling the DAP protests a poor response is an understatement.

It could be an understatement. They could be the most disproportionate responses of all time. That doesn't diminish the issue of environmental jeopardy. You're acting like it's a non-issue now because of the way it's been treated by protesters. That's the equivalent of me saying that potential violence towards sex slaves is a non-issue because some vigilante killed the asshole trying to sell them (since we're dealing with questionable equivalencies).

This is all, still, beside the point. These movements are stabs at finding a purpose in fleeting events, in misidentified solutions to potentially inescapable trade-offs if not outright non-problems (obviously if your job is threatened by government fundings cuts or changes, these are certainly personal problems even if not systemic threats to the field). The secular/christian west lacks meaning and purpose, and ideologies (including other religions) offer Hope and Change, even (and maybe especially) if it comes with a bloody cost. There's a reason why women voluntarily don hijabs. There's a reason why people will vote in populist demagogues. There's a reason why people will blow themselves up or self-immolate, and it isn't ultimately material comfort, which is all the West has left to offer at this point.

I disagree. You're generalizing based on selected examples, and you're attributing non-value to situations that you already are biased against. I'm not going to claim that I have no skin in the game, but you're really being obtuse here.

If science is in danger, it is because it offers no meaning or purpose. Science is a tool, not an end. The West has confused this.

This is bullshit. Science isn't in danger because it offers no meaning or purpose, it's in danger because it's producing results that particular political parties don't like. You have to fucking see that.

 

[rms]

think dak is having a slow day

 

[Dak]

The thing itself? Dak, come on. There is no science "in itself." Science is a social practice and can have various sources of funding. Privately-funded science is fine, but it needs to be supplemented with scientific research not inhibited by corporate interests. Stop deluding yourself by promoting this ridiculous "Trump's not all that bad" political stance.


I disagree. You're generalizing based on selected examples, and you're attributing non-value to situations that you already are biased against. I'm not going to claim that I have no skin in the game, but you're really being obtuse here.

This is bullshit. Science isn't in danger because it offers no meaning or purpose, it's in danger because it's producing results that particular political parties don't like. You have to fucking see that.

I'm grouping these together because I think they are more or less related. I think Trump is bad - just not as bad as CNN wants one to think. I also have skin in the game. My program depends on a grant that was facing a 70+% cut in the recently pulled Obamacare replacement bill. If a similar cut gets passed at some point, I'm not sure how that will affect me/my family financially.

I don't know what bias you're referring to. I don't just read theoretical pieces and run off into deontological voids, as I think should be rather evident - in fact I think I'm relatively beyond practical. Theory and data/statistics should be be ever synthesized and engage in reciprocation.

There is no danger to science because of results. You're thinking of an example of one deletion of data in one aspect of science, which may or may not even matter. Even if it does, the information has no direct path to change or results. The arctic data informs no particular course of action. Assuming it showed radical warming or cooling, this means nothing in and of itself (however, there is a religion surrounding the pseudo-transcendence of climate stability). In contrast, science with very clear application moves ever more rapidly forward, in both the private and publicly funded sectors. Space X is reusing rockets, DARPA in collaboration with John Hopkins etc are allowing people with no limbs to move and feel again, and IBM presses forward with Deep Learning.

It could be an understatement. They could be the most disproportionate responses of all time. That doesn't diminish the issue of environmental jeopardy. You're acting like it's a non-issue now because of the way it's been treated by protesters.

You're speaking on this issue like the religious person you accused CIG of being. The earth lives on regardless of where the oil on it is.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know what bias you're referring to. I don't just read theoretical pieces and run off into deontological voids, as I think should be rather evident - in fact I think I'm relatively beyond practical. Theory and data/statistics should be be ever synthesized and engage in reciprocation.

Practicality has its own bias. Maybe you can't see that because you're practical.

I admit my bias. You run from yours.

There is no danger to science because of results. You're thinking of an example of one deletion of data in one aspect of science, which may or may not even matter. Even if it does, the information has no direct path to change or results. The arctic data informs no particular course of action. Assuming it showed radical warming or cooling, this means nothing in and of itself (however, there is a religion surrounding the pseudo-transcendence of climate stability). In contrast, science with very clear application moves ever more rapidly forward, in both the private and publicly funded sectors. Space X is reusing rockets, DARPA in collaboration with John Hopkins etc are allowing people with no limbs to move and feel again, and IBM presses forward with Deep Learning.

Thank goodness science is still producing results! I guess we can afford to cut its funding a little.

You're speaking on this issue like the religious person you accused CIG of being. The earth lives on regardless of where the oil on it is.

You're not understanding my point.

I'm commenting on the logic of your statement, in which you implied that an issue can become a non-issue because of the way it's handled. That's an illogical and entirely fallacious position. That's what I'm saying.

Do I think there are environmental concerns worth protesting over? Absolutely. Do I believe that Gaia is dying? I don't think I've ever said that. The ecosystem is more complex than "Mother Earth."

 

[Dak]

Practicality has its own bias. Maybe you can't see that because you're practical.

I admit my bias. You run from yours.

We assume no objective position available to the subjective viewer. This is as close to objectivity as the subjective viewer may approach (as far as I can tell). But I do not admit some a-practical position to be superior to the practical one. The argument, then, is over what is indeed practical. I will concede an argument here. I will not concede a preference to the theoretical to the practical, and readily admit it as a necessary bias. Kind of like the necessary bias of breathing vs the theoretics of maybe breathing.

Thank goodness science is still producing results! I guess we can afford to cut its funding a little.

Cut particular funding from particular sources. Science isn't a monolith, in either its funding or its results.

You're not understanding my point.

I'm commenting on the logic of your statement, in which you implied that an issue can become a non-issue because of the way it's handled. That's an illogical and entirely fallacious position. That's what I'm saying.

I find the whole DAP thing tangential but you seem to be insisting it as central (I apologize if this is incorrect) so I will try to treat it seriously. The entire anti-DAP movement wasn't even about oil per se, but about degradation of a water supply. Moving the pipeline had various issues, but would still threaten water supply were a leak in that vicinity to occur. However, pipelines are a lesser necessary evil, and shifting the line only shifts the potential threat. Why are the Souix there more special than other peoples? Do they not benefit from oil products? Are they more at risk from spill damage than anyone else?

The fact that the protest caused actual problems vs the potential problems of a pipeline is more irony than argument. A sort of cherry on top of any argument.

Do I think there are environmental concerns worth protesting over? Absolutely. Do I believe that Gaia is dying? I don't think I've ever said that. The ecosystem is more complex than "Mother Earth."

I also think there are environmental concerns. I don't think protests are the best option, nor do I think most protests intelligently oriented to concerns. The reason for this, and this is to track things back to my point, is that actual solutions don't matter. We need transcendant purpose. Transcendence is, more or less, by definition, impossible and more importantly, untestable. That way we cannot have counter evidence to our actions. This is why these movements do not generate more happiness. They protest the impossible, but not the untestable.

 

[rms]

but about degradation of a water supply.

i think if you frame the issue this way, you then have to admit the largest problem is Indian sovereignty over their water supplies/land etc

and it becomes more interesting since that water source was deemed far enough away from the pipeline but of course runoff/seeping is always an issue and, imo, was rather an overreaction

Cut particular funding from particular sources. Science isn't a monolith, in either its funding or its results.

Dak, I can't tell if you're news ignorant or just downplaying what Trump is doing, but he's clearly demonizing or at least speaking negatively on left leaning practices of media and science. Just today he apparently told MSNBC to stop reporting on the possibility of Russia's influence and instead focus on his claims of Obama's wire tapping. That is an insane statement from the president on many levels.

For the women's movement, that was clearly a proactive reaction to possible actions against women in the U.S., can't deny that. But it is interesting how twitter is mobilizing political actions across the country, and obviously not good or bad entirely. But the other two, science and DAP, are clearly in response to political agendas

 

[Dak]

i think if you frame the issue this way, you then have to admit the largest problem is Indian sovereignty over their water supplies/land etc

and it becomes more interesting since that water source was deemed far enough away from the pipeline but of course runoff/seeping is always an issue and, imo, was rather an overreaction

The Indians haven't been sovereign, and need to either fully fight that (which includes giving up stipends) or fully accept it. Not one tribe trying to win some extra monies. The whole thing would have been a joke, if it wasn't so environmentally and personally (for protesters) destructive)

Dak, I can't tell if you're news ignorant or just downplaying what Trump is doing, but he's clearly demonizing or at least speaking negatively on left leaning practices of media and science. Just today he apparently told MSNBC to stop reporting on the possibility of Russia's influence and instead focus on his claims of Obama's wire tapping. That is an insane statement from the president on many levels.

For the women's movement, that was clearly a proactive reaction to possible actions against women in the U.S., can't deny that. But it is interesting how twitter is mobilizing political actions across the country, and obviously not good or bad entirely. But the other two, science and DAP, are clearly in response to political agendas

I know he has been demonizing left leaning practices, and that is one of the few things he does I don't have a problem with. There was in fact wire-tapping of Trump-related activities by US intelligence agencies while Obama was in office. This is a fact. The point should be that everyone is being tapped. Trump isn't wrong generally, only specifically, in this matter.

The "proactive response" was in response to left-media unsubstantiated fearmongering re: women's issues. The science thing is in response to targeted budget cuts. Notice science funding flowing through DoD sources hasn't been cut. And before one assumes that's merely destruction research, DARPA and the DoD provide a significant amount of dollars to public and private medical research.

 

[rms]

The Indians haven't been sovereign

I don't agree here, sovereignty is quite established on reservations. Sure, it's been worked around, but it is there.

I know he has been demonizing left leaning practices, and that is one of the few things he does I don't have a problem with.

I am struggling to think you really believe this

There was in fact wire-tapping of Trump-related activities by US intelligence agencies while Obama was in office. This is a fact.

Last I heard was that he was 'near' wire tapping of RUS ambassadors or something. Was not personally tapped but was on some tapes/recordings etc

Trump isn't wrong generally, only specifically, in this matter.

This is the downplaying i'm referring to. You're hoping that Trump is trying to do something noble about wiretapping but I think we've seen enough of Political-Trump to see he's only interested in emboldening the Right and demonizing the Left. I am done thinking he's some smart guy making most of the American public look dumb, he hasn't done anything to warrant that belief.

The "proactive response" was in response to left-media unsubstantiated fearmongering re: women's issues.

I agree

The science thing is in response to targeted budget cuts.

there are claims, and I think proven, that research is being deleted from public websites. That research is left leaning, generally if not entirely.

 

[Einherjar86]

Cut particular funding from particular sources. Science isn't a monolith, in either its funding or its results.

I cite the documentary Particle Fever, which I've probably done before. When an economic journalist asks what financial application(s) the discovery of the Higgs Boson will yield, all the physicist can say is: "It could be nothing--except for understanding everything."

There's no telling which sources could be practically beneficial. As far as scientists doing climate research goes, it's likely that their work will have a more immediate impact on practical matters in the next 50-100 years. And unfortunately, that's what's going.

I find the whole DAP thing tangential but you seem to be insisting it as central (I apologize if this is incorrect) so I will try to treat it seriously. The entire anti-DAP movement wasn't even about oil per se, but about degradation of a water supply. Moving the pipeline had various issues, but would still threaten water supply were a leak in that vicinity to occur. However, pipelines are a lesser necessary evil, and shifting the line only shifts the potential threat. Why are the Souix there more special than other peoples? Do they not benefit from oil products? Are they more at risk from spill damage than anyone else?

I posed it as an example. Does shifting the potential threat have any effect on the potential threat? Because your philosophy seems to be "fuck it."

The fact that the protest caused actual problems vs the potential problems of a pipeline is more irony than argument. A sort of cherry on top of any argument.

Again, this doesn't reduce the concern over the potential problems. That's what you don't seem to get.

I also think there are environmental concerns. I don't think protests are the best option, nor do I think most protests intelligently oriented to concerns. The reason for this, and this is to track things back to my point, is that actual solutions don't matter. We need transcendant purpose. Transcendence is, more or less, by definition, impossible and more importantly, untestable. That way we cannot have counter evidence to our actions. This is why these movements do not generate more happiness. They protest the impossible, but not the untestable.

These movements do generate happiness. You're not a part of them, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.


Look, long story short, I don't agree with that original claim that we're in a rut because people are bored with success. It's dismissive of actual problems, which--even if they're not testable--are certainly observable. If you don't see them, then it's probably because you refuse to.

I know he has been demonizing left leaning practices, and that is one of the few things he does I don't have a problem with. There was in fact wire-tapping of Trump-related activities by US intelligence agencies while Obama was in office. This is a fact. The point should be that everyone is being tapped. Trump isn't wrong generally, only specifically, in this matter.

Wow. You're drinking the Kool-Aid like it's vitamin water. Good to know.

 

[Dak]

I cite the documentary Particle Fever, which I've probably done before. When an economic journalist asks what financial application(s) the discovery of the Higgs Boson will yield, all the physicist can say is: "It could be nothing--except for understanding everything."

There's no telling which sources could be practically beneficial. As far as scientists doing climate research goes, it's likely that their work will have a more immediate impact on practical matters in the next 50-100 years. And unfortunately, that's what's going.

How do you know it's likely? Seems a matter of faith. Climate models are notoriously poor. Obviously financial implications aren't the only thing. Financial models are also notoriously poor. That is, in part, why we have all of these booms and busts.

I posed it as an example. Does shifting the potential threat have any effect on the potential threat? Because your philosophy seems to be "fuck it."
Again, this doesn't reduce the concern over the potential problems.

Sure it doesn't. Where did I suggest it did? Pipelines are currently necessary. That doesn't mean they couldn't be improved.

These movements do generate happiness. You're not a part of them, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

A currently unproveable assertion. As a contrary data point, depression and other mood disorders are growing globally, and at a faster rate in the first world than third world (possibly due to access differential, but that rather supports the point than disproves it).

Look, long story short, I don't agree with that original claim that we're in a rut because people are bored with success. It's dismissive of actual problems, which--even if they're not testable--are certainly observable. If you don't see them, then it's probably because you refuse to.

If something is observable it is testable (even though such testing is going to be frought with issues). But you're not a scientist, even of a soft variety, so I understand your willingness to ignore science (except where personally salient). Every other headline I've had to read in the legacy media since November in the US + Brexit in the UK has been about radicalism, whether in terms of nationalism, or Islamicism, or Leftism. Combined with increasing rates of mood disorders, there is likely an underlying variable or variables to these various phenomenons or movements. I propose, in concert with various more philosophically conservative thinkers of yore, that the binding is a lack of meaning in life, or rather, the search for meaning in the absence of such offered via culture.

 

[CiG]

The women's march seemed like an ideological clusterfuck to me.

 

[Einherjar86]

How do you know it's likely? Seems a matter of faith. Climate models are notoriously poor. Obviously financial implications aren't the only thing. Financial models are also notoriously poor. That is, in part, why we have all of these booms and busts.

Give it a rest. You're trying so hard to pin faith on me, ever since I made that comment during the morality discussion.

The odds are better that scientific research not tethered to a narrow range of interests will stumble on something worthwhile. That's not to say it'll happen, I'm just invoking probability here.

Sure it doesn't. Where did I suggest it did?

What, you just wait long enough until the original comment is in the past and then act like it didn't happen?

A currently unproveable assertion. As a contrary data point, depression and other mood disorders are growing globally, and at a faster rate in the first world than third world (possibly due to access differential, but that rather supports the point than disproves it).

I don't need to prove it. I was there, I saw it. If you don't believe it, that's your prerogative. Doesn't do much for your argument though.

If something is observable it is testable (even though such testing is going to be frought with issues). But you're not a scientist, even of a soft variety, so I understand your willingness to ignore science (except where personally salient).

I'm one of the most scientifically-oriented humanists you'll come across, and you know that. Don't be daft.

You can observe something and not be able to test it. Testing/experimentation requires controlled environments. Observation is an attribute of social organization. Observation happens all the time. Testing is more specific.

It may be that any observable phenomenon is theoretically testable, but practically speaking (your favorite) this isn't always the case.

The women's march seemed like an ideological clusterfuck to me.

I was at the march here in Boston. It wasn't a clusterfuck. It was a really moving experience, if I can say that and still be taken seriously.