This isn't evolution? Yes and no.
Sub-atomic particles converging to form atoms and atoms converging into molecules are both technically evolution. Darwinian evolution is a particular instance of a broader process, Extropy.
Break it down to the core of his reasoning.
Is science ever crafted to political ends?
Do the processes of science have a blindspot due to groupthink?
Casting everything else aside, I think these points do hold true.
For example, how many people on here TRULY understand global warming? A small percentage. Yet a certain hueristic is applied. People who accept it, it is assumed they have a grasp on the subject. People who don't accept it, are automatically given various labels, anti-scientific, deniers, etc, which project gestalt attributes onto them that they may or may not have.
These formed generalizations may be useful most of the time, but it does create blind-spots, and it does undermine scientific processes.
All sorts of attributes are attributed onto people that deviate from the orthodoxy of science( which is the whole point right? To progress our ideas ). These attributions do create biases in our mind, which undermines our capacity to truly be logical.
The science method is great and it works but it does have limitations. It has not yet been extended in such a way as to account for sticking points in the social processes of science.
He wasn't anti-technology. But he doesn't believe technology is the end-all be all solution to the worlds problems. Technology is neutral. But it's situated within a context of human social processes that are unpredictable and dangerous. Our capacity to create physical structures far supersedes our capacity to build and mantain the more ethereal structures like culture and government.
Why is it rational to approach mysticism with a cynical eye? Skepticism, surely.
Mysticism deals with a set of reproducible states. Anything reproducible can be studied methodologically. It's neither scientific or unscientific. It's an experience that can be analyzed in various ways. Some analysis are just better than others.
Slashdot Mirror
That's silly. There are alot of things you can't prove. Your own existence, my existence. The axioms of science and math. And so on.
This isn't evolution? Yes and no. Sub-atomic particles converging to form atoms and atoms converging into molecules are both technically evolution. Darwinian evolution is a particular instance of a broader process, Extropy.
Break it down to the core of his reasoning.
Is science ever crafted to political ends?
Do the processes of science have a blindspot due to groupthink?
Casting everything else aside, I think these points do hold true.
For example, how many people on here TRULY understand global warming? A small percentage. Yet a certain hueristic is applied. People who accept it, it is assumed they have a grasp on the subject. People who don't accept it, are automatically given various labels, anti-scientific, deniers, etc, which project gestalt attributes onto them that they may or may not have.
These formed generalizations may be useful most of the time, but it does create blind-spots, and it does undermine scientific processes.
All sorts of attributes are attributed onto people that deviate from the orthodoxy of science( which is the whole point right? To progress our ideas ). These attributions do create biases in our mind, which undermines our capacity to truly be logical.
The science method is great and it works but it does have limitations. It has not yet been extended in such a way as to account for sticking points in the social processes of science.
He wasn't anti-technology. But he doesn't believe technology is the end-all be all solution to the worlds problems. Technology is neutral. But it's situated within a context of human social processes that are unpredictable and dangerous. Our capacity to create physical structures far supersedes our capacity to build and mantain the more ethereal structures like culture and government.
Why is it rational to approach mysticism with a cynical eye? Skepticism, surely.
Mysticism deals with a set of reproducible states. Anything reproducible can be studied methodologically. It's neither scientific or unscientific. It's an experience that can be analyzed in various ways. Some analysis are just better than others.