What I do have a problem with is when I only get a 3-4% raise, yet, executives can give themselves 50% raises, 4 million dollar bonuses, etc. There is nothing a CEO can produce that warrants that level of compensation. PERIOD.
That's true, but it won't help you to know that it's true. For now, you're just a little insignificant whiner who fears for his life. But it doesn't have to be like that. You could wake up every day because you love life, and not because you're affraid to be late to work. But this won't come easy without any effort on your part!
That's because working class has a low self-image. And that happens because people, in general, neglect spiritual practice. (I'm not talking about religion now...)
Maybe this is not the answer you expected?
It is the height of idiocy to believe that people who are very much interested in being unfair will suddenly start being fair when they hear some whining.
It is also the height of idiocy to think that force is the answer to this.
There is an answer! It involves no force at all, but it does involve these two things: wisdom and fearlessness.
So, I must pose the question, why is it perfectly fine for managers (especially those in the upper echelons) hand out massive raises to themselves and their cronies that are often the equivalent of several times the average salary of their subordinates?
It's not perfectly fine.
What's been happening for a long time is that people, on a very deep level, emotionally buy into this type of reality and subconsciously exonerate this stuff (and by "this stuff" I mean all kinds of authority and power abuse, not just the kind you mention right now).
Do you want all this to stop? Do you want a better life? As counter-intuitive as this may sound to you, the first step is to start being mindful of the contents of your own mind, 24/7/365. After you retain this kind of mindfulness for a prolonged period of time, you will understand intimately the psychodynamics behind this type of phenomenon. Once you understand the psychodynamics you can affect a real change from within yourself. My recommendation: start paying attention and keep discussing this with your fellows, but don't succumb to any naive knee-jerk reactions without first thoroughly understanding the psychodynamics of this.
When you raise your mindfulness level, pay special attention to stress, the causes of stress and the causes of its cessation.
Or you can try these approaches that have already failed in the past: bitter complaining (as opposed to discussion), angry protests, revolutions, and so on. All the stuff that happened in the past did nothing to dismantle the power elite. Why not? Ahh...it's worth contemplating, but you really won't understand why not until you first thoroughly understand YOURSELF. And don't even try to tell me you understand yourself, because you do not (that's an inference I am making from the content of your post, and I could be wrong). So pay attention.
Know thyself. Seriously. That's the only way that actually works.
It may be a good idea to start thinking how to take something like bittorrent and make it usable for interactive web sessions. This way the bandwidth cost may naturally be distributed among people.
Freenet is almost something like that, but the emphasis of freenet is privacy, whereas the emphasis might also be speed, efficiency and distributed interactivity.
I think the government is affraid that without TV's the public will develop critical thinking skills and start thinking for themselves. And critical thinking skills is not something the government would want the people to have.
I don't miss the point at all. Why not? Because I formerly held to the same opinion as you. But I grew out of it. I know exactly where you are coming from, whether you believe me or not. I grew up in exUSSR where science was pretty much a de-facto standard view and religion was constantly derided and laughed at, and I used to laugh at it and deride it too. I thought science was infallible and "the best", but I have since then divested myself of that view.
I don't want to argue with you forever. I think I have made my point clear. It is now up to you what you want to do about it. I can cut down every tree that I encounter, but it is not wise to do so. I will leave some trees standing, not because I lack the strength or wisdom to cut them down, but because I have better things to do.
I've never heard a logical or reasonable presentation on creationism as a scientific possibility that was anything more than double-speak and the attempt to sway the ignorant (or at least, the uninformed).
*ahem*...
Asking theologians to come up with a scientific possibility for their theology is like asking scientists to come up with a theological possibility for their scientific findings.
Now, mind you, I think it's is possible to come up with both such possibilities, but WHY in the world would you care or want to? I don't understand? Are you feeling scared of religion? Are you feeling the need to establish the validity of science beyond doubt? Why can't science be enjoyable and still be doubtful at the same time?
Personally I am tired of mindlessly joining up with this or that creed. All creeds have flaws if you care to examine them. At least, if I join some creed, I am aware of some possible flaws in it, and don't become mentally drunk on "my" creed. But maybe being mentally drunk is not so bad either. I don't know. It's just not something I choose for myself.
I think you've totally missed the point. I'm not talking about prediction as in fortelling the future...I'm talking about prediction like, "If my theory is correct, then if I conduct such-and-such an experiment, the result will be XXX." Or, "If my theory is correct, then I predict that some day such-and-such a discovery will be made."
Is meteorology a science or not?
The whole point is that someone who does this is NOT relying on mystical powers or supernatural tools.
Can you prove that scientists are not relying on mystical powers? Is this, so-called "non-reliance on mystical powers" merely a sentimental feeling?
As far as prophecy, it's interesting that you specify that it is real TO A BELIEVER...the hallmark of a non-repeatable and unveriable belief.
Well, to a believer it is indeed repeatable and verifiable. Just ask any believer.:)
Suppose you came to a person who was a true believer with the idea that "I do not believe anything" and had unswerving sentimental and zealous loyalty to such idea. How do you think such person would behave? Do you think it's possible to discern from the behavior alone whether the person really does or does not believe?
In religion it's called "prophecy" and if you ask a true believer, then yes, prophecies are reliable and come true like clockwork.
But I am not a true believer. I am not religious. If you ask me about prophecies, then I will say "impossible to conclude one way or the other". If you ask me about predictive power of experiments, I admit to witnessing such power, but again conclude nothing. I also admit that I can predict that tomorrow I will go to the mall, and indeed go to the mall. I also admit I can change my mind and not go there. So is what I am saying predictive or not? And just because something is predictive, does it make it true and valuable solely for its predictive power? What kind of man would want to predict things? Certainly not a fearless man. A fearless man is not affraid of surprise or loss. And, as a person to person, I can admit to you that I will be very ashamed of myself if I die a wuss. Born a wuss and died a wuss is the most frightening fate I can imagine for myself. I am tired of making decisions solely based of fear. Isn't there something more wholesome that I can use as a motivator? I think there is. But how can I know what it is when 99% of my decisions are aimed at avoiding some negative consequence? I feel like a chain whipped slave when I live that way.
Rising above hope and fear is not easy, but I believe it can be done. This has nothing to do with religion or philosophy.
Ah, it's the pesky religion again. All I want to say about that is this. I am not religious. I am not a Christian, not a Jew and not a Muslim, etc. I like Buddhism, but I am not a Buddhist. I like some Hindu Advaita teachers, but I am neither a Hindu nor an Advaitan. I am not a philosopher, because my thought goes beyond conclusions and philosophies. If you want to label me, call me "contemplator". Contemplating is a process that is joyous in and of itself, right here and right now. It has nothing to do with conclusions. It is part of life and it is life itself.
If I saw someone dying, I would look them in the eye and allow myself to fully feel what is going on. And then I would say, with unearthly confidence, "Do not be affraid. Pay attention." Yes, pay attention. Never stop paying attention. Experience.
As a more practical advice, I'd suggest to examine the nature of stress as it actually occurs within you. As soon as you feel stress, examine it for its basis. When you think you have found its basis, examine that basis again, for its basis, and so on, until you arrive at the root. Then examine that root very thoroughly, fearlessly, unsentimentally, and you will set yourself free from stress and anxiety. Don't take my word for it though. Test it if you don't believe me.
I never say we should hate science. I like science too.
I agree that it works, because if you think about it, the goals of the orthodox scientific method are very modest. The issue I have is when scientists forget about the modesty of their goals and start to imagine how important they are. Actually, it's fun and no big deal to imagine that you're important, as long as you know it's just imagination. Should a person forget, even for a second, that self-importance is just a self-flattering imagination, a zealot is born. A science zealot is not preferrable to any other zealot, as far as I can see.
Now, regarding the hole, yes, I take your point. If NYC was THE END, all would be well, but life goes on after you reach NYC. So the fact that you know I'm a liar doesn't help you. In fact, it can even hinder you because you may become prejudiced against me, and at some point I may change my mind and decide to tell you some truth that would be very important and beneficial for you, but due to your previous prejudice against me, you may not want to hear it. So knowing that someone is a liar is not necessarily a gain in information, because the person who has lied in the past is not necessarily committed to being a liar forever.:)
you do realize that there is enormous evidence supporting evolution, right?
I don't care to get into a religious debate, but evidence has no capacity to support or deny. Whether something supports something else is a decision made by a human being.
It is ABSOLUTELY a theory (not just a hypothesis). On the other hand, the only evidence for theological origins are . . . well . . . books written by man. TommyKnockers is a book written by man, but that doesn't make it evidence for anything.
Ah yes, books written by men. So, are you saying that science books are written by God or something? Science books are written by men too. Evidence is judged by men to be either supporting or not of whatever idea these men have. So what?
This kind of attitude of arrogant self-importance really does not make science attractive, you know?:) From where I sit I see no substantial differense between scientists and priests.
Everything I discuss can be demonstrated and replicated. I never say something that a person cannot test for themselves. I always talk about things that make life better. Do they really make life better? It is easy to test.
On the other hand, much of the modern science CANNOT be tested by another person. Why not? Because it often requires immense resources, and not just that, but it can even require a certain social standing to replicate. For example, in order to replicate certain physics experiments, I have to either own or have access to a particle collider. Those things are expensive to build. Either I must have TONS AND TONS of money and I must have a certain social standing in order to have the power to validate or invalidate it. That's a big disadvantage. Even if I had an infinite supply of money, should I make an experiment that invalidates the findings, if my social standing paints me as an idiot, then no matter how good my experiment is, it won't be considered seriously simply due to my poor social standing. As such, I would then be cut out of the scientific process on the basis of my personality.
What it means, in real world, is that scientific knowledge is often tied to such narrow groups of experts, that often times all the experts within the group actually know each other. In that case, the testability is narrowed vastly to a very narrow group of people. It means that in a very real way, science actually LACKS the very benefit that you tout -- open access for each man and woman to have the power to independently validate or invalidate the findings in question.
On the other hand, everything I am saying can be tested without any specific social standing and without any income. It can be tested by a person who is starving and is about to die.
First read my post. Dirt = 'knowledge' that is wrong... not a way to describe science. That said, I don't think humans will ever understand everything but we do know a lot nore then 600 years ago. For example do you know that the world is NOT FLAT and that the universe does not orbit the earth.... Now for your other comments
In order to say that we know more, you have to be able to quantify information. While you can count the words, you cannot quantify information. For example, blah ttooo sdfsd isdfsd sdoifsdofiu sdfsdf, are some words that have no informational load. Further, some information can be lies, and can take you further away from truth. A presence of information tells us nothing about its quality.
If you can quantify information, you have to be able to come up with a unit of information. But before you can do that, you must know what misinformation is. What is information and what is misinformation? If you want to go to New York and I tell you how to board a plane that really does go to New York, that's information. If you want to go to a village and I tell you how to board a plane to New York, then I am misinforming you. I say the same thing, but whether it is considered information or misinformation depends on your intent -- if you intend to visit a quiet rustic village and I send you to New York instead, clearly you have been deceived. So whether information is true or not depends on the intent of its user.
You can measure how many bytes this post takes, but bits and bytes do not measure the usefulness of this post, therefore they do not quantify the capacity to inform.
Ambiguity is a natural state of things, is it not?
This is only true to a point. (Think Quantum Mechanics) However, in classical systems there is not that much ambiguity,
You're using science as an axiomatic authority whereas it is the point of debate. That's not allowed. If I am questioning the validity of the scientific method, you cannot use the products and findings of the scientific method to validate it. If you could, it would then be self-validating. If science is allowed to be self-validating, then why not grant the same privilege to religion and others methods?
While scientists present us with findings that seem more and more precise, there is no finding that the human capacity for error has been fundamentally decreased.
You are wrong again, ok wrong in what you have implied. Yes humans still have the same capacity for error and by this I mean that we can fool ourselves. BUT our tools are more presice - offering better and better data. At some point the data is such that we can no longer fool ourselves and that bit of the truth is found. Happens all of the time.
You still need a human to interpret the results. Where the phenomena originate makes no differense as long as the agent interpreting the results has not reduced its capacity for error down to zero.
To accurately say that we get closer and closer to truth, you must know precisely where the truth is.
This is simply not true. Try going thru a maze with hints along the way. It is relatively easy to do. Science is more of a long maze with lots of hints .
What if you follow all the hints, but can never exit the maze? Are we assuming that you will exit the maze? What if the maze has no exit? Are we assuming it has an exit? See, if I enter the maze, it means initially I was outside the maze. If the exit out of the maze represents truth, then your example is useless because it is an example of self-validation -- initially I am outside the maze, abiding in truth, and then I enter the maze by volunterily departing from truth, and then I can find the truth again by following the hints inside the maze.
I like science because it gives us cool toys to play with. But science is not that important. It doesn't in and of itself make life better. I can define virtue as something that is intrinsically and unconditionally good. Scientific method is not a virtue under such definition. It can be useful and beneficial, but it can easily be as harmful and detrimental as it is helpful.
Now, outside of its purely fun and utilitary functions, science is utterly useless. For example, it is utterly useless for a deep exploration of life. In particular, there is no tool that can tell me how I feel, by definition. You can connect something to my brain and it may tell me I am happy, but if I don't feel happy, I don't care what the tool says. Tools cannot disclose certain things about life, such as how I feel and what I think. And those are the things that are most important, because they are the most immediate things, my feelings, my views, my thoughts -- these guide my decisions, shape my actions, inform my attitude, and bring a certain unique and indescribable flavor to life.
Hey, I'm a programmer and a I love a good computer as much as any other geek. I love a fast net connection and I like "moving pictures" and all that. But I don't fool myself about science. I contemplate, because this gives real results that I can feel right here and right now. Don't take my word for it though.
Interesting. You use a lot of flavorful feeling adjectives to tell me what science is.
Check out all the negative mods I'm getting in this thread. It kind of proves the point I was trying to make. People are upset, so they downmod. But really there is nothing worth being upset about. I just poked some lighthearted fun at whoever wrote the part of the article that said it was an important work.:)
All the things washed, get dirty anew. Dirtiness is a natural state of things, and cleanliness is something people invent. Dirt is closer to reality than cleanliness (but I wouldn't say that reality is dirty...I'm just saying, it's not a very flattering to science comparison that you've used).
Ambiguity is a natural state of things, is it not? If it is, then science is useless. If it is not, then science is redundant. If it is neither, then there should be a way to fundamentally remove even the possibility of ambiguity. While scientists present us with findings that seem more and more precise, there is no finding that the human capacity for error has been fundamentally decreased. If human capacity for error can be decreased to zero, such that, at some point human beings become incapable of error, then the scientific method will produce the truth. However, as long as the capacity for error is not eliminated, there is never a guarantee of truth. Having a group of people cross-check each other merely guarantees a socially safe convention.
To accurately say that we get closer and closer to truth, you must know precisely where the truth is. For this you must be incapable of error. If you don't know the truth, how do you know you're getting closer via a scientific method? Is it just a sentimental feeling?
Ah, yes, but they only welcome the type of criticism that doesn't undermine the scientific process.:) Should someone offer a critique that is cogent and yet lies outside their beloved process, they will not so good humored about it.
Yes, I know it's a generalization. I'm just discussing. I don't base any important decisions on generalizations.
Haha.. very funny. Of course, while I have no hatred for a theistic viewpoint, I am not, strictly speaking, a theist. What I was trying to say there, has nothing to do with religion, but oh well. If some Christians happen to agree with my off-hand remark, that's wonderful.:)
I have no hostility toward any group and no sentimental love either. What drove me to make that comment is my feeling on how self-serving and self-obsessed we are (and I include myself into this mess too). Scientists are just as "impure" and self-serving, greedy, and ignorant as even the most hardened superstitious religious zealot. I only see a differense in appearance between the scientific zealots and the religious ones, and not a differense in substance.
Who is zealot? A zealot is someone who refuses to be critised in good spirit. A zealot is someone who cannot laugh at themselves. Guess what? Scientists take themselves so freaking seriously and are SOOO unable to laugh at their pursuits, as a group. They are very offended when criticised and they look down on anyone who doesn't worship science as the "ignorant masses". Too bad, because they fit under the zealot definition in my book. Of course, I have the same thing to say about religious zealots and any other kinds of zealots.
Slashdot Mirror
What I do have a problem with is when I only get a 3-4% raise, yet, executives can give themselves 50% raises, 4 million dollar bonuses, etc. There is nothing a CEO can produce that warrants that level of compensation. PERIOD.
That's true, but it won't help you to know that it's true. For now, you're just a little insignificant whiner who fears for his life. But it doesn't have to be like that. You could wake up every day because you love life, and not because you're affraid to be late to work. But this won't come easy without any effort on your part!
That's because working class has a low self-image. And that happens because people, in general, neglect spiritual practice. (I'm not talking about religion now...)
Maybe this is not the answer you expected?
It is the height of idiocy to believe that people who are very much interested in being unfair will suddenly start being fair when they hear some whining.
It is also the height of idiocy to think that force is the answer to this.
There is an answer! It involves no force at all, but it does involve these two things: wisdom and fearlessness.
Long answer: read this post.
Short answer: Know thyself.
So, I must pose the question, why is it perfectly fine for managers (especially those in the upper echelons) hand out massive raises to themselves and their cronies that are often the equivalent of several times the average salary of their subordinates?
It's not perfectly fine.
What's been happening for a long time is that people, on a very deep level, emotionally buy into this type of reality and subconsciously exonerate this stuff (and by "this stuff" I mean all kinds of authority and power abuse, not just the kind you mention right now).
Do you want all this to stop? Do you want a better life? As counter-intuitive as this may sound to you, the first step is to start being mindful of the contents of your own mind, 24/7/365. After you retain this kind of mindfulness for a prolonged period of time, you will understand intimately the psychodynamics behind this type of phenomenon. Once you understand the psychodynamics you can affect a real change from within yourself . My recommendation: start paying attention and keep discussing this with your fellows, but don't succumb to any naive knee-jerk reactions without first thoroughly understanding the psychodynamics of this.
When you raise your mindfulness level, pay special attention to stress, the causes of stress and the causes of its cessation.
Or you can try these approaches that have already failed in the past: bitter complaining (as opposed to discussion), angry protests, revolutions, and so on. All the stuff that happened in the past did nothing to dismantle the power elite. Why not? Ahh...it's worth contemplating, but you really won't understand why not until you first thoroughly understand YOURSELF. And don't even try to tell me you understand yourself, because you do not (that's an inference I am making from the content of your post, and I could be wrong). So pay attention.
Know thyself. Seriously. That's the only way that actually works.
The shot, as I understand it, was aimed at the Wall Street community itself and not at the particular article in the Wall Street Journal.
It may be a good idea to start thinking how to take something like bittorrent and make it usable for interactive web sessions. This way the bandwidth cost may naturally be distributed among people.
Freenet is almost something like that, but the emphasis of freenet is privacy, whereas the emphasis might also be speed, efficiency and distributed interactivity.
You should go one step further and add this:
1a) By running this program you agree to write one glowing review per year of program's use.
I think the government is affraid that without TV's the public will develop critical thinking skills and start thinking for themselves. And critical thinking skills is not something the government would want the people to have.
I don't miss the point at all. Why not? Because I formerly held to the same opinion as you. But I grew out of it. I know exactly where you are coming from, whether you believe me or not. I grew up in exUSSR where science was pretty much a de-facto standard view and religion was constantly derided and laughed at, and I used to laugh at it and deride it too. I thought science was infallible and "the best", but I have since then divested myself of that view.
I don't want to argue with you forever. I think I have made my point clear. It is now up to you what you want to do about it. I can cut down every tree that I encounter, but it is not wise to do so. I will leave some trees standing, not because I lack the strength or wisdom to cut them down, but because I have better things to do.
Don't be a slave to your views.
I've never heard a logical or reasonable presentation on creationism as a scientific possibility that was anything more than double-speak and the attempt to sway the ignorant (or at least, the uninformed).
*ahem*...
Asking theologians to come up with a scientific possibility for their theology is like asking scientists to come up with a theological possibility for their scientific findings.
Now, mind you, I think it's is possible to come up with both such possibilities, but WHY in the world would you care or want to? I don't understand? Are you feeling scared of religion? Are you feeling the need to establish the validity of science beyond doubt? Why can't science be enjoyable and still be doubtful at the same time?
Personally I am tired of mindlessly joining up with this or that creed. All creeds have flaws if you care to examine them. At least, if I join some creed, I am aware of some possible flaws in it, and don't become mentally drunk on "my" creed. But maybe being mentally drunk is not so bad either. I don't know. It's just not something I choose for myself.
I think you've totally missed the point. I'm not talking about prediction as in fortelling the future...I'm talking about prediction like, "If my theory is correct, then if I conduct such-and-such an experiment, the result will be XXX." Or, "If my theory is correct, then I predict that some day such-and-such a discovery will be made."
:)
Is meteorology a science or not?
The whole point is that someone who does this is NOT relying on mystical powers or supernatural tools.
Can you prove that scientists are not relying on mystical powers? Is this, so-called "non-reliance on mystical powers" merely a sentimental feeling?
As far as prophecy, it's interesting that you specify that it is real TO A BELIEVER...the hallmark of a non-repeatable and unveriable belief.
Well, to a believer it is indeed repeatable and verifiable. Just ask any believer.
Suppose you came to a person who was a true believer with the idea that "I do not believe anything" and had unswerving sentimental and zealous loyalty to such idea. How do you think such person would behave? Do you think it's possible to discern from the behavior alone whether the person really does or does not believe?
LOL, NO! :)
In religion it's called "prophecy" and if you ask a true believer, then yes, prophecies are reliable and come true like clockwork.
But I am not a true believer. I am not religious. If you ask me about prophecies, then I will say "impossible to conclude one way or the other". If you ask me about predictive power of experiments, I admit to witnessing such power, but again conclude nothing. I also admit that I can predict that tomorrow I will go to the mall, and indeed go to the mall. I also admit I can change my mind and not go there. So is what I am saying predictive or not? And just because something is predictive, does it make it true and valuable solely for its predictive power? What kind of man would want to predict things? Certainly not a fearless man. A fearless man is not affraid of surprise or loss. And, as a person to person, I can admit to you that I will be very ashamed of myself if I die a wuss. Born a wuss and died a wuss is the most frightening fate I can imagine for myself. I am tired of making decisions solely based of fear. Isn't there something more wholesome that I can use as a motivator? I think there is. But how can I know what it is when 99% of my decisions are aimed at avoiding some negative consequence? I feel like a chain whipped slave when I live that way.
Rising above hope and fear is not easy, but I believe it can be done. This has nothing to do with religion or philosophy.
Ah, it's the pesky religion again. All I want to say about that is this. I am not religious. I am not a Christian, not a Jew and not a Muslim, etc. I like Buddhism, but I am not a Buddhist. I like some Hindu Advaita teachers, but I am neither a Hindu nor an Advaitan. I am not a philosopher, because my thought goes beyond conclusions and philosophies. If you want to label me, call me "contemplator". Contemplating is a process that is joyous in and of itself, right here and right now. It has nothing to do with conclusions. It is part of life and it is life itself.
If I saw someone dying, I would look them in the eye and allow myself to fully feel what is going on. And then I would say, with unearthly confidence, "Do not be affraid. Pay attention." Yes, pay attention. Never stop paying attention. Experience.
As a more practical advice, I'd suggest to examine the nature of stress as it actually occurs within you. As soon as you feel stress, examine it for its basis. When you think you have found its basis, examine that basis again, for its basis, and so on, until you arrive at the root. Then examine that root very thoroughly, fearlessly, unsentimentally, and you will set yourself free from stress and anxiety. Don't take my word for it though. Test it if you don't believe me.
I never say we should hate science. I like science too.
I agree that it works, because if you think about it, the goals of the orthodox scientific method are very modest. The issue I have is when scientists forget about the modesty of their goals and start to imagine how important they are. Actually, it's fun and no big deal to imagine that you're important, as long as you know it's just imagination. Should a person forget, even for a second, that self-importance is just a self-flattering imagination, a zealot is born. A science zealot is not preferrable to any other zealot, as far as I can see.
:)
Now, regarding the hole, yes, I take your point. If NYC was THE END, all would be well, but life goes on after you reach NYC. So the fact that you know I'm a liar doesn't help you. In fact, it can even hinder you because you may become prejudiced against me, and at some point I may change my mind and decide to tell you some truth that would be very important and beneficial for you, but due to your previous prejudice against me, you may not want to hear it. So knowing that someone is a liar is not necessarily a gain in information, because the person who has lied in the past is not necessarily committed to being a liar forever.
you do realize that there is enormous evidence supporting evolution, right?
:) From where I sit I see no substantial differense between scientists and priests.
I don't care to get into a religious debate, but evidence has no capacity to support or deny. Whether something supports something else is a decision made by a human being.
It is ABSOLUTELY a theory (not just a hypothesis). On the other hand, the only evidence for theological origins are . . . well . . . books written by man. TommyKnockers is a book written by man, but that doesn't make it evidence for anything.
Ah yes, books written by men. So, are you saying that science books are written by God or something? Science books are written by men too. Evidence is judged by men to be either supporting or not of whatever idea these men have. So what?
This kind of attitude of arrogant self-importance really does not make science attractive, you know?
Everything I discuss can be demonstrated and replicated. I never say something that a person cannot test for themselves. I always talk about things that make life better. Do they really make life better? It is easy to test.
On the other hand, much of the modern science CANNOT be tested by another person. Why not? Because it often requires immense resources, and not just that, but it can even require a certain social standing to replicate. For example, in order to replicate certain physics experiments, I have to either own or have access to a particle collider. Those things are expensive to build. Either I must have TONS AND TONS of money and I must have a certain social standing in order to have the power to validate or invalidate it. That's a big disadvantage. Even if I had an infinite supply of money, should I make an experiment that invalidates the findings, if my social standing paints me as an idiot, then no matter how good my experiment is, it won't be considered seriously simply due to my poor social standing. As such, I would then be cut out of the scientific process on the basis of my personality.
What it means, in real world, is that scientific knowledge is often tied to such narrow groups of experts, that often times all the experts within the group actually know each other. In that case, the testability is narrowed vastly to a very narrow group of people. It means that in a very real way, science actually LACKS the very benefit that you tout -- open access for each man and woman to have the power to independently validate or invalidate the findings in question.
On the other hand, everything I am saying can be tested without any specific social standing and without any income. It can be tested by a person who is starving and is about to die.
In order to say that we know more, you have to be able to quantify information. While you can count the words, you cannot quantify information. For example, blah ttooo sdfsd isdfsd sdoifsdofiu sdfsdf, are some words that have no informational load. Further, some information can be lies, and can take you further away from truth. A presence of information tells us nothing about its quality.
If you can quantify information, you have to be able to come up with a unit of information. But before you can do that, you must know what misinformation is. What is information and what is misinformation? If you want to go to New York and I tell you how to board a plane that really does go to New York, that's information. If you want to go to a village and I tell you how to board a plane to New York, then I am misinforming you. I say the same thing, but whether it is considered information or misinformation depends on your intent -- if you intend to visit a quiet rustic village and I send you to New York instead, clearly you have been deceived. So whether information is true or not depends on the intent of its user.
You can measure how many bytes this post takes, but bits and bytes do not measure the usefulness of this post, therefore they do not quantify the capacity to inform.
You're using science as an axiomatic authority whereas it is the point of debate. That's not allowed. If I am questioning the validity of the scientific method, you cannot use the products and findings of the scientific method to validate it. If you could, it would then be self-validating. If science is allowed to be self-validating, then why not grant the same privilege to religion and others methods?
You still need a human to interpret the results. Where the phenomena originate makes no differense as long as the agent interpreting the results has not reduced its capacity for error down to zero.
What if you follow all the hints, but can never exit the maze? Are we assuming that you will exit the maze? What if the maze has no exit? Are we assuming it has an exit? See, if I enter the maze, it means initially I was outside the maze. If the exit out of the maze represents truth, then your example is useless because it is an example of self-validation -- initially I am outside the maze, abiding in truth, and then I enter the maze by volunterily departing from truth, and then I can find the truth again by following the hints inside the maze.
I like science because it gives us cool toys to play with. But science is not that important. It doesn't in and of itself make life better. I can define virtue as something that is intrinsically and unconditionally good. Scientific method is not a virtue under such definition. It can be useful and beneficial, but it can easily be as harmful and detrimental as it is helpful.
Now, outside of its purely fun and utilitary functions, science is utterly useless. For example, it is utterly useless for a deep exploration of life. In particular, there is no tool that can tell me how I feel, by definition. You can connect something to my brain and it may tell me I am happy, but if I don't feel happy, I don't care what the tool says. Tools cannot disclose certain things about life, such as how I feel and what I think. And those are the things that are most important, because they are the most immediate things, my feelings, my views, my thoughts -- these guide my decisions, shape my actions, inform my attitude, and bring a certain unique and indescribable flavor to life.
Hey, I'm a programmer and a I love a good computer as much as any other geek. I love a fast net connection and I like "moving pictures" and all that. But I don't fool myself about science. I contemplate, because this gives real results that I can feel right here and right now. Don't take my word for it though.
Interesting. You use a lot of flavorful feeling adjectives to tell me what science is.
:)
Check out all the negative mods I'm getting in this thread. It kind of proves the point I was trying to make. People are upset, so they downmod. But really there is nothing worth being upset about. I just poked some lighthearted fun at whoever wrote the part of the article that said it was an important work.
All the things washed, get dirty anew. Dirtiness is a natural state of things, and cleanliness is something people invent. Dirt is closer to reality than cleanliness (but I wouldn't say that reality is dirty...I'm just saying, it's not a very flattering to science comparison that you've used).
Ambiguity is a natural state of things, is it not? If it is, then science is useless. If it is not, then science is redundant. If it is neither, then there should be a way to fundamentally remove even the possibility of ambiguity. While scientists present us with findings that seem more and more precise, there is no finding that the human capacity for error has been fundamentally decreased. If human capacity for error can be decreased to zero, such that, at some point human beings become incapable of error, then the scientific method will produce the truth. However, as long as the capacity for error is not eliminated, there is never a guarantee of truth. Having a group of people cross-check each other merely guarantees a socially safe convention.
To accurately say that we get closer and closer to truth, you must know precisely where the truth is. For this you must be incapable of error. If you don't know the truth, how do you know you're getting closer via a scientific method? Is it just a sentimental feeling?
So what makes scientific method pure? Is it pure a priori?
Ah, yes, but they only welcome the type of criticism that doesn't undermine the scientific process. :) Should someone offer a critique that is cogent and yet lies outside their beloved process, they will not so good humored about it.
Yes, I know it's a generalization. I'm just discussing. I don't base any important decisions on generalizations.
Haha.. very funny. Of course, while I have no hatred for a theistic viewpoint, I am not, strictly speaking, a theist. What I was trying to say there, has nothing to do with religion, but oh well. If some Christians happen to agree with my off-hand remark, that's wonderful. :)
I have no hostility toward any group and no sentimental love either. What drove me to make that comment is my feeling on how self-serving and self-obsessed we are (and I include myself into this mess too). Scientists are just as "impure" and self-serving, greedy, and ignorant as even the most hardened superstitious religious zealot. I only see a differense in appearance between the scientific zealots and the religious ones, and not a differense in substance.
Who is zealot? A zealot is someone who refuses to be critised in good spirit. A zealot is someone who cannot laugh at themselves. Guess what? Scientists take themselves so freaking seriously and are SOOO unable to laugh at their pursuits, as a group. They are very offended when criticised and they look down on anyone who doesn't worship science as the "ignorant masses". Too bad, because they fit under the zealot definition in my book. Of course, I have the same thing to say about religious zealots and any other kinds of zealots.
How can you tell pure knowledge from impure?