Science Discussion

#21

Oooohhhh I foresee this derailing so quickly…

Suffice it to say that I do not understand the purpose of this thread really. Yes… science happens.

#22

What… Is this thread about???

#23

That’s rather off subject. A lot of opinion but not science.
Tjafaas Good enough job, I’ll keep my two cents :slight_smile:

Just science I find interesting is all.

#24

If this is a thread about science, well, philosophy of science isn’t completely off-topic…

To (at least try to) keep things unpolitical, I’ll simply evoke a few of the most used ones : pre-retirement, help for repurposing in other jobs, progressive transition to automation to give more time to the others solutions, effective and adapted education system…
Of course, this list is incomplete, and those solutions aren’t always available - this is just to point out that solutions exist.

Yeah, me too. As I said, I do think Internet (as other evolutions) is worth it.
But I would think you are too optimistic about the ability to triage and criticize information for most of us. Personally, I have yet to find a general news website that is better than those on more traditional media, despite the very little opinion I have about those. In fact, the biggest ones are either simply online versions of paper ones, or just as bad.
Maybe it’s better for English-speaking news websites, but somehow I doubt it.

Similarly, I’ve found that crackpots and hate-brewers are doing fine on the Internet. Some can be very convincing, and we have a natural tendency to believe what is said to us (unless we think they have something to gain from it, or that they are repeating something from someone else - and crackpots do generally neither). Even more, we want to hear that the Problems are simpler, that it’s Their fault, that there is Purpose and Intent instead of random chances, incompetence and petty corruption.
Just look at all the rumours on the internet that won’t die, despite how ridiculous they are. They existed before, but the internet amplified the phenomenon.
And it can serve as resonannce chambre : people who have a vague, mild opinion about something find passionate, feverish people saying that they are Right, that Things must be Done about it, and that the Others want to Stop Us from being Right (or the opposite)… this can be very polarizing for one’s opinion.

I’ll give an example, from the news. I doubt it is the most widespread one, or even maybe the most problematic one, but it is interesting nonetheless. In my country, authorities have a problem with people going to Syria to fight with (specifically) the hardline Islamists, and come back indoctrinated and battle-hardened. Even worse, they may not even be 18. And many use the internet to learn about it and organize it.
And that’s despite the actuve efforts of one of the world’s most efficient counter-terrorism services.
Now, they aren’t that numerous (at most a few hundreds for dozens of millions), and some would still have gone in the '80s. But without the internet, they would be quite less numerous.

I’d argue that it’s not just that. While there are similarities with old lynchings, the internet gives them means they didn’t have - if you’re living in Anchorage, you wouldn’t take a plane to Boston just to lynch someone.
But it is also the “Internet is trying to help” mentality, similar to SETI, or protein folding, or more recently when they tried to find plane debris on satellite images - albeit twisted and with potentially dramatic consequences.

I didn’t know Athens worked that way. Interesting, I’ll have to conquer a few countries and try that out - Mad social science is the best mad science!

Then again, as I said, those progresses, while potentially disruptive, are globally a good thing. It’s just that we have to be sure to not underestimate the others problems they create, amplify or bring back in new flavours - or we won’t be able to adress them.

Pretty much. I would say that technology allows us (directly and indirectly) to access more information, and among it more wisdom from others, so it can help. Inversely, it gives us access to more “fake wisdom”, which has the opposite effect. And it gives us more means to act upon it in either way.

True. People tend to confuse both, though, so it always saddens me when very intelligent people do very unwise things. In fact, one of the stupidest things I’ve recently heard was said by one of the most brilliant minds I’ve heard about.

#25

Learn the difference between facts and feelings. Things like don’t kill things just to find out how old they are. Don’t force one person’s philosophy on others.

If you want to do philosophy start a philosophy thread.
Philosophy made easy: I’m right and your wrong.

Another example of I’m right and your wrong because I said so.
Not “do you think it’s ok if” “would it be ok if I” “does this fit here?”

#26

I agree with everything Thorn has said so far.

Athens’s democracy worked better because it was more representative. IE random selection for representatives and each representative only represented something like a thousand people or thereabouts. This eliminates the problem we have today of the wealthy controlling who we get to see as political candidates. Lawrence Lessig has a great TED talk about it: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim

It also helped the problem of exactly how representative of the general population is the politician because it was 1 rep per 1000 or whatever vs today where we have 1 rep per ~700,000 people (in America)

…What?

#27

That is what philosophy is. Making a statement with little to nothing to back up a statement. It’s for people who don’t like to lose arguments.

#28

On topic: ‘Biggest dinosaur ever’ discovered Shouldn’t that be "Biggest dinosaur discovered to date? http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27441156

#29

That’s ironic. Are you engaging in philosophy? You just made a statement with “little to nothing” to back it up. lol

1 Like
#30

As Kant said: “You can’t learn the philosophy, you can only learn how to philosophize”.
However this does not dispense anyone from reading others, as also Kant stated: “There’s no other thinking method than reading thinkers”.

Either you’re very ironic or oblivious to what philosohy truly is: learn to think by yourself and find what you believe in. In any case, you must acquire an open-mind and accept that other’s philosophy are nor right nor wrong. They are not opinions because the latter is based on a non-mesurable fact (behavior, politics, neighbourhood, …). Philosophy is based on concepts.

Therefore, no philosophy is “right or wrong”, the only philospphies that deal in extremes (Sith excepted :D) are Marxism and Freudism.

As to come back to the initial igniter: science does need philosophy, if not morality.
“Science without conscience is but soul wrecking”, Rabelais (roughly translated from “Science sans conscience n’est que ruine de l’âme”).

#31

The thing of it is, is that science is philosophy, or at least a branch thereof. Science needs philosophy like an automobile needs an engine. Yes, if you remove the engine there’s still something there, but it doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot, and it certainly doesn’t work the way it was intended.

#32

[quote=“Kichae, post:31, topic:412”]
Science needs philosophy like an automobile needs an engine.[/quote]

Yeah. Philosophy is virtually science without the empirical evidence. (and the other stuff like peer review, ect)

In the fourth century B. C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle identified the heart as the most important organ of the body, the first to form according to his observations of chick embryos. It was the seat of intelligence, motion, and sensation – a hot, dry organ. Aristotle described it as a three-chambered organ that was the center of vitality in the body. Other organs surrounding it (e.g. brain and lungs) simply existed to cool the heart. - Stanford University

If Aristotle ever cut open a human heart, he would have immediately changed some of his theories to be closer to the truth.

It’s one thing to create a theory but another to test it and prove that it is true. One can create an infinite number of theories. On the other hand there is currently only one universe with one truth.

#33

What Philosophy is is not for this thread.

All I herd him say is that what he said should not be mentioned on this thread.

The third “Reich” went extincted because it’s philosophy was wrong :stuck_out_tongue:

Now; are you intelligent enough to know the difference between science and philosophy?

That can’t be a whole quote as is is too asinine.

#34

Wait, what?

Ancient Athens could be divided into 3 main population groups: Slaves, immigrant labour/craftsmen, and citizens. Citizens, the smallest group of the 3, were represented 1:1 in the direct democracy structure they used, everyone else had no representation at all.

The closest current-day analogue to ancient Athenian democracy is the Kingdom of Dubai, although Dubai has a far smaller slave population, relatively speaking, and a more formal/permanent definition of who is in overall command.

#35

[quote=“Runiat, post:34, topic:412”]
Citizens, the smallest group of the 3, were represented 1:1 in the direct democracy structure they used[/quote]

I stand corrected. I was reciting from memory and what I was thinking about was the Boule which was a randomly selected group of 500 (citizen-men) that determined what the executive body, the Ekklesia (1:1 theoretically, although in practice not actually due to practicality) would review as far as law during assemblies.

[quote=“Runiat, post:34, topic:412”]
Slaves, immigrant labour/craftsmen, and citizens[/quote]
Yes indeed. And as far as I know, women citizens couldn’t partake in an assembly either.

But direct democracy is still better than a republic as long as it has the proper checks and balances. In fact, your correction makes it an even better form of representation of the target population than I thought. We should be taking Athen’s example of representation of a target population, and applying it to the present day. IE 1:1 representation as you said.

#36

Well, have you ever heard of a place called California? They’ve got a direct democracy, same basic system, except with advertisements.

#37

Every voter votes on every bill?

I’m thinking you mean referendum.
Not the same at all.

#38

Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists
I had herd Wikipedia is a good source. Not so much on the medical front I guess.

#39

Why has a thread about science derailed into democracy?

#40

[quote=“Runiat, post:34, topic:412”]
Wait, what?

Ancient Athens [didn’t work that way][/quote]
I am so disappointed now, I won’t even invade any nation to try that out.

Because SCIENCE!

Sorry, couldn’t resist.