Good OP and interesting question. I guess the answer is not about where to begin but where to go back. Since the Italian renaissance, with Spinoza as thinker, we have separated the development of human knowledge. They decided would be more effective if we divide the topics in two paths: science and humanity. Since then, we do only practical issues but not philosophical. We reached the ability of creating computers and complexity but not asking questions about how is the behaviour or the nature. Most of the people do not want go further. They are full-filled with money.
Galileo did a good step because he changed the way of thinking thanks to his ability to questioning everything and going deeply where the humans used to be. So, he wasn't only a scientist but a good original philosopher.
When some says "what the hell is wrong with you?" Is due to you want to break the rules. Probably this was been told to Stephen Hawkins when he said: There is no god.

So I guess we have to develop a better educational criteria

They decided would be more effective if we divide the topics in two paths: science and humanity. — javi2541997

In court, the defendant tells lies that are believed. Can there be justice? No. So, effective in what regard? Effective to justify political power on an ongoing basis - and all the many wonders that flow from it. I'm not complaining. Where I live it's lovely. I'm observing that to retain political power, it was necessary that science as an understanding of reality be ignored and/or maligned, even while science was used to drive the industrial revolution. As a consequence, we've applied technology - which is to say developed resources, very badly - and are blundering toward an abyss. I have absolutely no interest in wresting political power from anyone; but I do have a legitimate interest in the survival of the human species.

A broad based scientific understanding of reality implies that we need massively more energy - not less, to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability, and can do so very much in our favour if we act now. I want to drill for magma energy on an industrial scale. If only used to extract carbon, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle - at least initially, we'd have more time and more choice going forward.

I've stated all this repeatedly here, and barely raised an eyebrow. Hence the question. I didn't intend to reply to this thread. I want other people to tell me what I must be missing, because as I said, I know I'm right. Yet tumbleweeds all round the order of the day! What gives?

I'm wielding Galileo's telescope like a club - and I'm asking:

'What the hell is wrong with you?' — counterpunch

It's tough to be enlightened, innit?

And Galileo, the Recanter, as a role model? Sheesh.

right around the time that humankind has reached epistemic and technological maturity.

We're in the same epistemic situation Plato's prisoners were in the Allegory of the Cave.

via iphone!

for 400 years — counterpunch

That's a lot of years. So many great thinkers flushed down the toilet by religious nutjobs. An ugly truth whose effects we still endure even as the 21st century approaches its golden jubilee. Ignorance, in my humble opinion, casts a long, very long, shadow.

Initially, no doubt, it was deliberate ignorance maintained by threat and use of force. But how could that have been maintained for 400 years, worldwide? It couldn't - so there's factor missing, and that factor is missing here also on this forum, among the philosophers of the free world, to whom I have appealed. Why does the argument fail to influence people? Is it wrong? Is it me? Or, is it you?

Pardon the brevity of my earlier response; my concentration is elsewhere. I have some time now, to explain - that by 'via iphone' I mean to suggest that we are not in the position of those chained to the wall of a cave in Plato's allegory, knowing reality only as shadow play cast by the light of the fire. It's true because it works! And it astonishes me that people don't see that there's a relationship between the functionality of the technological miracles science surrounds us with, and the validity of the scientific principles upon which the technology is based.

I have absolutely no interest in wresting political power from anyone; but I do have a legitimate interest in the survival of the human species. — counterpunch

What kind of legitimate interest do you have in the survival of the human species? Twenty-five species disappear from this planet every day, so certainly we are on the docket (sooner of later).

Rule one, everything comes and goes...

What kind of legitimate interest do you have in the survival of the human species? — synthesis

It's a matter of who I am, and it's the difference between masturbation and sex for procreation - as to whether I belong to a species with a future, or if all this is just self pleasure - without issue!

Twenty-five species disappear from this planet every day, so certainly we are on the docket (sooner of later). — synthesis

Not necessarily. We have intelligence, and intelligence deserves to play out to the fullest - to carry us as far as it can, and maybe - who knows, to star after star. That so, one could say the opportunity cost of failing to secure a sustainable future is potentially infinite.

We have intelligence, and intelligence deserves to play out to the fullest - to carry us as far as it can, and maybe - who knows, to star after star. That so, one could say the opportunity cost of failing to secure a sustainable future is potentially infinite. — counterpunch

cp, I certainly don't want to rain on your parade, but yours' is one of the most interesting personal positions I've encountered vis a vis existence. Consider the following...

As part of the Earth's matter (literally), and then being a part of the solar system's matter, so on and so forth, we are part of the whole, and because of this (potential) truth, we are part and parcel, ONE. That is, we have been EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE!

Isn't that enough?

Technological innovations are more shadows on the wall.

The advent of computers marks the threshold of epistemic and technological maturity - the bahmitzvah of binary, if not yet the quinceanera of qbits, a coming of age that isn't reflected philosophically, sociologically or politically. — counterpunch

In what way is it not reflected philosophically?You mean you can’t name a single philosopher whose ideas have the ‘maturity’ of the fields you mention?

Galileo had a stultifying effect on the subsequent development of philosophy — counterpunch

What specifically do you object to in post-Galilean developments in philosophy? How do you envision the lineage of Descartes-Spinoza-Leibnitz-Hume-Kant-Hegel-Marx-Nietzsche, etc might have differed without this ‘stultifying effect’?

cp, I certainly don't want to rain on your parade, but yours' is one of the most interesting personal positions I've encountered vis a vis existence. — synthesis

Make it yours and then you would be interesting too. At its core I don't think my position is all that complicated. In the fewest and simplest words possible I think science is our best bet at a future. I don't think that rash or irrational - rather I think it rash that's not where we stake our trust.

As an objective body of knowledge science is a level playing field upon which we might co-operate initially in one specific regard - and that is to harness magma energy on a truly massive scale to the challenge of our existence, and do so because in terms of what is most usefully and objectively true - which is to accept, not absolutely - if you will at least admit, reliably true hereabouts, it is the right thing to do!

We could do wonderful things - build on a massive scale and protect nature at the same time as meeting our energy needs carbon free, developing the value of land and resources, while preserving unique habitats, producing resources that ultimately are a function of the energy available to create them. We need to claim the energy of the earth and intelligently direct that energy to promote the life upon, and of the beauty of its surface. Thereafter we might look to build in near orbit, moon and neighbouring planets, catching asteroids and mining them and aligning materials across the solar system for later use. I dream of catching asteroids, it's true. But it begins with the single, most scientifically fundamental thing necessary to a sustainable future - that is, plug into the planet.

I think science is our best bet at a future. — counterpunch

I didnt realize comparing the value of different cultural modalities came down to a processof elimination.

Make it yours and then you would be interesting too. — counterpunch

You are a true true-believer, no doubt about that!

We've had a couple of discussions about science and I like I've conveyed previously, I see it for what it is, but it's just part of the overall deal (albeit an important part).

I take each moment as it comes and try to do the best I can. What else can one do?

What the hell are you asking?

I dream of catching asteroids, it's true. — counterpunch

Mining asteroids (which is why you want to catch them?--See John Donne below), to bring ores to earth for refinement in furnaces fueled by magmatic blasts from the deep, the better to expand into the solar system. I think there's been one or two science fiction stories along these lines. Just because Sci-Fi has gone where your dreams also dared to go is nothing against your dreams, of course.

t is beyond belief; even though all this happened - that the Church exercised a prohibition against taking science seriously, all round the world for 400 years. — counterpunch

Your "better living through magma" scheme has a lot going for it. Your belief that the Church exercised a prohibition against taking science seriously for the last 400 years has much less to recommend it. I would not argue that the church was a leading advocate of science. Rather, whatever the church thought of science became increasingly irrelevant. The forces of Science and Technology were inconvenienced by the views of the church, no doubt, but they were certainly not vanquished for 400 years. Science, mathematics, technology, and engineering advanced in every corner of Christendom.

Certainly there were holdouts. One thinks of religious objections to Darwin's evolutionary system, from fundamentalist Christians, for example. [Fundamentalism is an approach that is not native to nay particular faith tradition.] The fundamentalists were first offended by 19th century analysis of the Bible which called its divine origin into question--a result the fundamentalists found intolerable, being literalists and believers in biblical inerrancy, as they were. A multi-millions (or billions) year period fo creation was intolerable too, even if we didn't descend from apes.

As strong a group as fundamentalists are, they were unable to brake the on-rush of science. For one thing, science and technology are just fine with fundamentalists, as long as it brings personal benefits (like antibiotics or cancer treatments) or better crop yields, or industrial processes that make money. Religious people, even ardent fundamentalists, learn to co-exist with science because they can't argue with the many ways that "science works". Airplanes, television, cell phones, computers, atom bombs, etc. Fundamentalists, like most believers, wall off the exercise of their faith from mundane realities.

I agree that the pope blocking Galileo was a damned shame, but can you site actions the pope (or others acting on his behalf) took that crippled science in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries?

Science, mathematics, technology, and engineering advanced in every corner of Christendom. — Bitter Crank

I accept that. I'm less certain of this:

As strong a group as fundamentalists are, they were unable to brake the on-rush of science. — Bitter Crank

...for the truth value of science as an understanding of reality does exist in an identifiable, intergenerational blind spot even unto today. Science has been used, no doubt about that, but science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of the reality we inhabit has not been acknowledged, less yet valued. That requires explanation, or at least re-examination as we approach upon a climactic and environmental catastrophe of our own making.

Scientifically and technologically there's a very reasonable series of measures we could take, that are beyond the wildest dreams of the ideologically arranged regimes that have met two dozen and two times to discuss the climate and ecological crisis. If science were true we could solve it. Attacking the problem from the supply side, to provide more energy not less - to extract carbon, desalinate, irrigate recycle etc, would create wealth - and avoid all the implications of the current green approach, to pay more and have less, or go without. We could make the deserts bloom.

Initially, no doubt, it was deliberate ignorance maintained by threat and use of force. But how could that have been maintained for 400 years, worldwide? It couldn't - so there's factor missing, and that factor is missing here also on this forum, among the philosophers of the free world, to whom I have appealed. Why does the argument fail to influence people? Is it wrong? Is it me? Or, is it you? — counterpunch

Do you mean to imply that the people, the intelligentsia specifically, were in cahoots with the religious establishment and coordinated the 400 year period of scientific ignorance?

I suppose there's a grain of truth in that. Correct me if I'm wrong but scientists back then were actually supported - financially and morale-wise - by the church and the reason for doing that was to prove scriptural claims. As it turns out the church's plan backfired - observation, mostly astronomical, instead of lining up, as hoped, with the claims in the Bible actually contradicted religious doctrine. The rest is, as some would say, history.

Make it yours and then you would be interesting too.
— counterpunch

You are a true true-believer, no doubt about that! — synthesis

I'm agnostic, and sceptical. I really don't know if God exists or not, but recognise the significance of the fact that all civilisations have been built around the concept of God, under his eye one way or another. Consequently, I deftly sidestepped the majority of your previous post. I'm on a philosophy forum and here epistemic implications are necessary to demonstrate the rightness of my proposals, but I have no particular interest in commenting on your traditions. I accept there are people who do not believe what I believe and you're one of them. Those I'm trying to convince are in fact very few, and I'm trying to convince them of one specific thing, refined from the understanding of reality I discuss; that a prosperous sustainable future is possible.

If science were true we could solve it. — counterpunch

6:20 in Albion; soon you will awake. Good Morning. I totally disagree.

Look: Science is true. Science isn't the problem. It's self-interest -- yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It's the Golden Rule: Them with the gold make the rules. One of which is pursue self-interest over the short run and fuck everybody else. The golden rulers are remarkably unimaginative.

Take automobiles: Well, let's just replace internal combustion powered cars with electric cars. Problem solved. There are about 1.4 billion internal combustion powered cars. Has it not occurred to them that building another 1.4 billion cars (even if electric) might possibly have hugely adverse environmental consequences? Power so cheap it won't be metered hasn't arrived yet. Somehow an additional immense amount of electricity must be produced without adding CO2 to the atmosphere (never mind the pollution caused by the extractive needs of producing 1.4 billion cars with batteries, rubber, plastics, roads to run on, and so on.

I really have nothing against your Magma Carta. Good idea. The reason no one is busy drilling big 10-20 mile deep holes is that the means to make vast amounts of money from this idea have not materialized.

The people who run things are focused on a) continuing to be the people who run things; b) continuing to accumulate wealth because c) money and what it buys is an essential requirement of power d) making sure that would-be change-agents like you and me remain feckless non-entities until death removes us as an item of concern.

So, let's take our place on the Great Mandela as it moves through our brief moment of time.

Do you mean to imply that the people, the intelligentsia specifically, were in cahoots with the religious establishment and coordinated the 400 year period of scientific ignorance? — TheMadFool

Mary Shelley is an interesting example to take into consideration of your question; and the endless parade of similarly mad scientists, spawned from the example of Frankenstein. All the while science surrounds us with technological miracles, culture regards science as something between dangerous and unholy. It's difficult to make a action movie without a villain, but there's a consistent anti-science, pro God loving flag waving hero theme running through a lot of our cultural output. Understandably, but cumulatively so, that even now - the functional truth value of science as an understanding of reality isn't recognised or claimed to the benefit of humankind, even in face of the climate and ecological crisis. Is Frankenstein an archetype thrown up by the interplay of social forces, merely defined by Shelly in the mode of thought of the day - the ghost behind the curtain of our incomprehension of science, but in any case, a dramatically disproportionate characterisation of cost/benefits science has demonstrated in real life.

Look: Science is true. Science isn't the problem. It's self-interest -- yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It's the Golden Rule: Them with the gold make the rules. One of which is pursue self-interest over the short run and fuck everybody else. The golden rulers are remarkably unimaginative. — Bitter Crank

Blaming the climate and ecological crisis on the rational self interest inherent to capitalism is in my view a very shallow analysis. It's oppositional politics appealing to jealousy of the rich that underlies the current green approach, and it's wrong. Malthus was wrong.

In the 1770's Malthus predicted that people would multiply, outstrip food supply and starve to death. Instead we invented tractors, and developed land far faster than population grew, and now there are 8 billion people better fed than ever.

Similarly, if we shift perspectives on science, and on that basis apply magma energy technology, we can support continued rational self interest - and secure a sustainable future. Whereas, tackling the climate and ecological crisis without re-evaluating our relationship to science, implies authoritarian government, imposing "have less, pay more, tax this, stop that" type policies on people, and it won't work.

Take automobiles: Well, let's just replace internal combustion powered cars with electric cars. Problem solved. There are about 1.4 billion internal combustion powered cars. Has it not occurred to them that building another 1.4 billion cars (even if electric) might possibly have hugely adverse environmental consequences? Power so cheap it won't be metered hasn't arrived yet. Somehow an additional immense amount of electricity must be produced without adding CO2 to the atmosphere (never mind the pollution caused by the extractive needs of producing 1.4 billion cars with batteries, rubber, plastics, roads to run on, and so on. — Bitter Crank

If we harnessed magma energy and attacked the problem from the supply side, we could carry on using cars, continue buying petroleum from countries to whom it is a major export commodity and revenue stream - and extract carbon and bury it by the megaton instead. So my approach allows that we can decouple infrastructure costs from loss of revenues in the short to mid-term. The cost of applying magma energy and carbon extraction technology is far less than the double whammy of scrapping the internal combustion engine, and building windmills and charging points by the million, to say nothing of the destabilising effect on geo-politics.

I really have nothing against your Magma Carta. Good idea. The reason no one is busy drilling big 10-20 mile deep holes is that the means to make vast amounts of money from this idea have not materialized. — Bitter Crank

Magma Carta! Clever. But I'm not talking 10-20 miles deep. I'm talking about drilling close to magma pockets beneath volcanoes, in the 1-5 km range to reach solid rock heated to 700'C. There are almost 500 volcanoes in the Pacific Rim.

The people who run things are focused on a) continuing to be the people who run things; b) continuing to accumulate wealth because c) money and what it buys is an essential requirement of power d) making sure that would-be change-agents like you and me remain feckless non-entities until death removes us as an item of concern. — Bitter Crank

My approach is designed to avoid those very obstacles by appealing to the interests of those few people - whoever they are. Magma energy need not be applied in direct competition with fossil fuels right way; and so decouples infrastructure costs while protecting revenues, giving us more time to divest, and diversify - promoting prosperity.

I'm agnostic, and sceptical. I really don't know if God exists or not, but recognize the significance of the fact that all civilizations have been built around the concept of God, under his eye one way or another. Consequently, I deftly sidestepped the majority of your previous post. I'm on a philosophy forum and here epistemic implications are necessary to demonstrate the rightness of my proposals, but I have no particular interest in commenting on your traditions. I accept there are people who do not believe what I believe and you're one of them. Those I'm trying to convince are in fact very few, and I'm trying to convince them of one specific thing, refined from the understanding of reality I discuss; that a prosperous sustainable future is possible. — counterpunch

I did not mean to imply that you were religious, just that you believe in "something," which is becoming rarer these days. It's the reason I enjoy chatting with you. Most people don't believe in anything (especially themselves). And I do understand your positive outlook on the future and think that's wonderful. Truly positive people are another rare commodity these days.

I don't put my point of view out there in order to get people to "understand" me, as I know there is little chance at that taking place, instead, I do it simply to give people exposure to different way of approaching life, my intention being to challenge people to keep an open mind, that all kinds of possibilities exist when you are unburdened by previous experience.

I suppose there is always the chance that you are right about what you comment on but I believe we are intellectually so primitive that our take on what's going on is kind of a joke (constantly "proven" as new discoveries are unpackaged (albeit delivered with their own expiration dates).

Keep up the good fight and keep an open mind and you will find the few...

Scientifically and technologically there's a very reasonable series of measures we could take, that are beyond the wildest dreams of the ideologically arranged regimes that have met two dozen and two times to discuss the climate and ecological crisis. If science were true we could solve it. Attacking the problem from the supply side, to provide more energy not less - to extract carbon, desalinate, irrigate recycle etc, would create wealth - and avoid all the implications of the current green approach, to pay more and have less, or go without. We could make the deserts bloom. — counterpunch

Energy is not the problem. Humanity is the problem. No matter what issues science solves going forward, man's core issues remain.

Until man learns how to deal with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues, little changes (except, perhaps, life expectancy).

In my wildest dreams I never imagined that I would agree with Bartricks on anything, but I think he's got a valid point here:

What the hell are you asking? — Bartricks

I would amend his question to also ask "To whom the hell are you asking this question?"

I did not mean to imply that you were religious, just that you believe in "something," which is becoming rarer these days. It's the reason I enjoy chatting with you. Most people don't believe in anything (especially themselves). And I do understand your positive outlook on the future and think that's wonderful. Truly positive people are another rare commodity these days. — synthesis

That's really good to hear, thank you.

I don't put my point of view out there in order to get people to "understand" me, as I know there is little chance at that taking place, instead, I do it simply to give people exposure to different way of approaching life, my intention being to challenge people to keep an open mind, that all kinds of possibilities exist when you are unburdened by previous experience. — synthesis

Open mindedness is a valuable quality to bring to the search for truth, and that's what I try to do. That said, I have come to decisions on debateable questions - looking to the implications to find a way through to a sustainable future that doesn't upset the pre-existing apple cart. Re-evaluating our relationship to science as a basis to harness magma energy is the greatest benefit with the least disruption to the status quo. I need to prove that philosophically, but I'm not suggesting; to paraphrase Popper 'we make our representations conform' to science as truth, and so become atheistic, amoral truth robots. I understand your alarm at such an implication, but the shadow is much larger than the object casting it.

Energy is not the problem. Humanity is the problem. No matter what issues science solves going forward, man's core issues remain. Until man learns how to deal with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues, little changes (except, perhaps, life expectancy). — synthesis

I could not disagree more. We are essentially good. Starting naked in the forest with nothing but sticks and stones, we have survived and built all this. We're doing well, but need now to take measures to continue our meteoric rise from ignorance and squalor into knowledge and prosperity. It's not a moral question for me; it's an epistemic problem - and that is subject to remedy sufficient to politically justify the measures necessary to a prosperous sustainable future.

↪counterpunch In my wildest dreams I never imagined that I would agree with Bartricks on anything, but I think he's got a valid point here:

What the hell are you asking?
— Bartricks

I would amend his question to also ask "To whom the hell are you asking this question?" — EricH

I think it's obvious mine is an attention grabbing title - that reflects to some degree, how I feel about my reception here, and apparent lack of wider impact. It's tongue in cheek - like my assertion that "I'm right." It's a means of introducing the topic. A hook, to use the colloquialism - with some basis in truth. I address very serious issues; navigating some difficult philosophical territory, to arrive ultimately at very reasonable and promising conclusions - and do feel that's worthy of more attention than its gotten, and I'm saying all this ironically, to whomever the cap fits.

We are essentially good. Starting naked in the forest with nothing but sticks and stones, we have survived and built all this. We're doing well, but need now to take measures to continue our meteoric rise from ignorance and squalor into knowledge and prosperity. It's not a moral question for me; it's an epistemic problem - and that is subject to remedy sufficient to politically justify the measures necessary to a prosperous sustainable future. — counterpunch

I am a philosophical anarchist (when I must think :)) because I believe that if you get any more than a few people together, all hell breaks loose. The best hope for man remains his individual spiritual development.

And I am not sure I would agree with your assessment that man is inherently good. Again, I believe the best hope in this regard is to minimize group activity. The history of the world is replete with horror after horror in the name of every damn thing. Individuals can only do so much harm whereas groups are capable of unspeakable crimes committed on a regular basis.

I am a philosophical anarchist (when I must think :)) because I believe that if you get any more than a few people together, all hell breaks loose. The best hope for man remains his individual spiritual development.

And I am not sure I would agree with your assessment that man is inherently good. Again, I believe the best hope in this regard is to minimize group activity. The history of the world is replete with horror after horror in the name of every damn thing. Individuals can only do so much harm whereas groups are capable of unspeakable crimes committed on a regular basis. — synthesis

There's a lot of truth to this. I've never been a fan of individualism but I also dislike group think and collectivist policing. But how the hell do you re-engineer the entire world of billions around individual lines? Do you have some non-theoretical, practical solutions?