Science is part of understanding, not simply ‘knowing stuff’ for the sake of it. To isolate ‘science’ from its real world application - relegated to blindly producing ‘options for what we can do’ - is a fairly recent development: one, maybe two centuries old. Personally, I believe that science is as responsible for the choice of narrative as it is for the knowledge. But the distinction between theoretical and experimental sciences, the call to Shut Up and Calculate, or the business structures of Big Pharma, are just some ways that ‘scientists’ distance themselves from such responsibilities. — Possibility

I'll ride along with that, and go back to the discussion I had with @frank:

Tell me, how is it that you know about the reefs? — Banno

I'll maintain that science has until now been overwhelmingly for the betterment of humanity; while at the same time agreeing that it has brought with it immense difficulty. Further, science is vital to our continued flourishing. We know of global warming only because of the efforts of scientists, especially over the last fifty years; those same scientists who are being ignored by policy makers.

Your question of whether I blame science for nuclear weapons and climate change is interesting. I don't think I do. It probably comes down to blaming humanity, whether it is for developments in religion or science.

I think sure that I go back into loops at times, after I appear to have already moved on in thinking. If I look at what I have written and edit it, I sometimes notice certain tangents. This happens more if I am writing under time pressure and in several threads in one day. But, I do think I was have some inconsistencies in my thinking and part of the reason why I engage in philosophy is to try to smooth these out, and I see it as an ongoing process.

I come from a religious background, which I have questioned, but I am not an actual atheist. I keep an open mind. You speak of the whole question of turning to religion or science and that is interesting because I do have friends who are religious and tell me to pray. I remember last year when the pandemic began that one of my friends said that we are at the end times, as described by the Bible. I think that there are a lot of people who do believe that we are. While I am not religious, I grew up thinking we were and, at times, I do notice such ideas coming into my head. But, generally my outlook does incorporate science, but I try to be take a wide multidisciplinary approach.

One thought which I have just thought is whether Banno, or other writers on this site are taking science to be mainly the physical sciences, or to include the social sciences too? I am not sure that it matters entirely, although if the social sciences are included that means more of a critical analysis perspective.

science has an inbuilt course-correction mechanism i.e. it detects its own flaws and autocorrects its own mistakes. — TheMadFool

I am glad this was noted.

One thought which I have just thought is whether Banno, or other writers on this site are taking science to be mainly the physical sciences, or to include the social sciences too? I am not sure that it matters entirely, although if the social sciences are included that means more of a critical analysis perspective. — Jack Cummins

FIrst, can I distance myself from @counterpunch, please? Keep us seperate.

Social science does well when it adopts what MadFool called the "inbuilt course-correction mechanism" of science, but has an unfortunate additional problem of recursion: the social theory becomes a part of the very thing it seeks to study. Perhaps the clearest examples are in economics, were for example the Kensian description of the economy was adopted by policy makers, making it near impossible to seperate the experiment from the theory being tested; numerous other examples might be found - critical theory being another such.

Improvements in our understanding of the maths of complexity and chaos hint at ways to work within such self-reflexive frameworks.

Your question of whether I blame science for nuclear weapons and climate change is interesting. I don't think I do. It probably comes down to blaming humanity, whether it is for developments in religion or science. — Jack Cummins

Did I misunderstand?

You speak of the need to orchestrate science definitely there is a need for it to come up with some solutions to problems it creates, like pollution and damage to ecology. Really, I think that any approach which sees science as completely positive is extremely one sided. Do we assume that nuclear weapons are completely beneficial? — Jack Cummins

This is where I came in - to explain that science is not to blame, because nuclear weapons and climate change are the consequence of science as a tool - divorced from science as an understanding of reality, stripped of the moral authority it rightfully owns, and misused.

I've been thinking about this particular subject for many many years, and I accept that your immediate thoughts on it are almost certain to be less well formed. You fear philosophical dangers, but they're based in 400 years of philosophy that's constructed those dangers. I assure you Jack, these are illusory. You fear nihilism - but Nietzsche was wrong. Primitive man was not an amoral brute - fooled by the weak. If he were, his tribe could not have survived. Further, nihilism upholds no value that requires you accept nihilism. Morality is fundamentally a sense, ingrained into the human organism by evolution in a tribal context. Religion, politics, economics, law, philosophy etc; are expressions of that innate moral sense. They stand, albeit on a more rational (and democratic) basis.

Sure. Makes sense.

Yeah, well......as long as it’s only “ought to be”......

Science doesn’t correct itself. Scientists correct themselves and science follows.

Religion is also good.

Religion is no problem if it refrains from ignorantly and arrogantly claiming to itself the right to contradict the facts as revealed by science, the doing of which takes it beyond its proper ambit.

Of course, the same goes for science.

Religion is no problem if it refrains from ignorantly and arrogantly claiming to itself the right to contradict the facts as revealed by science, the doing of which takes it beyond its proper ambit. — Janus

It's free anesthesia whose ingredients may include leeway around the issue of facts. That leeway is protected though. There's nothing you can do about it.

It's free anesthesia whose ingredients may include leeway around the issue of facts. That leeway is protected though. There's nothing you can do about it. — frank

How do you imagine that works? I would have thought that, when it comes to the existence of God, free will and immortality, there are no facts, since facts are obtainable only in the empirical domain. If there are no metaphysical facts and where there are no empirical facts, then there would be no need for "leeway" around "the issue of (nonexistent) facts", I would have thought.

Well, there you have it.

Religion is also good. — frank

But faith, not so much.

Faith here, following Augustin, as belief despite the facts.

Indeed, that is the antithesis of science, since it debars self-correction of one's erroneous beliefs.

Faith here, following Augustin, as belief despite the facts. — Banno

This is a very common misunderstanding of the situation: in the religious context it is more properly a case of faith in the absence of, rather than despite, the facts, since there are none.

:cool:

Hm... Did you check that with Abraham?

The pregnant lady whose husband is in the ICU due to gun shot wound glances at the G-man at the desk waiting for his discharge. She doesn't care about the self-correction angle

I work In a hospital, man. I got an endless supply of these. Opium of the masses.

Religion also provides social cohesion. It's been doing that for a looooong time.

Hm... Did you check that with Abraham? — Banno

You mean Bosom Of Abraham by Elvis Presley?

Well you rock my soul
Down in the bosom of Abraham
Rock, rock, rock down in the bosom of Abraham
You rock my soul down in the bosom of Abraham

Hmmm hmm oh yeah
Oh Lordy, Lordy

Ooooh rock my soul
Why don't you rock my soul?
Won't you rock my soul?
Down in the bosom of Abraham
Rock, rock, rock down in the bosom of Abraham
You rock my soul

Well the rich man lives
Where there's glory and honor
He lives so well
Won't you praise the Lord?
Children, when he dies
Where there's glory and honor
I'm home in heaven
Won't you praise the Lord?
Why don't your rock my soul?
Down in the bosom of Abraham
Rock, rock, rock down in the bosom of Abraham
You rock my soul
Down in the bosom of Abraham

Hmm hmm, oh yeah
Once again boys

Ooooh rock my soul
Why don't you rock my soul?

I am glad this was noted. — Banno

:ok:

I began using the term philosophical danger during discussion with you on one of your threads and I think that you saw it like a movie, often with a girl going somewhere she should not go. You also spoke of cats' 9 lives and wondering if you had used yours. I wonder how many lives we have on the forum and whether there are threads where we should not go. I also see dangers as being related to untying philosophical knots, and like being in a Celtic maze or labyrinth. — Jack Cummins

The Red Zones Of Philosophy (Philosophical Dangers)

I admit to confusion — Jack Cummins

I don't know if this makes any kind of sense or even whether this has any significant philosophical meaning but much of the 5 or so years I've been participating in this forum and the old one can be summarized in one word, confusion. A couple of weeks ago I experienced an epiphany of sorts - I (finally) became aware of my confusion and it was oddly, satisfying. All this time I had been living under the dark cloud of befuddlement at its extreme and realizing that I was befuddled, bewildered, confused, and also baffled was a liberating experience for me.

I know that I know nothing — Socrates

Religion is also good.
— frank

But faith, not so much.

Faith here, following Augustin, as belief despite the facts.

Indeed, that is the antithesis of science, since it debars self-correction of one's erroneous beliefs. — Banno

This is a very common misunderstanding of the situation: in the religious context it is more properly a case of faith in the absence of, rather than despite, the facts, since there are none. — Janus

Faith is action in the absence of certainty, and is a key aspect of the scientific method. Without it, no experiments would ever be conducted. There is a common misunderstanding that faith is the absence of doubt, but this is not the case. Faith always carries with it the possibility of doubt, too often ignored, isolated or excluded in pursuing an illusion of certainty. Science does this too, but where the scientific method ensures ongoing critique and correction of erroneous beliefs in light of this ever-present doubt, institutionalisation in both religious and scientific structures serve to protect and preserve tradition by concealing doubt and uncertainty. I think language is a key problem area here.

science has an inbuilt course-correction mechanism i.e. it detects its own flaws and autocorrects them — TheMadFool

On time?

It seems to me the whole point of the physical sciences is to increase the human population — FrancisRay


No. It is more of a by product in some limited areas pertinent to human health. — Tom Storm

I'd say you massively underestimate the population effect - but it's a complex issue.

Abraham's sacrifice of his son is the paradigm of faith in God. It is also the paradigm of everything that is wrong with such faith, the willingness to sacrifice everything.

d say you massively underestimate the population effect - but it's a complex issue. — FrancisRay

Although, there are signs that the global population growth rate is going down. here

That would solve a lot of problems. And it's largely due to science and engineering.

Faith is action in the absence of certainty, and is a key aspect of the scientific method. — Possibility

True.

Abraham's sacrifice of his son is the paradigm of faith in God. It is also the paradigm of everything that is wrong with such faith, the willingness to sacrifice everything. — Fooloso4

The story of Abraham sacrificing his son was an illustration of faith in an early (mis)understanding of God. It’s not about sacrifice (that’s just the cultural context) and it’s not about God - it’s about having the courage not only to act in the absence of certainty, but to continually critique and correct erroneous beliefs in the light of an ever-present doubt.

I've always figured the story of Abraham was meant to warn against human sacrifice.

The Phoenicians were known for engaging in it (although some historians doubt that it happened as much as the Phoenicians allowed people to believe.)

The Hebrews were horrified by the idea of child sacrifice. Maybe the part about the test of faith was added later to a story which originally emphasized the angel's arrest of Abraham's hand and the presentation of the sheep that Abraham sacrificed instead.

There is in the story no indication of a misunderstanding:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” (Genesis 22:2)

Abram hid what he was about to do from Isaac and his servants.

...it’s not about God — Possibility

It is not about God, it is about faith in God, and it is god who told him to do this.

it’s about having the courage not only to act in the absence of certainty — Possibility

Some see this as exemplary, but others look at this example and recoil. It is not simply a matter of the absence of certainty. It is contrary to what we hold most dear. It is shocking and disturbing that he would have obeyed. Are you not certain that it would have been wrong to do this?