The problem isn't that the lanes aren't clearly marked. The problem is that people won't stay in their lanes. — Hanover

A significant part of the population and their influential leaders do not mark the lanes in the same way you do. Who has the right of way at the intersection of science, religion, and politics?

Antennas are fascinating. I’ve worked on transmitters from .25w UHF to 2Mw VLF, where inserting a fluorescent stick bulb in the radiation field lights it up. Makes the Boy Scout tour group all giddy in amazement.

Difference, indeed.

I hope you would allow that people of good will could see the politicized science of the past year very differently. — fishfry

I don't doubt your good will at all.

From what I've seen in your posts, you and I have a very different understanding of how science and science-based policy making are supposed to work.

I think the reason we have the knowledge and technology to solve the climate and ecological crisis - but don't apply it, is the ubiquity and exclusive authority of ideological bases of analysis - and what I'm trying to do is get people to look beyond the battlements of ideology to a scientific understanding of reality, because in those terms, it's a relatively simple problem to solve. — counterpunch

I think this highlights the main problem here - and bear with me, because this is an initial observation and will not be well articulated. A ‘scientific understanding of reality’ is not beyond the battlements of ideology at all - it is simply ignorant of it. What you describe sounds like a relatively simple solution because it fails to recognise the ideological bases of analysis that convert what we know, think and feel into what we do. Humanity does not act from reasoning, but from a system-wide distribution of energy parsed as attention and effort, that is largely determined by affect and ideology - despite how rational we think we are. Any understanding of reality will need to understand and align with this system in order to change how humanity acts on a large scale.

Except a ‘scientific understanding of reality’ has deliberately excluded the affected or ideological observer. So it cannot understand this aspect of reality, much less align with it.

. I’ve worked on transmitters from .25w UHF to 2Mw VLF, where inserting a fluorescent stick bulb in the radiation field lights it up. Makes the Boy Scout tour group all giddy in amazement. — Mww

Wow. Are you a ham radio operator?

I don't see science and technology as the same thing.
Technology has obvious benefits,but not all technology.
Weapons and excessive automation of services is not the best of inventions.
Science as an ideology is a dud. The amount of appeals to science these days is ludicrous. Science has become the new dictator,the new religion. Science has almost zero to say on the human condition and little to say on values and morality,except evolutionary psychology and social sciences,both of which are terrible.
Give me art,common sense and religion instead of dogmatic materialism.

What you describe sounds like a relatively simple solution because it fails to recognise the ideological bases of analysis that convert what we know, think and feel into what we do. — Possibility

Ideally, the Church would have embraced Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and so imbued science with divine authority, such that science would have been developed and integrated into theology, philosophy, politics, economics and culture over the past 400 years. That's not what happened.

Instead, science was decried as heresy, developed only slowly, and so was deprived of implication beyond that which was useful to ideology. Government and industry applied technology for power and profit, without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. i.e. Trump digs coal. Natural enough for a vote grubbing politician I suppose, but philosophically incorrect - as demonstrated by the climate and ecological crisis threatening extinction.

Clearly, science is the injured party. Clearly, science has the answers. The fact the ideologue cannot see the answers from where they are is not the fault of science. It's a failure on the part of ideologues to evolve in relation to the progress of knowledge - from 'less and worse' knowledge, toward 'more and better' over time. Religious faith is written in stone, and that stone is dumped into the river of knowledge to dam the flow.

Now, this is where it gets complicated, because we cannot rewrite the past 400 years of history. We cannot tear it all down and start again. If we want a sustainable future, we have to get there from here. The ideal is off the table. But that doesn't mean we cannot learn from what should have happened, but didn't. We can "look beyond the ideological battlements" - to the ideal, and on that basis do that which is scientifically necessary to a sustainable future.

We can do this precisely because the implications of science can legitimately be limited to that which is necessary to survival, staring with magma energy - which is the only source of energy large, constant and concentrated enough to meet our needs. If we don't harness magma energy, we cannot survive; and so it is the existential necessity to which we can agree, not science as an ideology per se.

Limitless clean energy from magma will allow us to account for the externalities of capitalism, without internalising those externalities to the economy. This means we don't need to pay more and have less, stop this and tax that to gain environmental benefits. We can encompass the externalities of capitalism within a magma energy bubble - internalising them, without contradicting our ideological motives - by using that energy for carbon capture and sequestration, desalination and irrigation, total recycling, hydrogen fuel production and so forth.

I've been thinking about this for years, and it is very complex. You are at the right observatory, but looking down the wrong end of the telescope. While on the one hand, philosophically, science is true - and religious political and economic ideology is merely conventional; politically, the implications of science are limited to that which is necessary to survival, starting with magma energy; because if we don't apply magma energy, all further implication is moot anyhow. We will inevitably become extinct. Once we have applied magma energy technology, and have limitless clean energy at our disposal - the equation is changed, and any further implications of science need then be viewed from that perspective.

From what I've seen in your posts, you and I have a very different understanding of how science and science-based policy making are supposed to work. — T Clark

Shortly after my last post to you, I ran across a video of a woman being tased for refusing to put on a mask. Just yesterday, Fauci finally admitted that covid might have a lab origin. This morning The Federalist ran a long piece about how sensible independent thought regarding the origin of covid was systematically suppressed.

Most of what comes from our authorities these days is absolute bullshit. I can't understand the mindset of people who uncritically accept everything without question.

This piece lacks credibility:

Now that it’s largely accepted that the disease escaped a Chinese laboratory, have any of those above issued a correction or so much as an update?

First of all, it may be widely accepted by readers of the Federalist, but it is not widely accepted by those who have the expertise and information to have an informed opinion. Second, there is at this point no reason to issue a correction, there is not conclusive evidence that it did come from a lab. Third, Fauci did issue an update. He said he is no longer convinced that it could not have come from a lab and thinks that more investigation is needed.

I found nothing in the article about "systematic suppression" of the origins of the virus.

Both you and whoever wrote this piece seem to not understand how science works. Did Tom Cotton have sufficient evidence to declare in February 2020 that the virus came from a lab? Without such evidence his claim was irresponsible. Fauci's response is both reasonable and responsible. Follow the evidence.

This is what Politifact has posted on its website:

Editor’s note, May 17, 2021: When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review. Currently, we consider the claim to be unsupported by evidence and in dispute. The original fact-check in its entirety is preserved below for transparency and archival purposes.

The story has not been "retracted". That makes it seem as if Politifact now says that it did originate in lab. It too is waiting on the evidence.

I can't understand the mindset of people who uncritically accept everything without question. — fishfry

That seems to be exactly what you are doing.

Are you a ham radio operator? — frank

Nahhh....long-time communications specialist in Uncle Sam’s Canoe Club, back when it was a whole lot more fun.....and risky.....being a hippie than a sailor. Culture clash writ large.

I ran across a video of a woman being tased for refusing to put on a mask. — fishfry

Untrue. She was asked put on mask and refused, then she was asked to leave, and refused. She was arrested for criminal trespass; she resisted arrest, fought the police officer, and was tased. She created the situation, and deserved everything she got.

deserved everything she got. — counterpunch

You'd have made a good German. And if she deserved everything she got. didn't George Floyd? Or is your violent authoritarianism one-sided?

I see that you saw the same video I did. I can't fathom the kind of human being that would see that video and say "she deserved what she got." People like you frighten me.

You'd have made a good German. — fishfry

You'd have made a good racist! I think perhaps you mean Nazi.

And if she deserved everything she got. didn't George Floyd? Or is your violent authoritarianism one-sided? I see that you saw the same video I did. I can't fathom the kind of human being that would see that video and say "she deserved what she got." People like you frighten me. — fishfry

George Floyd's choices created the situation. If he'd complied he wouldn't have died. The jury decided the police officers actions were disproportionate - and I accept that, but it remains, he could have got in the car, and he'd still be alive.

You'd have made a good German. And if she deserved everything she got. didn't George Floyd? — fishfry

And you'd have make a piss-poor philosopher. Was she tased to death?

The ought questions rely upon introspection and wisdom, relying upon ancient texts and time honored traditions. — Hanover

Introspection? What one ought do is decided by interacting with other people, not by navel-gazing.

You're being misled by your focus on the subjective, again.

, Notice that @counterpunch did not actually point out specifics as to what was amiss in the article?

Not so fast. — counterpunch

I agreed with you in that case - that of amelioration of climate change. Not on the issue that is being discussed but I can’t see the point in discussing it.

All: Notice how little of is scientific?

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope. — Susan Haack

Notice that counterpunch did not actually point out specifics as to what was amiss in the article? — Banno

Is that a question? You can talk to me directly!

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/131210177.pdf

I could go through each of the six signs in turn, but number six, I think - is the one upon which the others hinge - and after all, brevity is the soul of wit!

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry
besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as
poetry or art.

Or religion! And the fact is, it's religion that has denigrated science for 400 years.

Science as an ideology is a dud. The amount of appeals to science these days is ludicrous. Science has become the new dictator,the new religion. Science has almost zero to say on the human condition and little to say on values and morality,except evolutionary psychology and social sciences,both of which are terrible. — Zenny

Here's an inarticulate little fish. Should this be read as an argument? "Science has almost zero to say on the human condition and little to say on values and morality", therefor "science as an ideology is a dud"...? What is "Science as an ideology" - is that what @counterpunch is advocating?

You haven't shared with us what exactly you think is problematic with point six.

@counterpunch - here's what I've been able to discern about your view. Science is the sole avenue of enquiry into objective truth, which exists independently of any opinion, and is therefore superior to any ideology. Religion is anti-science, as was shown by the persecution of Galileo, and Descartes’ subsequent withdrawal of one of his crucial papers on physics so as not to antagonise the Church. Mankind is facing a mortal threat from climate change which can however be ameliorated by tapping geo-thermal energy.

Did I miss anything?

Did I miss anything? — Wayfarer

You haven't shared with us what exactly you think is problematic with point six. — Banno

May I direct your attention to this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541344

I think it describes the piece of the puzzle you're missing, and will either confuse you utterly, or give you an indication where I'm coming from.

I'd rather you explained what is problematic in the article cited.

I'd rather you explained what is problematic in the article cited. — Banno

I'm not up for that right now, but maybe tomorrow. Good night all.

I think it describes the piece of the puzzle you're missing, and will either confuse you utterly, or give you an indication where I'm coming from. — counterpunch

It doesn't confuse me, but then, it's a single paragraph about a thousand years of intellectual history. As such, it's rather lacking in detail, but I certainly see where it's coming from.

:up:
@counterpunch buys into the pop story of Catholic anti-scientific practice. It's partly right, of course, but the story is much more complicated. He rejects the Haack article without providing any critique.

Counterpunch advocates scientism.

And you'd have make a piss-poor philosopher. Was she tased to death? — Fooloso4

I don't understand the kind of human being who can watch a video like that and conclude that "she got what she deserved." I will agree with you that she should have just either left or put on her effing mask. I'll grant you that. But what I'm questioning is the emotional response to that video of "she got what she deserved." You're lacking in basic human decency.

And for the record, I'm a piss-poor philosopher.

You'd have made a good racist! I think perhaps you mean Nazi. — counterpunch

I think you know what I meant. The "good Germans" we heard so much about, as in "Where were the good Germans?" Now that I've seen the past few years in the US, I understand better where they were.

George Floyd's choices created the situation. If he'd complied he wouldn't have died. The jury decided the police officers actions were disproportionate - and I accept that, but it remains, he could have got in the car, and he'd still be alive. — counterpunch

Well then we're all in agreement. Personally I don't resist cops, I comply and act polite. That's because when I was young and foolish, I sassed off to a cop and got a night in the Oakland, CA city jail for my troubles. Got my Ph.D. in the criminal justice system that night. Now that I'm old and foolish, I'm polite to cops.

This piece lacks credibility:

Now that it’s largely accepted that the disease escaped a Chinese laboratory, have any of those above issued a correction or so much as an update?

First of all, it may be widely accepted by readers of the Federalist, but it is not widely accepted by those who have the expertise and information to have an informed opinion. Second, there is at this point no reason to issue a correction, there is not conclusive evidence that it did come from a lab. Third, Fauci did issue an update. He said he is no longer convinced that it could not have come from a lab and thinks that more investigation is needed. — Fooloso4

Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire article. I do not agree that it's "widely accepted," nor is it known. Only that finally, after a year, people are starting to admit the possibility.

I found nothing in the article about "systematic suppression" of the origins of the virus.

Both you and whoever wrote this piece seem to not understand how science works. — Fooloso4

Science works by saying, "Let's keep an open mind and look at the facts." Not, "Let's decide on one conclusion in spite of available facts, and deplatform and smear anyone who dares to differ." That's anti-science, and that is what happened over the past year.

Did Tom Cotton have sufficient evidence to declare in February 2020 that the virus came from a lab? Without such evidence his claim was irresponsible. Fauci's response is both reasonable and responsible. Follow the evidence. — Fooloso4

Fauci is a political hack who changed his mind and flipflopped with the wind. Fauci is anti-science.

This is what Politifact has posted on its website: — Fooloso4

Extremely biased site.

That seems to be exactly what you are doing. — Fooloso4

A year ago, when people suggested a lab origin, they were deplatformed, fired from their scientific jobs, and labeled conspiracy theorists. That's politics, not science. Comrade Lysenko would be proud.