Scientists can reverse aging in mice.

[GaryK 201]

Science and tech cannot solve all of our problems. A philosophy that if applied to the exclusion of all else has no built in morality.

The enlightenment and post enlightenment science came about because of a distaste for that which motivates us all i.e. emotion or the irrational. Consequently science has generally ignored or been in denial of the very thing that pollutes it. In many instances science goes wildly wrong as it contorts itself to steer around the elephant in the room.

Science cries "I am rational, I am rational" .......and then it trips up on it's own irrationality because it's in denial about it's existance.

This isn't an argument against science per se (nothing quite so binary), I'm just highlighting one of the problems if science becomes a guiding principle for life.

......ignoring emotion in humans and small mammals makes it easier to experiment on mice I suppose.......Is that a good thing?.....I dunno.

[martin-w 3,234]

4 hours ago, GaryK said:

Science and tech cannot solve all of our problems.

 

I don't think "it" or anyone else said it could.

 

4 hours ago, GaryK said:

This isn't an argument against science per se (nothing quite so binary), I'm just highlighting one of the problems if science becomes a guiding principle for life.

 

Its ONE of the guiding principles for life, of which there are many. It has to be if we value that which can be proven, fact, logic. One of the issues we face these days is this bonkers anti-science agenda, and everybody having their own alternative facts. Science has to remain as ONE of the guiding principles because it has given us so much and we need it more now than ever. 

But as you say you aren't arguing against science, so I'm sure you agree. 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by martin-w

[birdguy 3,943]

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

Its not necessarily our technological skills that's the issue, its the way we have applied that technology.

Not necessarily.  The issue is the way we treat ourselves and our neighbors.

Technological advances do not create hunger, hate, homelessness, and the unbalanced ownership of wealth.

Technological advances in warfare have made it possible to destroy more people in a shorter period of time.  That's one negative way we have applied technology.

One technological advance, if we have the will to apply it, is the laser printing/building of simple homes.  That could help alleviate the homeless problem. 

Noel

[birdguy 3,943]

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Its not necessarily our technological skills that's the issue, its the way we have applied that technology.

I agree Martin.  But there are many other considerations besides science and technology.  Application of the social sciences have, in my opinion, more to with the human condition than science and technology.  We'll see if some can be listed here without discussion and not be banned by the moderators.

Religion

Politics

Hate

Misplaced pride

Wealth distribution...just to name a few.

Noel

[birdguy 3,943]

On 6/12/2022 at 7:54 AM, martin-w said:

True but killing for food results in a suffering victim

Humans who have been mauled by big cats or suffered other huge injuries often report that it isn’t painful at the time, because adrenaline has an anaesthetic effect. The pain comes about 20 minutes later - but by then the prey animal is dead.

Noel

[martin-w 3,234]

6 hours ago, birdguy said:

Humans who have been mauled by big cats or suffered other huge injuries often report that it isn’t painful at the time, because adrenaline has an anaesthetic effect. The pain comes about 20 minutes later - but by then the prey animal is dead.

Noel

 

That is a phenomenon that has sometimes been reported. But its not ubiquitous. There are plenty of victims that have had a different experience. And of course the pain generated by being mauled by a predator is just one example of the suffering that occurs in the natural world. 

 

[GaryK 201]

17 hours ago, martin-w said:

Its ONE of the guiding principles for life, of which there are many. It has to be if we value that which can be proven, fact, logic. One of the issues we face these days is this bonkers anti-science agenda, and everybody having their own alternative facts. Science has to remain as ONE of the guiding principles because it has given us so much and we need it more now than ever. 

But as you say you aren't arguing against science, so I'm sure you agree. 

 

Humans behaviour is a product of evolution and for reasons that many can't understand has probably been beneficial in the past.........so no, not entirely bonkers. 

Fact and logic are ideals and as such don't exist. Best speculations at the moment and an awareness of our irrationality before we decide on our behaviour is the best we can hope for.

I have a toolbox full of tools for life. Science is in there somewhere, alongside many other tools. The trick is to know which tool to use in each situation.....a time to every purpose. 

The tools aren't guiding principles in themselves.

Fact and logic are ideals and as such don't exist. Best guesses at the moment and an awareness of our irrationality before we decide on our behaviour is the best we can hope for.

Our motivations are not rational and the institution of science tends to forget this.

Maybe we need to understand how humans actually feel, think and behave at the moment , understand how we operate before we tinker under the bonnet/hood.



 

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Oh WOW this thread continues, I will plead the fifth and just watch with interest, Carry On Goodfellas 👍

[martin-w 3,234]

47 minutes ago, GaryK said:

Humans behaviour is a product of evolution and for reasons that many can't understand has probably been beneficial in the past.........so no, not entirely bonkers. 

 

Of course the current anti-science agenda is bonkers. You are aware of the agenda I'm referring too? Science has given us the medical science that saves our lives, the modern homes we live in, the capability to travel half way around the planet in hours, the quantum physics that underpins the very electronic devices we are using now to have this conversation, the ability to feed millions, the ability to communicate globally, even the length and quality of life itself. And importantly, by making life easier, science has given man the chance to pursue societal issues such as ethics, aesthetics, education, and justice. The human condition has been improved immeasurably due to science. We would be still living in caves without science and most of us dead by the age 30. Yes, instinctive human behaviour has been beneficial in the past and has an evolutionary advantage, but in no way does that validate the current, bonkers, self-destructive, counterproductive anti-science attitude that some in society promote. And of course this anti-science agenda is usually promoted for the finical gain of those responsible. 

 

1 hour ago, GaryK said:

Fact and logic are ideals and as such don't exist.

 

I both agree and disagree. Logic is both in the world and in the mind. Computers can perform logic and provide definitive answers. However, logic can be looked upon as both a science and an art and the "art" is in its subject mind.  

As for "fact" science doesn't really deal in definitive fact, what it does deal in is probability, the probability of something being fact.  That has to be the case, for example, the desk my PC is on is made of molecules, but what if I live in a simulation and all I think I know about the universe I live is is a fabrication and  nothing like the real universe and there is no such thing as a molecule. So its about probability, and the current anti-science agenda is about rejecting (or pertaining to reject) what science regards as an extremely high degree of probability, that we colloquially refer to as "fact". 

 

1 hour ago, GaryK said:

Our motivations are not rational and the institution of science tends to forget this.

 

Oh trust me, science is fully aware of how irrational human motivation, behaviour and belief is. That is precisely why the scientific method was formulated in the first place. And thank god it was. Otherwise, as I said, we would be still living in caves and dying at 30. 

[birdguy 3,943]

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

That is a phenomenon that has sometimes been reported. But its not ubiquitous. There are plenty of victims that have had a different experience. And of course the pain generated by being mauled by a predator is just one example of the suffering that occurs in the natural world. 

I would say a small minority have a different experience.  Shock, adrenaline, and pain inhibiting excretions prevent the pain from being felt immediately.  I have been at the scene of automobile accidents where the victims have been seriously injured but are not crying out in pain.

Between the time prey animals are killed and eaten not enough time has passed for them to feel the pain.  My cats have brought in birds they have fatally injured who are making no sounds at all and while appear to be in shock are not crying out in pain.  I wring their necks, put them in baggies, and throw them in the garbage can.

I have slaughtered chickens by slitting their throats and they make no sounds.  They just flap around for a while until they are thrown in the hot water barrel prior to plucking and dressing.

Animals and birds I have hunted and wounded did not appear to be in pain before I killed them.  They were just dazed.

However, you want to believe otherwise so have it your way.  

Noel

[dave2013 1,123]

On 6/13/2022 at 8:58 AM, martin-w said:

One of the issues we face these days is this bonkers anti-science agenda, and everybody having their own alternative facts. Science has to remain as ONE of the guiding principles because it has given us so much and we need it more now than ever.

What is this "current anti-science agenda" that you keep going on about?

FYI, science is the search for knowledge and understanding.  It is never settled or absolute established fact.  Anyone who claims that something is scientifically proven doesn't understand what science is.  Advertisers and marketers use terms like "scientifically proven" to sell their dubious products.

There are hypotheses, theories, and then laws.  There are actually not very many scientific laws, and even some of those may be proven wrong eventually.  A lot of what you refer to as "science", are actually hypotheses or theories, which are unproven.

Scientists are human beings, and as such they are fallible and corruptible.  For example, health advice changes almost yearly based on new studies and evidence.  One year the consensus is that coffee is good for you, and the next year some new study says that it is not.  Most doctors will insist that you take cholesterol-reducing medication if your blood cholesterol is too high, because that is the consensus, but if you look deeply into the subject those drugs are actually not proven to reduce your chances of a heart attack.  That's just a couple of examples in the field of medicine where the science is never settled and research brings to light new data all the time.

Then there are the many frauds committed by scientists over the years for various reasons - fame, money, promoting some agenda, etc.

You should be careful throwing around terms like "anti-science", "scientific consensus" and the like, and especially refrain from using them to attempt to discredit and disparage those who don't agree with what you believe to be the truth.

Dave

 

 

 

 

[birdguy 3,943]

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Anyone who claims that something is scientifically proven doesn't understand what science is.

I somewhat agree Dave,

Theoretical science is 'we used to think, but now we know.'  And today's 'now we know' becomes tomorrow's 'we used to think.'

But there are some pretty well established scientific facts.  Like the rotation of the earth about it's axis and the orbits of the planets around the sun in our solar system.  That some chemicals and compounds are poison and can kill you.  That gravity affects us.  That the low pressure area on the top of a wing moving through the air is what makes an aircraft fly.    

Noel

Edited June 14, 2022 by birdguy

[dmwalker 601]

6 hours ago, birdguy said:

That some chemicals and compounds are poison and can kill you.

"All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."  

                                                                                                                                                Paracelsus, 1538

[goates 576]

7 hours ago, birdguy said:

That the low pressure area on the top of a wing moving through the air is what makes an aircraft fly.

How sure are you of that? How would that work for symmetrical airfoils or aircraft flying upside down?

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong3.html

Turning of the airflow the better model for how lift is generated.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/right2.html

[birdguy 3,943]

3 hours ago, goates said:

How would that work for symmetrical airfoils or aircraft flying upside down?

Angle of attack for all of your questions.

Noel