Conservapedia: E=mc2 Is A Liberal Conspiracy

[MacGr3gor]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's funny that people say science has no moral stance on anything and act like its some neutral entity. Up until a few years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness!

Why would it? I think Science has nothing to do with morality, it's the method of looking at the world in a rational and unbiased way.

Do you think Science has a moral stance? I'd like to hear some thoughts on that, the whole homosexuality debate has been beaten worse than a slow racehorse.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MacGr3gor

Why would it? I think Science has nothing to do with morality, it's the method of looking at the world in a rational and unbiased way.

Do you think Science has a moral stance? I'd like to hear some thoughts on that, the whole homosexuality debate has been beaten worse than a slow racehorse.

It has everything to do with morality. It changes the way we view the world and the people that inhabit the world.

Everything from transhumanism to interstellar space travel to creation of WMDs has a profound impact on the way we see ourselves and how we treat others. I personally find this (not so) new detached view of science being a rational and unbiased way of viewing the world to be terrifying. Very "Brave New World," which if you haven't read, I would certainly recommend.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's funny that people say science has no moral stance on anything and act like its some neutral entity. Up until a few years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness!

Science is a neutral entity.

The scientific community may not be. Scientists with a particular moral bend may abuse science to a particular end. Pseudoscience by those with an agenda could characterize homosexuality as a mental illness until real science could show otherwise.

I would think Dicken's "Hard Times" would fit more than Huxley. But in either case, I don't see how the scientific method could be anything but an unbiased view of the world. If I mix a base and an acid I get a neutral solution. Every time. There is no way to introduce bias. Just so long as science isn't the driver for everything in society. However, Vulcan seems to thrive quite well.

[MacGr3gor]

That sounds fascinating actually. Ill have to get on that.Thanks

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Science is a neutral entity.

The scientific community may not be. Scientists with a particular moral bend may abuse science to a particular end. Pseudoscience by those with an agenda could characterize homosexuality as a mental illness until real science could show otherwise.

I may be wrong but this seems to be a very Cartesian view of the way the world works. No human creations are objective realities that exist within the world like other material things, they are the subjective creations of the human minds.

Science doesn't exist without scientists. Since the relationship between pseudo and real science is relative over time, we cannot trust the moral decisions of science made by scientism alone. For example, the development of psychology and the treatment of disorders of the human mind. We don't practice lobotomies to the same extent that we used to but a few decades ago this was standard treatment for people with violent mood disorders.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by peter12

I may be wrong but this seems to be a very Cartesian view of the way the world works. No human creations are objective realities that exist within the world like other material things, they are the subjective creations of the human minds.

Science doesn't exist without scientists. Since the relationship between pseudo and real science is relative over time, we cannot trust the moral decisions of science made by scientism alone. For example, the development of psychology and the treatment of disorders of the human mind. We don't practice lobotomies to the same extent that we used to but a few decades ago this was standard treatment for people with violent mood disorders.

It pains me to agree with peter12, but I do in this case.

Even if 'science' was a wholly neutral or apolitical endeavour, its deployment - practice, pursuit, realization - is by people, who are inherently political by nature. After all, even claiming to be apolitical is still, ultimately, a political stance.

To quote Yeats, who if you have't read I would highly recommend, "how can we know the dancer from the dance?". (Actually, being peter12 seems kind of fun).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by fatso

It pains me to agree with peter12, but I do in this case.

Even if 'science' was a wholly neutral or apolitical endeavour, its deployment - practice, pursuit, realization - is by people, who are inherently political by nature. After all, even claiming to be apolitical is still, ultimately, a political stance.

To quote Yeats, who if you have't read I would highly recommend, "how can we know the dancer from the dance?". (Actually, being peter12 seems kind of fun).

I'd add onto this with another highbrow recommendation, but Hannah Arendt talks about this in her masterpiece "The Human Condition." A healthy public realm or politics is essential to controlling human creations like science, now I would contend that the public realm has essentially been overwhelmed by the singular power of the state, embedding itself into the public realm, pushing people back into their private lives (hence all the talk nowadays regarding personal zero-sum rights) and removing the power from people to make political decisions regarding the moral choices of a society.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

It has everything to do with morality. It changes the way we view the world and the people that inhabit the world.

Everything from transhumanism to interstellar space travel to creation of WMDs has a profound impact on the way we see ourselves and how we treat others. I personally find this (not so) new detached view of science being a rational and unbiased way of viewing the world to be terrifying. Very "Brave New World," which if you haven't read, I would certainly recommend.

You'd definitely like Eagleton's book--on this point at least, the two of you are in complete synchrony.

Now, I find him a little less compelling when he links "rationalism" to the liberal/capitalist state, but he's certainly right that science and reason are fields of philosophy with their own teleologies, that are every bit as eschatological and apocalyptic as those of religion or even Marxism.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Science is a neutral entity.

The scientific community may not be. Scientists with a particular moral bend may abuse science to a particular end. Pseudoscience by those with an agenda could characterize homosexuality as a mental illness until real science could show otherwise.

I would think Dicken's "Hard Times" would fit more than Huxley. But in either case, I don't see how the scientific method could be anything but an unbiased view of the world. If I mix a base and an acid I get a neutral solution. Every time. There is no way to introduce bias. Just so long as science isn't the driver for everything in society. However, Vulcan seems to thrive quite well.

I know a professor from Concordia who likes to thinkg about Star Trek and political philosophy. Apparently in one of the original episodes, Spock is referred to as a "well-ordered" being, putting him far more into the camp of say Plato's Guardians than some sort of chemistry whiz.

I don't know.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You'd definitely like Eagleton's book--on this point at least, the two of you are in complete synchrony.

Now, I find him a little less compelling when he links "rationalism" to the liberal/capitalist state, but he's certainly right that science and reason are fields of philosophy with their own teleologies, that are every bit as eschatological and apocalyptic as those of religion or even Marxism.

I've got the week off, I might just drive down to Chapters to pick this little number up.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by peter12

People like you have to realize that there is going to be some pretty wild plurality of opinion in a democracy. There's nothing scary about this website. It's just idiotic.

Epistemological closure is not scary to you?

[peter12]

So I went to down to my local Chapters behemoth, which truly is a disgrace by the way. Perusing the philosophy/ religion section, I was met with titles such as "True Blood and Philosophy" and a book on Christianity by Kate Gosselin. Unbelievable.

Anyway, such a dearth of terrible titles immediately threw me into skepticism regarding IFF's recommendation. I'm a man who likes everything strictly under my own thumb, intellectual choices especially. Anyway, after a few frustrated minutes of looking, I finally found the Eagleton book, opened it and immediately fell upon this gem of a sentence, "Truly civilized societies do not hold predawn power breakfasts."

This was enough for me to shell out the 16 clams and now I very much look forward to drinking a very terrible Spanish white blend wine on my deck as I read this, no doubt, tremendous book.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

So I went to down to my local Chapters behemoth, which truly is a disgrace by the way. Perusing the philosophy/ religion section, I was met with titles such as "True Blood and Philosophy" and a book on Christianity by Kate Gosselin. Unbelievable.

Anyway, such a dearth of terrible titles immediately threw me into skepticism regarding IFF's recommendation. I'm a man who likes everything strictly under my own thumb, intellectual choices especially. Anyway, after a few frustrated minutes of looking, I finally found the Eagleton book, opened it and immediately fell upon this gem of a sentence, "Truly civilized societies do not hold predawn power breakfasts."

This was enough for me to shell out the 16 clams and now I very much look forward to drinking a very terrible Spanish white blend wine on my deck as I read this, no doubt, tremendous book.

Speaking of books, do you know who Ignatius Reilly is?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Speaking of books, do you know who Ignatius Reilly is?

I have that coat but I don't live in New Orleans.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

I have that coat but I don't live in New Orleans.

Ha.

I agree with you about how awful those giant bookstores are. They devote at least 50% of their space to vampires. Your comment about them sounded exactly like something Ignatius would say.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ha.

I agree with you about how awful those giant bookstores are. They devote at least 50% of their space to vampires. Your comment about them sounded exactly like something Ignatius would say.

Haha, I was milking it for all the raw silliness that I could. It's still disheartening to see some book about vampires and philosophy right next to a collected works of Aristotle or something.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by peter12

Haha, I was milking it for all the raw silliness that I could. It's still disheartening to see some book about vampires and philosophy right next to a collected works of Aristotle or something.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's funny that people say science has no moral stance on anything and act like its some neutral entity. Up until a few years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness!

Did they consider it a mental illness based on science? Or did they consider it so based on how they were raised and start from that point?

And how does having an inaccurate conclusion based on bad data, incomplete data, poor premise, etc mean its a moral stance? Seems like equivocation to me.

Originally Posted by peter12

It has everything to do with morality. It changes the way we view the world and the people that inhabit the world.

Of course it changes the way we view the world, more knowledge is more knowledge. But it is morally neutral knowledge; how people respond to new knowledge isn't dictated by the science.

It changes the landscape, how we respond to the changing landscape isn't dictated by science. That's what's meant by morally neutral.

That's like saying geography isn't morally neutral because people upon finding the volcano sacrificed virgins to it to appease it. Or like saying mapmaking isn't morally neutral because maps can lead someone to where the schools are to abduct children.

Originally Posted by peter12

I personally find this (not so) new detached view of science being a rational and unbiased way of viewing the world to be terrifying. Very "Brave New World," which if you haven't read, I would certainly recommend.

The scientific process is rational and unbaised, individual scientists are not. And if the premise is flawed so is the conclusion, science or no science.

Really rather than all this vagueness and references to novels, what's a specific example of something where scientific knowledge is causing society to fall into a dystopia. Something specific. Knowledge of gravity? The weak atomic force? DNA? Plate tectonics? What?

Originally Posted by fatso

Even if 'science' was a wholly neutral or apolitical endeavour, its deployment - practice, pursuit, realization - is by people, who are inherently political by nature. After all, even claiming to be apolitical is still, ultimately, a political stance.

That's like blaming the cartographer to locate the river to drown the bag of cats in.

A cartographer may have made the map to drown cats, but the act of cartography itself isn't political. The process of science is netural, the knowledge gained is neutral, how its used isn't because that impacts real people.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Did they consider it a mental illness based on science? Or did they consider it so based on how they were raised and start from that point?

And how does having an inaccurate conclusion based on bad data, incomplete data, poor premise, etc mean its a moral stance? Seems like equivocation to me.

Of course it changes the way we view the world, more knowledge is more knowledge. But it is morally neutral knowledge; how people respond to new knowledge isn't dictated by the science.

It changes the landscape, how we respond to the changing landscape isn't dictated by science. That's what's meant by morally neutral.

That's like saying geography isn't morally neutral because people upon finding the volcano sacrificed virgins to it to appease it. Or like saying mapmaking isn't morally neutral because maps can lead someone to where the schools are to abduct children.

The scientific process is rational and unbaised, individual scientists are not. And if the premise is flawed so is the conclusion, science or no science.

Really rather than all this vagueness and references to novels, what's a specific example of something where scientific knowledge is causing society to fall into a dystopia. Something specific. Knowledge of gravity? The weak atomic force? DNA? Plate tectonics? What?

That's like blaming the cartographer to locate the river to drown the bag of cats in.

A cartographer may have made the map to drown cats, but the act of cartography itself isn't political. The process of science is netural, the knowledge gained is neutral, how its used isn't because that impacts real people.

I seriously do not understand whether rationalists consciously revert to this rhetorical tactic reflexively or if they are really that naive. That is, science can be responsible for having profound impacts upon the human experience in one instance, but when criticized, either teleologically or ontologically, rationalists science automatically revert science to some sort of neutral thing like its just being practiced routinely in the high school chemistry classroom.

Skepticism is great. Science practices skepticism upon everything but its own practices, using the rather weak excuse that since false hypotheses are eventually discarded, science is inevitably morally neutral in the long run.

Science's reliance upon progressivism, is in my view, one of its greatest and most destructive weaknesses. Truth be told, the price we pay for progress is far too high. We split the atom, we get the atom bomb, we unravel the genome, we get transhumanism.

What is worse, all of this is done without an understanding of humanity's history of ideas, that is, the best moral arguments kept alive by our history of philosophy and literature. It's science's naivete and blindness to the impact it causes becauses of its neutrality that is the real problem.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Haha, I was milking it for all the raw silliness that I could. It's still disheartening to see some book about vampires and philosophy right next to a collected works of Aristotle or something.

It all started with Buffy the Vampire slayer, which did spawn some legitimately interesting criticism. But then hipsters started getting tenure-track jobs and began looking for the next big thing, knowing that publishers will publish all sorts of that kind of garbage if they think they can sell a few books.

Mind you, I'm guessing you're not much of a fan of cultural studies anyway....