The Future of Earth

[star.logic]

What do you think our future holds? As a race, we are changing rapidly now, in the sense that we have much new technology and can do things with information and power that we had no means for before, and these are mostly available to the public, although there are larger and more powerful systems that are kept behind the scenes and reserved for certain groups.

So what do you think is happening?

What do you think will happen to the dual existence of mans' consciousness? Will the paranormal be found to be just a partial understanding of reality? And ultimately abandoned? Or will that happen to science?

Something large would have to happen for science to be abandoned, so is it simply going to take over our belief systems? Because while on this board there are many scientists, there are also many non-scientists all around the world, who believe in a more unseen world just as well as the scientists here believe in only materialism.

What will happen to this duality in the future? Add in that technology is at a peak, and information has never been more readily available to the masses!

 

[This Guy]

What do you think our future holds? As a race, we are changing rapidly now, in the sense that we have much new technology and can do things with information and power that we had no means for before, and these are mostly available to the public, although there are larger and more powerful systems that are kept behind the scenes and reserved for certain groups.

So what do you think is happening?

What do you think will happen to the dual existence of mans' consciousness? Will the paranormal be found to be just a partial understanding of reality? And ultimately abandoned? Or will that happen to science?

Something large would have to happen for science to be abandoned, so is it simply going to take over our belief systems? Because while on this board there are many scientists, there are also many non-scientists all around the world, who believe in a more unseen world just as well as the scientists here believe in only materialism.

What will happen to this duality in the future? Add in that technology is at a peak, and information has never been more readily available to the masses!

I'll comment on that last part first. Yes, I think you can say technology is at a peak. However, I think it stays at a peak, in that it's always increasing. I forget the year now, but I believe it was in the 1920's, that the head of the US patent office (?) suggested the office be closed, because everything that could be invented had been. Something like that anyway

As for this unseen world you speak of, well, I guess I'll have to see it to believe it. I think the key is that (in your words) it's believed in by non-scientist. Now, I'm no scientist, but I don't believe in an unseen world. Not in the sense I understand you to mean.

I guess my answer to your question would be, when there is proof of this unseen world, I'll buy into it. Until then, I think the field of science is pretty safe, and will be around a good while (assuming the fundi's don't get it banned or outlawed;-)

 

[Yahzi]

What do you think our future holds?

Crispiness.

Eventually our sun will expand so large that Earth will be submerged in a sea of nuclear fusion.

As a race, we are changing rapidly now,

Read this, then tell me how much has changed.

People haven't changed, on either side

although there are larger and more powerful systems that are kept behind the scenes and reserved for certain groups.

Conspiracy theory much?

So what do you think is happening?

Lots of self-aware mammals are struggling to maximize their resource allocation?

What do you think will happen to the dual existence of mans' consciousness?

It will die with Descartes. Oh wait, it already has.

Will the paranormal be found to be just a partial understanding of reality?

It already has.

All the explanation the paranormal requires

And ultimately abandoned?

Not as long as woos prefer pretty imagination to dull reality.

Or will that happen to science?

Only if we're really, really unlucky. Or stupid.

 

[star.logic]

I guess my answer to your question would be, when there is proof of this unseen world, I'll buy into it. Until then, I think the field of science is pretty safe, and will be around a good while (assuming the fundi's don't get it banned or outlawed;-)

Note: Your idea of proof, may not always be another's idea of proof!

Science is also the "newer" one of the two.

Read this, then tell me how much has changed.

What exactly has or hasn't changed here? We are the same bodies, for the most part, yet the world around us, is what we have altered here.

Conspiracy theory much?

No!

Lots of self-aware mammals are struggling to maximize their resource allocation?

More so, they need to get along with each other!

It will die with Descartes. Oh wait, it already has.

You are awake now, I would hope!

It already has.

Yes! Just as much as science has! As well as any belief that is only one in a sea of many!

Not as long as woos prefer pretty imagination to dull reality.

All have imagination, it's just the extend to which you allow yours to express itself that you are refering to!

Not always a bad thing to have much imagination!

Although it can cause you to live in more of a fantasy and non-productive existence, than a termed: "better" one!

Only if we're really, really unlucky. Or stupid.

Well there are people for both sides, so I guess we're both! As a race!

 

[Yahzi]

Note: Your idea of proof, may not always be another's idea of proof!

There is only one proof: a baseball bat to the head. All else is speculation.

More so, they need to get along with each other!

Here's a radical thought: maybe people would get along better if they confined themselves to the real and actual. Maybe differences in fantasies cannot be reconciled because there is no way to reconcile them, other than killing or silencing the opposition. Maybe rational proof, empirical fact, and the limitations of reason are what let people resolve their differences peacefully.

You are awake now, I would hope!

You've degenerated into incoherency.

 

[Starthinker]

I predict that in 40 years or so I will dead. So I only care about the next 40 years or so. What the world will be like 200 years from now will not affect me in any way because, well, I'll be dead.

 

[Brainache]

Either we continue with science or we go back to the dark ages.

There is no middle ground.

People will still knock on wood and check their horoscopes in the paper, but if engineers start using numerology instead of mathematics we can say goodbye to the modern world we currently enjoy. No more cars, computers, airplanes, skyscrapers, refrigerators, air conditioners, hot and cold running water, telephones, television, CD players, Radio etc etc.

So by all means go on thinking that science is a belief system and next time you want to go to Kansas just click your heels three times and say: "There's no place like home..."

Because if one belief is as good as any other, then that should get you there in no time.

 

[star.logic]

I predict that in 40 years or so I will dead. So I only care about the next 40 years or so. What the world will be like 200 years from now will not affect me in any way because, well, I'll be dead.

Don't you think, thinking about others and other times would be useful?

Either we continue with science or we go back to the dark ages.

There is no middle ground.

There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.

People will still knock on wood and check their horoscopes in the paper, but if engineers start using numerology instead of mathematics we can say goodbye to the modern world we currently enjoy. No more cars, computers, airplanes, skyscrapers, refrigerators, air conditioners, hot and cold running water, telephones, television, CD players, Radio etc etc.

Yes, and if we reached the new ground, by keeping mathematics, but also understanding what other systems can be learned using, then we won't lose those capabilities and technologies, we will advance them to a level we've never seen before!

It's a conflict now, that we fight over which side is better, when we could simply combine them and understand much more.

The problem here, is finding out where they contradict and why, and making the necessary amendments.

So by all means go on thinking that science is a belief system and next time you want to go to Kansas just click your heels three times and say: "There's no place like home..."

Because if one belief is as good as any other, then that should get you there in no time.

I do not believe this. We can learn from all beliefs. Yet the beliefs are specialized as long as they have names/labels and can be called "Beliefs".

Otherwise you'd be more likely to use math to decide how something tastes.

And preference to decide whether your car will run on 0 gas, or a full tank.

 

[This Guy]

There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.

Would you elaborate on these "other beliefs"? Exactly what beliefs are you supporting?

Any supporting evidence for the validity of these "other beliefs" would be nice also.

Thanks

 

[Ladewig]

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.

Simply put: no. Science allows us to find new medicines. Science allows us to determine the efficiency (and possible dangers) of these new medicines through double blind testing. Beliefs do not help us cure diseases. Homeopathy is nothing but "let's pretend" and does not effect cures. Crystal power is also "let's pretend." Theraputic Touch is also "let's pretend." Combing these beliefs with science does not bring us closer to understanding reality, does not bring us closer to saving lives, and does not bring us closer to new experiences.

 

[Ladewig]

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.

Simply put: no. Science allows us to find new medicines. Science allows us to determine the efficiency (and possible dangers) of these new medicines through double blind testing. Beliefs do not help us cure diseases. Homeopathy is nothing but "let's pretend" and does not effect cures. Crystal power is also "let's pretend." Theraputic Touch is also "let's pretend." Combing these beliefs with science does not bring us closer to understanding reality, does not bring us closer to saving lives, and does not bring us closer to new experiences.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Science can help us understand why people hold beliefs in what Shermer calls "weird things". We know a bit about the mechanism that is responsible for certain sorts of superstition, for example, but know less about what produces confirmation bias. We can define it and point to situations and conditions where it is more or less likely to occur, but the basic mechanisms are not yet clear.
The answer is more scientific research, not a search for a middle ground between scientific thinking and unfounded beliefs.

 

[fuelair]

Don't you think, thinking about others and other times would be useful?



There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.



Yes, and if we reached the new ground, by keeping mathematics, but also understanding what other systems can be learned using, then we won't lose those capabilities and technologies, we will advance them to a level we've never seen before!

It's a conflict now, that we fight over which side is better, when we could simply combine them and understand much more.

The problem here, is finding out where they contradict and why, and making the necessary amendments.



I do not believe this. We can learn from all beliefs. Yet the beliefs are specialized as long as they have names/labels and can be called "Beliefs".

Otherwise you'd be more likely to use math to decide how something tastes.

And preference to decide whether your car will run on 0 gas, or a full tank.

You are, of course, welcome here to post, but I suspect you will not be a happy camper as you are pretty clearly what we call a woo - since you want to have us accept that there are things that exist that science is not applicable to. If that is the claim, then do not bother asking the JREF supporters to believe it, if it cannot be proven then it is either belief or opinion. We have opinions on things that cannot be proven (primarily that science will develop to prove or disprove them OR this is not subject to proof/disproof therefore it is not real and we do not need to concern ourselves with it - especially if we know how it is faked and/or why certain people NEED to believe in it [and if they don't force us to slam it hard, we are mostly gentle with them].

 

[Starthinker]

Don't you think, thinking about others and other times would be useful?

No, I will be dead. I will never, never, never return to earth, I won't be watching from a higher plain, nothing that happens after my death will have the slightest effect on me. Since I will be dead I will have no emotions or thoughts or cares about anything. Thinking or worrying about future events I will never ever see or partake in just wastes the present. I will always be more concerned about today than I will be about a day 100 years from now.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.

Science is not a belief system. Once you get over that hurdle, things will become more clear for you.

 

[Gurdur]

Science is not a belief system.

Actually, it is.
Or better said, certain ground premises are essential to science, and those premises cannot be proven any further (given the problem of infinite regress etc.).

Trying to smack around belief systems simply because they are belief systems won't earn you a nickel; every POV in life must rest at some point on a belief system, a system of premises.

 

[This Guy]

Actually, it is.
Or better said, certain ground premises are essential to science, and those premises cannot be proven any further (given the problem of infinite regress etc.).

Trying to smack around belief systems simply because they are belief systems won't earn you a nickel; every POV in life must rest at some point on a belief system, a system of premises.

I'm inclined to disagree, because I don't "believe in" science. I believe the facts that proper science can provide.

But, I'd like to know more about those premises that "cannot be proven any further".

And me not being as sharp as many here, you'll have to go more basic than "the problem of infinite regress etc".

Any links/references would be appreciated

ETA:From Wiki -

"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite series needed to provide such support could not be completed.

Distinction is made between infinite regresses that are "vicious" and those that are not. One definition given is that a vicious regress is "an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved. Not all regresses, however, are vicious."

Based solely on my understanding of this definition, I'll agree that there are likely things that I believe that have not been absolutely proved. Those things would therefore be based to an extent on faith. However, I'm not sure to what degree those things I personally believe are based on conclusions that involve infinite regressions.

For instance, I believe water freezes at 32 degrees F/0 degrees C. Pretty easy to determine that. I believe the earth is not the center of the universe. Again, easily proved. I believe there are no fairies or ghost. Harder to prove, but until I see evidence to support such things, I'll go on not believing in them.

I think, until shown otherwise, that most of my beliefs are based on fairly solid facts. And it's those facts that I believe in, not science itself. I believe the results of proper science.

So, I see science as a tool, not a belief system.

Still interested in more info on those ground premises that can't be proved any further

 

[RemieV]

Don't you think, thinking about others and other times would be useful?



There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.



Yes, and if we reached the new ground, by keeping mathematics, but also understanding what other systems can be learned using, then we won't lose those capabilities and technologies, we will advance them to a level we've never seen before!

It's a conflict now, that we fight over which side is better, when we could simply combine them and understand much more.

The problem here, is finding out where they contradict and why, and making the necessary amendments.



I do not believe this. We can learn from all beliefs. Yet the beliefs are specialized as long as they have names/labels and can be called "Beliefs".

Otherwise you'd be more likely to use math to decide how something tastes.

And preference to decide whether your car will run on 0 gas, or a full tank.

I'm dying to know what the "other beliefs" are. Or are you suggesting that we believe everything to a degree? If we believe in psychics, should we believe in Bigfoot? If we believe in ghosts, should we believe in UFOs?

Even believers cannot reconcile amongst themselves what it is right to believe.

 

[star.logic]

Would you elaborate on these "other beliefs"? Exactly what beliefs are you supporting?

Just being general here.

Simply put: no. Science allows us to find new medicines. Science allows us to determine the efficiency (and possible dangers) of these new medicines through double blind testing.

Yes and other ways of viewing reality allow you to find other solutions, and alternative methods of reaching those solutions.

All the while, learning as you go along.

We know a bit about the mechanism that is responsible for certain sorts of superstition, for example, but know less about what produces confirmation bias. We can define it and point to situations and conditions where it is more or less likely to occur, but the basic mechanisms are not yet clear.

Many things are not yet clear, in every aspect, we still have unclarities.

The answer is more scientific research, not a search for a middle ground between scientific thinking and unfounded beliefs.

This would be correct if the beliefs in question are unfounded.

But there are unfounded scientific beliefs, as well as other types of beliefs that are unfounded.

As well as the opposite.

Since you want to have us accept that there are things that exist that science is not applicable to.

Yes, but that's only true because there are things that science *IS* applicable, it just doesn't cover anything, science is highly valuable, knowledge is science.

No, I will be dead. I will never, never, never return to earth.

This may be, but there currently exists a connection to all things human, including the future of humanity.

I won't be watching from a higher plain, nothing that happens after my death will have the slightest effect on me.
Since I will be dead I will have no emotions or thoughts or cares about anything.

You have died before?

Thinking or worrying about future events I will never ever see or partake in just wastes the present.

You may not see them, yet you are impacting their creation, albiet, you could argue in a small way, yet it still counts and you still have a duty to withstand. As a human, you should help create a more positive future for those that ARE going to experience it, even if you believe you aren't.

I will always be more concerned about today than I will be about a day 100 years from now.

Yes, that's good too, but there is only so much about today to worry about, while down the line, things could get pretty ugly if we're not thinking about the future.

I'm dying to know what the "other beliefs" are.

I'm being general, the world is made of many people with different beliefs.

Or are you suggesting that we believe everything to a degree?

Beliefs are applicable to certain situations, if you can decide which situations require which beliefs or methods of viewing reality, then your reality will become very clear. No one belief of this planet has the entirety of our situation held within it, they are all parts of the picture, with billions and billions of parts.

If we believe in psychics, should we believe in Bigfoot? If we believe in ghosts, should we believe in UFOs?

That's more specific, so I'll leave that up to you.

Even believers cannot reconcile amongst themselves what it is right to believe.

Which is why we must find the middle ground.

Imagine if we could realize unity between all our beliefs. Not because they are all TRUE, as we see them. Yet because they all, in their own way, define the same thing. This planet, this reality, this universe.

 

[Gurdur]

I'm inclined to disagree, because I don't "believe in" science. I believe the facts that proper science can provide.

You've just introduced a value judgment into your very second sentence (there was also one in your first, but the second one is more glaring).

Care to lay out exactly you believe to be "proper science"?

Because as soon as you actually start doing that, it will illustrate many of the problems and the premises you are using.

But, I'd like to know more about those premises that "cannot be proven any further".

Certainly. We'll start with your belief as to what constitutes "proper science".

And me not being as sharp as many here,

How about we simply drop the rhetoric and move along?

Any links/references would be appreciated

Bettter still overall is any good postgrad course in the philosophy of science at any good uni, but the essentials are easily covered.

Infinite regress: the problem that all human perception is subjective, meaning that all human judgments and POV's -- all --- are subjective. There is no such thing as truly objective knowledge which stands outside the observed universe. This then means that in any chain of reasoning, in any chain of perception on which reasoning is based, there must eventually come a point either where it degrades to a circular argument, or it goes on in an infinite regress of believed causal progession.

That will be seen, seriously, as you go along the definition of "proper" science here; the endless chain or the circularity of argument will be seen.

Science attempts to get over that problem by intersubjectivity, that is, shared observation, but it is still a problem at times.

For instance, I believe water freezes at 32 degrees F/0 degrees C.

And a paranoid believes there is a conspiracy against him.

Your own belief is more justifiable (where justification rests on value judgments, and value judgments are by their nature not part of science ) than the paranoid's; but it rests on various beliefs, such as the belief that shared observation is a good thing, and using human-made measurements such as Fahrenheit and Celsus.

I think, until shown otherwise, that most of my beliefs are based on fairly solid facts.

Oddly enough that is something almost everyone believes. And yet they disagree so much.

So, I see science as a tool, not a belief system.

A tool is the result of working premises.