Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[TFian]

Always.

Examples?

 

[PixyMisa]

Examples?

Every science experiment ever.

Science is not only a method for determining how the Universe behaves, it's also a meta-experiment into whether it is a valid and useful method.

And, as it so happens, it is.

 

[Dancing David]

Man, TFian, who i still have on IGNORE for another week, try applying the scientific method to your practice of 'magic', it is what the real magicians do. Then you will find out that it is a matter of set dependant learning, confirmation bias and associatice processes.

I have been a practioner of ritual magic, witchcraft and shamanism for thirty years, the scientific method has never steered me wrong.

And remember what Uncle Al said!

"And thou who thinkest to seek Me,
know that thy seeking and yearning shall avail thee not
unless thou knowest the Mystery:
that if that which thou seekest thou findest not within thee,
thou wilt never find it without.
For behold, I have been with thee from the beginning;
and I am that which is attained at the end of desire"

 

[excaza]

Can we just let this thread die? It's obvious TFian lives in his own little world and is content with slamming his fingers into his ears and screaming at the top of his lungs.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

If he wasn't scientifically sound, why would he be invited to speak at ASPO-USA?

Since when has ASPO been an accredited scientific body? From when I last gleaned at whom was speaking at their events, the majority of them were doomers and/or Luddites who had no scientific credentials whatsoever.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Can we just let this thread die? It's obvious TFian lives in his own little world and is content with slamming his fingers into his ears and screaming at the top of his lungs.

Meh, I don't know, it's kind of fun to see the truly bizarre things that come out of her mind. I mean, peak oil doomerism, racism, primitivism, and now magic? What next?

 

[TFian]

try applying the scientific method to your practice of 'magic', it is what the real magicians do. Then you will find out that it is a matter of set dependant learning, confirmation bias and associatice processes.

I don't practice "Magic" though. Sorry.

I have been a practioner of ritual magic, witchcraft and shamanism for thirty years, the scientific method has never steered me wrong.

If you don't find it real, then why would you practice it?

And remember what Uncle Al said!

Remember what the Grand Archdruid said!

What we call "modern science" was the ideology of the new ruling class: a worldview in which nothing exists except matter and energy, in which nature is nothing but raw material, religion is purely psychological, and magic is impossible. It's the perfect belief system for a world in which money is the prime source of political power.

 

[TFian]

Every science experiment ever.

Science is not only a method for determining how the Universe behaves, it's also a meta-experiment into whether it is a valid and useful method.

And, as it so happens, it is.

In a self affirming system it seems. Empiricism is right, because it's empirically proven to be true. It's a circular faith system. Unless you can verify the scientific method without using the scientific method, it's a circular faith system. Scientism is the more appropriate term.

 

[TFian]

I would point out: you can get 100mW of solar power from a panel that costs about $4.

And how are we going to make these panels? What will you do when the sun isn't shining?

 

[TFian]

Meh, I don't know, it's kind of fun to see the truly bizarre things that come out of her mind. I mean, peak oil doomerism, racism, primitivism, and now magic? What next?

I put teh chimp on ignore long ago. Feel free to do the same.

 

[excaza]

Meh, I don't know, it's kind of fun to see the truly bizarre things that come out of her mind. I mean, peak oil doomerism, racism, primitivism, and now magic? What next?

It's amusing until he just starts regurgitating the same thing over and over again, despite being told the answer. Then there's the blatant lying.

 

[TFian]

Sir haha, well at least you're polite..

But really, you believe in magic? I hope you don't tell your professors this, or they may think you're completely mad.

I actually don't believe in magic per se, I just recognize that it's never been proven to not exist, and that the scientific method can't explain everything. I don't believe it's an all or nothing system.

 

[Roboramma]

What we call "modern science" was the ideology of the new ruling class: a worldview in which nothing exists except matter and energy, in which nature is nothing but raw material, religion is purely psychological, and magic is impossible. It's the perfect belief system for a world in which money is the prime source of political power.

Except that it's not. It's not an ideology: modern science changes as new evidence arises, it is basically the antithesis of an ideology.
It's not owned by the ruling class: science is open to anyone of any socio-economic class, so long as they can read a book: and given the prevalence of libraries and the internet that isn't only the 'the ruling class'.
It's also not a worldview in which "nothing exists except matter and energy". Rather, its simply a worldview in which if something exists we can look for it to see if it is there. It's a worldview in which if something is true we expect the predictions it makes to actually turn out to be true as well when they are tested.

And when Pixy says "it works", he doesn't even mean it works within its framework. He means, your computer works. And that's a product of science. If your argument is "how do we know that science is working?" and I say, "because you are able to read the words I'm typing" you don't need some external system to analyise the truth of that statement: you know that the technology that you interact with every day works, and you know that it's a product of science. If you don't accept that definition of "works", then, if you can't tell the difference between the world today and the world five centuries ago, then you are too far gone for reason.
Science works, and the evidence for that, no matter what framework you choose, is all around you, every moment of every day.

Furthermore: if religious beliefs were true, we'd be able to analyise them scientifically, there's nothing about science that necessarily assumes religion false. If magic worked, it'd show up, at least as something that makes experiment more difficult. It hasn't, so for now we say "it doesn't seem to work". If, in the future, someone wished things into existence, well, we'd be able to test that too.

 

[Roboramma]

I actually don't believe in magic per se, I just recognize that it's never been proven to not exist, and that the scientific method can't explain everything. I don't believe it's an all or nothing system.

So, given that you are interested in the question of whether nor not magic exists, how would you go about asking and perhaps even answering that question?

 

[TFian]

Except that it's not. It's not an ideology: modern science changes as new evidence arises, it is basically the antithesis of an ideology.

Maybe not as a whole, but some scientists certainly treat their science as a faith. I'm more concerned as to why the scientific method is the only way we can determine if something is true or false.

It's not owned by the ruling class: science is open to anyone of any socio-economic class, so long as they can read a book: and given the prevalence of libraries and the internet that isn't only the 'the ruling class'.

True, I'll agree that was something pretty stupid to say.

It's also not a worldview in which "nothing exists except matter and energy". Rather, its simply a worldview in which if something exists we can look for it to see if it is there. It's a worldview in which if something is true we expect the predictions it makes to actually turn out to be true as well when they are tested.

But why is that particular method the only one?

And when Pixy says "it works", he doesn't even mean it works within its framework. He means, your computer works. And that's a product of science. If your argument is "how do we know that science is working?" and I say, "because you are able to read the words I'm typing" you don't need some external system to analyise the truth of that statement: you know that the technology that you interact with every day works, and you know that it's a product of science. If you don't accept that definition of "works", then, if you can't tell the difference between the world today and the world five centuries ago, then you are too far gone for reason.

I never argued science doesn't work. After all, if it wasn't for the science behind heart surgery, I'd be dead. I'm asking why is it the only method we can explain things, 100% of the time? What if the method is proven inadequate for some things, what then?

Furthermore: if religious beliefs were true, we'd be able to analyise them scientifically, there's nothing about science that necessarily assumes religion false. If magic worked, it'd show up, at least as something that makes experiment more difficult. It hasn't, so for now we say "it doesn't seem to work". If, in the future, someone wished things into existence, well, we'd be able to test that too.

I'm not trying to defend or promote any religious thought, even though I do practice it. I just don't understand the all or nothing approach.

 

[TFian]

So, given that you are interested in the question of whether nor not magic exists, how would you go about asking and perhaps even answering that question?

I do not know really. Again though, I'm not as interested in magic, nor do I really believe it exists in the way the Grand Archdruid thinks. I'm simply wondering why scientism is the correct approach to reality.

 

[ben m]

And how are we going to make these panels? What will you do when the sun isn't shining?

a) At solar panel manufacturing plants. These plants are powered by hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind, and solar power. Hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind, and solar power are more expensive than (current) fossil power, but so what? So a future solar-powered solar-panel-manufacurer might charge $8 or $10 for a 100 mW solar panel.

If I told you that it would cost an extra $10 to be able to run a computer, would you swear off the Internet forever and start raising carrier pigeons? No you wouldn't. Heck, I recently spent $80 on a spare battery so that I can use my laptop for an extra 8-10 hours a year. (on airplanes).

b) "What will you do when the Sun isn't shining?" The same thing you do today when your local fossil plant is being repaired, or when an ice storm knocks over a utility pole. You get power routed in from a different, distant source; or you get a call from the utility company (big customers get this all the time today) telling you to reduce usage, or there's a brownout.

 

[TFian]

a) At solar panel manufacturing plants. These plants are powered by hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind, and solar power. Hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind, and solar power are more expensive than (current) fossil power, but so what? So a future solar-powered solar-panel-manufacurer might charge $8 or $10 for a 100 mW solar panel.

But the problem there is, what if we don't build that infrastructure before we run out of the cheap petroleum?

If I told you that it would cost an extra $10 to be able to run a computer, would you swear off the Internet forever and start raising carrier pigeons?

No, but if it became prohibitively expensive, I'd switch to carrier pigeons. They're a lot more resilient after all.

b) "What will you do when the Sun isn't shining?" The same thing you do today when your local fossil plant is being repaired, or when an ice storm knocks over a utility pole. You get power routed in from a different, distant source; or you get a call from the utility company (big customers get this all the time today) telling you to reduce usage, or there's a brownout.

Sure, if you have that extra distant power source available.

 

[PixyMisa]

In a self affirming system it seems.

Wrong.

Empiricism is right, because it's empirically proven to be true.

Wrong.

It's a circular faith system.

Wrong.

Unless you can verify the scientific method without using the scientific method, it's a circular faith system.

Wrong.

Scientism is the more appropriate term.

And, of course, wrong.

Do you know anything at all about the scientific method?

 

[excaza]

But the problem there is, what if we don't build that infrastructure before we run out of the cheap petroleum?

What if the sun explodes tomorrow? Your 'what if' games accomplish nothing. You seem, for whatever reason, to be content with imagining that the people who actually know what they're doing are just sitting on their hands because petroleum is cheap.

Sure, if you have that extra distant power source available.

Energy storage, it's been explained to you already, multiple times in this thread.