• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Salvaging Science

TFian: There are some very good answers and analyses in this thread. I suggest paying attention instead of trying to insist Greer is right.
 
One has to distinguish between science and technology when these subjects are discussed, because the two are hopelessly mixed in the minds of most people and the definition is actually very relevant to how the role science plays or should play in society is seen. How science is a defined is a notoriously contentious subject.

As Greer pointed out, technology development was a separate activity for a very long time, but this only serves to illustrate the point that it is not the same thing as science. Technology development is getting things to work the way you want them. The reason it is so closely tied to science these days is that at some point in the process of technology development, you hit the limit of what you can do without and understanding of the principles which govern the behavior of the system you are trying to get under control, and then you need to achieve that, by definition scientific, understanding before you can get things to work.

Of course, at some point, we hit the point of diminishing returns in the process of understanding the world around us. Scientists are perfectly aware of this phenomenon and are often discussing it in private. There isn't anything you can about it, that's how it is.

Which is unfortunate but it is only a really serious problem from the perspective of the expectation for eternal ever accelerating technological progress, and that itself comes from the kind of mindset that postulates that infinite growth is possible on a finite planet while not really understanding the difference between science and technology.
 
Last edited:
Almo said:
TFian: There are some very good answers and analyses in this thread. I suggest paying attention instead of trying to insist Greer is right.
Click to expand...

I don't see much answers or deep analyses at all, just assertions that Greer is full of "wrongness". I'm certainly open to more substantiative discussion though.
 
Science as a field has reached the end of its usefulness, unlike the field of archdruidry which has given us.... wait, what has the field of archdruidry given us?
 
arthwollipot said:
If what you have posted represents the death of modern science. Which, really, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Well it kind of has, read above.

Ladewig said:
Science as a field has reached the end of its usefulness, unlike the field of archdruidry which has given us.... wait, what has the field of archdruidry given us?
Click to expand...

Spiritual growth for one. But that's a topic of another discussion.
 
Also, Greer has never said science has outlived his usefulness, quite the contrary in the very same post, praises the scientific method. He's suggesting the growth of scientific knowledge will end, since it's dependent on expensive technology that's only possible with abundant fossil fuels.
 
Ladewig said:
.... wait, what has the field of archdruidry given us?
Click to expand...

TFian said:
Spiritual growth for one. But that's a topic of another discussion.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, spiritual growth. Now there's a field that will be growing by leaps and bounds. There are all sorts of new frontiers to approach in that field.

...................

Getting back to topic. What exactly is the goal of starting threads with quotes from the Grand Archdruid (snicker) who has no understanding of twenty-first century energy generation or of the history and applications of science. Mountains of evidence have been compiled showing that the world is not weeks or months away from a collapse of civilization. Yet you ignore each fact presented.

What is your goal in using the technology of the internet to make posts on a skeptic board about things which no skeptic puts credence in?
 
Wowbagger said:
There is still a lot to be learned about how the human mind evolved, and how consciousness emerges from it. And, it is unlikely to require billion-dollar machines to do it, near as I can tell.
Click to expand...

There is a lot to be learned about genetics and biochemistry as well. It may not be possible to do such research with 18th century laboratory equipment, it certainly isn't prohibitively expensive either. In fact, when we consider the benefits that may result from such research it is clearly worth the relatively small cost.

And it is worth mentioning that the laboratory equipment used by 18th century scientists was very expensive in its day.
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
There is still a lot to be learned about how the human mind evolved, and how consciousness emerges from it. And, it is unlikely to require billion-dollar machines to do it, near as I can tell.
Click to expand...

And the fruits of that research may even provide information which will help in the treatment of mental illness. I salute you, science.
 
And let's not forget the revolutionary science that has been done, even in the last few decades, with little more than pencil and paper.
 
Ladewig said:
Science as a field has reached the end of its usefulness, unlike the field of archdruidry which has given us.... wait, what has the field of archdruidry given us?
Click to expand...

It’s rarely remembered these days that until quite recently, grand archdruidry was mostly carried on by amateurs. Neo-Druidism grew out of 18th century Romanticism, and retains few connections to the historical Druids whose ceremonies were described by Roman historians. Human sacrifice, for example, remains rare among modern Neo-Druids (although TFian has been making a strong case for its reinstitution).

It took a long time for grand archdruidry as a profession to catch on, because—pace a myth very widespread these days—Neo-Druidism has contributed next to nothing to the western world. Until late in the eighteenth century, in fact, there were no professional organizations for an aspiring Grand Arch Druid to join. Henry Hurle began the process in 1781 by founding The Ancient Order of Druids. In 1874, Robert Wentworth Little founded the Ancient and Archaeological Order of Druids, whose American branch was founded in 1912.

I know it’s utter heresy even to hint at this, but I’d like to suggest that grand archdruidry, like alchemy and astrology before it, has gotten pretty close to its natural limits as a method of knowledge. In Wentworth’s time, a century and a half ago, it was still possible to invent worldshaking myths using ideas that would now be considered hopelessly inadequate for even a minor shamanic conference; there was still a lot of low hanging fruit to be picked off the tree of spiritualism. At this point, however, the next round of professional advances in cult standing depends on co-opting a major political party or minor government. Doubtless there will still be surprises in store, but truly revolutionary dogmas are few and far between these days.
 
TFian said:
As the title suggests, it's a post by the Grand Archdruid John Michael Greer about what can, and can't be salvaged from modern "science".

To break it down,

He repeats the point from earlier postings that in a post peak world, specialization will not be viable, and ties this into science.

Explains a bit of the history of science, and the emergence of the history of science as a profession.

This in particular stuck out



Compares the current scientific culture to the ancient Greek logic culture, and corresponds and compares the two with the emerging death of science (like logic previously) being seen as a tool to discover all knowledge.

He makes the astute point we're probably at the end of scientific discovery.



Also talks about the rampant corruption in the sciences, and how scientific consensus has become a matter of simply a political grant or two.

Any scientists, engineers, etc. and those interested in science want to give their two cents on this piece? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

http://energybulletin.net/stories/2011-08-03/salvaging-science
Click to expand...

Whatever the future of science is,druidism will have nothing to do with it.

'Hey,we need a cure for aids and cancer.'
'No,problem,let us contemplate this oak tree and watch the sun rise over Stonehenge.'
 
TFian said:
Err, I'm not meaning to be rude, but did you actually read the post (and his post for that matter?), he never remotely said "science didn't exist before scientists", he was simply describing the history of the creation of the profession of "scientist", or the job of conducting scientific research and interpretation, amongst other things in the post.



He clearly explained throughout history science was done by amateurs as a hobby, please read it before commenting :)
Click to expand...

Some of these amateurs were very clever and knew what they were doing and used their knowledge of the world. Druids and mystics are amateurs who have no idea what they are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom