Nick227 said:
Why would simply being objective not create security? Following science
and being objective seems to me to create security in the short term - we have better transportation, some diseases have disappeared, better childcare, we can expect to live longer.
For example for the reasons you have alluded to yourself (you seem to argue against yourself now).
Simply being objective does not guarantee security if you don’t have any means to change perceived insecure circumstances. Using science and investigating the world has indeed given us more effective tools by which we have been able to change some circumstances to the better, some to the worse.
Your whole notion about objectivity just feeling good is simply too naïve to be taken seriously: it’s the choices we make and the outcome of our actions, and much more, that seems to create more security (or more insecurity). Choices can be guided by science though – usually they work better than pure luck or faith.
But at the same time there's global warming, wmds, rampant poverty and starvation. I see no evidence that the mindless application of objectivity achieves anything very much. I agree that it needs to be applied correctly, and one of the first things to grasp are the immense limitations of objectivity.
First of all, we know much about global warming through science, and thus such knowledge could potentially create additional feelings of insecurity. Second, industrial and technological advancement is a direct result from objective investigation. Not all of it creates security thou. In fact, with the increased knowledge derived from science we have learned that there are many more potential dangers – again, many as a result from our own doings, but also some that we don’t have partaken in, but simply become aware of through science. I wouldn’t say that increased awareness of a potential global mayhem is something which increases feelings of security.
For instance Ulrich Beck’s Risk society is a pretty good introduction to the double edged problems with science in contemporary society.
I'm looking at the results. Is our world any safer now than it was a thousand years ago. In some ways, yes, some diseases have been routed, at least temporarily, but in many ways no. We seem forever on the edge of some kind of global calamity. I'm just looking at the results of objective investigation rationally.
Are you trying to look at the results objectively? It seems you do, and thus you feel confident enough to say that your assessment is correct.
The thing is Nick, we have always been close to some kind of global calamity, mass extinctions have happened, and asteroids have collided with the earth. Humans seem to be able to make it happen too.
Yes, to a degree.
Has it sated the desire for knowledge?
Yes, to a degree, although the desire for more knowledge might not ever be fulfilled.
Do we feel like we've really got somewhere with it? I don't personally, and I don't know many who do.
Yes, quite a bit. For instance it has made it possible for you to project your own somewhat misplaced frustration on the internet, to people from all around the world.
What is it to carry on pursuing a behaviour when it does not achieve the result promised, when it does not work. Usually that kind of behaviour is termed "addiction."
I’m not sure what promises you think have been provided. For understanding how stuff seems to operate, it has worked pretty well I would say.
We understand **** all, and any truly honest scientist or philosopher will admit this. All we have learned is what happens when you look out at the world through one filter.
And that’s probably the best filter we have, given the limitations you so much want to bring forth. It’s just silly to deny the progress we have made in understanding how stuff seem to works. We don’t even know what our limitations are, yet you go on about some other notion of knowledge which you haven’t even tried to explain.
