• 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

External view

What we call "modern science" was the ideology of the new ruling class:
Click to expand...
From day one of human existence they searched for explanations for certain effects. The human mind (in particular the subconscience) does not tolerate anything being impossible to be explained, to be calculated, manipulated or predicted. For the simple sake of self protection and protection of the species. Ancient civilisations had explanations for many effects and were able to solve many problems threatening their survival. "Gaps" in knowledge were filled by theories of gods and witchcraft. Those however blocked any progress to find alternative explanations as they are not, like science, open to discussion. "Modern science" started when the balance of evidence against belief turned against belief. It set an end to the ruling of religious oppression of alternative thinking and debate. Science created a new ruling class which had won against the old ruling class: the popes.

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.
Click to expand...
There are many effects which cannot be explained presently. Even the assumption that there are more basics in nature as matter and energy must remain open to be answered until it is answered. If those basics in the end are labeled raw material or something more mythical is a "matter of taste". Religion was an explanation for effects which couldn't be calculated or predicted. This way it helped the human subconscience out of the dilemma being helplessly exposed to unknown and unpredictable forces. It was and is psychological and it still covers effects waiting to be explained. Those effects also can be viewed as "magic". Magicians are those who by unknown mechanisms have the power to manipulate effects or forces, unknown to others. "Science" simply tries to investigate the forces, the rules, how to manipulate or predict those forces. Thus science tries to make magicians out of everyone, it does not deny the force or the effect.

The interesting thing is that nobody ever actually proved scientifically that magic doesn't work, that spirits and gods don't exist, or any of the other things paraded as definite fact by the publicists of modern science.
Click to expand...

see above
 
TFian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Science has taken a long time to get the basics right. Galileo's most important achievement was possibly not working out the basics of gravity by rolling balls down a plane, but just working out how to set up an experiment that could be repeated and cut down a problem to it's most basic properties. He was able to use that experiment to make a simple mathematical model, another important advance.

It was getting those basics worked out that helped set science up for the spectacular success it has been.

There were other advances that also had to be made, for example, the advances of mathematics were an essential prerequisite for much of modern science.

Although the humble home scientist does make the occasional contribution, much of that is in the past now. You just have to look at the Large Hadron Collide, for example, or the Hubble telescope.

There is also the issue of specialisation. No matter how smart you are, there is only so much the human brain can understand. A lone scientist doing all the work himself is just going to be rarer and rarer as knowledge gets more and more specialised.
 
I still don't know why science has to be salvaged,nor the date of this coming dark age. Should I get my money out of the bank and keep it under my mattress?
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, so we've got someone who doesn't agree with science, doesn't do science, isn't interested in science and disagrees with the fundamental premises of science, saying that science is dying.

Why should we pay attention to this person again?
Click to expand...

I don't think the highlight is true. He clearly has an interest in science, but whether he accepts it or not is up for debate.

As for why we should listen to him, guess that's up for TFian to explain.
 
Okay, I'm willing to entertain a correction on that point. Doesn't change my basic premise. The guy is, in general, anti-science, and he's predicting its end. I don't see any reason to take him seriously.
 
That's it! I'm throwing away all my science based literature and paraphernalia -- I'm going out to purchase some eye of newt and a magic wand!
 
Perpetual Student said:
That's it! I'm throwing away all my science based literature and paraphernalia -- I'm going out to purchase some eye of newt and a magic wand!
Click to expand...

Should I buy some too? i don't want to wait until the dark age starts and panic buying sets in. How long have I got,TFian? You said the new dark age was coming soon.
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, I'm willing to entertain a correction on that point. Doesn't change my basic premise. The guy is, in general, anti-science, and he's predicting its end. I don't see any reason to take him seriously.
Click to expand...

Tfian,why should I take just another nutter on the internet seriously?
 
Dave Rogers said:
I don't think there's anything particularly astute about it, given that it appears to be made from a basis of ignorance and sweeping generalisation. I've been trying to track down a quote, without success, from about 1900, when an far more astute observer noted that science had successfully explained almost all phenomena in the real world, and the only remaining things to be explained were the ultraviolet catastrophe and the null result in the Michelson-Morley experiment. As it turned out, one required special relativity, and the other quantum theory, for an explanation, leading to the radical expansion of our understanding of physics that has made the profession of scientist both viable and necessary. There's nothing new, timely, or particularly clever about predicting the death of science; the tricky bit is identifying the unanswered questions that are about to give it a new direction.

Dave
Click to expand...


Were you thinking of Lord Kelvin?

Kelvin said:
There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.
Click to expand...
 
A few telling quotes brought up by Neil Degrass Tyson in his book Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries

"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered. And these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."

Albert A Michelson, 1894

"We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about Astronomy."

Simon Newcomb 1888

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, all that remains is more and more precise measurement."

Lord Kelvin, 1901


I think this is the best of them:

"On the subject of stars, all investigations which are not ultimately reducible to simple visual observations are, necessarily, denied to us. We shall never be able by any means, to study their chemical composition. I regard any notion concerning the true mean temperature of the various stars as forever denied to us."

August Compt, 1835
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
I wasn't talking about pleasure though.

As for assuming it's conclusion, that's kind of the point. Science is ill equipped, and incapable of explaining matters that are non scientific. Again, are you aware of "scientism"? You're practicing it now.
Click to expand...


And math is ill equipped, and incapable of explaining matters that are non mathematical.
 
More Philosophy

Not long ago scientists were following the ideal of the "universal genius". Thats why they had (and have) a "Doctor of Philosophy" (PhD) even when they split atoms. Today scienctific disciplines are more separated from each other caused by their complexity. That however is a sign of progress even if it is difficult for the outsider to see that pogress.
 
Myriad said:
JadeStonesFromSaturn, your points about Greer are well taken. The reason I don't pay much attention to those writings, and that they don't bother me much, is that in every case where Greer is talking about actual solutions to actual problems, ideas like spirits and sacred geometry are absent.
Click to expand...

Point taken, I still think though his underlying beliefs on science color his ideas (in a non factual way). What solutions in particular do you find logically based?

Myriad said:
Ironically, this is very similar to the transhumanists' ideas of unpredictable revolutionary changes taking place following a similarly opaque future "singularity." Only the predicted time scale is different. What makes it ironic is Greer's clear disdain for the ideas of transhumanism.
Click to expand...

I don't think Greer is as far away from the "Doomers" he claims to be separate from as he may like to portray himself as. His long descent scenario just sounds like a drawn out "die off" or "apocalypse", rather than in one singular burst, like say the "Second coming" or the "singularity". Just my observation...
 
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...

I think what TFian is trying to say here is that since scientists and engineers think that his precious arch-druid is full of <snip>, that the entire profession must be corrupt and that "true science" (ie. the rubber stamping of arch-druid Greers hateful genocidal fantasies) is dead.

Have I got that right, TFian?

Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited to remove an autocensor workaround. Ironically, it makes the deleted word appear dirtier than it really was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sadhatter said:
Anyone familiar with the Forgotten realms fiction? Namely the Cleric Quintet?

This druid is a Pikel if there ever was one, unfortunately he lacked the pragmatic brother Ivan in his early years, to slap him upside the head when he gets a little too silly. And this is the result.
Click to expand...

No, this druid is clearly a Tauren druid.

While the gnomes of Azeroth have become highly advanced, mastering rocketry, robotics, firearms and powered heavier than air flight, the Tauren are still stone-age nomads living in animal skin tents and haven't even developed agriculture yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom