Salvaging Science

[TFian]

For a start, fossil fuels are in no way necessary for energy generation. Scientific advancement may rely on energy, but in no way is it dependent on fossil fuels for that energy.

Of course there's other forms of energy generation, they existed far before the fossil fuel powered industrial revolution. The problem is, and this is an important detail, is that fossil fuels are necessary for industrial civilization to function.

 

[lionking]

Yes. Eventually we'll realize science has it's limits, and embark on another means, pilled onto of science and logic, to understand the universe around us.

What is that next step? -- we've got a dark age to get through first, and the long period of reassessment and recovery that such ages involve. After that, our descendants can worry about creating the next useful toolkit for human thought.

How many times does this "dark age" theory need to be debunked in your threads? The massive availability of uranium and renewable energy resources have been pointed out countless times, but you keep your fingers in your ears.

 

[TFian]

Do you have a suggestion as to what that other means might be?

No, I don't. As I said, that's up for our descendants to figure out, after the inevitable 400 to 500 dark age that is looming soon.

I can't think of anything that could possibly answer a question that's out of the reach of science.

I can think of plenty.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes. Eventually we'll realize science has it's limits, and embark on another means, pilled onto of science and logic, to understand the universe around us.

What's interesting about this is that the whole "science is becoming more expensive" thing is a red herring: it has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not science is intrinsically incapable of answering certain questions.

Do you have an example of a question that science cannot possibly answer?

 

[Roboramma]

I can think of plenty.

Then please give me an example

 

[Mashuna]

How many times does this "dark age" theory need to be debunked in your threads? The massive availability of uranium and renewable energy resources have been pointed out countless times, but you keep your fingers in your ears.

It's one failed argument spread out over a number of threads.

 

[lionking]

No, I don't. As I said, that's up for our descendants to figure out, after the inevitable 400 to 500 dark age that is looming soon.

This is simply wishful thinking on your part.

How soon? Fancy a wager?

 

[TFian]

Then please give me an example

Matters of the soul for one.

Are you aware of the term "scientism"?

 

[TFian]

Wait, you still think that we'll stop making computers because we're running out of oil?

I am starting to wonder if you actually read the responses that people make to your posts.

I do. I'm assuming you are referring to the Internet energy contraction thread? I actually have a long detailed response to much of what was said in that thread planned, but I have a few more topics to blaze through here before we get onto that.

Short answer though, computers are intricately tied to industrial civilization, can't have them without it.

 

[TFian]

How soon? Fancy a wager?

Depends on the conditions of said wager. Lay them out beforehand and I'll see if I can accept.

 

[Roboramma]

Matters of the soul for one.

That's not an example. Can you offer a specific example?

 

[Roboramma]

I do. I'm assuming you are referring to the Internet energy contraction thread? I actually have a long detailed response to much of what was said in that thread planned, but I have a few more topics to blaze through here before we get onto that.

I look forward to reading it.

Short answer though, computers are intricately tied to industrial civilization, can't have them without it.

You've said that many times, and it's been pointed out just as many times that the specific changes to industrial civilization that you posit are not likely to lead to the abandonment of computers.

 

[TFian]

That's not an example. Can you offer a specific example?

Matters of spiritual well being.

But this isn't so much a matter of specifically what science can't do, as much as I'm critiquing the dogma of scientism, specifically underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists, whereby the study and methods of natural science have risen to the level of an ideology.

 

[Roboramma]

Matters of spiritual well being.

This sort of assumes its conclusion: define "spiritual" as something that can't be accessed by science, and it's necessarily true that spiritual questions can't be answered by science.

The truth is that such questions can and already very often are answered by science, when we look at what people are really referring to by "spiritual well being". Here's an example:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html

 

[TFian]

How many times does this "dark age" theory need to be debunked in your threads? The massive availability of uranium and renewable energy resources have been pointed out countless times, but you keep your fingers in your ears.

Non fossil fuel sources simply can't take up the slack to power an energy intensive industrial based consumption culture/economic system.

 

[TFian]

This sort of assumes its conclusion: define "spiritual" as something that can't be accessed by science, and it's necessarily true that spiritual questions can't be answered by science.

The truth is that such questions can and already very often are answered by science, when we look at what people are really referring to by "spiritual well being". Here's an example:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html

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.

 

[lionking]

Non fossil fuel sources simply can't take up the slack to power an energy intensive industrial based consumption culture/economic system.

Rubbish. You have been ignoring the many, many posts demonstrating that this assumption of yours is false.

As for the wager, you have been the one talking about the demise of civilization happening soon. When, precisely?

 

[TFian]

Rubbish. You have been ignoring the many, many posts demonstrating that this assumption of yours is false.

Which posts?

As for the wager, you have been the one talking about the demise of civilization happening soon. When, precisely?

Well, I haven't predicted a demise of civilization soon. I've espoused (like Greer) a long descent. We can talk details of that though if you'd like.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

I wonder if that might have been Kelvin, though in the TV drama Einstein and Eddington, another character (at Cambridge, but I don't remember who) was given a line declaring science had nothing left to achieve but ever finer measurement. It was probably a commonly held view at the time.

It's always tempting fate to announce the end of history.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think a case can be made that scientific fraud is more prevalent in medical research than other fields. Furthermore, medical research can be generally regarded as mere technological development as opposed to basic research. Most cases of fraud seem to associated with whether some drug will be an effective antibiotic or lower cholesterol, etc. or concerning the effectiveness of some diagnostic procedure. Such fraud usually has a profit motive where, in comparison, discovering some nuance of QM or plate tectonics (for example) would not have.

It's also a damned sight harder to uncover. It takes a properly designed double-blind test with statistical analysis of the data to determine whether a drug does or doesn't work, and even then the results are frequently disputed. On the other hand, it's a bit difficult to pretend that, for example, a new design of wavelength division demultiplexer is a radical technological advance, when a competent engineer with a spectrum analyser can determine in a matter of minutes that it doesn't actually do anything.

Dave