Will the internet survive energy contraction?

drkitten said:
Since "that particular brand of dogma" is a dead link, you shouldn't accept it at all.
Click to expand...

Whoops.
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
Click to expand...
 
TFian said:
I don't. I'm not criticizing the scientific method, I'm asking why it's an absolute, which is what scientism espouses.
Click to expand...
What do you even mean by saying that it's an "absolute"? Why do you say that "scientism" espouses this? Why are you even bringing up scientism?

And what are the key requirements of a valid scientific hypothesis, and how do these requirements show that everything you have said about empiricism is wrong?

If it's any help, drkitten answered at least half of this for you.
 
PixyMisa said:
What do you even mean by saying that it's an "absolute"?
Click to expand...

As in everything, period, can be deduced and explained with the scientific method as we currently understand it.

PixyMisa said:
Why do you say that "scientism" espouses this?
Click to expand...

Because it does.
In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with that worldview?

PixyMisa said:
Why are you even bringing up scientism?
Click to expand...

Because someone else earlier essentially brought up that worldview in response to something earlier posted.
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
I don't. I'm not criticizing the scientific method, I'm asking why it's an absolute, which is what scientism espouses.
Click to expand...

It's not an absolute. It's simply the second best method of inquiry we've got, after pure deductive reasoning, which is unfortunately the realm only of pure mathematics (and upon extremely rare occasion philosophy and computer science).

No one except you seems to be claiming that it's an absolute. The problem is, the mere fact that science is an absolute doesn't mean that other methods that have been tried and found wanting come anywhere close in their ability to come up with useful and meaningful descriptions of reality.
 
drkitten said:
It's not an absolute. It's simply the second best method of inquiry we've got, after pure deductive reasoning, which is unfortunately the realm only of pure mathematics (and upon extremely rare occasion philosophy and computer science).

No one except you seems to be claiming that it's an absolute. The problem is, the mere fact that science is an absolute doesn't mean that other methods that have been tried and found wanting come anywhere close in their ability to come up with useful and meaningful descriptions of reality.
Click to expand...

So then, you don't view science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth?
 
TFian said:
As in everything, period, can be deduced and explained with the scientific method as we currently understand it.
Click to expand...

No one except you has claimed this. For example, the scientific method as we currently understand it can neither deduce nor explain how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Of course, no one in this discussion except possibly you actually gives a damn how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, either.

There are lots of other methods that can deduce and explain things. Wild-assed guessing, for example, can also deduce and explain anything you like. The problem is that most of the deductions obtained are wrong, and that most of the explanations are specious, and there doesn't seem to be any method of distinguishing which are the all-too-few exceptions other than by testing them,.... and you're back at the scientific method again.
 
drkitten said:
No one except you has claimed this. For example, the scientific method as we currently understand it can neither deduce nor explain how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Of course, no one in this discussion except possibly you actually gives a damn how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, either.

There are lots of other methods that can deduce and explain things. Wild-assed guessing, for example, can also deduce and explain anything you like. The problem is that most of the deductions obtained are wrong, and that most of the explanations are specious, and there doesn't seem to be any method of distinguishing which are the all-too-few exceptions other than by testing them,.... and you're back at the scientific method again.
Click to expand...

So then, you don't view science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth?
 
TFian said:
So then, you don't view science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I've already stated that pure deduction also provides absolute and justifiable access to the truth. Assuming, of course, that the premises are absolutely true and the deduction is airtight, which makes it a rather sterile enterprise for the most part -- unless you're a mathematician, in which case it's a career.

Now, if you think you have a third method of inquiry that provides absolute and justifiable access to the truth, then please feel free to describe it. And justify it.

I can already predict that you'll fail.
 
TFian said:
Then, we do not disagree on this issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. Because you feel that you have some sort of access to the truth that extends beyond the capacities of science. (Deductive reasoning does not even match the capacities of science.) Since, to the best of my knowledge, no such super-scientific method of inquiry exists, I can only conclude that you're misguided and wrong.
 
TFian said:
Ever hear of EROEI?
Click to expand...

Yes. If we were starting from nothing, and the fossil-fuel tap got turned off overnight, I would maybe worry a little tiny bit about EROEI. As it is, I don't.

For their residential energy use yeah. Neither country produces much at all though.
Click to expand...

Are we still talking about "will the internet survive energy contraction"? If not, I'm sorry I missed the turnoff.

If you want to start a thread about "Would everyone be able to move to Switzerland and live off the hydro in the post-oil age", go ahead. If you want to know whether the world has enough existing renewables capacity to want to keep the Internet running, the answer is yes.

Not for me no.
Click to expand...

So the internet will survive energy contraction; you, like most users, are willing to pay the higher prices that it, like everything else, will demand in the post-fossil-fuel future.

From what?
Click to expand...

1) From all of the other renewable sources I was just talking about---the ones that exist now, the ones that will be built cheaply before oil runs out, the ones that will be built expensively after oil runs out, etc. Connected by a grid, either the grid we have now, or the grid we'll build "cheaply" before oil runs out, or the grid we'll build expensively after oil runs out.

2) Alternatively, if we're literally talking about rooftop solar, from the bank of lead-acid batteries that you presumably bought for $10-per-100mW at the same time you bought your $10-per-100mW solar panels.
 
Come on TFian, don't tell me this guy isn't a few sandwiches short of a picnic...

john20michael20greer20f.jpg


The "Grand Archdruid" in all his creepy glory.
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
Why would it have to resemble the scientific method at all?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't. Internally, it could go through any process it liked. If you have an omniscient penguin in your back yard that can tap-dance answers to questions in Morse code, that's about as unscientific a method as you can get.

But can that penguin address the same breadth of inquiry that science can? And can it give answers with the same degree of accuracy?

If your proposed non-scientific inquiry method can't even match what science can already do, why bother with it?

(Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. Superman isn't human; he's superhuman, in that he goes beyond the capacities of mere humans. If your method isn't super-scientific, then I'll stick to science, thanks.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom