The War On Science

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Mike, Feb 26, 2015.

  1. Edika

    Edika SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,350
    Likes Received:
    370
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Location:
    Londonderry, N.Ireland, UK
    This reminds me of a band I used to be in where I and the other guitarist had music knowledge while the singer had none. We also had more understanding about music production and sound.
    When we discussed about music, composition and sound I and the other guitarist we'd understand each others points in seconds while the singer would almost always object and have a different opinion based on his proconceived notions about music and what he'd read in forums without having the background to filter any of these. Whatever a guy he never met would write on the internet was correct and we were wrong even after spending hours upon hours discussing, explaining and try to teach him a few things. He is an intelligent guy but his field of knowledge had nothing to due with natural sciences so his thought process was so different that maybe it was one of the reasons of us not communicating well. He did however thought because he was intelligent that he could comprehend subjects a lot easier and faster than he could.
     
  2. CrushingAnvil

    CrushingAnvil \m not jesus land m/

    Messages:
    8,288
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Haven't really been following the contributions/discussion of this thread, but I have my own thoughts, and I think I've said something similar before (but I'll say it again):

    It appears that science works, but we don't really know why. As far as climate change goes, there are one or two facts that we should bear in mind before we proceed:

    The climate changes in a swinging sort of fashion. Ice ages occur naturally. What is highly corroborated is the theory of man-made climate change completely screwing with this natural phenomenon.

    It's not bad when people doubt science - that's what science is does to itself. What we need to be looking at is the reasons for which people doubt scientific theories which are highly corroborated (evolution, climate change/man-made global warming/whatever you want to call it, gravity). As Edika said, it's about people's preconceived notions about the world, and about their unwillingness to accept responsibility for their behaviour and role in the world...
     
  3. pushpull7

    pushpull7 Banned

    Messages:
    4,297
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Location:
    sac
    The thing is, that regardless of what "god" you believe in, there are anomalies that make "fact" a consideration of "what if"

    War on Science? Please, Science is the major basic principal of humanity. Though aliens/strange occurrences/etc are common, they cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
     
  4. TRENCHLORD

    TRENCHLORD Banned

    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    244
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    corncountry IL
    Interesting question (IMO), is;

    How can man screw up the natural process of "climate shift" if man is in fact a product of natural evolution?

    If we evolved naturally here on earth then all our actions good and bad are actually just part of the natural occurring earth biosphere.
    We might not be comfortable with this "evil" form of nature, but like it or not our presence and all our actions are literally part of the natural cycle.

    If we are a transplant or a hybrid (intervened-with) species then it could be factually said that at least to some degree (however small or large) we have changed the "natural" process of earth's climatic eb and flow.
     
  5. The Reverend

    The Reverend GHETTO KING OF SWAG

    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    431
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    I get what you're saying. In a big picture way, since we're an extension of the natural world around us, what we do isn't much different than algae in the ocean producing oxygen. Or beavers making a dam. I feel like climate change has something in common with a complete nuclear armageddon; sure, mass extinctions happen periodically, but how often is it the result of a conscious choice?
     
  6. Grindspine

    Grindspine likes pointy things

    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    110
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    Location:
    Indiana
    ^ so, now it is a semantic argument to avoid natural resources preservation?
     
  7. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Why does it being natural or not exactly matter? If we can make our living environment healthier and postpone any impending doom that we might help accelerate where does the downside lie, beyond the change itself, to not doing so? I don't think any intelligent individual is arguing that the Earth is literally going to be destroyed by our actions, although we do certainly hold that capability, but rather that we are aiding in our own extinction if we don't change. If we make this planet less suitable to live on it's going to have negative consequences for us. That's always how I've seen it. Protecting the environment has always been, to some degree, a selfish activity in my book and I've got no problem with that fact.
     
  8. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    330
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Most organisms on the planet exhibit behaviors that, left unchecked, would have a dramatic effect on their local environment, eventually to their detriment (usually by destruction of food sources). Two things generally prevent this. First, organisms on this planet don't exist in a vacuum - they're embedded in ecosystems, which tend to reach an equilibrium that's relatively stable (via predation and other mechanisms). Second, the rate at which organisms innovate ways around these limits (via evolution) is *very* slow, and is happening in all parts of the system at roughly the same speed, so the "arms race" between predator and prey species, for example, tends to stay balanced, absent outside interference (introduction of a new species, very rare climactic or geological events, etc.).

    Humans, probably uniquely in the history of the planet, are not subject to these limits. Our rate of technological innovation vastly outpaces evolution, and thanks to technology we're largely free from the checks-and-balances imposed by other species: food limitation is not really a problem for humans (in terms of species survival, anyway), and nothing preys on us very successfully. Humanity, collectively, therefore has to regulate itself, before the results of our actions upset other local and global equilibria (like climate) in ways that are actively detrimental to our survival as a species.
     
  9. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    On this first point, this is why kangaroos are culled in certain regions in Australia. They're a land management nightmare, tend to screw up resources for other species, and once in a while, they try to murder one another in the street (it's okay to laugh; it looks funnier than it should). Even the Greens party in Australia doesn't oppose culling kangaroos, because natural selection and poor climate conditions have in the past seen kangaroos breed until they eat all the resources then straight up starve.

    On a barely related note, I recommend the fillet over the mince. I tried to make kangaroo bolognese, and it was fucking awful. Kangaroo steaks are ... interesting? Tolerable. Nowhere near as nice as every other option, which I guess is why you don't see many kangaroo farms. Speaking of which...

    Hey, here's a picture from XKCD:

    [​IMG]

    Daniel Dennett used a claim by Paul Maccready in his book on religion Breaking The Spell, and he reiterates in this TED talk at 11:28. To paraphrase, in 10,000 years humans have gone from being and controlling less than 0.1% of vertebrate land mammals to being and controlling 98% of vertebrate land mammals (thanks mostly to our control over livestock). If accurate, (snopes doesn't have much, and I'm not sure where else to look) that is an incredible shift over a short amount of time, and for most of that time we did not have the aid of industrial machines and internal combustion engines.

    We know the extent of the influence we can have over the way the planet operates, but we've only recently realised that we have to exercise at least a level of self-control.
     
  10. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    409
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Because releasing tons of CO2, through man-made processes, that was sequestered underground via natural process and not a factor of evolution.
    No they're not. This is either succumbing to "Giaism" (Appeal to Faith/Divinity) or "we're all deterministic chemical processes and there's no free will". Neither of which is supported by any data. Also, this is a strawman/equivocation fallacy because even though the words "bad for the earth", "destroying the earth", etc. are being used, people really mean "making the climate inhospitable for humans".
     
  11. CrushingAnvil

    CrushingAnvil \m not jesus land m/

    Messages:
    8,288
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
    You might have me wrong. What man is doing to the environment is entirely natural. Trying to talk about what is unnatural is quite hard, really - it's not really solid ground. Anytime I hear someone say that something is unnatural I cringe a bit.
     
  12. TRENCHLORD

    TRENCHLORD Banned

    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    244
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    corncountry IL
    Agreed.
    Yes, all man's dirt is essentially natural in a survival of the fittest sort of way:lol:.
     
  13. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    330
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    That's a lovely bit of first-year-undergrad pseudo-philosophy, Trench, but I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion.
     
  14. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Whether or not we are natural, or invoking survival of the fittest, doesn't change the fact that our behavior could be killing us as a species. Invader species (one could honestly argue that is what we are) go into a new habitat and destroy their, and many other creatures, food supply. They are both behaving naturally and in line with survival of the fittest when doing so, but that doesn't mean it was beneficial for their kind to do so.

    Suicide is pretty natural as well. Wouldn't say it's a particularly healthy option to take though. The whole 'nature = good' thing is a bit fallacious. This is more about having clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and a stable climate, all of which offer optimal conditions for us to live in now, while also having the potential bonus of prolonging the existence of our species.
     
  15. CrushingAnvil

    CrushingAnvil \m not jesus land m/

    Messages:
    8,288
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Go easy on him - I'm not actually sure what he meant by that.
     
  16. TRENCHLORD

    TRENCHLORD Banned

    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    244
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    corncountry IL
    Celticelk;
    "That's a lovely bit of first-year-undergrad pseudo-philosophy, Trench, but I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion."



    hehe
     
  17. AxeHappy

    AxeHappy SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    232
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Guelph
    Perhaps worth mentioning that, "Survival of the fittest," has been rejected as a term by the science community and the more accurate term is, "Survival of the best fit."

    It's not about who is the best organism, but rather what can exploited their situation the best.

    Which should make it obvious when Trench's entire line of reason on this issue is ....ing stupid.
     
  18. TRENCHLORD

    TRENCHLORD Banned

    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    244
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    corncountry IL

    You're not getting it. I haven't even tried to use my points to validate a particular "reasoning". You're just interjecting your own assumptions just as celticelk :lol:.

    Try taking things at face value once in awhile and quit with the constant assuming.
     
  19. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    Yeah, fair call on 'running with the conversation', being that the whole point of forums is to have a conversation. I admit I tend to be pretty heavy on the referencing, links, and extracurriculuar material.

    So, taking the following two statements at face value:

    and

    It seems like you're either ignoring or dismissing even the possibility that positive action should be attempted in the face a huge global problem. As a stance, it's pretty consistent with the conversation we were having in another thread regarding wealth distribution; I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when you offer your stance it seems to be along the lines of "whatever happens, happens; and attempting to control the fate of individuals or even the entire human race is ultimately futile".

    This isn't an assumption on my part, I'm just looking back at your recent posts, and I find it difficult to translate your statements any other way.

    So, without reaching out for references, descriptions of logical fallacies, links, and without making any assumptions, I'll ask a question. Why join a conversation, largely contribute through broad statements, tell people they're 'not getting it' when they 'misinterpret' those statements, avoid elaborating on your stance in any detail, and then ask others to interpret your statements 'correctly'? Because at face value, on a purely conversational level, it looks like you don't really know how or why you disagree with most of the people posting here, just that you consider a statement of disagreement to be a valid enough contribution.

    This isn't necessarily a criticism, I'm just trying to find a way to understand your stance in the absence of detail.
     
  20. TRENCHLORD

    TRENCHLORD Banned

    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    244
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    corncountry IL

    Because I'm NOT disagreeing. And I'm also not discouraging steps to be cleaner. I'm simply striving for accurate labeling.

    All this over me saying that to say man's influence is not "natural" is in fact not accurate because man's actions are very natural.

    Does it really matter what we call it or how we see it? Perhaps sometimes it does and others not.
    For example, we've all noticed the change from "global warming" to "climate change". Why the change? Because "climate change" is in fact more accurate since not every specific point on the globe is warming at the same time and some specific points might actually be colder this year or any other.



    Seriously, some of you should maybe stop adding assertions into everything and then debating against your own assertions. That's Explorer 101 tactics :lol:.
     

Share This Page