No matter how much I agree with your demand for a paradigm shift, I don't think I can agree with where you are placing some stresses in your argument.

You are blaming science for anthropocentrism. What we think we are entitled to do as a species comes from a long-held belief of humans as a summit of creation/evolution, as kings of the mountain. That mentality has followed a very long path, from the ancient tribal monotheistic perspective to the modern secular humanistic views, but the psychological assumptions behind it haven't changed much.

The human species has needed since long to believe in its own legitimate supremacy. Why? There's as many answers as disciplines. You might ask a darwinist, a historian, a materialistic anthropologist, a catholic priest, a freudian psychologist, or a philosopher. They might suggest that we are survival selfish machines, that we made an unique difference by developing language and art, that we are god's chosen offspring (or his blessed mirror projection), or that we need that psychological self-defense trick after killing a magnificent beast. Now, if we become culturally mature, if we actually grow up, we will question every single one of those explanations, and dismiss them one by one for incompleteness or for invoking circular logic. Or we will simply outlive them.

It's that self-centered view, secular or not, what has tainted and biased the direction of many things, including scientific progress. Not the other way around. It's not the scientific method giving the human species a shiny new perspective inspiring us the idea of our superiority. The megalomania has been around WAY before the scientific method became a way to understand reality. As a matter of fact, science has provided us with way more of evidence that questions that anthropocentric view, than evidence backing it up. By far. It's not science what made us "kings of creation". That belief has been dragged along for many centuries, and it has affected every single human development, be it science, language, or religion.

And if you give a spoiled brat a brand new psychology manual, he will read it and use it often improperly, according to his self-centered worldview. It's going to take a long maturing process until he finally realizes he himself is a narcissist. That doesn't make psychology a weapon. Science is not a knife. It has innate potential for good and for bad, like language or philosophy or art or religion. And the way to use science properly certainly involves fully accepting our own inner evil (narcissistic, immature, scared) streak. Regulating the use of tools makes complete sense, specially when we're failing to employ them without hurting or getting hurt. But transferring to them our own flaws, even dialectically, doesn't sound like a good step towards a mature mentality to me.

Again, I must agree with Vodsel here, Visty. Your attack on science is totally misfired. Technology is not science. Reliable scientific knowledge is inherently value-free and has no moral or ethical value. Science tells us how the world is. Dangers and ethical issues only arise when this scientific knowledge is applied as technology. However, ethical issues can also arise in scientific experiments, for example with animals and humans, or as a question of safety in conducting them.

Nevertheless the distinction between science and technology, between knowledge and understanding on the one hand, and the application of such knowledge and understanding on the other, is fundamental. Science just produces ideas about how the world works, whereas the ideas in technology results in something practical. Besides, technology is older than anything one could regard as science and unaided by any science through most of history. Science actually made virtually no contribution to technology until the 19th-century. It is the technology that drags with it ethical concerns, not science itself.

The very nature of science is that it is not readily possible to predict what knowledge might come out of it, and even less how these discoveries could be applied. Scientists just can't easily predict the social and technological impact of their current research. It was, for instance, originally argued that radio waves would have no application whatsoever, and Lord Rutherford said that applications of atomic energy was moonshine. Whatever new technology is introduced on the basis of some research, it is not for the scientist to make the moral or ethical decisions regarding these applications. They have neither special rights nor skills in areas involving moral and ethical concerns. Moreover, scientists themselves rarely have anything to say in relation to applications of science; this rests on those with the money and the power - industries and governments. The decision to create the atomic bomb for example, was a decision made by politicians, not scientists.

What you should be attacking is not science at all, but politics and industries. Blaming science for the bad that technology can do and does today is just a total miss, just as it is a total miss to say that a hammer is evil and bad because some nutcase smashed somebody's head with it.

Science and technology is without doubt intertwined, but the distinction is still clear between them. The discovery of atomic fusion and fission is one thing, but the application of this knowledge to specifically create a bomb is a whole other matter. Can't you see this?

Science is simply a system for measuring the world. That's all it is. As such, it's neutral.

We need to remember the root of the problem- it's in our nature. Which is an extension of Nature, capital N.

Kind of hard to override that.

Funny thing is, im reading both sides of this discussion and finding myself agreeing broadly with most of both sides' points. In reality you are mostly on the same page. It's turning into an argument about where the responsibilities of science, as an institution, begin and end. Read closely enough and it's mostly a disagreement on semantics- where does science end and technology begin? We can split those hairs ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Where I disagree with Visty the most is in the idea that we should hobble or place limits on how deeply science can explore. In the same post you say that you like to peel away the layers and explore the core of truth- that's something that science does. Who will be the ones to set the limits on scientific exploration?

I have way too many opinions on this subject to allow me to spend the time required for a full response, but I do have one statement I must respond to.



Again, this is the fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between science and technology.

For sake of argument, I'm going to align your definition of god with my own (Universe is god).

The rules and mechanics of the universe, and the discovery of those rules and mechanics, are what science is.

What we do with the discovery of the rules/mechanics of the universe, and the creations we as humans manufacture is technology.

Science is the discovery/understanding of what exists from "god" (the universe). Not humans.

We merely have the ability to deduce and understand the mechanics of it's function.

No that is not what I wrote.



And if you give a spoiled brat a brand new psychology manual, he will read it and use it often improperly, according to his self-centered worldview. It's going to take a long maturing process until he finally realizes he himself is a narcissist. That doesn't make psychology a weapon. Science is not a knife. It has innate potential for good and for bad, like language or philosophy or art or religion. And the way to use science properly certainly involves fully accepting our own inner evil (narcissistic, immature, scared) streak. Regulating the use of tools makes complete sense, specially when we're failing to employ them without hurting or getting hurt. But transferring to them our own flaws, even dialectically, doesn't sound like a good step towards a mature mentality to me.[/quote]

Well, it does to me. You don't give your gun to your kid do you? You sidestep the point I made, that we do not recognize that whatever we make, we are in it. You cannot honestly say that knives make themselves. That atomic bombs make themselves.

Giving a child a psychology manual might not be a good idea because a child might not understand it properly and derive conclusions from it that can be harmful to the child.

But I guess I will leave it at this. There is little point in exchanging more thoughts when you disagree with such a fundamental point. That is that our tools inherit our flaws. And that we do not think ahead of how tools can be abused. Maybe the problem here is that people are dividing up responsibilities. People do not see connections. A tool has nothing to do with science I am told, science is different than technology I am told, science is always neutral and it is up to use to mature around our tools you say. So first we make the bombs and then we think about whether or not it was a good idea and then we adapt to the fact they are now present and we just have to live with them.

It boggles the mind.

But it does not. It gives a description of reality, it is not reality itself. You know what McKenna said about cartesian thinking and how they thought that nature was mute and how things like color and feeling were considered secondary attributes and as such less relevant?

There is no such thing as inherent neutrality because scientific knowledge by default is a biased human view. It is that materialist view on nature, to dismantle everything to its core particles, that is at the heart of our consumerist perspective. And as you might have heard, that way of life is unsustainable and kills climate and people alike.

Your position is idealistic. Science impacts how we live our lives. What we learn and know by studying nature helps to create technologies. These technologies in most cases add to climate change, global warming, destruction of natural habitats. And so on and so forth. And oil fuels the production of the goods technology makes available. The links cannot be clearer.

There is no neutral knowledge. Such a knowledge would be the mind of 'god' itself. Knowledge on earth invariably leads to a practical application. The laws of physics led to flight. The laws of optics led to microscopes. Why do we do science anyway, to write it all down in scholarly tomes? Maybe the accumulation of knowledge is a goal all by itself, but reality shows that humans create from scientific facts, new technologies.



Show me what science did not lead to a technology then. And tell me how any of these technologies did not contribute to life as we know it and the situation the world is in.



I disagree with that. Science is only one possible view on reality. But you overestimate its importance. We could thrive just as well without science. Humans are not dependent on it. At the same time you underestimate its role in feeding technology with the basic understanding of how to make stuff.



Laughable. So because the scientist has to be some white-haired naive, alienated from the world, locked up in his lab sort of person, abused by greed and power, he cannot be blamed for attributing his mind to the development of a weapon system or something that destroys nature?

And you strip away their responsibility on the claim they have no RIGHTS or SKILLS involving moral and ethical concerns?!? My god man. Every person has a conscience and a moral compass and we can either compromise it and go do our scientific study for corporate greed, military power or put it to use for something useful and peaceful. What skills does morality require precisely? What rights does it take for a scientist to have a moral stance?
A scientist is allowed to create the atomic bomb, give it to a government for crying out loud then like a genuine Jesus washes his hands in innocence, walking away and letting society decide how to use the bobs?

I am reminded here of a Star Trek Voyager episode wherein a scientist responsible for the death of half a planet is persecuted for it but desperately tries to find a cure for the disease he helped to create. Maybe we should ask Oppenheimer how he felt after Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Would he day 'Well, sorry but I can't help that the government decided to use my playtoy?'



They are integral parts of a scientific worldview. And only one possible view. And as such subject to criticism and not to be lifted out of reach of our judgment. There is no neutral science because scientific knowledge is a human enterprise and as a result, subjective and fallible. Technologies derived from scientific perspectives are therefore prone to imperfection and imperfection, both in design and use, for whatever reason is an innate attribute of any technology.

The question is, can man make a perfect machine? No. Why? Because we are ourselves imperfect. If we are imperfect, we cannot hope to use technology as our savior.

And that is what history shows. Scientific based technology creates problems that it then is asked to repair. And often technology is pushed in capitalist open market systems in the form of useless hyped up junk. Like cell phones.

Even today I head that a few schools around here force students to buy Ipads because they believe it motivates them more than the use of books! Complete and utter madness! They offer the Ipad as a solution to a problem that is not there. The demotivation if there even is, in students comes from the lack of a good teaching method. And because teachers are not skillful enough or inspiring enough.

And then when the Ipads break, they contribute to waste management problems. How is this a solution to anything?

No man. I think I have valid points and I will stick to my logic and intuition on this one.

I will. And you as well. Getting to the core of things does not have to be a goal anyway. When do you know enough? Science would say, never. Maybe that is something we never dare ask.

I proposed committees consisting of all walks of life, all expertises, to give their opinion on what a scientist or lab or business or university wants to do. We pay with it with our taxes after all. Science is not meant to be abused by technology to market climate arming junk goods. But if the reality of the day shows that invariably that is what happens...then we ought to prevent it.

We should do studies before doing a study, as to find out the consequences of research into some field. You can go back to the wiki article what fields they could be.

I am thinking about science in a very different way these days.

No, that is wrong. Science is a description of reality, not reality itself. Those rules and mechanics are in a way merely semantic expressions of some phenomenon. If science, as you say, equals the rules and mechanics, then rules and mechanics are science. But that can't be true since science is an interpretation and as such, subject to bias.



Impossible.



But its validity remains only within that frame of mind.

Visty, I never suggested in my replies that we should make bombs without thinking about the consequences. I didn't say that a tool has nothing to do with science either. And I do not disagree with the fact that our tools often reflect (maybe I would use this verb, instead of "inherit" ) our flaws. My point was pretty simple - science is not harmful by itself, the scientific method does not imply an evil outcome. Science is a general purpose deductive system. It's how we use it, why we use it, what will make it positive or negative. That is relevant. Don't we fully agree in that?

Judging the intrinsic value of a generic purpose tool without considering how it is used is biased. And exactly the same applies to any human system or creation. Language is not evil, and we should not judge language according to lies and insults. Religion is not evil, and we should not judge it according to fanaticism and dogma. And neither is science, and we should not judge it in absolute terms by only invoking bombs, and disregarding telescopes.



How. The word is how.

I don't think we disagree in the basics that much. As said earlier in the thread, it's probably just a matter of semantics, and nuances, and where do we trace boundaries. I was addressing how you worded some things, because you seemed to make judgements upon science that disregarded that how.

I completely agree with the idea of studying the applications of any new discoveries, and anticipate their implications in our world. But when you say,



Ideally, and since, as you say, science is often abused to market climate arming junk goods, we might want to keep science from making findings that might be abused. But I'm afraid that is hardly possible. You cannot anticipate the outcome of research. Exploration is basically blind, you cannot foresee what will you find before entering a cave. First, you have to find. Then, you can decide what should you do (and what you shouldn't do) with your findings. In some particular cases, you might decide that a line of investigation is most likely not going to bring any good - such as, specifically developing biological or chemical warfare. But that is not how it usually goes. Can we afford to block computer research because a new quantum computer might be used for military reasons? Can we stop research in materials engineering just in case the new building blocks are used to build prisons and isolation walls?

If we want to be realists, this is the real conundrum. You tend to think we should be careful and not take chances, given the circumstances. And I'm not that sure. We need to strive for balance, rethink ourselves, and throwing tools away (language, science, art, religion) will not help. If we need a paradigm shift, we should not underestimate the role research can play in that. Science has proven to be useful when it comes to change our view of the world. We have to broaden that view, and make different questions, and use new technologies - and DMT, for instance, has been referred to as a new technology. I think we have to add new factors to the scenario, not remove them.

And this, my friend, might actually be the only point where we disagree.

Hopefully, (LOL), you have some respect for Alex Grey, here's a very nice vid from him talking about what science and the spirit are, and discussing the recent Johns Hopkins Psilocybin study on the mystical experience, ran by Roland Griffiths. Made me think of you lol.




And below is a TED vid from Roland Griffiths, discussing the very positive results from the recent Johns Hopkins Psilocybin study he ran.


Love and Peace

Wow thanks for sharing these. Alex Grey makes so much sense to me. He describes exactly what I think about science and spirit. Lately I have been advocating the same thing. A merger of science with intuition, or spirit. He describes it very well. Science looks at the external world and measures it. You can tell he has been listening to McKenna :-) And spirituality explores the inner world. He also mentioned in so many words that the one cannot describe the other because they are...hmmm...antithetical to each other.
The only way for mankind to progress is, in a sense, technorealism in an alchemical sense. The realization that science cannot be the only tool we have to get mankind on a better track. And that spirit needs to be joined into the mix again.

This is a most important point I want to make, that I thought about tis morning. I think it is fundamental to my ideas in this matter.

You cannot do anything without becoming part of it.

Let's talk about the media e.g. Journalism would have us believe that they neutrally report the news. But I think it might be impossible to report news without becoming part of it. Some news media go so far as to not even hold up a facade of impartiality, like fox news.

As the news reports the events of the world they make them real to people in an ontological sense. And as they report it the question is whether or not to believe what you are seeing and hearing and if the information is correct. At that moment the media themselves are part of the conveying of information.

If you see someone drown you become part of the process. As a witness you play a part. There are ties between you and the drowning person. You can assist. Would a reporter just film the drowning or would they put down the camera and dive in?

Some reporters on tv who had been to refugee camps in Darfur said on tv that they were devastated by what they saw. And that they would give some of their food to the refugees because their situation was so abysmal. We tend to think they were then part of the story. But they already were as thy witnessed the situation.

Our consciousness attaches itself to everything. To behold an object is to be the object through perception and understanding within the limits of comprehension. You internalize the external. Our minds are like these sticky balls that are a toy, you know, the one you throw at a door and then it sticks to the door and then slides down because it keeps sticking to the door. I had one as a kid, in the shape of an octopus.

So, what about science? It is the same thing as with media. There is a matter of responsibility. Science cannot neutrally, distantly define and create the precursors of technology or even just notions about reality without being part of reality. With precursors I mean, the theories and models on which technology can be based. Natural laws about energy find their way into cars. Studies about light find their way into the screen you are watching now.

So science cannot dodge responsibility for how the world is today. Science is not an abstraction. It is a human endeavor. As such these scientist become part of the model they theorize. If a scientists decides on a model of the universe, from Big Bang to know, they live inside that universe after all. There is a connection between the superheated situation of electrons 1 second after the Big Bang to the cooler matter of which we exist now. If thbat is the model you defend, then you are part of that model yourself.

So people tell me that science is neutral and that it can be used in a right or wrong way. I cannot agree. You are or become what you propagate. There is no way to state that 1+1=2 in a neutral independent way. This arithmetic can be used to count the number of bombs you made, or pills. At that moment, arithmetic becomes part of the world. The scientist who thought up this equation becomes as such, part of the process of counting and is responsible for a model in which arithmetic is used to count things.

In politics the same thing happens - and that is perfectly normal. In politics, minister of parliament resign if something falling under the responsibility of their ministry goes horribly wrong. Even if they had no part in it they are still held accountable. I don't see why a scientist would not be held accountable? Surely this is ebcause we live in a world of scientism.

"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."

We see this in the judicial system as well. We prove someone did something by using scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence is just hearsay and DNA found in a crime scene usually, and often wrongly, puts someone behind bars, whereas an eye witness can be discredited. So in effect, we distrust the human mind and prefer a material proof, that is, the DNA 'material'. Furthermore they want a weapon, preferably with fingerprints on it. And no case has ever been built around a psychic testifying what he saw in his vision and successfully closed the case.

I think this scientism view on reality permeates everything and that most people may recognize it in themselves to some extend, but not all they way down to its full depths. That is what I see in the discussions all around internet. People cannot get completely get rid of this concept of describing reality.

In any case, these are good arguments about how science cannot be neutral. We politics where we do hold people responsible, we have the court system that holds people accountable based on science and fact, we have the media that, as they report, become part of the story.

Epistemologically speaking there is no mind-independent thing. If it is beheld, it has become part of the mind. As a solipsist I turn it around, but that is another discussion.

What matter of responsibility? How can science, which is simply a collection of methods to acquire knowledge about the universe, be held accountable for how this knowledge is used by others? Science can't even readily predict what knowledge might come out of it, even less how this knowledge can be applied! I have mentioned this before, and even given you examples of how great scientists believed no applications could come from their research. The history of science is stuffed with examples like this.

And no one here have underestimated the impact science has on technology, quite the opposite. Without our scientific knowledge today we would have nothing of the modern technology we surround us with daily. This is undeniable, and no one have disputed this very trivial fact. To make my position clear on this, I stand by the quote from Edward Teller that "the science of today is the technology of tomorrow". This is very much true. The question is however, if science should be blamed for how the knowledge it acquires is applied. I think not, because the blame should be on facets of human nature and in some cases a faulty moral judgement, not on the knowledge itself.

There is essentially nothing in science that encourages destruction and aggressive actions. Tell me where I can find that the discovery and knowledge of atomic energy directly encourages us to build atomic bombs and use them on eachother? Where in the models and equations and observations does it say this? Let me answer for you; nowhere does it say this.



Saying that there is no way to state that 1+1=2 in neutral, independent way is silly. When I write down on the chalkboard that 1+1=2, or discover this, this is a completely neutral, independent, general fact that is not connected to concrete objects. It is an abstraction that can deal with every situation where one object together with another object becomes two objects. This very trivial fact, that 1+1=2, doesn't encourage you to count your bombs or pills or whatever, it is you or others that encourages you to do this, not the fact itself.

Science is, by default, neutral. The knowledge it produces can be used for good or bad. I can't understand how you can seriously rage against science in this way. It doesn't make any sense.

With every progress follows responsibility, of course. With insight into medicine we can cure small pox, fight polio epidemics, cure cancer, stop the development of HIV and a great many other good things. But we can also use this knowledge to produce biological weapons. How we use this knowledge is dependent on the one side of primitive and irrational, human aggressive drifts, and rational, critical and knowledge-seeking thought on the other. We must focuse on the last part, the rational, critical and knowledge-seeking thought, and this is to focus on science.

There is just undoubtedly more benefits than disadvantages with the knowledge science produces, and to give science the blame for that someone uses this knowledge destructively is like giving the mineral quartz the blame for that stone-age humans attacked eachother with spears. It doesn't make any sense.

I explained that. There is no science without humans. Science, as a practice, is per definition a human practice. It is why I quoted someone saying that guns don't need minds, they use ours. I cannot make it clearer then this...





That does not mean it is the right way to go about science. If scientists cannot predict the harm that may come of it, which is a real good cover that allows them to basically just do whatever they want, then perhaps science is flawed. Insofar as the future cannot be predicted, perhaps so. But there are ways to minimize the harm. One such thing is the practice of technorealism.




I do not think it is trivial when technology, coming out of fundamental understanding of nature, at least understanding in a scientific framework, impacts our world so profoundly.



This is where most of you and I fundamentally disagree on. At this point we are simply restating our view. What is the root cause of our views being so different? Am I just completely weird? Or are the rest not seeing things quite right? Who can say.

But let me restate this, that in a court room you WILL get convicted for handing someone in rage the gun that kills someone. That as a gang leader you will be put in jail for leading people to commit crime. That failing to follow safety protocols on the work floor resulting in injury, WILL get you fired and prosecuted. That as a minister, guru, person of import and with that the responsibility as such, you will be prosecuted for people suiciding because you tell them the end of the world is nigh.

We apply responsibility all around. In your view, the person handing a gun goes free on the reasoning that he didn't pull the trigger, he merely gave someone access to a tool. In your view, the gang leader is innocent because despite him telling people where to go to commit a crime, he did was not present at the crime scene. In your view the person causing injury to self or others on the work floor will have an insurance company pay his medical costs fully and won't be held accountable in court because not following safety protocols say nothing about the machines he used that caused injury. In your view the spiritual leader goes free because even though he believes the end of the world is nigh, he did not command or suggest people to commit suicide.

But yet when it comes to science, all ties are severed. And science is carried by people, just like all those situations I meant involve people. Science therefore is not severed from the person doing the research.

And I have not seen any argument opposing this at all.



It is inherent within it. It is an innate characteristic. As you said yourself, technology comes out of science and it always does. IF you understand that so well, isn't it time to man up and face the music? And what is the music? The music is the understanding of our nature, that we are fallible beings who compromise themselves on a daily basis by doing one thing and talking the other. That we all know climate is going down the drain because of our conduct in this world, we talk about energy saving, alternative energy, saving the forests and so on and so forth. Apart from a few hero's from Sea Shepard I don't see people consuming significantly less. We should man up and accept we are bastards. And when you do that, you can start to think about how to work with our flawed being in doing the right thing.

Similarly, we tend to portray Hitler, Stalin and Mao as monsters, inhuman bastards and in doing sow e cast them far from us. But those people were NOT monsters. They ere you and me. Humans of Earth, with a mean streak.

If you know so well that technology comes out of scientific understanding, then it seem logical that we should not stop at blaming technology or how we use technology. That is externalizing our own dysfunction into technology and then casting it away as examples of bad human behavior. Nice psychological trick, but I ain't falling for it boy.

It is exactly that way of thinking that causes technology to be used for bad reasons. Because we dare not look in the mirror and recognize and acknowledge our mean streak.

If people did that, I do not think a scientist would be so careless, nor would an engineer be willing to build a car that uses gasoline.

If science is the root cause of a miserable world through the application of technology, then we blame not technology, we go to the root. That is why one uses DMT. To get to the root of all things. You want a breakthough. McKenna said this too. Youc an feel ecstasy on 2 mg psilocybin but you want the 5 mg to get where you get the visions and the understanding.




But here you show your lack of understanding. Don't mean to be harsh.
Technorealism isn't about putting labels like positive or negative on things. It means rather to overview the results of the use of technology. The conclusions that come from such scrutiny are then what we would base our position on.

All these things you name, like curing cancer, should be examined. There is a really bad side effect of curing cancer. I challenge you to name it and come back to me with the answer.



The same applies here. It would be hard to find a good use of biological weapons. But there are other things that can be detrimental to one thing yet good in another. Maybe a CAF chemo treatment in cancer. That 'F' in CAF is a highly toxic derivate of mustard gas, you remember it well...used against Kurds by the Iraqi government and before that approved of and used by the British...against the same Kurds. Which shows that society or culture has a say in what is 'bad' or not.

But if science promoted logical reasoning, then where is it? With all your love of reason science just ups the ante in the chance game of survival of nature. It does come up with perfectly logical science to create mustard gas and bio-weaponry equally as logical as they come up with a medication against small pox. So tell me how reason and logical thinking connects to conscience moral attitude?



Well, maybe the world isn't ready yet for my point of view. I don't see the benefits myself. But to not see it, requires a utterly ruthless mind. And most people do not wish to stare into the abyss like I do. When I stare into the abyss, something flees. You want logic? I'll give you logic, superior logic.

People think that a benefit of science is that there is a cure for some disease. And tell me they are happy they live in the modern western world rather than a jungle tribe where surely they would have died.

But I don't regard dying as bad. Mortality and disease are natural to us. Therefore it cannot be regarded as good or bad. It just is part of nature, the cycle where there is growth and entropy.

To live and die of some disease - and then they tell me that 45 is such a young age to die, well, not if 60 is about as high as you can go in a tribe - in a jungle tribe is something I refuse to think of as being worse off, when your whole tribe empathize with you and lets you go in love and compassion. Whereas in a western hospital people cling to the hope and grasp their doctors sleeve begging them to do whatever they can to extend life, at all cost!

Remember the scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade when Indy wants to grab the Cup as he hangs from his father's grip? He says 'Let it go, son'.

I think we should learn to let go. Immortality seems tantalizingly close. And science is trying hard to deny death. Science is a transference symbol. We cling to it like a religion in the hope we can overcome disease and death but we aren't ready for immortality when we feel the need to deny death as the natural outcome of life on earth. And so from science comes technology, junk, that destroys our climate, but it makes us feel good in our materialist cocoon.

Science is part of the human equation. We carry it and abuse it and dare not think about it, as people show in this thread. It is because most of us refuse to accept our own mortality and as a result, no one understands my point of view. It could be utterly incomprehensible. And this is because science is a transference symbol and that is why you guys keep it out of the wind in some abstract unlinked fashion and then blame the messenger, technology, which just means consumerism.

There is your double think. In not accepting mortality as a given you defend science because it gives you the hope of immortality through its understanding of nature, resulting in technology that distracts you from the fact of your upcoming own demise, which results in the destruction of the natural world, which in turn bites you in the butt because of the toxicity present causing the very diseases we try to cure with that same science, in the form of medicines.

Well it took me 25 years to get to this level of understanding, this superior logic.

i disagree with visty. With that logic, each human being has blood on his hands (or rather, blood on his brains), the moment he opens his eyes, the moment he starts to understand something about the world he lives in.

A human being would be guilty of 'counting bombs', the moment he sees that the amount of fingers on his left hand is the same as the amount of fingers on his right hand or the moment he notice´s that he has as much fingers as he has toes, for he has invented the concept of 'quantity' at that very moment and that concept can be abused in numerous ways.

A number though, does not claim anything. A number IS neutral. Mathematic´s does not 'want' anything. It does not imply any purpose in itself.

The aim for objective thinking is also rather liberating than destructive: Objectivity shows that something like wichcraft can not be proven, nor claims of there being a master-race or a global jewish conspiracy.

In all cases where humans have commited atrocities, it has rather been a LACK of aim for objectivity, a scientific-minded way of thinking, that lead up to the wichhunts, wars and genocide´s.

In all cases of genocide, the atrocities where motivated by false, mythological beliefs. A mythological believe in a master-race, a mythological believe in secret conspiracies, a mythological believe in a superiour civilisation or religion, a mythological belief in a promised land or a mythological belief in evil powers or evil-born people.

In all cases, a question like: 'but is it objectively speaking, true that all X-people are by definition evil?' could have prevented the atrocities.

There where no WMD´s in iraq. The LACK of scientific thinking, of aplying the scientific method, enabled the american and british governments to make this horrible mistake of invading iraq.

I agreed with a lot of what you said... but this is just wrong. Wars, in general, especially in todays world, are an act of theft. One group attack an other group in order to make some kind of profit. It is very naive to think that governments go to war for the reasons they state (such as WMD's or anti-terrorism). The reasons for wars are very carefully calculated risk:reward. We went to war in the middle east because it worked out profitable for the people who made the decisions... and it WAS and IS profitable for them, this is not a conspiracy theory.

True, but the public that blindly believed in all the lies has enabled these wars. If no-one believes in all the lies, then there would be none of these wars.

That is all true. Unfortunately, numbers do not exist in nature. They are human concept. Fields of gras don't count their numbers, not do trees count their leafs.

Apparently this is a tough concept.



Yet despite this objective thinking, mankind murdered Jews by the millions, along with schizophrenics and gypsies.



I disagree. The top Nazi's were very good in arithmetic and their final solution was an act of logical thinking: if we get rid of them, they will bother us no more. We can put 100 Jews in a box car. We can put 50 in a chamber to be gassed. We need 20 canisters of Zyklon-B.

Try again. You are not winning the ham.



I am uncertain if beliefs can be false. But what you are describing is misjudgment and reaching conclusions that have no basis in moral reasoning. That is not about science.



And then doctors like Himmler, a scientist you could say, committed the most vile atrocities in experiments on Jews. Where was his adoration of science tat would or should have told him that this conduct was morally apprehensible?

You are only proving my point, that science is not above the taint of human conduct on this planet, that the search for knowledge or objectivity and facts is beyond reproach.



Yet science was applied and misused. Remember the UN meeting where Colin Powell made his presentation? These were all 'facts' and the pictures of movable laboratories and facilities and stock piles of whatever, these were all scientific lies and fabrications. And it just shows that science can be used to fool naive people who glorify science. But then of course you would argue that THAT science was false... And that REAL science is still beyond criticism.

I do not see this world you see, in where science can only do good and certainly not a world where scientific orientation in people leads to moral behavior. All I see science there with us, in the mud.

Now you are accusing science of not being powerfull enough to breakthrough all the mythological crap.

Animals can be as cruel as humans. Chimpansee´s are the best example of this. They can be genuinely sadistic.

All atrocities described where commited because people did not question their beliefs enough. And now you blame the ability of humans to question their silly beliefs, of not having been able to prevent harm. It´s like arguing against taking painkillers because sometimes people take too little of them so they don´t work....well, if you take no painkillers because of thát reason, you´re never gonna get rid of your pain, won´t you.

You said exactly what I said, except said what I said is wrong...? Science is the (process of) discovery/understanding the universe, the result being a description of reality. I did not say science -is- the rules in that science makes them, but is a description of them. Rules/mechanics of universe is what science is about.

You are giving the same definition, rewording it, then saying mine is impossible... I can't follow your reasoning... please explain more clearly?

To be honest this discussion is getting quite ridiculous. It has been shown by several people now that you misunderstand certain concepts and by knowing that fact even misuse those concepts. Instead of learning and moving forward it seems that the only thing you do is getting more and more into dogmatic replies.

Are you here to have a healthy debate are are you here to 'win' a discussion and to have the last word no matter what?


Kind regards,

The Traveler