Trusting Science: Progress vs Probability

[Flannel Jesus]

Now that that's established, I'm still looking for an example of this:

What sorts of choices are you talking about? What choice might Gary make because of what physicists think?

What sorts of choices?

I already told you. If science can't make anything clear to me regarding the existence or not of God or what happens when or after we die, then I have little interest in science.

Ah okay, well then I guess this thread is a wash. Glad we could resolve it together, let's shut'er down.

[Gary Childress]

Now that that's established, I'm still looking for an example of this:



What sorts of choices?

I already told you. If science can't make anything clear to me regarding the existence or not of God or what happens when or after we die, then I have little interest in science.

Ah okay, well then I guess this thread is a wash. Glad we could resolve it together, let's shut'er down.

If it's a wash to you and needs to be "shut down", then I take it there's nothing important to be said about making progress in the technology to kill. Is that your position or do you think perhaps you don't know what is going on around you and may benefit from listing to my "insane" self? Your choice. Choose wisely. Your own fate may be hanging in the balance. Just my insane "two cents".

[Flannel Jesus]

What does "making progress in the technology to kill" mean? And what does that have to do with you saying that Science is of no interest to you if it can't tell you about God or the afterlife?

[Gary Childress]

What does "making progress in the technology to kill" mean? And what does that have to do with you saying that Science is of no interest to you if it can't tell you about God or the afterlife?

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then I'll do my best to explain it to you. Everyone wants to be a genius, and if you can't understand what I'm saying, then perhaps you need to know.

You do realize the US is one of the most prolific manufacturers in military weaponry and technology? You do know we spend more on that than any other country, right? Do you want to be known as the one who supported a country that is supporting research that is teaching others how to better kill each other? Or would you rather invest in peaceful research that would better mankind, perhaps allow us to support a greater number of people on Earth without destroying our environment or else figure a way to reduce the Earth's population enough through non-violent, non-destructive means so that we're not destroying our own habitat trying to feed everyone?

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm sure I'd prefer most of the same stuff in those regards as you do, but that doesn't really matter much or seem to have much of a relationship to what I thought this thread was about.

[Gary Childress]

I'm sure I'd prefer most of the same stuff in those regards as you do, but that doesn't really matter much or seem to have much of a relationship to what I thought this thread was about.

Then you misunderstand the purpose of the thread. I'm sorry if I didn't write a long enough introduction to include every possible twist and turn that can take place as people discuss science and whether or not to trust what scientists are currently doing?

[Flannel Jesus]

The phrasing in that first paragraph especially makes it sound like this is about personal choices - about how Gary Childress might use science to make personal choices in the life of Gary Childress.

The people making political and economic decisions to increase military spending are largely not scientists. Scientists, as a general rule, aren't decision makers in that way. People make the decisions and then give scientists a big fat check to turn those decisions into reality. Goverment isn't asking scientists for their opinions on what the government should be spending money on though. They didn't ask scientists if they want to continue the military industrial complex.

[Gary Childress]

The phrasing in that first paragraph especially makes it sound like this is about personal choices - about how Gary Childress might use science to make personal choices in the life of Gary Childress.

The people making political and economic decisions to increase military spending are largely not scientists. Scientists, as a general rule, aren't decision makers in that way. People make the decisions and then give scientists a big fat check to turn those decisions into reality. Goverment isn't asking scientists for their opinions on what the government should be spending money on though. They didn't ask scientists if they want to continue the military industrial complex.

Yes. So I guess that raises a problem for those of us who aren't scientific researchers but rather voters and spectators. How do we prevent our governments to stop utilizing our scientists in the creation of weapons of destruction? How do we raise awareness among citizens of Earth that we all need to be more concerned about what our current leaders are doing and asking for? Perhaps that's where philosophy needs to catch up with what is going on?

Clearly, there is a problem with the divisiveness and bad anima that is causing our governments to focus on unproductive solutions to the problems we seem to be facing. Indeed, some have even gone so far as to discredit science's ability to diagnose what our problems even are or what specific action to take. I suspect those who are heavily invested in old modes of production and social values are perhaps trying to hold back change for their own security. I can understand why some fear sudden change as opposed to moving more slowly, but I guess the question then becomes how slow do we want to slow it down to and is it indeed the case that technology needs to slow? Do we need to hurry up certain technology before it's "too late"?

Science has to re-establish its credibility and it has to do so by taking a FIRM, VOCAL and OVERT stand AGAINST the use of science for destruction. We need to dismantle or else scale back the global arms industry before we can get everyone on the planet to trust that the sciences are doing what they should and have our best interests in mind. That is step 1 in my book. Step 2 is to address other problems that are facing us that we need to cooperate productively on. If we are diverting most of our resources into weapons of destruction, then we have to turn that off philosophically before we retool our industries to do something else.

[socrat44]

Trusting science: Progress and Probability
Our society has progress in modern technology thanks to quantum physics,
which is based on mathematical probability.
---

[popeye1945]

God is dog spelled backward, or is it, dog spelled backward is God----O', my what a DELIMA!!!

[commonsense]

There’s a lot to respond to throughout this thread. I’d like to organize my response around three prominent themes: should scientists be believed (about anything); can science answer whether there is a God or not; should scientists devote their efforts to the development of improved weaponry.

I, for one, will believe scientists about anything that is accepted as correct by the scientific community. Why? Because science, as far as I can discern, has been correct about far more than it has been mistaken about. Bayesian probability alone guides me in this and I believe Bayesian methods are correct, based on my understanding of probability. In order to disbelieve science, I have only the experts (scientists) to help me to form judgment as to whether science has been wrong or not. This brings me full circle to the Bayesian probability concerning how likely it is that science is wrong rather than correct. So until the scientific community rejects a previous hypothesis, I will not reject what science proposes is true.

As an aside, an example of a choice based on scientific advice, I would cite the choice of prescribing a particular drug or not for a particular medical situation. I chose to follow the advice, or so-called conventional wisdom, of medical science when it was recommended that healthcare providers prescribe hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to reduce discomfort in post-menopausal women. Some years later I chose to follow advice not to prescribe HRT to post-menopausal women, because of later studies that showed an increase in heart attacks in women treated with HRT. After all, how could I have known that the former recommendation would eventually be reversed? I had only the advice of experts (vs. my own whim) to go on. And right or wrong, the scientists were the best bet.

As for whether science can answer the question of God’s existence, I’ll simply say: it cannot. Science operates in the physical world and God, if (s)he exists, comes from an immaterial world. Science can draw no conclusions about anything that isn’t physically proved. The scientific view should be that of agnosticism. Any scientist who believes otherwise is simply veering away from the scientific view.

Then for the matter of science and things that can cause harm, undoubtedly in a utopian world, science should be an aid to living the good life and certainly not a participant in the improvement of weapons. But we do not live in Utopia and the weapons industry is no doubt collecting scientific data regarding velocities and weight and diameter and accuracy and usability. Unfortunately, there are very non-utopian reasons for this. In keeping with the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and applying it to any nation that faces the prospect of military conflict, each nation keeps the peace by being prepared for war. And the sad reason for this is that a country must insure its safety for the benefit of its inhabitants.

There’s more to discuss in this thread and I invite your thoughts as we go forward.

[Agent Smith]

ps Please disregard the replies of Agent Smith. I don't know what he's on, it's obviously some seriously good shit, but his philosophical guidance is (shall we say?) a little questionable...

I'm hungry. Are ya edible?

[Agent Smith]

I can hear somebody laughing his arse off!