The Trouble With Kittens

[chefranden]

I am going to attempt something here at Ex Christian that often got me into trouble as a preacher -- examining the log in my group' s eyes rather then rant about the specs in those other eyes. Ranting about specs is a time-honored tradition among sermonizers of all stripes -- and I admit that I'm good at it. Because of the skill, I somewhat doubt my ability to examine Ex Christian logs without being as self-righteous sounding as any prophet that attempts to stand outside his own culture and point fingers.

 

Y'all have heard the old saw that when you point a finger at something or someone there are three fingers pointing back. So, when I say here that I'm going to point fingers, the three that are pointing back are what I'm attempting to demonstrate. The single finger-pointing at religionists has been sufficiently examined. All charges of self-righteousness and mixing metaphors will be accepted.

 

One of the fingers pointing back is our general reliance on science to determine what is or is not real. While we do say that our acceptance of scientific findings is conditional, we cling to the method as fervently as any religionist clings to his creed.

 

Not long ago there was controversy over Amanda's refusal to consider the drowning of innocent kittens by her God as evidence of his evil nature. Why, we wonder, was she too dense to see this?

 

If this abysmal treatment of innocent kittens is enough to cast doubts on the righteousness and goodness of God (and I believe it is) then wouldn't the torture of innocent kittens (or any animal) for scientific purposes cast doubt on the righteousness and goodness of science?

 

I have read accounts of scientists who administered electric shocks to cats at intervals of five minutes, each sock sending the animal into convulsions.  The cats who survived were removed from the restraints and brought back for another day of further shocks, until they had been given as many as 95 shocks within a three-week period, or until they died.  I have seen accounts of scientists who attached electrodes to seven-day old kittens, then shocked them up to 700 times per day for the next 35 days, always during the nursing period.  The scientists noted "the behavior of the mother cat merits attention.  When she eventually discovered that the experimental kittens were being given electric shocks during the feeding process or whenever it was close to her body, she would do everything possible to thwart the experimenter with her claws, then trying to bite the electric wire, and finally actually leaving the experimental kitten and running away as far as possible when the electrodes were on the kittens' legs.  Her attitude toward the experimental kitten when the electrodes were removed as one of deep mother love.  She would run over to the kitten, try to feed it or else comforted as much as possible."  After the 35 days the kittens were allowed to rest and then the experiment was repeated on the same beleaguered felines.

 

I have read accounts of scientists who irradiated dogs; the dogs who survived were fed a diet that was abnormally high in fat and cholesterol, and then given drugs to suppress thyroid action.  Those who survived were given injections of pitressin, which raises pressure in the arteries.  Those who survived were given electric shocks.  Those who had made it this far were immobilized with their heads held rigidly in stocks, and leather thongs fastened around their bodies, given further electric shocks.  Most didn't survive this.  One was able to strangle himself in the harness.  Another was not so lucky.  After appearing "to be in temporary respiratory distress, presumably as a consequence of active struggling against the stock," the creature was given artificial respiration so of the experiment could continue.  The dogs were shocked for weeks on end.  One of the dogs survived the shocks for 77 weeks, which encourage the scientist to begin shocking him 90 times per minute.  The dog died one hour and 15 minutes later.

 

Scientists raised dogs in complete isolation for their first eight months, then reported that the dogs were frightened of nearly everything.  Shocking, but there's more.  The scientist stated that when the dogs were placed on electrified grids, they froze and made no attempt to escape.  The scientists held flaming matches under the dogs noses and "jabbed them with dissecting needles."  Still the dogs froze.  The scientist pursued the dogs with electrically charged toy carts, which delivered 1500 volts to the animals on contact.  The scientists reported that the dogs, raised in isolation, did not seem to understand the source of their pain.

 

At this point will be argued, of course, that the purposes of science cannot be compared to the gratuitous drowning of kittens for the purpose of making humans a better race -- moralistically speaking. It is a well accepted truth in our culture that this sort of treatment of other animals is necessary to extend the well-being of humans. We may regret the pain and suffering but the end justifies the means. We are willing to condemn Christian God for using violence against innocents for his own ends, yet we are willing to accept or at least ignore similar violence against innocents for our own ends. What assumptions are we making that allow us to do this? Before pointing out the assumptions to discuss, I would like to put a couple of ideas in the back of your mind.

 

Idea one: if we observed the behaviors perpetrated by the scientist in the examples presented by Jensen done by a young individual human male of his own volition, we would be somewhat justified in worrying that he might grow up to be a serial killer.

 

Idea two: one of the progenitors of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, talked of putting nature on the rack to extract her secrets. "Bacon wrote my only earthly wish is... to stretch the deplorably narrow limits of man's dominion over the universe to their promised bounds." He also wrote, "I am come in very truth leading you to Nature with all her children to bind her to your service and make her your slave... the mechanical inventions of recent years do not merely exert a gentle guidance over Nature's courses, they have the power to conquer and subdue her, to shake her to her foundations."

 

The assumptions: (I'm sure I've not seen all the assumptions. Please supply them if you see more.)

 

1. The welfare of humans is more important than the welfare of any other species.

2. The trappings of science are sufficient to legitimize the torture of other species.

3. The torture of animals actually increases the welfare of humans.

4. Humans are the apex of evolution. Therefore the world exists to be exploited by humans for ends decided by humans.

5. Science is the best way (or maybe the only way) to learn useful things from other animals.

6. Willingness to torture other animals for science has nothing to do with the torture of humans for science or for national security.

[MrSpooky]

All research proposals must pass a review of a board of ethics committee. Those sound like ones that slipped through abberantly... I thought our standards were tighter than that.

[pandora]

Ditto MrSpooky.

Those stories break my heart, but those were probably experiments conducted in the 40s and 50s, not today. PETA uses similar tales in their propoganda. (I like PETA, don't get me wrong, but they are dishonest in their dealings.)

 

Edit: If I had time, Iw ould answer the questions you bring up... they are valid even if the stories aren't relevant. I hope someone else will address those issues! If not, I will answer in a couple of days.

[RankStranger]

I can't say I have a big problem with assumption 1, 3, 4, and 5.

 

If this abysmal treatment of innocent kittens is enough to cast doubts on the righteousness and goodness of God (and I believe it is) then wouldn't the torture of innocent kittens (or any animal) for scientific purposes cast doubt on the righteousness and goodness of science?

 

I don't think science is neccesarily either "right" or "good".

 

Why SHOULDN'T we consider humans more important than other animals?

[Cerise]

I don't get how any of these experiments benefitted mankind.

[chefranden]

Why SHOULDN'T we consider humans more important than other animals?

 

Simple answers:

1. Read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn

 

2. It isn't good for humans to be "the most important" animal.

 

Complex answer:

 

As Atheists (Here I make the assumption that you are atheist unless you have assigned the roll of creator to Ben Stein. If Ben is the creator, you have other problems.) we have no reason to suppose that the earth was made on purpose for our exploitation. As evolutionists (Again I'm supposing that Ben didn't make you.) we have no reason to suppose the process of evolution has proceeded with us in mind as it's goal. That is evolution is not about us in particular. The genius of evolution is in the complex inefficiencies of its structure through variability that work to slow overall entropy.

 

Inefficient economies are much more complex than efficient ones.  Complexity itself can be deceiving.  Biogenetic complexity constrains entropy flows with checks and balances.  What we take to be man-made artificial complexity (technology) is, paradoxically, a simplification process that increases flows by editing away inefficiencies.  The ecology of a prairie will keep the soil active and healthy indefinitely, while the ecology of a fossil fuel subsidized corn field will leach the soil of useful nutrients and physically erode it in less than human lifetime.  The ecology of a pond with its diverse hierarchies of life and multitude of biological niches and food chains, is much more complex than the Crown Point, New York Trout hatchery with this monoculture of fish, its inputs of manufactured fish food, and its staff of attendants cleaning waste out of the cement hatchery impoundments.  The natural pond also has more chance of continuing indefinitely into the future.  The built in constraints of inefficient biogenic economy is reduced the flow of potential, often to the point where systems based on an efficient economies last for geologic epochs, not just a few decades in the case of a fish hatchery.  Everything that we identify with nature takes the form of inefficient systems.  Biogenetic or living systems ourselves stabilizing.  They are self buffered.  Small differences are dampened out.  Entropy is stalled within them.  They exhibit negative feedback tending towards long-term stability.  Call this condition "negative entropy."  Everything we identify with the man-made substitutes for natural bio economies, that is, technologies, tends towards positive feedback, which itself amplifying, self reinforcing, and this stabilizing, featuring the removal of constraints to entropy flows and leading to the certain environmental destruction of that system.  Call this condition "positive entropy."

 

Consider this:

(This is Warhol's Soup Can, a comment on the standardization of everything.)

 

I suppose that ultimate goal of Science is to make sure that everything is cannable and placed on a shelf for human consumption. Even nature itself is put in cans called National Parks and sold to the public. Daniel Quinn said it much more bluntly in that the goal of Science it to turn as much earth bio-mass as possible into human flesh, and then, if possible, all other habitable planets as well. Of course that really isn't a conscious goal of Science, which has long forgotten Bacon's purpose.

 

Science counts on reduction of things to that which can be counted. Thus, how many times can a kitten be shocked before it dies, is legimate scientific inquiry. In the process Science reduces the world in the same way. Woodland ponds are too messy and can't be controlled. Prairies are too messy and can't be controlled. Farms and Hatcheries are nice and neat and can be controlled. Their output can be designated for humans only -- to hell with dragon flies and buffalo. Problem is that Farms and Hatcheries can't take care of themselves. They need artificial input, because they can't proceed by sun power alone. When all people have to add is their muscle power then not to much goes awry. Science has given us technology. That is the ability to use fossil fuel to turn self sustaining prairie into depleted bare soil that needs every increasing amounts of fossil fuel based fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to give us the same crop as last year. Human powered farms die faster than prairies. Oil powered farms die much faster, showing the effects of increased entropy in simplified systems.

 

So? Dieing farms mean you don't eat. That is not good for you. Dieing farms come from supposing that human life is more important then all the rest of prairie life that died under the plow. Dieing fish hatcheries come from supposing that human life is more important then all the rest of life in the pond that died in draining wetlands to build WalMarts.

 

Assuming human life is more desirable then non human life is not good for you.

[Vigile]

I don't think science is neccesarily either "right" or "good". 

 

 

 

I agree. Science has ethics imposed on it, but science is amoral. God drowning kittens is problematic because god has been claimed to be omni benevolent. Because scientists have in some cases been proven to have committed ethical breaches does not in any way override the truths that sciences uncovers.

 

I love animals as much as the next guy and I don't want to see them suffer. I do however value myself and loved ones at a higher level then lower animals. That's just a fact of empathy.

[Vigile]

I suppose that ultimate goal of Science is to make sure that everything is cannable and placed on a shelf for human consumption.

 

I believe here you are confusing big corporations use of science and the field of science in general.

[chefranden]

I believe here you are confusing big corporations use of science and the field of science in general.

 

How so?

[RedPillAddict]

How so?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geologists, biologists, etc. there are TONS of different sciences. You cant label the entire field of science with an assumption like that. I think we are just trying to understand ourselves and the world around us.

[dead_hobbit]

science isn't a monolith, it's a method.  there is no big building with a sign that says: "this way to science."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[spamandham]

We are willing to condemn Christian God for using violence against innocents for his own ends, yet we are willing to accept or at least ignore similar violence against innocents for our own ends.  What assumptions are we making that allow us to do this? 

 

If Christian god were real, he would in fact have the right (power) to do whatever the fuck he wanted.

 

However, the question is not whether he has a right to do so, but whether or not this is good from our perspective. Perhaps someone thinks it good to drown kittens for fun. That person has the right ("power") to do it, yet from the kittens' perspective, it's not good.

 

The Christians argue that the behavior of Biblegod is good from our perspective, when it clearly isn't.

[RankStranger]

Simple answers:

1. Read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn

 

2. It isn't good for humans to be "the most important" animal.

 

Complex answer:

 

As Atheists (Here I make the assumption that you are atheist unless you have assigned the roll of creator to Ben Stein. If Ben is the creator, you have other problems.) we have no reason to suppose that the earth was made on purpose for our exploitation.  As evolutionists (Again I'm supposing that Ben didn't make you.) we have no reason to suppose the process of evolution has proceeded with us in mind as it's goal.  That is evolution is not about us in particular.  The genius of evolution is in the complex inefficiencies of its structure through variability that work to slow overall entropy.

 

Inefficient economies are much more complex than efficient ones.  Complexity itself can be deceiving.  Biogenetic complexity constrains entropy flows with checks and balances.  What we take to be man-made artificial complexity (technology) is, paradoxically, a simplification process that increases flows by editing away inefficiencies.  The ecology of a prairie will keep the soil active and healthy indefinitely, while the ecology of a fossil fuel subsidized corn field will leach the soil of useful nutrients and physically erode it in less than human lifetime.  The ecology of a pond with its diverse hierarchies of life and multitude of biological niches and food chains, is much more complex than the Crown Point, New York Trout hatchery with this monoculture of fish, its inputs of manufactured fish food, and its staff of attendants cleaning waste out of the cement hatchery impoundments.  The natural pond also has more chance of continuing indefinitely into the future.  The built in constraints of inefficient biogenic economy is reduced the flow of potential, often to the point where systems based on an efficient economies last for geologic epochs, not just a few decades in the case of a fish hatchery.  Everything that we identify with nature takes the form of inefficient systems.  Biogenetic or living systems ourselves stabilizing.  They are self buffered.  Small differences are dampened out.  Entropy is stalled within them.  They exhibit negative feedback tending towards long-term stability.  Call this condition "negative entropy."  Everything we identify with the man-made substitutes for natural bio economies, that is, technologies, tends towards positive feedback, which itself amplifying, self reinforcing, and this stabilizing, featuring the removal of constraints to entropy flows and leading to the certain environmental destruction of that system.  Call this condition "positive entropy."

 

 

Chef- thanks for the reply, and for what it's worth... I AM an atheist despite my admiration of Ben Stein. I'll admit that I'm likely hopelessly biased against your worldview (you care about the environment and animal rights!?!?) for several reasons. I was raised to be a good christian hillbilly- the christianity and neocon politics didn't stick, but other things did. I work in a profession where environmental laws are unenforceable, ineffective, and only make my job difficult (I'm a heavy equpiment mechanic). I have an unnatural LOVE for machines (heh), and I'm going to school to be a mechanical engineer... which means I'll be working for THA MAN. So lemme admit up front that I'm hopelessly biased.

 

That said, I'm trying to understand your point of view- in this case your concern for the environment and animal rights. I'll just refer to this as the 'lefty' viewpoint for convenience' sake. I've never taken leftys very seriously because I've always been under the impression that issues such as environmentalism and animal rights are just covers- leftys are actually AGAINST technological advance and economic development. I've always assumed that while they may or may not believe that animals should have rights and we're destroying the environment... the real goal is to impede 'progress'. I know this sounds like little more than Limbaugh propoganda, but your entrophy arguement is an interesting one. Considering your entrophy arguement, would it be a fair characterization to say that you really ARE against my idea of progress? (that being technological advance and economic development). If that's the case, then do you think that your viewpoint is fairly representative of other 'leftys'? Or is the entrophy arguement not neccesarily universal?

 

BTW, I read the first 20 or so pages of that book, and it was interesting... I'll see if I can find it used or ripped off.

[Vigile]

How so?

 

You stated that science has a goal to essentially can everything and make everything useful for consumption. This I would argue would be a corporate interest in the attempt to make profits. Corporations use science and technology to achieve these goals. Science is merely a method and has no interests or desires. Scientists use the scientific method to understand the world around us, and sometimes to uncover new technologies that can be used for such things as you suggest. I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I just think that you are blaming science when instead you should be blaming capitalism and the current structure of corporate accounting methods.

 

Science in my opinion is a process of uncovering truth. How can you limit it and what method do you use to decide where to draw the line? I and many others would that we could put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, but it would have come out sooner or later. Should we have stopped with gravity, with evolution, where? Should we say that mankind's discoveries may uncover more ways to destroy ourselves so we should now start to disassemble the scientific community in order to cap off new and future dangerous knowledge? We may discover new ways to save ourselves if we do. Besides, religion capped off my knowledge for too long. I don't want to live in a world that limits knowledge.

[chefranden]

Chef- thanks for the reply, and for what it's worth... I AM an atheist despite my admiration of Ben Stein.  I'll admit that I'm likely hopelessly biased against your worldview (you care about the environment and animal rights!?!?) for several reasons.  I was raised to be a good christian hillbilly- the christianity and neocon politics didn't stick, but other things did.  I work in a profession where environmental laws are unenforceable, ineffective, and only make my job difficult (I'm a heavy equpiment mechanic).  I have an unnatural LOVE for machines (heh), and I'm going to school to be a mechanical engineer... which means I'll be working for THA MAN.  So lemme admit up front that I'm hopelessly biased.

Everyone is hopelessly biased, because no person can approach the understanding of anything apart from one's own sensibilities. You alluded to this by saying "I was raised..." Every human is raised one way or another.

 

That is why I used the log in the eye metaphor at the beginning. Just because we've given up christianity doesn't mean we are assumption free. I'm just trying to draw attention to the assumption that Science is the "one right way" to accomplish "the world was made for men."

 

That said, I'm trying to understand your point of view- in this case your concern for the environment and animal rights.  I'll just refer to this as the 'lefty' viewpoint for convenience' sake.  I've never taken leftys very seriously because I've always been under the impression that issues such as environmentalism and animal rights are just covers- leftys are actually AGAINST technological advance and economic development.

My point is not about animal rights or about environmentalism. Neither cause is outside of the core idea of Science and religion: "The world was made (evolved) for men." That is the log in our eye. It is very difficult to see around it. And it is what I hope the people start questioning.

 

You may consider this a lefty question, but I don't think it is, because lefties are for development that benifits everyone including a few token nature thingys. Righties are for development that concentrates wealth/power in the hands of the few.

 

Ponder this Koan for awhile: Why don't bears develope?

 

I've always assumed that while they may or may not believe that animals should have rights and we're destroying the environment... the real goal is to impede 'progress'. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know this sounds like little more than Limbaugh propoganda, but your entrophy arguement is an interesting one.  Considering your entrophy arguement, would it be a fair characterization to say that you really ARE against my idea of progress? (that being technological advance and economic development). 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that's the case, then do you think that your viewpoint is fairly representative of other 'leftys'?  Or is the entrophy arguement not neccesarily universal?

 

Progress is a word that sounds like it is going somewhere. I admit that I often wonder, "what is wrong with right here?" Just where is Progress going? Will it ever get there? Why should anyone want to go there? How do you feel when someone says progress is not where it is at? Is that feeling anything like the feeling that you had as a Christian when someone disbelieved Jesus is the Way?

 

Nature impeeds progress. That is why we have bulldozers isn't it? Bulldozers push nature out of the way. You might ask if things evolved for the benafit of men why is nature in the way in the first place?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you sure that Economical and Technological development are progress? If so progress towards what? I've seen a heap of both kinds of development, but I'll be damned if I can remember any seeing any progress. So far in Iraq we've managed to kill almost 70 Iraqis per dead American. In Vietnam we only managed 35 dead Vietnamese per dead American. Is that "Progress"?

 

If Progress means making the planet unfit for human (and other species) habitation, then by all means we are making progress. If the growth in American Housing starts (an economic indicator) continues as it is for the next 99 years there won't be a buildable lot left on the planet.

 

But to answer your question, I don't know if I'm against Progress, mostly because I haven't a clue as to what it is supposed to be. Progress almost seems like a substitute for God to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if lefties in general understand that development is the best path for entropy or not. I not sure even the Green Party knows, because they talk about sustainable development.

 

BTW, I read the first 20 or so pages of that book, and it was interesting... I'll see if I can find it used or ripped off.

Beware, Quinn could mess with your faith in Progress!

[spamandham]

Neither cause is outside of the core idea of Science and religion: "The world was made (evolved) for men."  That is the log in our eye.  It is very difficult to see around it.  And it is what I hope the people start questioning.

 

I do not believe there is any ultimate purpose. Evolution is the purposeless process by which we got here, it is not a thing in itself that we should honor and respect.

 

The world is ours not because it was designed for us, but because we have the power to control it.

 

It is in our own self interest to maintain biodiversity and not to make the earth uninhabitable, and that's the reason to do it, not because we owe a favor to evolution.

[Skankboy]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the middle road on this...

 

I agree that the willful "domestication" of the planet is not a good idea. However, I think you can believe this and still be "human-centric" as it were.

 

It is very much to our advantage to have as much natural diversity on this planet as possible. Indeed, you only need look at the problems the bannana industry is facing to realize the pitfalls of ingnoring this fact.

 

I think the problem comes when scientists assume they know everything necessary to "can" an aspect of nature (I love the analogy by the way chef). Such certainty leads to the assumption that "anything that benefits in the short term is the best option". This is usually the opposite of what happens in reality. Our short term thinking destroys the very things that could save us as a species in the future.

 

Now on to the issue of "animal rights". I am not, nor will I ever be a vegetarian. I've got incisors and I plan to use them. Do I agree with the production methods currently being used? Not in many cases, but then I've never been a huge red meat fan (I know, chickens get it bad too). But I certainly don't feel guilty for eating the flesh of another animal on this planet. This difference is that I honestly try to feel thankful for the animal that gave it's life that I might live. I believe chef made a comment sometime about "removing ourselves from the foodchain." It's a very good point. Through our use of science we have, for good or bad, removed ourselves from the "natural order" as it were.

 

I believe the best answer is that we should nuture much longer term thinking from ourselves as a species.

[chefranden]

You stated that science has a goal to essentially can everything and make everything useful for consumption.  This I would argue would be a corporate interest in the attempt to make profits.  Corporations use science and technology to achieve these goals.  Science is merely a method and has no interests or desires.  Scientists use the scientific method to understand the world around us, and sometimes to uncover new technologies that can be used for such things as you suggest.  I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I just think that you are blaming science when instead you should be blaming capitalism and the current structure of corporate accounting methods.

 

Poppycock! Sure there is a scientific method, but Science is not that. Science is an institution (or institutions) with plenty of interests -- mostly self interests. No one would take the method off the shelf and dust it off if there were no interests. True Science has found some things that are not of interest to corporations, but not because it isn't trying. The Holy Pure Science is funded by the hope that it will dig out by accident some new way to package nature for human consumption.

 

Science has its high priests, to whom a young priest must conform his findings or flip burgers. Sure there are some sincere scientists just like there are some sincere theologians. But both are barking up empty trees. That is a bit harder to see in the case of Science, because the muck of technological wonders (dare I say miracles?) like this here computer hide the empty boughs from sight.

 

The reason some Science projects stay out of corporate hands is that corporate minds haven't yet found a way to sell it. When Science stumbles across some information (ex. global warming) that shows how Science has fucked up in producing run away technology, it is suppressed.

 

Science in my opinion is a process of uncovering truth.  How can you limit it and what method do you use to decide where to draw the line?

What do you mean Truth?

 

Science doesn't find Truth. Science finds facts that allow humans muck around in natures engines until the engines don't work so well as they used to, or at all. Sure we have computers, but we've thrown out the Salmon and the Cod to get them.

 

Where do I draw the line? To answer that would require that I assume that one should draw a line. But that is part of the problem. Science needs to draw lines to keep some things out and other things in. Perhaps the one thing Science can't know is that Universe has no lines.

 

In the Universe everything blends into the next thing. I used Science to put Salmon and Cod on the other side of the line, the wrong side of the line -- they don't matter. Me and my computer are on this side of the line. Because I drew the line I didn't notice that I am the Cod. Because I drew the line I didn't recognize that I am the Salmon. So by making the world an impossible place for them to live I'm making the world an imposible place for me to live. Oops! Dang, I hate when that happens.

 

I and many others would that we could put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, but it would have come out sooner or later.  Should we have stopped with gravity, with evolution, where? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should we say that mankind's discoveries may uncover more ways to destroy ourselves so we should now start to disassemble the scientific community in order to cap off new and future dangerous knowledge?  We may discover new ways to save ourselves if we do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides, religion capped off my knowledge for too long.  I don't want to live in a world that limits knowledge.

 

I think we should have put the genie totalitarian agriculture back in the bottle. But that was 10,000 years ago. It would be pretty hard to whipe up that spilled milk.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you discover that smoking cigarettes is killing you, should you continue smoking in hopes that doing so will save you, or should you do something different? George Carlen said that maybe mother nature wanted some plastic so she invented people. Now that she has plastic, she don't need us any more.

 

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Christians keep praying in hopes that will save them and ignore the trouble. What is the difference with Science I wonder? Results?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to worry. I think that we will continue Science until we go the way of the Passenger Pigeon.

 

Are you sure that you are in a world that doesn't limit knowledge?

[Vigile]

Are you sure that you are in a world that doesn't limit knowledge?

 

How can I answer that?

 

I'm sure knowledge is limited. The details of which I'm ignorant. I would like to see MrSpooky or Mr Neil chime in on the way that both of us have characterized science. I've exhausted my abilities to take this any further. I can say that to limit man's "progress" on this very diverse and very much anarchical planet would take an intolerable amount of heavy handedness. The US is not an island. I live where they can't even manage traffic on the streets. How do you stop the determination of capitalism and scientists who are at their beckon call when demand screams loudly?

[chefranden]

How can I answer that?

 

I'm sure knowledge is limited.  The details of which I'm ignorant.  I would like to see MrSpooky or Mr Neil chime in on the way that both of us have characterized science.  I've exhausted my abilities to take this any further.  I can say that to limit man's "progress" on this very diverse and very much anarchical planet would take an intolerable amount of heavy handedness.  The US is not an island.  I live where they can't even manage traffic on the streets.  How do you stop the determination of capitalism and scientists who are at their beckon call when demand screams loudly?

 

I'm sure I haven't a clue about how to stop it. After all I'm using a computer and driving a car. I can't stop my self, let alone you. Nevertheless I see where it is going, so I say so. Daniel Quinn says if enough people wake up we will stop. Maybe I'm trying to wake you up?

 

I also wish Spooky or Neil would join the argument. But you have done a good job anyway. Don't sell yourself short. And don't jump from one "faith" to another.

[Godless Dave]

Who claims that science is righteous and good? I certainly don't. Science is a tool used by humans, therefore it can be used for good, evil, or indifference.

[chefranden]

Who claims that science is righteous and good? I certainly don't. Science is a tool used by humans, therefore it can be used for good, evil, or indifference.

 

 

I don't know that Science is claimed righteous and good in so many words. After all any scientist worth his salt will try to remove religious connotations from his descriptions. Science may not be called righteous, but it certainly thought by many to be the only "right way" to find out what is happening. This is the same mistake modern religion makes coupled with the idea that the world was made for man, rather than the reality that man was made for the world. Through religion first, then through Science, because Science has been more successful at subduing the earth, the world has been objectified as much as possible. Since objects can have no intentions of their own we are psychologically free to be destructive for short term gain. For example it is considered better to build dams on Salmon rivers for cheap electricity than to have Salmon living their own lives.

 

Even more than religion, Science ignores the fact that humans are subjects not objects and are in relationship with everything and not just with other people. Science even more than religion scoffs at worship in the high places. At least religion took the high places seriously enough to ban them, or absorb them. Except for anthropology, Science does not even register the high places.

 

Most of us, including myself, have been raised in an objectified universe and will have great difficulty grasping what I'm trying to get at here. Like those magic eye pictures we can get glimpses of the real picture but mostly the picture is hidden in the noise.

 

Science may not be called "good", but it is certainly thought to produce good and to produce mostly good. It is the driving force behind "Progress" the new "will of god" so to speak. We celebrate the next new wonder without wondering about the destruction the production of it entails. For most of us it doesn't even occur to us to wonder what the real cost of the new wonder may be.

 

As I've argued above, Science is not a mere tool. It is an institution with it's own agendas. Mostly we agree with those agendas without question. After all, scientists (preacher, priest, pope) know more than we do.

[spamandham]

Science may not be called "good", but it is certainly thought to produce good and to produce mostly good.

 

I think it's important to distinguish between the scientific method, and the institutionalized sciences. The scientific method is nothing more than a way of discerning knowledge. Is it good or bad to try to gain knowledge?

 

The institutionalized sciences, the universities, the government think tanks, professional organizations, etc., do tend to have agendas, and these agendas are driven primarily by military objectives and secondarily by consumer desires. These agendas are more related to what knowledge will be pursued, and how it is to be used.

[chefranden]

1.&2.I think it's important to distinguish between the scientific method, and the institutionalized sciences.  3. The scientific method is nothing more than a way of discerning knowledge.  4. Is it good or bad to try to gain knowledge?

 

1. What is the import of such a distinction? Will non-institutional use of the method make the destructive side effects of scientifically derived wonders recede or disappear? If so are there any significant non-institutional uses of the method?

 

2. What is the difference between "Christianity (or religion x) would produce good results if it weren't for people", and "Science would produce good results if it weren't for people"?

 

3. I would like to agree with you, but I fear this statement is a dictum of Mother Culture. In order to work, the method must objectify the subject of its investigation. The method must divorce the subject from as many of its relationships as possible, hopefully leaving only one. It is assumed that the rat in the maze has no intentions of its own, which is destructive enough, but it is also assumed that there is no relationship between the rat and the researcher, because relationship automatically dispels objectivity.

 

This creates a number of problems. First people have come to believe that most relationships should be ignored. Thus the Salmon can go hang in favor of electricity especially since we don't need them for food. Then people have come to believe that the method is the only right way to find things out. A 100th generation shaman that can actually bring about the healing of many problems with his plants and rattles is nobody to learn medicine from. Of course now there is some interest in the shaman's plants, but you can rest assured that the shaman will not be in on the study, nor will her recommendations for treatment procedures be considered. Therefore knowledge is lost by means of science. The ironic 3rd problem is that science probably destroys as much or maybe even more knowledge then it gains, not just because it ignores unorthodox knowledge, but because the side effects of its wonders and its cultural pressure has destroyed millions of intricate relationships that will never be seen again. Science could well have destroyed "the cure for cancer" merely by looking for it in the way it looks for it.

 

4. Obviously I'm not against knowing. Seeing the flaws in Science is knowing. I'm not sure you are implying this, but if you mean to criticize Science is to denigrate knowledge, you have limited idea of what constitutes knowledge. I don't mean to imply that you are stupid. This view of knowledge is a cultural artifact of which it is difficult to be more then dimly aware.

 

 

The institutionalized sciences, the universities, the government think tanks, professional organizations, etc., do tend to have agendas, and these agendas are driven primarily by military objectives and secondarily by consumer desires.  These agendas are more related to what knowledge will be pursued, and how it is to be used.

 

What else could they be driven by?

[spamandham]

3. I would like to agree with you, but I fear this statement is a dictum of Mother Culture.  In order to work, the method must objectify the subject of its investigation.  The method must divorce the subject from as many of its relationships as possible, hopefully leaving only one.  It is assumed that the rat in the maze has no intentions of its own, which is destructive enough, but it is also assumed that there is no relationship between the rat and the researcher, because relationship automatically dispels objectivity.

 

You live your life applying the scientific method whether you recognize it or not. Every time you say "I wonder if..." and then go about trying to determine that "if", you are applying the scientific method. The scientific method is nothing more than the recognition of methods that work for discerning knowledge. You are governed by it whether you like it or not.

 

The scientific method is axiomatic, in that you must apply it in any attempt to try to reject it. The inquirey you have instigated in this thread is using the scientific method you seem to wish to denigrate.