The Trouble With Kittens

[chefranden]

Do people often do crazy one-time heroic things with that which belongs to them, or do they do it when someone else bears the cost?

Yes.

 

I understand the concepts of long term vs. short term thinking, but I also don't see how impacts to species that don't benefit us should be any concern of ours beyond how such impacts might harm our own futures.  While I don't believe nature is walking a fine balance that must be preserved, prudence dictates that we not act wrecklessly, as we are not capable of forseeing the effects of all our actions.

 

Mother Culture raises us to assume that we are self contained bags of skin. "There is me and there is not me." (Scientific objectification) But that is not quite the case. I'm more like a pattern though which matter flows. My health depends on the health of what is out there on the other side of my skin. If I am important to me then Salmon are important to me, because sometimes they may be me and sometimes I may be them. (No, I'm not talking of reincarnation.)

 

Try to think of your body as separate parts. Which is the most important part? Is the purpose of your body the eye? Well you can somewhat get along without it. Is the purpose of your body the heart? It is much more difficult to get along with out it, but if you have the right machines... Is the purpose of the body your brain? Apparently if you have the right machines and good health insurance, you can even get along with out that, but you won't know it. The Earth is like your body none of it's parts, including us, are its purpose. How many parts can we whack off and still be us? You have said your self we don't know. Nevertheless, we are not being prudent. We are whacking off parts left and right faster and faster.

 

Would you whack off your fingers, just because you could get along with out them? I think that is the sort of thing we have been doing for the last 10,000 years give or take.

 

The end of oil will probably not be the end of humanity, though it might be the end of the modern age and will be followed by mass depopulation unless alternatives are found.  There is value in delaying this.

There is more value in depopulating on purpose via natural attrition, but there is not much hope in doing so.

 

Why would you suppose that Humans are not subject to extinction? We are already the last of the Hominids.

 

From my observation, the greatest destruction to nature seems to flow from state policies such as mercantilism in its various forms, where the power of the state is used to shift costs to others for the benefit of the politically well connected.  This includes the US with its bizarre farm policies, Brazil, and pretty much every other capitalist nation.  In strongly authoritarian nations, the same thing happens, but we don't call it mercantilism.

 

Why do you separate science out of this insane system? I see that science's objectivism is the core of the craziness. Right now everything including humans is a commodity. Something to be used and discarded as needed, rather than reverenced and cherished.

 

We often chide ourselves for being materialists, but we are not at all. We hate material and try to use it up by changing it into trash as fast as we ever can. What does Christianity ( and other religions) teach us if not to hate the body? What is hard mindless work in a factory or a cubical if not hatred of the body? You can take the boy out of religion, but can you take religion out of the boy?

[spamandham]

There is more value in depopulating on purpose via natural attrition, but there is not much hope in doing so.

 

I'm not convinced of that. Fertility rates are below replacement rates in almost every developed nation, and with China and India entering that fold, Africa will be that last place where population is not in decline.

 

Why would you suppose that Humans are not subject to extinction?  We are already the last of the Hominids.

 

I didn't say we were immune to exinction, I just don't see how the oil wells drying up will cause it.

 

Why do you separate science out of this insane system?

 

I feel like we've discussed this already. IMHO, you have not made a compelling case against objective inquiry.

[chefranden]

I'm not convinced of that.  Fertility rates are below replacement rates in almost every developed nation, and with China and India entering that fold, Africa will be that last place where population is not in decline.

From the CIA fact book for the US a developed Nation (est. 2005)

Population growth rate: .92%

Birth rate: 14.14/1000; Death rate: 8.25/1000 (net gain: 5.89/1000)

Fertility rate: 2.08 children/woman.

For China:

Growth Rate: .58%

Birth Rate: 13.14/1000 Death rate: 6.94/1000 (net gain 6.2/1000)

Fertility Rate: 1.72 children/woman.

For India:

Growth rate:1.4%

Birth rate: 22.32/1000 Death rate: 8.28/1000 (net gain 14.04/1000)

Fertility Rate:2.78

For the World:

Growth Rate:1.14%

Birth Rate: 20.15/1000 Death rate: 8.78/1000 (net gain 11.37)

 

So the world is gaining human population at the rate of 73,292,515 per year or nearly 3/4 of a billion per decade. I'm sure you know that if everyone lived the life of the average American that we would need 12.5 Earths to sustain us. Don't forget that is only taking into account humans. No allowance is made for Cod or Skunks. That means we would have to find one more Earth every 7 years or so and so far we have only found 1. This means 2 things. One, most people will live in ever increasing squallor and misery. And, the majority of other species will be squeazed out as they loose their habitat.

 

I didn't say we were immune to exinction, I just don't see how the oil wells drying up will cause it.

 

Aside from the fact that we eat oil, what we are looking at is the collapse of our habitat, that is the usual cause of extinction. Oil gives the ability to run an artifical habitat, rather like a zoo or a trout farm. If you live in a suburb you live in a very oil sustained artificial habitat. You cut off the oil and the artificial habitat collapes. We may have a good chance of continuing on a much smaller scale in natural habitat if global warming turns out to be a bust, but it doesn't look as if that will be the case.

 

I feel like we've discussed this already.  IMHO, you have not made a compelling case against objective inquiry.

 

I'm not sure I can make a compelling case against a faith. My argument has been, by their fruits ye shall know them. You have acknowledged that the fruits are not so nice as we could wish. It is Science that gives power to the insane system to operate. Other than by faith, how do you separate Science from the mess? Perhaps you have answered this in a previous post and I'm not seeing it. You could point it out to me.

[spamandham]

From the CIA fact book for the US a developed Nation (est. 2005)

Population growth rate: .92%

...

So the world is gaining human population at the rate of 73,292,515 per year or nearly 3/4 of a billion per decade.

 

The world, yes, but what about developed nations? The US was the only one on your list from that category. It is my understanding that the US is an anomaly in that regard due to immigration.

 

I'm sure you know that if everyone lived the life of the average American that we would need 12.5 Earths to sustain us.

 

I'm not sure where that comes from.

 

Aside from the fact that we eat oil, what we are looking at is the collapse of our habitat, that is the usual cause of extinction.  Oil gives the ability to run an artifical habitat, rather like a zoo or a trout farm.  If you live in a suburb you live in a very oil sustained  artificial habitat. You cut off the oil and the artificial habitat collapes.

 

So, let's assume that everyone who lives in the modern world would die shortly after the last barrel of oil is pumped. Why would that cause the deaths of eskimos and aboriginal Australians?

 

It is Science that gives power to the insane system to operate.

 

I don't see the fruits of science as insane. I see the concept of handing over centralized power to a small group of people as insane. Everything you are accusing science of, I would accuse the state as the actual culprit.

 

Other than by faith, how do you separate Science from the mess?

 

Whether science can be separated or not, the process can not be separated from my brain. I don't think it can be separated from yours either.

 

Science has made tremendous population growth possible. I'm not convinced we are making the world uninhabitable for future generations. I don't see that we're even close to that.

[Zach]

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

No. The ultimate goal of Science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe. Consumption of "everything" is totally beyond its scope.

 

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.

I know you would expect me to take issue with these religious descriptions, but I will anyway. Science, especially now, is too fast-moving to become dogmatic. Information flows too quickly, and the boon of governmental funding allows us to replicate results shown by anyone who sumbits to peer review. Recall the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, which crashed down around the discovery and inevitable confirmation of retrovirii? Or prion proteins? The use of religious terminology belie ignorance of actual Science.

 

1. Science assumes that is the best way to find out about something. Is it?

2. Science produces miracle after miracle. Is that a good enough reason to reverance it, considering the cultural and environmental damage that goes along with each wonder?

3. Science produces ever more efficient ways of killing other humans. Right now we are producing 70 dead Iraqis for each American dead. In Vietnam we only managed 35 per dead American. Isn't that sufficient reason to consider that science may have some fatal flaw?

4. Science seeks to objectify a subjective world. Is that logical?

5. Science has given us more efficent ways to hunt Whales, Blue Fin Tuna and Cod. Now they are almost gone. Why should I not wonder if ever increasing efficency is really a good thing and if its source, science, is the cause?

1) It is, unless something better is shown.

2) Science does not always produce technology. Often, it is the other way around.

3) Again, you are criticizing technology, not Science.

4) The Universe that Science studies is already objective. Conclusions can be subjective, but data is not.

5) Again, you are criticizing technology, not Science.

 

High cholesterol levels are almost universally believed to cause heart disease. Yet, the correlation between cholesterol levels and heart disease is very small if it exists at all. This is a serious anomaly that should be getting people to question the premise, but they mostly don't. Medical science is the worst offender in practicing what amounts to faith, although the difficulty of performing ethical experiments does compound their problem.

Can you provide evidence showing that there is no correlation between cholesterol levels and heart disease? I'll post some in favor of one:

 

Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 1990 Jun;19(2):279-97.

Does lowering serum cholesterol levels lower coronary heart disease risk?

Rossouw JE, Rifkind BM.

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

 

    Many lines of evidence converge toward the conclusion that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) is indeed a causal factor in the genesis of CHD. These range from animal studies, pathology studies, inborn errors of metabolism, clinical observations, and the existence of plausible biologic mechanisms, to the vast body of epidemiologic evidence. Observations of the association of LDLC with CHD hold between different populations, in the same population at different times, and to studies of individuals within populations. Finally, the clinical trials of cholesterol lowering, together with regression studies in animals and angiographic studies in humans, provide compelling evidence that the progress of atherosclerosis can be halted and the clinical sequelae can be reduced. The newly available results from more recent intervention studies have reinforced the validity of this conclusion. The intervention studies reduced the CHD incidence rate by approximately 2% for every 1% reduction in total cholesterol (TC) even though the studies were of relatively short duration (typically 5 years). More prolonged exposure to lower TC levels can be expected to yield even greater ultimate benefit. The benefit is most clearcut for men at highest risk. The combined data indicate that both fatal and nonfatal CHD can be reduced. More data on the extremes of age, on subjects with moderate elevations of TC, and on women would be valuable, but it is reasonable to proceed with advice to the general population aimed at reducing average cholesterol levels, and also to identify and treat those at high risk. There is good reason to expect that these measures will further reduce MI events and in all likelihood also MI deaths. Whether they will also reduce overall mortality is at present a moot point; however, a reduction in the burden of nonfatal MI would in itself be a very desirable objective.

[spamandham]

Can you provide evidence showing that there is no correlation between cholesterol levels and heart disease? I'll post some in favor of one:

 

When challenging a widely held assumption, you have to look at the raw data, not just summarized conclusions.

 

I can give you the source of my info, but that's about it, as I don't claim any special degree of knowledge on the subject.

 

Cholesterol myths

[pitchu]

Zach,

 

How would you define the distinction between and the inter-relationship of Science and technology?

[Zach]

When challenging a widely held assumption, you have to look at the raw data, not just summarized conclusions. 

 

I can give you the source of my info, but that's about it, as I don't claim any special degree of knowledge on the subject.

 

Agreed. But where is the raw data? All you're giving as evidence is a book, not a peer-reviewed study. But let me go through the points raised by Dr. Ravnskov:

 

1) Cholesterol is not a deadly poison, but a substance vital to the cells of all mammals. There are no such things as good or bad cholesterol, but mental stress, physical activity and change of body weight may influence the level of blood cholesterol. A high cholesterol is not dangerous by itself, but may reflect an unhealthy condition, or it may be totally innocent.

True, cholesterol is essential to cell function. So is water. Consuming too much water can kill you. This argument is a category fallacy. "Bad" cholesterol is used to refer to cholesterol carried in low-density lipoprotein particles, which are directly responsible for atherosclerotic plaque formation. "Good" cholesterol is used to refer to cholesterol carried in high-density lipoprotein particles, which are directly responible for decreasing plaque size. The actual cholesterol molecule is not different between the two, but the biological context is very different. Stress and physical activity can affect cholesterol level, but body weight is not directly correlated. High cholesterol levels are directly correlated with the formation of atherosclerotic plaques, but other pathophysiological factors can also make individuals more or less susceptible to myocardial infarctions.

 

2)A high blood cholesterol is said to promote atherosclerosis and thus also coronary heart disease. But many studies have shown that people whose blood cholesterol is low become just as atherosclerotic as people whose cholesterol is high.

Which studies are these? Again, we're seeing a category fallacy.

 

3) Your body produces three to four times more cholesterol than you eat. The production of cholesterol increases when you eat little cholesterol and decreases when you eat much. This explains why the ”prudent” diet cannot lower cholesterol more than on average a few per cent.

For some people. But this is the reason why statins are so crucial for individuals who are unable to lower their cholesterol by diet alone.

 

4) There is no evidence that too much animal fat and cholesterol in the diet promotes atherosclerosis or heart attacks. For instance, more than twenty studies have shown that people who have had a heart attack haven't eaten more fat of any kind than other people, and degree of atherosclerosis at autopsy is unrelated with the diet.

What are these studies? Dietary lipids have been statistically linked to atherosclerosis throughout decades of epidemiological studies, as well as experimental models. Am J Pathol. 1976 Sep;84(3):615-32. | Semin Liver Dis. 1992 Nov;12(4):347-55. | J Clin Invest. 1994 May;93(5):1885-93.

 

5) The only effective way to lower cholesterol is with drugs, but neither heart mortality or total mortality have been improved with drugs the effect of which is cholesterol-lowering only. On the contrary, these drugs are dangerous to your health and may shorten your life.

Not true. Some people repond very well to diet change, and fibrates were developed back in the 80's which work very well, but are so distasteful that they couldn't be used regularly. As far as toxicity, even Tylenol can kill you. Proper dosing monitored by a physician is necessary for ANY drug- statins are no different.

 

6) The new cholesterol-lowering drugs, the statins, do prevent cardio-vascular disease, but this is due to other mechanisms than cholesterol-lowering. Unfortunately, they also stimulate cancer in rodents, disturb the functions of the muscles, the heart and the brain and pregnant women taking statins may give birth to children with malformations more severe than those seen after thalidomide.

Patently false. The statins are HMG CoA reductase inhibitors, which completely shut down the endogenous synthesis of cholesterol. Pregnant women are not allowed to take these medications because cholesterol is important for fetal development. If they did, it would approximate Neimann-Pick Disease, in which the fetus is unable to synthesize its own cholesterol, and becomes horribly disfigured. But this should never happen under a physician's care.

 

7) Many of these facts have been presented in scientific journals and books for decades but are rarely told to the public by the proponents of the diet-heart idea.

Because they are not facts.

 

8) The reason why laymen, doctors and most scientists have been misled is because opposing and disagreeing results are systematically ignored or misquoted in the scientific press.

Again, false. Disagreeing results are not ignored, but the evidence has to pass the muster of peer-review. There are still scientists who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS, but their publications do not submit new data, and only criticize the existing data as incomplete. Much like this individual, I should say.

 

I hope this answers some questions about this myth.

[Zach]

Zach,

 

How would you define the distinction between and the inter-relationship of Science and technology?

 

Technology is applied Science. Very often, the Science that is applied is unknown. The classic example is the invention of the steam engine before the discipline of Thermodynamics.

 

Even in biomedical research, this is true. The new cholesterol drug Ezitimibe was invented and characterized to completely inhibit cholesterol absoprtion in the intestine, and we're still not sure how it works. The Science is lagging behind the Technology.

 

You're more than free to criticize HOW a particular Scientific fact is applied- then you're in the domain of ethics. The Science of Simple Machines (Inclined Plane) allows us to construct Knives that we can use to cut tomatos or throats.

[pitchu]

You're more than free to criticize HOW a particular Scientific fact is applied- then you're in the domain of ethics. The Science of Simple Machines (Inclined Plane) allows us to construct Knives that we can use to cut tomatos or throats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, of course, you can easily eat a tomato whole, while there's a quite greater degree of difficulty in gnawing out a person's neck.

 

But this isn't a complete response.

 

Let me think about what you've said here.

[Zach]

Well, of course, you can easily eat a tomato whole, while there's a quite greater degree of difficulty in gnawing out a person's neck.

 

But this isn't a complete response.

 

Let me think about what you've said here.

My point is that Science represents nothing more than Knowledge; the Scientific Method is just the most rational way to gain knowledge of the Universe. Knowledge can be used ethically or unethically- but the knowledge itself is amoral.

[chefranden]

The world, yes, but what about developed nations?  The US was the only one on your list from that category.  It is my understanding that the US is an anomaly in that regard due to immigration.

I would think that the only relevant figure is the world increase, nevertheless, the US has a net gain due to births of 5.89/1000 and another 3.31/1000 from immigration.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

 

The United Kingdom only has a net gain of .6/1000 but even that is a small city worth of new people each year (36,264). The point is that the world population is increasing. If it is development that significantly slows growth it doesn't matter.

 

There are not enough resources for every one to be developed. Development as solution is a red herring for sure. Development is the threat to survival.

 

I'm not sure where that comes from.

 

It comes from multiplying the average ecological footprint of Americans by the number of people in the world.

 

Conventional wisdom suggests that because of technology and trade, human carrying capacity is infinitely expandable and therefore virtually irrelevant to demography and development planning. By contrast, this article argues that ecological carrying capacity remains the fundamental basis for demographic accounting. A fundamental question for ecological economics is whether remaining stocks of natural capital are adequate to sustain the anticipated load of the human economy into the next century. Since mainstream (neoclassical) models are blind to ecological structure and function, they cannot even properly address this question. The present article therefore assesses the capital stocks, physical flows, and corresponding ecosystems areas required to support the economy using "ecological footprint" analysis. This approach shows that most so-called "advanced" countries are running massive unaccounted ecological deficits with the rest of the planet. Since not all countries can be net importers of carrying capacity, the material standards of the wealthy cannot be extended sustainably to even the present world population using prevailing technology. In this light, sustainability may well depend on such measures as greater emphasis on equity in international relationships, significant adjustments to prevailing terms of trade, increasing regional self-reliance, and policies to stimulate a massive increase in the material and energy efficiency of economic activity.

The paper is here.

 

So, let's assume that everyone who lives in the modern world would die shortly after the last barrel of oil is pumped.  Why would that cause the deaths of eskimos and aboriginal Australians?

 

It isn't a matter of no oil. It is a matter of habitat collapse. There is not much natural habitat left, and what is left is being ground up at an ever increasing rate. Even if we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere today, global warming may well have enough inertia to continue and accelerate. It has taken 100 years to burn the 1st half of the oil supply. The second half will only take 40. Very likely we will try to make up the much of the falling oil production with coal. This will be a huge blast of CO2 just as the CO2 sinks finally disappear. IMO we stand a good chance of adding a nuclear war to the mix as ever dwindling resources become scarce.

 

I don't see the fruits of science as insane.  I see the concept of handing over centralized power to a small group of people as insane.  Everything you are accusing science of, I would accuse the state as the actual culprit.

 

Yes I know. That hand over happened long before Science came along.

 

Science has provided the means for the increased centralization of power. Do you think Bush and company would be taken so seriously if they didn't control enough Trident missiles with multiple war heads to turn the planet into a cinder? What gave them those missiles? Why does the rise of the modern state parallel the rise of Science? Before Science we had to gather up a large bunch of guys and walk over to the enemy city and hack them to bits with swords. It was tiresome work and after awhile we had to take a break. Now a couple of guys can rub out a city while they are on break, just by turning a couple of keys while enjoying their Starbucks coffee and Krispy Kreme donuts -- a miracle of modern Science. I don't see how Science is not at least guilty of aiding and abetting, if not the source of the trouble.

 

How many times have we heard that Christianity is not at fault, it is the evil people that control it. I think that most of us rightly reject that argument. I don't see that that argument is any different than "Science is not at fault, it is the evil people that control it." I think Science is probably the source of the trouble, because it has continued the doctrine of "this world is not my home," only with the power to make it so.

 

Whether science can be separated or not, the process can not be separated from my brain.  I don't think it can be separated from yours either.

 

I hope that you are not right, but I fear that you are. I would hope that people, myself included, could wake up from Science by looking at its anomolies, just as people have awakened from religion. My pessimistic old fartism tells me there is not enough time.

 

Science has made tremendous population growth possible.

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

I'm not convinced we are making the world uninhabitable for future generations.  I don't see that we're even close to that.

 

Am I to understand that this is something positive? It isn't. It is one of those insane outcomes of Science -- something like trying to raise 12 kids on minimum wage, or maybe more like having quintuplets when using fertility drugs to get one baby.

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

Do you want to be convinced? I didn't, but I have this stupid obsession with reading stuff that challanges my comfort places.

 

I admit that a lot of it comes from Scientists. Oh Glory. Follow the link in my sig if you haven't yet.

[spamandham]

I would think that the only relevant figure is the world increase, nevertheless, the US has a net gain due to births of 5.89/1000 and another 3.31/1000 from immigration.

 

So population is growing. It won't reach the point that population exceeds the ability of earth to sustain humans, because we will have wars over scarce resources and kill off huge numbers of people long before that happens. Before the wars happens, the cost of having children will exceed the perceived benefit. So, while population growth may be slightly above replacement levels in Europe, we are already seeing what happens when the cost of children is perceived to be higher than the gain. People just stop having kids.

 

Doomsdayers have been warning of overpopulation for hundreds of years, and it never happens, because unlike dear, we will start killing eachother long before we reach a cliff.

 

There are not enough resources for every one to be developed.

 

...true, not in the current paradigm. All you are doing is showing that something has to give. It does, eventually, and perhaps the process has already started.

 

It comes from multiplying the average ecological footprint of Americans by the number of people in the world.

 

Then the whole world is not going to achieve US style opulence.

 

It isn't a matter of no oil.  It is a matter of habitat collapse.  There is not much natural habitat left, and what is left is being ground up at an ever increasing rate.

 

Perhaps true, but is it your contention that humans require natural habitat?

 

Even if we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere today, global warming may well have enough inertia to continue and accelerate.

 

25 years ago we were worried about global cooling.

 

Historical CO2 levels are still well below those this planet has seen. I don't know if the CO2 we're pumping into the air is staying there or not, and if so, if it is resulting in global warming. I just don't see that there's any way to answer those questions definitively. But, this link shows two things. First, CO2 levels are all over the map historically.

 

So even if it's true that our current production is raising these levels, it isn't true that there is a delicate balance holding the globe from destroying all life (or even just large land based life), as evidenced by the huge range of CO2 levels the earth has seen and life still thrived.

 

The second thing it shows is that there is no significant correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature (at least over long time periods). On shorter time frames, we observe that between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures actually declined in the midst of massive increases in man made CO2 production.

 

The current global warming trend started before the industrial revolution.

 

I'm having a hard time buying the global warming hysteria. It has all the earmarks of quack science being used to promote political agendas.

 

IMO we stand a good chance of adding a nuclear war to the mix as ever dwindling resources become scarce.

 

This one I share your fear. Unfortunately, the nuclear pandoras box has already been opened. There is no way to put the lid back on that box. Our only hope is to eliminate all incentive to use such weapons, which means getting rid of those who would use them - states. Without states, funding for nuclear technology would cease, and the nuclear arts might be forgotten. The fundamental knowledge would still exist, but the how-to engineering experience would disappear quickly.

 

Science has provided the means for the increased centralization of power.  Do you think Bush and company would be taken so seriously if they didn't control enough Trident missiles with multiple war heads to turn the planet into a cinder?

 

The power science releases works both directions. Bush has control of it because Americans believe in the system.

 

 

For the sake of argument, let's say I agreed with you on all these points. What can be done about it?

[pitchu]

My point is that Science represents nothing more than Knowledge; the Scientific Method is just the most rational way to gain knowledge of the Universe. Knowledge can be used ethically or unethically- but the knowledge itself is amoral.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree that the concept of there being knowledge yet to be known is amoral.

 

But the person who becomes the knower of that knowledge cannot be.

 

Once he/she knows the knowledge it means something to him/her.

 

How can amoral knowledge have existence outside of/prior to its (moral or immoral) meaning to the knowing entity?

[Fweethawt]

How can amoral knowledge have existence outside of/prior to its (moral or immoral) meaning to the knowing entity?

Sorry for butting in here, Pitchu, but I have a quick question about your question.

 

Are you asking how knowledge exists before it is known?

 

If that's what you're asking, then I don't see how the question makes sense. If something is not (yet) known, then it is unknown. Therefore, it is not yet knowledge.

[pitchu]

Sorry for butting in here, Pitchu, but I have a quick question about your question.

 

Are you asking how knowledge exists before it is known?

 

If that's what you're asking, then I don't see how the question makes sense. If something is not (yet) known, then it is unknown. Therefore, it is not yet knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good point.

 

I'm taking the word "knowledge" as I think Zach is using it when he says,

the Scientific Method is just the most rational way to gain knowledge of the Universe

 

To "gain" knowledge presupposes, to me, that the definition of the word, knowledge, being used here is:

 

"That which is or may be known; the subject to which an act of knowledge relates, whether a particular cognition or a branch of learning."

 

(The above from my 1914 "Webster's New International Dictionary")

 

So, if we're using the word as if, roughly, it means "information out there to be had for the getting," that's a concept of "knowledge which is amoral."

 

My point is that once this free-floating "amoral knowledge" is known, inside a human consciousness, it is known, (or grasped, or assessed, or understood) in a manner automatically intertwined with its meaning to the knower.

 

And meaning arises within the moral context/make-up of the knower.

 

In other words, none of us here on Planet Earth is Mr. Spock.

[Fweethawt]

I'm going to print out your response, go outside, and then read it while I slam my head against the sidewalk. Hopefully, after that, I'll be able to understand what you are trying to say here.

 

 

I knew I didn't have any business droppin' in here!

[pitchu]

It's my fault. Let's try it this way, Fwee:

 

I believe all "facts" are amoral.

 

But...

 

I believe there is no such thing in a human mind as "pure" knowledge or "amoral" knowledge.

 

I believe, instead, that a human is incapable of knowing/learning a fact without in some way giving that fact personal meaning, in an instantaneous and maybe almost sub-conscious way.

 

The personal meaning may be, "Yeah, yeah, I've heard that before..." or "Criminy, maybe that'll help me get laid..." or "I must drill this into my head because I'll never remember it otherwise..." or "God wouldn't want me knowing this..." or "Will this get me that grant...?"

 

Imo, our personal morality/context is inextricable from that which we know.

[Fweethawt]

I believe, instead, that a human is incapable of knowing/learning a fact without in some way giving that fact personal meaning, in an instantaneous and maybe almost sub-conscious way.

I see what you mean now. People, as individuals, take knowledge and apply it in whatever way that best suits or benefits them based on the make-up of their individual brains. Usually, they do this to a point where they reach their own personal comfort zone. How they act, or act upon that knowledge is interpreted as moral or amoral based on whether or not the outcome of those actions are positive or negative in effect.

 

Am I following you now?

 

Imo, our personal morality/context is inextricable from that which we know.

Perhaps this is because we don't really have any control over our mental make-up (how the brain organizes itself while gaining knowledge), nor do we have the mental ability to decipher the organization that takes place that you've determined to be inextricable between our morality and what we know.

 

It's almost like a void that we know is there, but we can't explain.

 

Now, are you following me?

 

 

 

(I hope not, cuz I think I just stepped off of a cliff while I was typing that. )

[Zach]

It's my fault. Let's try it this way, Fwee:

 

I believe all "facts" are amoral.

 

But...

 

I believe there is no such thing in a human mind as "pure" knowledge or "amoral" knowledge.

 

I believe, instead, that a human is incapable of knowing/learning a fact without in some way giving that fact personal meaning, in an instantaneous and maybe almost sub-conscious way.

 

The personal meaning may be, "Yeah, yeah, I've heard that before..." or "Criminy, maybe that'll help me get laid..." or "I must drill this into my head because I'll never remember it otherwise..." or "God wouldn't want me knowing this..." or "Will this get me that grant...?"

 

Imo, our personal morality/context is inextricable from that which we know.

What you're describing is the dichotomy between Science and Technology. Science is the knowledge, and Technology is the application of that knowledge. As I said before, Science teaches us that an Inclined Plane of a small enough angle can cut through substances softer than itself. The Technological applications of this knowledge range from cutting a heart out of a piece of paper, cutting a heart out of a transplant patient, and cutting the heart out of your mortal enemy on the battlefield.

 

The fundamental concern that I have, specifically in the context of faith and religion, is that avoiding knowledge increases ignorance. Faith can only prosper when ignorance is valued. The only hope for reason is the continued expansion of human knowledge.

[chefranden]

I agree that the concept of there being knowledge yet to be known is amoral.

 

But the person who becomes the knower of that knowledge cannot be. 

 

Once he/she knows the knowledge it means something to him/her.

 

How can amoral knowledge have existence outside of/prior to its (moral or immoral) meaning to the knowing entity?

 

Well said!

[chefranden]

My point is that Science represents nothing more than Knowledge; the Scientific Method is just the most rational way to gain knowledge of the Universe. Knowledge can be used ethically or unethically- but the knowledge itself is amoral.

 

Zach, I'm excited that you are in this thread.

 

By "Science" do you mean the method or the institution?

 

Are there any studies that show that Science is nothing more than knowledge disconnected from any moral or rational responsibility? Or is this just a statement of faith?

 

In the same way that it does not seem to me to be moral or rational to hand a 5 year old a loaded pistol and tell him to go play, it does not seem moral or rational to me to hand knowledge to people that will use it to make cluster bombs. It does not seem moral or rational to me to hand knowledge to people that will pour PCBs into the water supply. It does not seem moral or rational to me to hand knowledge to people that will put up 16 trillion lethal doses of plutonium. Rationality would indicate that this process be stopped would it not?

 

Why is objective rationalism the best way for inherently subjective beings to acquire their knowledge of how to be? How is it that these inherently subjective beings managed to live without objective rationalism for a few million years if that is such a bad way to relate to the universe?

 

By the way how do we know that we are not an invasive species?

[Zach]

Zach, I'm excited that you are in this thread.

 

By "Science" do you mean the method or the institution?

 

Are there any studies that show that Science is nothing more than knowledge disconnected from any moral or rational responsibility?  Or is this just a statement of faith?

 

In the same way that it does not seem to me to be moral or rational to hand a 5 year old a loaded pistol and tell him to go play, it does not seem moral or rational to me to hand knowledge to people that will use it to make cluster bombs.  It does not seem moral or rational to me to hand knowledge to people that will pour PCBs into the water supply.  It does not seem moral or rational to me to hand knowledge to people that will put up 16 trillion lethal doses of plutonium.  Rationality would indicate that this process be stopped would it not?

 

Why is objective rationalism the best way for inherently subjective beings to acquire their knowledge of how to be?  How is it that these inherently subjective beings managed to live without objective rationalism for a few million years if that is such a bad way to relate to the universe?

Science is knowledge, specifically as gathered by the Scientific Method. As an institution, Science is in no way similar to religious institutions. There is no Pope of Science. There are not even Bishops or Priests. We are all Scientists by virtue of our reason and inquiry.

 

The morality of technological applications seems to be that to which you are alluding. Polychlorinated biphenyls make excellent electrical insulators, but they are also toxic to humans. Given that scientific knowledge, we are able to make ethical choices on how to emply the technology of PCBs. Does the risk outweigh the benefit? These are sometimes questions that have to be answered empirically. Gasoline is toxic to humans. It is also dangerously explosive. Why do people put it in their cars, and keep gallons of it in their homes?

 

I'm not sure that I follow your last paragraph. Objective rationality is the only way to confirm that the knowledge we have about the universe around us is true. Of course our understanding will be subjective, but the bare facts of Science do not change. An apple is still red even if someone observing it is colorblind.

[pitchu]

What you're describing is the dichotomy between Science and Technology. Science is the knowledge, and Technology is the application of that knowledge. As I said before, Science teaches us that an Inclined Plane of a small enough angle can cut through substances softer than itself. The Technological applications of this knowledge range from cutting a heart out of a piece of paper, cutting a heart out of a transplant patient, and cutting the heart out of your mortal enemy on the battlefield.

 

The fundamental concern that I have, specifically in the context of faith and religion, is that avoiding knowledge increases ignorance. Faith can only prosper when ignorance is valued. The only hope for reason is the continued expansion of human knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Zach, of course human knowledge has to be continually expanded. I think, though, that it's anti-knowledge to espouse the conviction that knowledge can exist in a purely amoral and scientific way inside a human mind, ignoring that with all of the human mind's proclivities, aspirations, memories and prejudices such a thing is impossible.

 

It may be convenient to separate out Science from Technology when discussing them as fields, but to intimate that there are "science brains" into which the elements of ethics and morality do not enter, and "technology brains" into which they do is, imo, dishonest, therefore anti-knowledge.

 

I think that in many ways many scientists have given themselves a free pass on accepting responsibility for what, how and why they choose to explore what they explore. They've done this by perpetuating the notion that Science is amoral and pure, ergo, the humans who unearth and work with scientific information are, themselves, spotless in their endeavors, unpersuaded by pressure, recognition, or other punishment or reward, or by any other human propensity. Also, they've assigned blame for the immoral use of their discoveries to those in the field of Technology who implement those discoveries in various ways.

 

It's interesting to me how different this formula is from the criminal justice system's principle that allows the shooter to plea bargain in order to offer information allowing the full prosecution of the person who came up with the idea of the murder.

 

To me, there's plenty of responsibility to be taken on all sides, including on the part of us consumers who eagerly and blindly reap the "destructive benefits," like dogs gobbling up poisoned meat.

 

None of what I've said is meant to demean the scientist who knows what s/he's about, takes responsibility for what s/he does and why s/he does it, and recognizes when to "Just say, 'No'."

[Zach]

I think, though, that it's anti-knowledge to espouse the conviction that knowledge can exist in a purely amoral and scientific way inside a human mind, ignoring that with all of the human mind's proclivities, aspirations, memories and prejudices such a thing is impossible.

What does this mean? Let's speak in concrete examples. Take the knowledge of the Inclined Plane. Is it immoral to have the knowledge of this scientific principle, since it can be used to kill others?

 

It may be convenient to separate out Science from Technology when discussing them as fields, but to intimate that there are "science brains" into which the elements of ethics and morality do not enter, and "technology brains" into which they do is, imo, dishonest, therefore anti-knowledge.

Again, what does this mean? I never made reference to something called a "science brain" or a "technology brain". The Principle of the Inclined Plane is scientific knowledge that I have in my brain. Applying that principle, I can create the Technology of the Blade. Same brain, different processes.

 

I think that in many ways many scientists have given themselves a free pass on accepting responsibility for what, how and why they choose to explore what they explore.  They've done this by perpetuating the notion that Science is amoral and pure, ergo, the humans who unearth and work with scientific information are, themselves, spotless in their endeavors, unpersuaded by pressure, recognition, or other punishment or reward, or by any other human propensity.  Also, they've assigned blame for the immoral use of their discoveries to those in the field of Technology who implement those discoveries in various ways.

Oh, please. Scientists don't claim to be in ivory towers. For most, it's just the thrill of discovery. But we're moral agents too, which is why working towards a particular technological goal (e.g. the Manhattan Project) can be criticized as unethical but keep in mind that the Science (atomic fission) can be used for both ethical and unethical purposes.

 

To me, there's plenty of responsibility to be taken on all sides, including on the part of us consumers who eagerly and blindly reap the "destructive benefits," like dogs gobbling up poisoned meat.

But we also reap the constructive benefits. Like I said before, we have to weigh the balance when it comes to choosing what technologies are ethical. Should we get rid of all knives because a criminal stabs someone to death with one? It's not as simple as "technology is bad." No technological development has been monolithically good or bad, including the first use of fire.

 

None of what I've said is meant to demean the scientist who knows what s/he's about, takes responsibility for what s/he does and why s/he does it, and recognizes when to "Just say, 'No'."

Except it does, when you can make such sweeping statements about Science. You need to realize that a making a tool does not mean it has to be used, and if used, that it has to be used improperly.