'Science' is no better than 'religion'

[Kaitzilla]

Actually, I'm pretty convinced CO2 does cause global warming.

I'm just skeptical about how much warming. And that it will be all bad.

And annoyed at how nuclear isn't being embraced as the obvious solution if people are wanting to do something about it.

 

[Borachio]

I think nuclear has had a bad press since Chernobyl. And Fukushima has done even more, and recent, damage.

It's also proved quite an expensive way of generating energy, with long term storage issues.

But I think it will have a role to play in the future mix of energy supplies. Why concentrate all efforts in just that one sector though.

And hasn't the Earth got only a limited supply of uranium/thorium in any case?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Great post! I loved the video of good explanations vs. bad explanations. The difference is in how many degrees of freedom are available to modify the explanation. In bad ones, there are many. In the best ones, there are none.

I've never thought of that before.

I wonder if global warming qualifies as a good explanation or a bad explanation.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

[Kaitzilla]

I think nuclear has had a bad press since Chernobyl. And Fukushima has done even more, and recent, damage.

It's also proved quite an expensive way of generating energy, with long term storage issues.

But I think it will have a role to play in the future mix of energy supplies. Why concentrate all efforts in just that one sector though.

And hasn't the Earth got only a limited supply of uranium/thorium in any case?

Because it doesn't make crazy amounts of CO2 like fossil fuels.
And the supply is 1000's of years if we use breeders.

 

[Borachio]

And the storage of all that waste will be a problem for the next 100,000 years?

And the consequences of another nuclear power station failure will be what?

And how many would there be if all power was generated by nuclear means for the next 1000 years?

Now, I'm not in principle against nuclear power, but you must admit it's not a straightforward case of let's ditch fossil fuels in favour of nuclear.

 

[Kaitzilla]

And the storage of all that waste will be a problem for the next 100,000 years?

And the consequences of another nuclear power station failure will be what?

And how many would there be if all power was generated by nuclear means for the next 1000 years?

Now, I'm not in principle against nuclear power, but you must admit it's not a straightforward case of let's ditch fossil fuels in favour of nuclear.

Yes.

Around $1 trillion

10 times more.

All those problems are manageable.
What price tag will global warming ultimately cost?

 

[Smote]

Actually, I'm pretty convinced CO2 does cause global warming.

I'm just skeptical about how much warming. And that it will be all bad.

And annoyed at how nuclear isn't being embraced as the obvious solution if people are wanting to do something about it.

Watch this, then read the fact checking.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-mar...checks-aaron-sorkins-climate-science-newsroom

 

[Kaitzilla]

Watch this, then read the fact checking.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-mar...checks-aaron-sorkins-climate-science-newsroom

Facts mixed with monumental scare mongering.

If the guy turns out to be right, we will adapt and try some geo-engineering on the planet.
We'll need the practice to fight off the next ice age anyway.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm

Enter forward-thinking scientists and companies like Planktos and Climos, who propose adding iron to the world's oceans to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and, in turn, to decrease temperatures. The idea of dumping iron in the oceans to lower temperatures has been around since the late 1980s and has been known variously as carbon sinking, ocean seeding or iron fertilization.

The premise is actually simple. Iron acts as a fertilizer for many plants, and some, like the phytoplankton that form the base of the marine food web, need it to grow. Adding iron to the water stimulates phytoplankton growth, which in turn gobble up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The resulting decrease in carbon dioxide is supposed to help reduce temperatures since carbon dioxide is one of the main gases responsible for trapping heat on the earth's surface through the greenhouse effect.

Numerous iron dumping trials have been conducted since oceanographer John Martin suggested the idea more than 15 years ago [source: Haiken]. One trial conducted in 2004 indicated that each atom of iron added to the water could draw between 10,000 and 100,000 atoms of carbon out of the atmosphere by encouraging plankton growth [source: Schiermeier]. Some scientists theorize that adding iron to the Southern Ocean alone could reduce carbon dioxide levels by 15 percent [source: Schiermeier].

 

[Smote]

At some point, we need interstellar travel too, for when the sun explodes. Lol.

 

[Borachio]

You're looking ahead 7.69 billion years.

That's quite a long time. Enough for people to figure out how to propel the Earth itself out of the solar system, or at least far enough away for it not to matter what the Sun does. And who knows what other technologies may be available?

And besides, do you think those descendants (if any) of mankind will still be classifiable as people, or a "we" of any kind?

 

[Smote]

Planetary drives, eh? Love it. And, yeah, I think there will always be some version of "we" as long as our descendants exist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why would someone capable of moving a planet want some beat up old planet?

 

[CivCube]

The only reason science is an enemy of "Religion" is because it contradicts a few details in some zealots' list of arbitrary beliefs. We could be having a "Christianity vs. Metal Forks" thread every three weeks here if they were banned in Leviticus.

 

[FredLC]

Where were you all this time?!?!? .

In a very real sense, I never left. I pop in from time to time, and read. But to combine the posting requisites of me being here, there being a thread that is interesting and that I think I can contribute, and having the time and disposition, is something that is rare these last years.

I know it will continue to be so, because even though today I had the time and had what to say, I hesitated a lot to post. Not looking forward to being dragged into a meticulous debate like I did in the past... so I'm afraid this isn't a return to form...

You are right to request this. I was going to use the method I have been pet-peeving against myself, which is waving your arm in some direction and going: "These guys think that". And they're never called out on it. Of course when I try, I have the missfortune of running into someone who does just that. Call me out on it.

Actually, I'm confused as to what is the position you are taking. Your post I quoted seen to criticize science as arbitrary, but many of the arguments you are quoting as proof of your criticism do not seen to be taking a pro-scientific perspective at all, arbitrary or otherwise...

Regards .

 

[Borachio]

Why would someone capable of moving a planet want some beat up old planet?

Because it would be an efficient means of moving a large number of people out of reach of an expanding red giant.

Imagine the alternative: moving the same population by more conventional means.

Applying a very small force (comparatively speaking) over a very long time could turn the earth into the interstellar space ship of your choice without having to invest in the expensive method of lifting everyone out of Earth's gravity well.

I don't suppose the other problems of this project are simple or easy to solve by any means, but given 7.69 billion years there's time to consider the matter carefully.

 

[FredLC]

I do not disagree with your point, but you got your story wrong. Einstein did not propose experiments to decide between a local realistic theory and standard quantum mechanics. At the time, there was no way to resolve the EPR-paradox, so it was cast aside and did not receive much attention until the 1960ies. Only then John Bell came along and showed a way to test the paradox. And then it took until the 1980ies until there was evidence in favor of quantum mechanics. The fully conclusive test has not been done until now (but I believe it will be done in the next 5 years).

I glossed over details on how the EPR controversy developed because it isn't the topic, and because if people actually got to look for and to read about it, much more would be acoomplished than with a small increase on my post.

Anyway, as for being wrong, the idea that Einstein had an anti-probabilistic agenda, for lack of better word, in his proposal, is something I took from Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos". These are his exact words in the book:

At least as astounding is a feature that goes back to a paper Einstein wrote in 1935 with two younger colleagues, Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky, that was intended as an attack on quantum theory.

The skeptic in me has already set that I shall look into other sources, but I'd say that if I saw in error, it is because the giant whose shoulders I stood upon was turned to the wrong direction.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

The politics v. human endeavor distinction! All human endeavor is political.

I love your reprisal. It reminds me of a debate that happened here on CFC a few years back, where people insisted that anything a human can possibly do is "intellectual"... after all, we all have intellects.

In the strictest of senses, I even think you are correct. But to get away with what you intend to extract from your argument, a leveling between science and religion, you have to do away with any sensible application of terminology, and you are a step away from butchering the consensus of vocabulary that makes us able to even converse.

I suppose I could say it's hot today in the north pole; after all, it's above absolute zero, and it's hotter than deep space. Also, technically correct; also, meaningless, confusing usage of the spectrum of meaning the word holds, in stark contrast to what people are actually referring to. And you know it, I didn't have to point it out.

I for one prefer to avoid such confusions in my points.

Like I said before, such a view of 'religion' is itself mythical. 'Science' is the name we give to what is at best, when we try to rationalize the term's use, a continuum of fields with experts trying understand and manipulate the cosmos. As a construct, 'science' is fundamentally political, seeking to differentiate some experts from others; while possessing a core of fundamental powerful and mystical disciplines such as cosmology, quantum physics, evolutioary biology, with hagiographic figures like Einstein and Darwin, experts at the edge contest their scientific status in search of the same public credibility for their work. This credibility, being political, will like all politically useful things become a tool of the powerful: some like economists and psychiatrists, who disguise and legitimize power, get 'scientific' status much more easily than other who usually who unravel and criticize it, like sociologists or literary theorists for instance.

I entirely disagree. You are painting a very broad picture here, postulating that any means to arrive at conclusions, by whatever methods, good or bad, reliable or not, should be equally classified.

Again, no. I mean, black and white are different colors altogether, even if the exact point in which black becomes white, in a gradient, is impossible to know; because there is such a thing as a difference in kind, where enough dissimilarities pile up that you can't possibly group things together.

So "science" is not just a name we do to the part of our endeavour of knowledge that works; it is the description of a method to seek information that has specific rules of validation, and that difference is enough to postulate it as a different kind than forms of "knowledge", and the quotation marks are deliberate here, that are random.

Do notice that random, unmethodical ways to seek knowledge can sometimes generate useful results. It's a wasteful, stagnant, way to go, and one that is growing more inefficient as complexities of our current knowledge are anti-intuitive (and that obvious fact is what is putting pressure on all the forms of revelation); But a broken clock can be right twice a day. And knowledge obtained that way is useful, and should be incorporated if verified, but it does not equate to the scientific process.

And knowledge is power, so the more efficient way of knowing creates more power than others. As any tool, that power can be used for good or evil, but it does not dominate the method itself, even if the results can become instruments of the powerful. In fact, should political bias (and political here used in the common sense of a power struggle between divergent ideas, not as a description of the generalities of human relations) interfere in scientific endeavor, it would compromise its efficacy, and shoot itself in the foot.

I think your view of the fruits of science is rather cynical, what is not the same thing as being incorrect, obviously. But whether its true, or not, that the scientific fruits are hijacked by ideologues, I think nothing in your posts even begin to justify the argument that the scientific consensus is skewed by politics, or that it deserves to rest in the same shelf as religion.

Regards .

 

[bhavv]

Science is bad! Excuse me while I get a can of beer from the fridge to drink while watching the T.V, oh and I need to take my medication too. The car I drive was most definitely made by nothing other than God.

 

[Pangur Bán]

But to get away with what you intend to extract from your argument, a leveling between science and religion, you have to do away with any sensible application of terminology, and you are a step away from butchering the consensus of vocabulary that makes us able to even converse.

On the contrary, internalizing our culturally-specific distinction between 'science' and 'religion' makes it impossible to talk about religion in any other context, since the claims of 'science' (or 'religion') to particular spheres in our world makes it harder to understand other societies, past and present. It also dis-empowers people, for the reasons outlined above (and below).

And knowledge is power, so the more efficient way of knowing creates more power than others. As any tool, that power can be used for good or evil, but it does not dominate the method itself, even if the results can become instruments of the powerful. In fact, should political bias (and political here used in the common sense of a power struggle between divergent ideas, not as a description of the generalities of human relations) interfere in scientific endeavor, it would compromise its efficacy, and shoot itself in the foot.

I think your view of the fruits of science is rather cynical, what is not the same thing as being incorrect, obviously. But whether its true, or not, that the scientific fruits are hijacked by ideologues, I think nothing in your posts even begin to justify the argument that the scientific consensus is skewed by politics, or that it deserves to rest in the same shelf as religion.

Regards .

Like I said above, it is all very well rationalizing and claiming 'science is not religion because it does x' or 'science is better than religion because y', and so forth. But 'science' is defined not by such rationalizations, but rather by people using the word, and hence by the elites in control of public discourse. You can tell yourself anything you like about 'true definition' and the like, but that won't make it so. Burning intellectuals for being heretical--we don't do that, that doesn't serve anyone, and it is 'religious'; but we lock people up for being mentally ill as 'scientifically proven' by psychiatric diagnosis; leaders cannot legitimize their actions by viewing some animal innards to see if the god approves, that's superstitious; but checking out a crooked YouGov poll showing the masses support a war or oppose higher taxes for the rich, that's 'scientifically proven'.

As I hinted above, modern scientists can enjoy superiority over priests if they like, but it doesn't have to be because one is 'science' and the other 'religion'; the modern 'scientific' cosmologist using astronomical data and mathematics to unravel the secrets of the universe can enjoy his superiority over the 14th-century 'religious' cosmologist doing the same in the Bible or Plato's Timaeus without aligning himself to a system of oppression.

 

[Smote]

In fact, should political bias (and political here used in the common sense of a power struggle between divergent ideas, not as a description of the generalities of human relations) interfere in scientific endeavor, it would compromise its efficacy, and shoot itself in the foot.

It kinda does, here and there. There are many scientists that collect tons of data and occasionally come up with a "statistically significant" result, and then create some justification for the idea, then publish it and profit. It's quite detrimental, because it then has to be debunked. Then journals generally will only post the new ideas, instead of the debunking, so relatively new researchers won't know which papers to trust, or which are full of flaws that have been studied but not easily published.

Many researchers also only research in order to advance a certain idea, and presumably leave out any experiments that don't advance the idea, and occasionally add one that does, perhaps through some randomly generated and then justified "statistically significant" result. There are shady methods which cause significant amounts of error, such as testing, checking if its significant yet, adding more to potentially "improve the significance", etc. This can make a 5% uncertainty actually be closer to a 20% uncertainty. There are other statistical manipulations that can combine together to make apparently statistically relevant results as well.

They gotta make their paycheck somehow.

As any tool, that power can be used for good or evil, but it does not dominate the method itself, even if the results can become instruments of the powerful.

I don't agree with this philosophy. Some tools, I would argue, are only capable of evil. Consider a plague which is ridiculously contagious and airborne, and makes everyone unbearably itchy. Can this possibly be used for good? I think not.