U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2013, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
1,999 posts, read 1,984,526 times
Reputation: 568

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Slightly off topic, but ...



Um, no. many species have been observed using tools.

10 Animals That Use Tools | LiveScience
Eh, no, like I said humans are really the only species on earth with a tool culture. And most anthropologists acknowledge this although a minority like to obfuscate the issue as you do. I would even call the chimps having a tool culture but I figured I put on my "liberal" hat for a second.

Next time you want your car fixed go take it to a shark then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2013, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
1,999 posts, read 1,984,526 times
Reputation: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
How about Alex the gray parrot, whose last words to the scientist who studied him were, "I love you"?

Or this:

Wild elephants mourn author's death - Beliefnet.com

Or this:


Touching Footage of Chimps Mourning the Death of One of Their Own - YouTube

Do other species not have phiolosphies only because they lack the means to discuss them with us?

What if they can communicate?


Koko Responds to a Sad Movie - YouTube


Koko and Penny discuss "Family" - YouTube

Returning to the discussion of scientism ...
Of sweet Jesus .

Okay, I can see you've never sat in any physical anthropology courses. So, you want to argue against "science" that one of the characteristics differentiating human other species of animals are things like religion and philosophy?

Part of the reason we study apes and other animals physiologically, anatomically, and behaviorally is to gain a better understanding of humans. Both in the similarities humans share with these other creatures as well as to better understand what differentiates us from other animals and other life forms.

Sorry, you can obfuscate the issue till you are blue in the face, humans are the only creatures on earth to really have a tool culture (which is why we are constantly perfecting and creating new gadgets), the only ones to have religion, science, and dare I say the only ones to have prisons and lawyers. (maybe we can do without so many lawyers though . J/k. Don't stone me officers of the courts.)

We have language and written language. Which are fundamental to both the spread of our tool culture but the increase of our knowledge base.

Humans can think not just about ourselves but we can think about thinking about ourselves and think about thinking about thinking about ourselves. Which helps us in our pursuits of self knowing and flows over into religion, philosophy, and psychology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
1,999 posts, read 1,984,526 times
Reputation: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Anyhow, I covered the first part. I have no idea where cops come into play as far as using tools in science goes. To the second, if you could be behind any patent you would, but you're not.
The cops and their mechanics come into play because like most people going about their daily lives they don't use any of those sophisticated scientific tools you mentioned.


Quote:
Christ, you have a bone to pick. You obviously have insecurities going on, but they're about you, not me or anybody else.
Actually, it's you with the bone to pick and the with the insecurities.

You don't like that I stated science is no mysterious cult of magical ways to know things, that science uses the same basic methods people do when they decided to pick up a cup to help them when they are thirsty, to put a bottle in the mouth of an infant when he or she is crying.

The if I do this then this will happen.

And you're insecurities are that as a chemist I and many others are not walking around kissing your hand like you're the Pope (actually, the custom is to kiss his ring signifying Apostolic succession). As I suspect your objections to my simple points that scientist don't figure things out in any Gnostic mysterious way, and that most of us get by in life daily without consulting with some chemist, physicists, or biologist every time we need to take a leak, walk out for fresh air, or make a sandwich.

My science class have helped me no greater than my prayer life has.

Quote:
All I can tell is that you are p*ssed off like so many on this forum.
Interesting. I can tell you're pissed off too. Not just from your snide remarks (nor from your projections). But through your tone and diction I suspected you were/are frigid too.

Pretty cool how we can know each other over the internet.

Quote:
My only point to you, where I disagree with your original post, was that I think a scientist would make a good candidate for survival and I listed the reasons why. I think it makes sense given the education and experience.
I don't. Unless they were outdoors-men, or survivalists, or former military with training on surviving in the exact environment and climate they found themselves in.


Quote:
I don't perceive a cult-like presence. My colleagues run the gamut from deeply religious to athiests, to family oriented to singles. The information available, the rationale required to do science, and the needed intelligence are available to most people. That you and few others have some weird, conspiracy bull that scientists are evil boloney going on is asinine and a massive waste of your time.
I never insinuated nor stated any such thing. That's you insecurities going on.

In fact I think I expressed a great respect for science. Science after all results in many comforts and benefits to man. Mostly physically. Mostly. But in pharmacological terms some medications help, benefit people in more emotional terms, and helping the non-physical mind in the process.

Quote:
Why in the world would it be a shock to you that science is quite natural. Of course humans tap our natural resources. We utilize our own physiology and immune systems to create drugs. It's not as if anything exists in a vacuum.

As far as this philosophy section goes, I don't know if any of these threads could be classified under the umbrella of philosophy. Most threads are comprised of people yelling and yammering. It's a magnet for depressed people. Anyhow, I hope you feel better and get past all this shadow boxing you're doing.
It's no shock to me and you know that. Being pissed off as you are, you simply want to claim that given I stated science pretty much goes about its investigation through the structure of: if I do this then this will happen.

And you are probably pissed off I'm aware of that, I stated that, and I've communicated that, rather than parrot the view "science" emerged out of thin blue air by simply rebelling against religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 04:32 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,854,224 times
Reputation: 13432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine View Post
The cops and their mechanics come into play because like most people going about their daily lives they don't use any of those sophisticated scientific tools you mentioned.
Again, you stated that scientists do not create the tools used in science. See>>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine View Post
No, it's not usually scientists that create tools used in science.
You said nothing of police work or anything else. The tools used in science are the instruments I mentioned and they are quite common in science. Perhaps you misspoke, I don't know.
Quote:
Actually, it's you with the bone to pick and the with the insecurities.

You don't like that I stated science is no mysterious cult of magical ways to know things, that science uses the same basic methods people do when they decided to pick up a cup to help them when they are thirsty, to put a bottle in the mouth of an infant when he or she is crying.
You're such a liar. I said that science is no such thing. I'm quite convinced that pretty much anyone could work in the sciences, become educated in the sciences, etc if they put forth the effort. The scientific method, OTOH, is a bit more involved than picking up a cup and putting it in your mouth, but there is nothing magical about it. Why in the world are you so threatened by it? Why are you attacking strangers on the Internet over it? It's bizarre.
Quote:
And you're insecurities are that as a chemist I and many others are not walking around kissing your hand like you're the Pope (actually, the custom is to kiss his ring signifying Apostolic succession). As I suspect your objections to my simple points that scientist don't figure things out in any Gnostic mysterious way, and that most of us get by in life daily without consulting with some chemist, physicists, or biologist every time we need to take a leak, walk out for fresh air, or make a sandwich.
The only request I would make of you and yours is to simply stay away from my kid and me. That's it, inaction. Nobody wants anything of you and it's unlikely you have anything to offer me of value.

Quote:
My science class have helped me no greater than my prayer life has.
Ok, but I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Quote:
Interesting. I can tell you're pissed off too. Not just from your snide remarks (nor from your projections). But through your tone and diction I suspected you were/are frigid too.
I'll let my husband and five month old child know.

Quote:
Pretty cool how we can know each other over the internet.
All this provides for me is knowledge that there are broken people all over the place to be found online. You people come online and point your fingers all over the place. I don't know what good it does you.

Quote:
I don't. Unless they were outdoors-men, or survivalists, or former military with training on surviving in the exact environment and climate they found themselves in.
Well, obviously you don't and obviously I disagree. Of course you can only guess as to the experience and knowledge a person has that would lend to survival.
Quote:
I never insinuated nor stated any such thing. That's you insecurities going on.
My insecurities about what? I don't get it. You have the beef with science, not me. You have a beef with me because I'm a scientist, not me. You are threatened because you think the scientists are out to get you or some such absurd thing.

Quote:
In fact I think I expressed a great respect for science. Science after all results in many comforts and benefits to man. Mostly physically. Mostly. But in pharmacological terms some medications help, benefit people in more emotional terms, and helping the non-physical mind in the process.
In fact you just attack for no reason. Actually, flip out is a better way of putting it.

Quote:
It's no shock to me and you know that. Being pissed off as you are, you simply want to claim that given I stated science pretty much goes about its investigation through the structure of: if I do this then this will happen.

And you are probably pissed off I'm aware of that, I stated that, and I've communicated that, rather than parrot the view "science" emerged out of thin blue air by simply rebelling against religion.
Your bolded is of that from a person who is inexperienced. If I account for a couple dozen variables under who knows what conditions, hopefully we'll yield results A or B is more like it in the simplest terms. Frankly, I think people are too reliant on STEM in general and I think that plays into the crazy you are displaying here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2013, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,191 posts, read 9,043,946 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I don't think there would be a scientism debate if people were generally educated in the sciences.
I don't think there'd be a scientism debate if more scientists were moderately educated / versed in the basics of philosophy and fewer scientists were dismissive of philosophy. Scientists often embarrass themselves by engaging in reductionist fantasies and various mental masturbations outside their scope. Einstein for example was respectful of the humanities, curious about the Great Questions, and had a basic grounding in philosophy. Hawking, not so much.

It is not that I subscribe to the "non-overlapping magesteria" theory about science vs religion or science vs philosophy. Science informs philosophy and should (but never will) inform religion. Philosophy should inform science because it helps us apply science in humane ways (e.g., a thing is not necessarily good to do simply because we can).

Scientism is the belief that science is the only useful tool for figuring out how to live. Science often regards philosophy, and in extremis, the humanities, as a waste of time. It also tends to evolve technology in an inorganic vacuum, such that we are constantly running afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

A good example is Ray Kurzweil and his constant nattering about The Singularity. Breathtakingly absent from his advocacy of his own ideas is any discussion at all about the vast implications of conferring any form of biological immortality upon humans. Omnipresent, though, is the assumption that all technological developments are good ones. I would like to see human life extended but I would like to do it intelligently and safely. To do this we need a philosophical basis for working out the issues, a psychological and sociological basis for anticipating possible unintended consequences and the best ways to go about it -- even political scientists will be needed to understand the knock-on effects. All of this will be needed in addition whatever technology evolves from the science.

One thing that science generally fails to understand is the big-picture reality that society can only handle so much change at once. We probably passed the maximum rate of absorption for new technology sometime in the 1990's, if not before. Now we're piling on all sorts of stuff without properly assimilating what we already have. Other than the self-regulation of financial realities I don't see anyone overseeing or prioritizing scientific inquiry and technological development, QA and rollout. This is putting enormous psychological and environmental stress on people. Sometimes I wonder if it won't blow up in our collective face in some big way if we keep this up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 08:02 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,854,224 times
Reputation: 13432
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I don't think there'd be a scientism debate if more scientists were moderately educated / versed in the basics of philosophy and fewer scientists were dismissive of philosophy. Scientists often embarrass themselves by engaging in reductionist fantasies and various mental masturbations outside their scope. Einstein for example was respectful of the humanities, curious about the Great Questions, and had a basic grounding in philosophy. Hawking, not so much.
Is that reality or the Internet? I work with scientists all day, every day.They,ime, don't appear to give a flying fig if some people online have conspiracy theories, that others wax poetics, whatever. They have their families, their lives, and want to get paid. I don't see where more scientists engaging in Internet thinking will do anyone any good. The people who may need to change, imo, are those who have the problem. And that's those who have scientism in mind. To me, it comes off as fearful shadowboxing, which is unnecessary. Taking the mystery out of the equation via education/knowledge is the only solution I can think of...for those with the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2013, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,191 posts, read 9,043,946 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I work with scientists all day, every day.They,ime, don't appear to give a flying fig if some people online have conspiracy theories, that others wax poetics, whatever. They have their families, their lives, and want to get paid.
It is mostly a matter of some influential talking heads who are outside their area of expertise (not just on the Internet but in books and public appearances). I agree that your everyday run of the mill scientist couldn't care less. But thought leaders, I hold to a higher standard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2013, 02:44 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,854,224 times
Reputation: 13432
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
It is mostly a matter of some influential talking heads who are outside their area of expertise (not just on the Internet but in books and public appearances). I agree that your everyday run of the mill scientist couldn't care less. But thought leaders, I hold to a higher standard.
I suspect these thought leaders you have in mind are politically flavored. The leaders in science, as in those who propel science forward routinely, are likely unfamiliar names to most given they're involvement in philosophical, political gobbledygook is lacking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:25 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top