🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Coile wrote:
>>>The destructive power of science is not limited to two devastating World
>>>Wars, nuclear weapons, and the rape of the environment. Advocates of
>>>scientific primacy like to associate science with morality but can only
>>>argue that the redeeming virtue of science lies in its potential ability
>>>to provide material comfort and plenty for all, and bring about an
>>>increasing equality of human condition. Such misguided notions are just
>>>another example of our own lack of purpose and consequent moral bewilderment. 
>>
>>Using words like "moral bewilderment" is both religious and demogoguery
> 
> 
> Such words accurately describe the existential problem of modernity
> as it overtook the certitude and meaningfulness that tradition offered,
> as well as the deliberation that weighed all possibilities and avoided
> drastic imbalances. That type of thinking has been eroded and lost.

Actually, it hasn't been lost; rather, the deliberation that weighed all 
possibilities and avoided drastic imbalance remains with most of the 
scientific community. Where those qualities have been "lost" may in fact 
be places where such qualities never were: with salesmen, managers who 
can't look beyond the next quarterly statement, in the pulpit and the 
soapbox of the preacher and politician.

I've got a very simple morality for the modern world. I stole it 
straight from the self-proclaimed "witches" and it works for me, with a 
tiny bit of expansion. "If it harms none, do as thou wilt, and reck ye 
well what harm may be done".

I'd argue that your campaign against Science would be better directed as 
a campaign against Recklessness. That would in fact be a worthy 
campaign, now and for always.

>>I subscribe to _Nature_, which is a peer-reviewed journal in which one 
>>sees all sorts of research. Yet the editorial slant of _Nature_ is 
>>pretty much the opposite of what you describe. Indeed, they constantly 
>>express concern over Global Warming and the need for energy sources 
>>alternative to those which are flooding the atmosphere with greenhouse 
>>gases, and practically every issue contains what amounts to a paen for 
>>carbon sequestration.
> 
> 
> Who do you think it was who created the methods that contributed to
> Global Warming, or rather more accurately Climate Change that brings
> us instability greater than mere heating? Who created aerosols? Who
> created the processes to refine fuel and the methods to burn fossil
> fuels? Are these the faults of sneaky politicians or clever scientists
> who invented and discovered?

And having created fire, then, Scientists are to blame for every person 
who hasn't frozen to death in midwinter, as well as for every house 
that's ever burned down due to Recklessness.

Yet had we created fire, and created little else, might not enough of us 
over enough time have cause a Climate Change and find ourselves without 
either the intellectual means or physical tools to discover the cause? 
Of course that is the case. Again, you argue properly against 
Recklessness, not against Science. Kindly correct this flaw in your 
reasoning, it's misguided to attribute the results of a character flaw 
to the products on an institution.


>>If anything, science is lending credence to the theory that things are 
>>_not_ allright, and rather than getting better are getting worse.
> 
> 
> It is good scientists are finally waking up to the damage caused by
> the inventions of scientists. Perhaps they will stop being so reckless
> and shortsighted in the future.

Again, your case is against Recklessness, not against Science.


>>If public officials and opinionistas were to start espousing the scientific 
>>viewpoint, perhaps more people would stop breeding like rats, demanding 
>>foods that either deplete resources or concentrate likely sources of the 
>>next pandemic;
> 
> 
> Who created the methods that allow people to breed like rats and
> expand beyond the natural limits of their environment? Were these
> invented by scientists or politicians?

People were breeding like rats since, roughly, the time around the year 
1200 CE when they managed to drive extinct, through overuse, a natural 
and safe contraceptive called the Giant Fennel. Nobody's entirely sure 
if it was overuse, destruction by the Xian church, or a bit of both, but 
once the Giant Fennel was gone, the birthrate shot up. But once that had 
happened, it wasn't the scientists who suppressed birth-control research 
or deployment. That would be the recklessness of the politicians once 
those methods had been developed, even after Rev. Malthus pointed out to 
the scientific world what doom must come from overpopulation.

Again, your case is with Recklessness, not Science.


> Who created the methods that allow for greater food production so that
> overpopulated regions can be sustained, ensuring a population time bomb?
> Were these intelligent exercises the creation of scientists or politicians?
> 
> Nature is not mystical, but is a practical reality check. Scientific
> efforts to cheat nature on a large scale have resulted in a failing
> approach.

Again, your case is with Recklessness, not with Science.

Every person competent to be called a scientist has had a fairly clear 
vision of the paths in the futures and in most cases have done their 
very best to have no unintended consequences, insofar as they could 
control matters. Yet politicians are not so bright, or care only for 
nearterm consequences while ignoring the longterm consequences.

Eradicating smallpox was a very good thing to do. Eradicating smallpox 
while refusing to allow funding of education about birthcontrol methods 
was an insane thing to do. Eradicating smallpox while educating about 
birthcontrol methods and assuring universal access to those methods 
would be both sane and farsighted. Yet for the nearterm gain of winning 
the next election by getting endorsements from the clergy, politicians 
and planners assured a longterm situation of sufficient overpopulation 
so that the next pandemic wouldn't gutter out in isolation, but instead 
would kill over half of the world's populations, that half that lives in 
major metropolitan areas. Are the scientists at fault? -or could it be 
the politicians who are to blame?

>>It's not science that made those choices, indeed it would tend to argue 
>>against them. It's very easy to support a hypothesis of "waste not, want 
>>not".
> 
> 
> Of course "science" doesn't make the choice, for it is scientists who
> merely want to bring changes into the world without considering their
> consequences. As a result, now the use of fossil fuels is available and
> people can obtain ridiculous SUVs for mass use and normally unsustainable
> populations can be raised to consume nonreplenishing resources and then
> have their oversized populations exported for other nations to support.
> This is just the beginning of the great wisdom of boundless scientific
> discovery working for the purpose of pure knowledge.
> 
> A reckless application of knowledge is worse than ignorance.

Which is why your case is properly against Recklessness than it is 
against Science.

And thus, you must argue not against Science, nor against Scientists, 
but against those who recklessly apply the fruits of Science.

I do believe we're done here.



-- 
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
	A true Conservative isn't about to let
	the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.