Notices
Results 1 to 56 of 56
Like Tree17Likes
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By scheherazade
  • 2 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By adelady

Thread: Does anybody else ever feel like 'science' is shrouded in secrecy?

  1. #1 Does anybody else ever feel like 'science' is shrouded in secrecy? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Obviously some scientific information can be used for great harm...

    But it seems even with stuff that is available to be studied, the knowledge and data is presented in a language and style which is very hard to see through in order to gain an understanding.


    Surely i'm not the only one who thinks this?

    The way I see it is... Science is invested in by people who have an agenda. People who are very powerful and wealthy. People who are probably involved in running the world in some way.

    Therefore, in order to maintain there own status within societies, they shroud the results of there scientific investment in a cloak of secrecy.

    This extends not just to science knowledge which may be used by lehman to gain power, but also to knowledge which may take power away from the people who invested in the science in the first place.

    Say as an example: if the catholic church invested in a science, and the results prooved that the catholic beleif system is complete rubbish, then the catholic church is not going to allow the science to be read and understood by all. Quite simples really.

    Much of the science of the past has been discovered as the result of investment by people with socio/economic agendas.

    So in 2012.... How are we going to reveal the secrets of science in a way that is accessible to the averagely educated person? Who is then free to do as they will, within the parametres of the law.

    Or maybe this shouldn't happen?

    What do you guys an girls think?

    Please bear in mind most of you are probably educated in a way that means you are able to easily understand science and maths language. The vast majority of ordinary people are not.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Please bear in mind most of you are probably educated in a way that means you are able to easily understand science and maths language. The vast majority of ordinary people are not.
    There's your answer right there. We don't need the whole population educated to the point where they could act as peer reviewers for scientific papers. But good education would make people much better able to understand most reports of scientific activity and give people a basis to get started on reading up on scientific topics that interest them when they are adults.

    All specialists have their own shortcuts, vocabulary and jargon - even plumbers and electricians have names for special tools that are an absolute mystery to any outsider - and those names themselves have abbreviations or common slang descriptions. How many people can walk into a conference of IT managers or nurses or winemakers and instantly understand what people are talking about? How many who would understand one of them could understand all of them?

    If people can't be expected to understand special occupational languages that aren't scientific, why would we expect them to understand scientists without someone explaining what's going on?


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Obviously some scientific information can be used for great harm...

    But it seems even with stuff that is available to be studied, the knowledge and data is presented in a language and style which is very hard to see through in order to gain an understanding.
    Guess what: science is difficult; learning to apply the methodology correctly takes time and effort; acquiring an understanding of the terminology that allows efficient discussion takes time and effort; studying the basic concepts of a specific field take time and effort. Expecting things to fall neatly in to place, like some Sesame Street production is unreasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Surely i'm not the only one who thinks this?
    Even if six billion people think this all that means is that six billion people are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    The way I see it is... Science is invested in by people who have an agenda. People who are very powerful and wealthy. People who are probably involved in running the world in some way.

    Therefore, in order to maintain there own status within societies, they shroud the results of there scientific investment in a cloak of secrecy.
    Bollocks. Application of some scientific concepts through technology is carefully guarded. Science in general is very open: I mean seriously, look at the vast number of scientific journals publishing huge volumes of research results. Where is the secrecy in that. your suggestion is ludicrous.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Say as an example: if the catholic church invested in a science, and the results prooved that the catholic beleif system is complete rubbish, then the catholic church is not going to allow the science to be read and understood by all. Quite simples really.
    No, not quite simples, quite simplistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    Please bear in mind most of you are probably educated in a way that means you are able to easily understand science and maths language. The vast majority of ordinary people are not.
    If I want to visit Paris and talk to French people in their own language I realise I have to put in a considerable effort. The only secrets in science are those which depend upon you learning the background, methodologies and language of the subject. There is not an easy route.

    TO be honest I’m mildly offended that on a site where many of its members go out of their way to help educate people in science that you would make such an absurd claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    All specialists have their own shortcuts, vocabulary and jargon - even plumbers and electricians have names for special tools that are an absolute mystery to any outsider - and those names themselves have abbreviations or common slang descriptions. How many people can walk into a conference of IT managers or nurses or winemakers and instantly understand what people are talking about? How many who would understand one of them could understand all of them?

    If people can't be expected to understand special occupational languages that aren't scientific, why would we expect them to understand scientists without someone explaining what's going on?
    I couldn't put it better (so I repeated it).

    When I hear a report of a golf match, it could be in a foreign language. If I want to understand, I would have to learn the terminology and the rules of the game.

    Some of this comes down to good science communication and good science reporting. Lots of museums, universities and research labs have really good outreach and public-understanding programs. But communicating complex subjects so that they can be understood by people (but also so they don't seriously misunderstand them) is a really difficult skill. Much science reporting is terrible for this reason.

    But it also requires some effort by the public, if they want to understand. Much of modern life (politics, sport, economics, technology, science) is just complicated. You can't expect it to be somehow made simple.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    All specialists have their own shortcuts, vocabulary and jargon - even plumbers and electricians have names for special tools that are an absolute mystery to any outsider - and those names themselves have abbreviations or common slang descriptions. How many people can walk into a conference of IT managers or nurses or winemakers and instantly understand what people are talking about?
    It's perfectly reasonable that Some new language needs to be developed to understand new areas of knowledge.

    My thinking is that much of the jargon, even of plumbers, builders ect... is deliberately confusing.

    There is a difference between necesary new language to describe a specific thing that occurs only in this feild, and deliberately changing words and over complicating in order to stiffle understanding.

    I know you understand that difference deep down Adelady.

    It's perfectly obvious why we have secrets... it's due to this mentality of hostility and attitude that we must all compete for survival.

    If we think of ourselves as 'ONE', (Which I beleive most right thinking people do these days, in one way or other) all connected and related... then it becomes clear that the growth of all, and 'the greatest good to the greatest number' is for people to share not only what they find, but what our ancestors found, openly.

    To have the greatest good for the greatest number which is the ethical system our societies are built on... we must share openly the knowledge and resources that we have inherited. Right?

    If you think that secrecy doesn't exist, then your on the wrong thread.

    I'm not interested in the illusion that all is fair an just and nothing is over complicated or done out of selfishness.

    For me, whether science is shrouded in secrecy is not up for discussion... how to make it more open is.

    I appreciate that if we dedicate our lives to studying then with varying amounts of effort, we may all be able to understand a scientific theory of fact fully.

    But as you say, we dont need a society in which everybody is an accademic... but I think we do need a society where everybody has access to information that they might be interested in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    if the catholic church invested in a science
    The Catholic Church does invest in science. They have a world class observatory (With an instrument called LUCIFER) and many people with expertise in various branches of science. They have to keep abreast of modern science and technology because it is a vital part of modern life and is always going to have moral and ethical issues associated with it. There are also many in the Church who are just interested and several very good scientists. And I assume many of them still have the traditional view that science is a great way of exploring and better understanding God's creation.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    For me, whether science is shrouded in secrecy is not up for discussion...
    It is not up for discussion because it is not true. (There are obviously some areas of military research which are kept fairly secret, but that is more technology than science.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    if the catholic church invested in a science
    The Catholic Church does invest in science. They have a world class observatory (With an instrument called LUCIFER) and many people with expertise in various branches of science. They have to keep abreast of modern science and technology because it is a vital part of modern life and is always going to have moral and ethical issues associated with it. There are also many in the Church who are just interested and several very good scientists. And I assume many of them still have the traditional view that science is a great way of exploring and better understanding God's creation.
    I know the catholic church invests in science. Just for your info, my hyperthetical example of an organisation who invests in sience is supposed to be considered from a past perspective, not how they are operating now.

    How do you know the catholic church, as an example, have always made their scientific discoveries fully accessible? Considering much of what is written about organised religions including catholocism... I find this very difficult to comprehend.

    Presumably in order to fully benefit from the discoveries of the catholic church one must first be a catholic and secondly be a sharp mind, and thirdly be considered a purson who will be able to serve the catholic organisation after knowledge is bestowed unto thee.

    If the catholic church is so open... why do they have a instrument called lucifer? and what discoveries have they made about God's creation?

    What work have they done in the field of say, evolution?
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    I am sorry, but I have to...
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Obviously some scientific information can be used for great harm...
    Some social information like who cheat on his wives, some usage of a piece of woods to break skulls, ... also...
    So you a right, it is obvious, it is also a tautology

    But it seems even with stuff that is available to be studied, the knowledge and data is presented in a language and style which is very hard to see through in order to gain an understanding.
    Playing tennis also. You have to practice it a great deal to 'grasp it' fully.
    There are rules also for Science. The more you want to progress in it, the more you have to learn the language, which is sometime very very hard. Part of the fun is that it is not fix. You can build another one anytime...

    Surely i'm not the only one who thinks this?
    The part I agree on, is that on the basic level of science, everybody should be able to participate.
    And it is. There are A LOT of so cold 'popularization' book on A LOT of subject, very very accessible...

    The way I see it is... Science is invested in by people who have an agenda.
    Yes, an agenda to investigate nature, in a logical way to produce more knowledge AND practical usage of 'things'.

    People who are very powerful and wealthy. People who are probably involved in running the world in some way.
    What ?!? You must be kidding. Those people invest in power and wealth. You may call it economy, but it is not a science, even if they have manage to build university degree of them and throw Nobel prize at those looser..

    Therefore, in order to maintain there own status within societies, they shroud the results of there scientific investment in a cloak of secrecy.
    For example ? here it comes...

    Say as an example: if the catholic church invested in a science, and the results prooved that the catholic beleif system is complete rubbish, then the catholic church is not going to allow the science to be read and understood by all. Quite simples really.
    The catholic church do not invest in science. They don't care. Or maybe you call science the rules and observation done trough age of dominating people ? This is not science, this is the recipe for survival...
    They begin to care when OTHERS investigate science and call the b*ll-sh*it on them (like I am calling it on you, right now)

    Much of the science of the past has been discovered as the result of investment by people with socio/economic agendas.
    You mixed up completely science with technology. Your statement is not untrue, it is just the reverse of the reality, so it is mirror-correct

    So in 2012.... How are we going to reveal the secrets of science in a way that is accessible to the averagely educated person? Who is then free to do as they will, within the parametres of the law.
    Secret ? like Area 54 or like the mass of a proton ?

    Or maybe this shouldn't happen?
    What do you guys an girls think?
    OMG

    Please bear in mind most of you are probably educated in a way that means you are able to easily understand science and maths language. The vast majority of ordinary people are not.
    First I hope that you won't get any of my remarks personally. You asked what I think, and here it is.
    Anyway I may share with you the concern that 'sense' is not anymore the main concern of science, but then we may call it 'academic science', or the group of people that participate.

    Scientist are human, they bath in the same sociology than you and I, and also influenced by this 'end of the world' apathetic non inquisitive, defensive stance.

    Information has never been so easy to obtain, but the 'Orwell' like machine to redefine the meaning of words is also at its to speed. The fight is on !
    I could advise to you "Don't panic" written in big red letters, so everybody could laugh a little at how easy it is to 'realize' thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    For me, whether science is shrouded in secrecy is not up for discussion...
    It is not up for discussion because it is not true. (There are obviously some areas of military research which are kept fairly secret, but that is more technology than science.)
    You're quite obviously contradicting yourself.

    P.S Millitary development is not the only conceivable are where secrecy is employed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    It's a lot easier to dream up a conspiracy theory about scientists than to actually put in the effort to learn science. Likewise, in the business world, it's easier to think people are conspiring to keep you down and screw you out of your stuff, than to actually put in the effort to be successful yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    In a global market that is currently governed by money, there are a great number of proprietary 'secrets' in the interests of safe-guarding future profits. This is more of a 'business practice' than a nefarious plot, for information is difficult to maintain in secrecy especially with the internet and satelite communication systems.

    As for the words, language and accronyms associated with any discipline or interest, they are the hallmark of each and one must do at least a bit of research to gain better understanding if they wish to understand or discuss the subject comprehensively. Education, specifically teaching people strong reading, language and critical thinking skills is important, that they may continue to learn throughout their life because the world is ever changing.

    Science often doesn't make the headlines or the front-page of major newspapers, this is true, but that is largely because we have an ego-centric population that is caught up in social media. There is plenty of new science being released, much of it in 'layman's terms' but one certainly needs to take some advanced science courses if they expect to understand the biology, chemistry, physics and math of the actual peered reviewed publications.

    I, for one, muddle through by researching topics of specific interest to me and doing a lot of 'side work' as I look up various words and get at least a 'broad brush' understanding of the processes under discussion.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I am sorry, but I have to...
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Obviously some scientific information can be used for great harm...
    Some social information like who cheat on his wives, some usage of a piece of woods to break skulls, ... also...
    So you a right, it is obvious, it is also a tautology

    But it seems even with stuff that is available to be studied, the knowledge and data is presented in a language and style which is very hard to see through in order to gain an understanding.
    Playing tennis also. You have to practice it a great deal to 'grasp it' fully.
    There are rules also for Science. The more you want to progress in it, the more you have to learn the language, which is sometime very very hard. Part of the fun is that it is not fix. You can build another one anytime...

    Surely i'm not the only one who thinks this?
    The part I agree on, is that on the basic level of science, everybody should be able to participate.
    And it is. There are A LOT of so cold 'popularization' book on A LOT of subject, very very accessible...

    The way I see it is... Science is invested in by people who have an agenda.
    Yes, an agenda to investigate nature, in a logical way to produce more knowledge AND practical usage of 'things'.

    People who are very powerful and wealthy. People who are probably involved in running the world in some way.
    What ?!? You must be kidding. Those people invest in power and wealth. You may call it economy, but it is not a science, even if they have manage to build university degree of them and throw Nobel prize at those looser..

    Therefore, in order to maintain there own status within societies, they shroud the results of there scientific investment in a cloak of secrecy.
    For example ? here it comes...

    Say as an example: if the catholic church invested in a science, and the results prooved that the catholic beleif system is complete rubbish, then the catholic church is not going to allow the science to be read and understood by all. Quite simples really.
    The catholic church do not invest in science. They don't care. Or maybe you call science the rules and observation done trough age of dominating people ? This is not science, this is the recipe for survival...
    They begin to care when OTHERS investigate science and call the b*ll-sh*it on them (like I am calling it on you, right now)

    Much of the science of the past has been discovered as the result of investment by people with socio/economic agendas.
    You mixed up completely science with technology. Your statement is not untrue, it is just the reverse of the reality, so it is mirror-correct

    So in 2012.... How are we going to reveal the secrets of science in a way that is accessible to the averagely educated person? Who is then free to do as they will, within the parametres of the law.
    Secret ? like Area 54 or like the mass of a proton ?

    Or maybe this shouldn't happen?
    What do you guys an girls think?
    OMG

    Please bear in mind most of you are probably educated in a way that means you are able to easily understand science and maths language. The vast majority of ordinary people are not.
    First I hope that you won't get any of my remarks personally. You asked what I think, and here it is.
    Anyway I may share with you the concern that 'sense' is not anymore the main concern of science, but then we may call it 'academic science', or the group of people that participate.

    Scientist are human, they bath in the same sociology than you and I, and also influenced by this 'end of the world' apathetic non inquisitive, defensive stance.

    Information has never been so easy to obtain, but the 'Orwell' like machine to redefine the meaning of words is also at its to speed. The fight is on !
    I could advise to you "Don't panic" written in big red letters, so everybody could laugh a little at how easy it is to 'realize' thing.
    I havent taken offence from what you have said. Unfortunately I don't understand the vast majority of what you have tried to say. It's all a bit incohearant and i'm guessing english is not your first language.

    There are some points I would like to question you on but as you wrote so much... it seems a bit daunting.

    Thank you for your response. maybe I will sift through and ask a few questions soon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's a lot easier to dream up a conspiracy theory about scientists than to actually put in the effort to learn science. Likewise, in the business world, it's easier to think people are conspiring to keep you down and screw you out of your stuff, than to actually put in the effort to be successful yourself.
    It's not that i'm trying to dream up a conspiracy theory Harold. I take it as a fact that conspiracies exist, or at least have in the past, their is no reason to think they no longer exist. If we'r going to be pinickety... then the dividing line between a conspiracy with 'dark' intent, and a group who conspire with good intentions can become very blurry.

    I'm certainly not trying to suggest all scientist are knowingly in on a conspiracy. Not at all.

    In bussiness... it certainly is easy to think that bussiness who know the formular of success will keep it to themselves and try to screw over competitors. Thats a given. The nature of bussiness as we know it is competitive.

    The nature of scientists is generally competitive, but part of a scientists success involves sharing what they have discovered. Scientists may compete... but science itself stives to develop, it has no competitors.

    It is only people who are benefiting from a certain science who might want to oppress it... usually these would be bussiness people who benefit from it finacially.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Science often doesn't make the headlines or the front-page of major newspapers, this is true, but that is largely because we have an ego-centric population that is caught up in social media. There is plenty of new science being released, much of it in 'layman's terms' but one certainly needs to take some advanced science courses if they expect to understand the biology, chemistry, physics and math of the actual peered reviewed publications.
    Some good point Scheherazade.

    You say science doesnt make the headlines as we live in an ego centric population... I beleive statements like this are over simplified. there is a reason we live in an egocentric society... that reason is not independent of the science we have accumalated.
    The science we have accumalated is critical to us understanding life.

    Some science does make the headlines... some doesn't. That has nothing to do with the people who buy the papers being egocentric by nature. It has to do with the fact that rich powerful people would rather have a mass of ego centric people.

    Ego centric people serve the current system better.

    Science is knowledge... We have enough knowledge to know what is right and wrong and to know what is 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. If we all had access to the knowledge and none of us were exposed to psuedo knowledge, then all would be harmoniuos and fair.

    Yes there are some accessible books out there... which is as it should be and nobody is suggesting that there are not good people sharing information with each other.

    Simply put... everything is connected. The apparent reasons for everyday things often go deeper than it at first appears.

    Ultimately... we are living under a capitalist philosophy, the capitolists have the most power in the world to influence what people think and wether they are ego centric or altruistic.

    I sincerely beleive that if the whole of 'science' was understood, then it would indicate that the current system is flawed, pathological and doomed.
    Therefor I beleivve if people knew just the basics that years of scientific study and thought have accumalated... then we would not allow a capitalist system.

    Therefor capitalists (who sponser the headlines) would seek to promote some science and keep others hush hush from the voters within our democracies.

    That IMO is why science is not making the headlines... capitalists can pretend that people are 'ego centric' and so dont want to know about science or knowledge. But in reality capitalists are making people ego centric and uninterested in knowledge... in order to maintain the status quo which they are quite happy with.

    This does not mean i hate capitalists, I'm not even sure most of them know what they are doing... we've all been made to be the way we are as people... and what science has been shared or hidden plays a very important role in forming us into the people we are.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    As this relates to the OP, it seems that people that do not have a basic understanding of a subject, craft, or technology will irrationally conclude there is some "conspiracy" afoot in its operations.

    Basically, science is a process to explain nature into a predictable model. Business is simply transactions/activities which generate income. Neither disciplines are inherently competitive. If you are claiming that conspiracies may exist, well sure in a vague way they may. If you really want to develop an expertise in any field, the individual has to put in the effort to educate themselves. Scientists already publish their work. It just requires reading. Some explanations may demands previous knowledge of mathematics, chemistry, biology, and many more disciplines. So if you are that interested in those topics, it requires more education.

    Instead of looking for phantom conspiracies, I suggest you visit a University Book Store and purchase a book in your topic of interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Thank you for your detailed reply, question for you.
    Science is knowledge... We have enough knowledge to know what is right and wrong and to know what is 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. If we all had access to the knowledge and none of us were exposed to psuedo knowledge, then all would be harmoniuos and fair.
    I beleive statements like this are over simplified. there is a reason we live in an egocentric society... that reason is not independent of the science we have accumalated.
    You will forgive me, I trust, for pointing out that your own remark, bolded, is also simplistic and idealistic.

    Take a look around and observe nature for an interval and you will recognize that 'harmonious' and 'fair' are but human thought experiments. Every living organism selects for the path of least resistance. Even when that selection appears to be a more difficult one, it is by reason that fewer are selecting for that option and so it confers advantage, as in my own choice to work graveyard shift. I am somewhat competitive yet I am neither ruthless nor desirous of conflict. Therefore I choose a playing field where my genetic trait of endurance allows me to outlast the competitors.

    Even if every person born was graced with identical genetic and material opportunities, by reason of their choices, the end result would be the same with some far more advantaged by having maximized their chances and others marginalized by having made less successful selections. This is the cumulative effects of random chance and human nature.

    The world is NOT a fair and level playing field, but that is the call of nature. As an intelligent species we DO have the opportunity to educate ourselves and our young to improve our ability to cooperate and reduce our reliance on competition as a coping strategy.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    As this relates to the OP, it seems that people that do not have a basic understanding of a subject, craft, or technology will irrationally conclude there is some "conspiracy" afoot in its operations.
    I do have a basic understanding of many subjects, including science as a whole.

    I am not irrationally concluding there is a 'conspiracy afoot'... if you're claiming that i'm claiming that, then you are irrational.

    Your comment doesn't relate too well to the OP, in your comment I can see you have not related very well to the OP. I'm not suggesting this is your fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Basically, science is a process to explain nature into a predictable model.
    Bassically I have a sound understanding of what science is. Thank you.

    [QUOTE=MrMojo1;362716]Business is simply transactions/activities which generate income.[QUOTE]

    Thanks again mate but I wasn't born yesterday... I'd be interested in some more complex explanations of the workings of the bussiness world but so far I have my suspicions as to wether you would be able to give them.
    just spare me the uber simplistic details of 'what bussiness it'.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Neither disciplines are inherently competitive.
    I would argue that, but as you havent justified the comment I should just ignore it. Needless to say, I beleive competitiveness is inherent in the world of bussiness and is also inherent in certain aspects of the science world as previously discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    If you are claiming that conspiracies may exist, well sure in a vague way they may.
    Well I didn't claim that, I did say I take it as a given that conspiracies exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    If you really want to develop an expertise in any field, the individual has to put in the effort to educate themselves.
    Educate is a word derived from educatio (latin) which means to rear or bring up... do you really think we can rear ourselves? maybe we can be reared to be able to automatically continue the process of bringing ourselves up, in the direction which has been started by a third party. Rearing has to at least be started by a third party. This process usually begins with parents, is taken over by the state using a system known as the education system, then once we leave the education system we are still reared by other educators such as medias, politicians etc... basically anybody with the power can get involved in influencing our education.
    To be truly self educated would mean there is not ever an authority who aims to rear us or to mould us, including no influence from friends etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Scientists already publish their work. It just requires reading. Some explanations may demands previous knowledge of mathematics, chemistry, biology, and many more disciplines. So if you are that interested in those topics, it requires more education.
    yes scientist do publish work... and yes it is written in language which does require previous education in that feild. You really think your contributing something new to the thread?

    Unfortunately our system does not allow each voter within a democracy the ways and means to learn about every area of science that relates to making an informed decision about the direction of society as a whole... This is my problem with the fact that science is not more readily accessible. Even scientists and accademics are unable to get through all the papers they need to study to get a broad knowledge about life which enables them to know who to vote for or what to vote for.
    Our society apparently doesnt have the resources to educate every voter to this levle of understanding. Not every person would want to spend there whole life reading through scientific papers in order to gain a perspective on what is right and what is wrong, whats good and whats bad.

    Fortunately people do have fantastic instincts and are able to draw conclusions independently based on their own life experiences... all that is needed on top of that is readilly accessible information that relates to relevant topics and issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Instead of looking for phantom conspiracies, I suggest you visit a University Book Store and purchase a book in your topic of interest.
    My topic of interest? my topic of interest is everything. Do you know of any good books on that topic?
    Even if such a book exists... do universitie libraries really sell books? I thought they loaned them generally.

    I'm not speaking about my personal level of knowledge or understanding... i've been looking for books that relate to my topic of interest all my reading life.

    The issue is that we live in a democrasy... decisions are made on votes. If the majority of people spent their time reading scientific papers then there would not be enough people to carry out other roles within our societies... like who would sweep the streets and collect the rubbish.

    Do you have any understanding of the issues surrounding this fact?

    I'm not so much interested in wether it is possible for an individual to study a specific subject in great detail. I'm more concerned about weather the lehman is able to access a broad enough spectrum of knowledge to be able to make informed decisions and be a responsible organism.

    By the way.. i'm not looking for phantom conspiracies... pay more attention... educate yourself in the topics of this thread. See you in a few years. Heres some pointers: History, politics, bussiness, psychology, society, sociology... Within those 6 'topics' you should be able to eventually find all the information that you require in order to understand the issues.

    When you manage to educate yourself sufficiently, then please come back and tell me to do so by all means.

    Thanks for your comment mojo. Please be more thoughtful next time. I'm here for a conversation, not to be patronised by people who don't think deeply for themselves, just regurgitate what the person who educated them fed them.

    P.S Nothing you said added anything new to the thread. No hard feelings though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    If we all had access to the knowledge and none of us were exposed to psuedo knowledge, then all would be harmoniuos and fair.

    You will forgive me, I trust, for pointing out that your own remark, bolded, is also simplistic and idealistic.
    Ofcourse madam :-) Your quite right.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Take a look around and observe nature for an interval and you will recognize that 'harmonious' and 'fair' are but human thought experiments.
    ok, it is ofcourse an over simplified comment I made, I appologise.
    I agree that 'fair' is a human thought... which is part of nature. I beleive it is our nature as vastely more knowledgebla than other animals, to have a sense of fairness. It is known I beleive in the highest realms of humn thought, that fairness to others benefits ourselves. But lets not get into that.

    As far as harmony is concerned... the way I see it, all in nature is in harmony. Everything works. The only species which it seems to me is not in harmony is homo sapien/human being/mankind (just an example of multiple mnaming that I can't see a reason for).

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Every living organism selects for the path of least resistance. Even when that selection appears to be a more difficult one, it is by reason that fewer are selecting for that option and so it confers advantage, as in my own choice to work graveyard shift. I am somewhat competitive yet I am neither ruthless nor desirous of conflict. Therefore I choose a playing field where my genetic trait of endurance allows me to outlast the competitors.
    I agree every organism chooses the path of least resistence. Even when it appears to be more difficult? can you substantiate that? I don't think that would be true. I apreciate your example of choosing to do the night shift... but that option does appear to you to be the least resistence... at least that how you've come to think of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Even if every person born was graced with identical genetic and material opportunities, by reason of their choices, the end result would be the same with some far more advantaged by having maximized their chances and others marginalized by having made less successful selections. This is the cumulative effects of random chance and human nature.
    If you think of the human race as coming from one father, which it must have (one ape whose chromosome number 2 fused, or whatever) then we did all start with the same genetic material. We have adapted different genetic material due to the different roles that our environments or more poignently our societies have damanded from us.

    Any advantage given to one is borne not from nature, but from society. It is borne from the fact that the disatvantaged has been exploited by the advantaged. This occurs in a way that is not in harmony with natural selection as seen in 'nature'... the natural mechanisms have been over written by society.
    In the battle for survival a rich person might consider themselve more advantaged to survive, but one quick shift in the socio-environment will give the manual labourer a much better disposition to survive.
    I know this is another over simplified example, but hopefully it conveys a point that domestication will be an advantage, as long as there is a civilisation for the domesticated to live in... it's a symbiotic relation between civilisation and domesticated civilians. If civilisation crumbled then it would be the uncivilised that has a better chance of survival. Anyway, im rambling.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    The world is NOT a fair and level playing field, but that is the call of nature. As an intelligent species we DO have the opportunity to educate ourselves and our young to improve our ability to cooperate and reduce our reliance on competition as a coping strategy.
    Yes and that is our nature.... the nature of higher intelligence. The nature of intellectual thought dictates that we as people should be cooperating with each other in order to acheive the human thought experiment of 'greatest good to greatest number'.
    Nature is a level playing feild, society is not.

    Society has gone beyond nature by over riding the natural mechanisms... science shows us this to be true.

    I put it to you that the people who are best placed to 'win' or prosper in the game of evolution... are people living outside of our modern societies... as long as our societal structure exhausts itself before it destroys the habitat of these natural people completely.

    What I mean is... if we'r going to have these rules such as 'greatest good to greatest number' and such... then lets at least live it. If we want to follow nature, lets follow nature. If we want to follow society which proffesses to be for the good of all, then lets make sure it really is for the good of all.
    I don't like the hypocracy of those in society who one the onehand see everything in terms of survival, but on the otherhand expect us to conform to rules that prevent some from there chance of survival.

    It's either a free for all, or it's a co operation. Anything in between is hypocratic bull shit.

    Do you see my point scherezade?

    Thank you for your constructive comments
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    How do you know the catholic church, as an example, have always made their scientific discoveries fully accessible?
    Well, obviously we don't. But we have evidence that they have published much scientific research, often in collaboration with other institutions and universities. We have no evidence they have done research they are keeping secret. I assume you will consider that to be proof that they are really good at keeping it secret. I would just assume it means there is no evidence they are keeing anything secret.

    Presumably in order to fully benefit from the discoveries of the catholic church one must first be a catholic and secondly be a sharp mind, and thirdly be considered a purson who will be able to serve the catholic organisation after knowledge is bestowed unto thee.
    No, just an astronomer working in the relevant area. Or an interested member of the public. Just read the appropriate journals.

    why do they have a instrument called lucifer?
    Because, like many scientists, they have a sense of humour? It is an acronym (or, more accurately, a backronym): Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research.

    What work have they done in the field of say, evolution?
    Don't know. Not my field. There are obviously many biologists who are Catholics. And the Church supports evolution, so I am sure there are Catholic scientists who have done work in the area.
    westwind likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    For me, whether science is shrouded in secrecy is not up for discussion...
    It is not up for discussion because it is not true. (There are obviously some areas of military research which are kept fairly secret, but that is more technology than science.)
    You're quite obviously contradicting yourself.
    Not really. A few military and commercial projects does not mean all of science is "shrouded in secrecy".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Not really. A few military and commercial projects does not mean all of science is "shrouded in secrecy".
    Perhaps I shouldnt have used the term shrouded in mystery... It seems to have stirred up some feelings.
    I didnt mean to insult anybody... or generalise abotu science as a whole.

    To be honest, I've always had these ideas about how science isn't very accessible.

    The other night I was watching 'have I got news for you'. It was the one with the american guy who had a set two with jeremy paxman.

    It was just a little comment right at the end... hislop i think said something about 'shrouded in mystery', merton that quick witted so an so quiped 'what like science you mean' then the camera showed hislop chuckling at the remark.

    I wasn't exactly sure wether merton was statign that science has always been shrouded in secrecy and hislop was agreeing by gleefully grinning at merton's quip... or if there was some 'sub text' behind the comment which gave it a form of ironic humour, such as, maybe there was some big story about somebody accusing science of being shrouded in secrecy.

    I wasnt sure but I felt it was simply merton highlighting that some science is or can be very secretive.

    This is not an attempt to deride or insult science or scientists.

    It's just meant as a discussion thats all... The question is, does anybody ever feel like it is? all your answers are welcome but don't keep banging on about me searching for phantom conspiracies or any of those bull shit comments. This thread isnt about that, if it was it would state 'science is one big conspiracy'.


    All you guys could be the most honest forthright decent humans being on this planet... yet that does not mean theres no secrets in science, or that science which is not secret as such, is merely repressed by individuals around the world.

    None of it is any reason for any of you to take offence, please don't read it like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    To be honest, I've always had these ideas about how science isn't very accessible.
    Think of any subject you want: alternatives to the big bang, weaponizing smallpox, building a small scale nuclear reactor, use of cannabis for medicine, whatever. Now do a search on Google scholar. I am pretty certain that you will find many published research papers on the subject of your choice. You might have to pay to get them. You may need to have a master or doctorate in the appropriate subject to have any chance of understanding. But, as they didn't say in X-Files, the information is out there.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I am not irrationally concluding there is a 'conspiracy afoot'... if you're claiming that i'm claiming that, then you are irrational.
    The way I see it is... Science is invested in by people who have an agenda. People who are very powerful and wealthy. People who are probably involved in running the world in some way.

    Therefore, in order to maintain there own status within societies, they shroud the results of there scientific investment in a cloak of secrecy.

    This extends not just to science knowledge which may be used by lehman to gain power, but also to knowledge which may take power away from the people who invested in the science in the first place.
    Okay. What exactly is the Cloak of Secrecy that is being employed by the very powerful and wealthy who are probable involved in running the world and how are they using what particular science development to maintain their status within societies?

    What is this well kept secret you claim to see? How did you arrive to this rational opinion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Originally posted by question for you.
    As far as harmony is concerned... the way I see it, all in nature is in harmony. Everything works.
    While I completely agree that 'everything works', I'm thinking that those presently enduring Hurricane Sandy would debate your idea of 'harmony' and 'fairness', these being subjective terms which are largely dependent on perspective and context. Yet this same weather phenomenon which is wrecking such destruction on the east coast of the continent will also provide a huge economic opportunity for those who will be called upon to do the clean-up and rebuilding. It is rather ironic that nothing fosters co-operation between humans faster than shared misfortune.

    Originally posted by question for you.
    Even when it appears to be more difficult? can you substantiate that? I don't think that would be true. I apreciate your example of choosing to do the night shift... but that option does appear to you to be the least resistence... at least that how you've come to think of it.
    Yes. I draw your attention to any number of 'niche' species that have evolved successful coping mechanisms by adapting to the less favorable conditions of a far narrower set of parameters. Many humans do likewise. Extended graveyard shift has physical and psychological effect that proves detrimental to approx. 90% of those I have observed over more than seven years in this venue. (I have witnessed over 200 applicants come and go during this period and acted in the capacity as chief shop steward and health adisor to many.)

    "The niche concept was popularized by the zoologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson in 1957.[5] Hutchinson wanted to know why there are so many different types of organisms in any one habitat.

    An organism free of interference from other species could use the full range of conditions (biotic and abiotic) and resources in which it could survive and reproduce which is called its fundamental niche. However, as a result of pressure from, and interactions with, other organisms (i.e. inter-specific competition) species are usually forced to occupy a niche that is narrower than this, and to which they are mostly highly
    adapted. This is termed the realized niche."
    Ecological niche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Originally posted by question for you.
    I put it to you that the people who are best placed to 'win' or prosper in the game of evolution... are people living outside of our modern societies... as long as our societal structure exhausts itself before it destroys the habitat of these natural people completely.
    Then it should come as no surprise that I agree with this remark precisely because I reside in a region of relatively low population density that still resembles 'habitat'.

    People are moving here in droves of late, bringing change in their wake, and escalating the pace of 'development' in the north to the detriment of many wildlife species that reside here. A record number of bears was shot this year as new subdivisions for human habitat are built and this was a late spring and scarce food for the bears. That and humans are largely a disgustingly careless species with their garbage.

    I thank you for your other comments as well but have not replied to them here as they seem to be expanding into ideology and getting somewhat afield of your opening post.
    westwind and question for you like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    The issue is that we live in a democrasy... decisions are made on votes. If the majority of people spent their time reading scientific papers then there would not be enough people to carry out other roles within our societies... like who would sweep the streets and collect the rubbish.
    I recently learn a few things about democracy. Like you said this is science, not put up front, by the media, but not really hidden either.
    As you already guessed from my lame english, those sources are in french. I have only this link for you in english click-> democracy
    In fact I am looking for some 'academic' reference in the anglo-saxon world, that support the point of view of this guy Etienne Chouard

    In short, no we do not live in democracy, but in a representative government. Those things are completely different. We are at best considered as electorate, not citizen. Never have, maybe never will, because democracy has been buried into dust 3000 years ago...

    The second point, I also do not agree with. You can in fact sweep the street and have a nobel prize. I think that many scientific people would take as an insult to be concidered as not even able to handle a broom (many magician too You are dam right when you say that our 'prejudice' or even 'brain washing' can play against us. But in a way, it has been selected by the course of event, like survival of the fittest...

    As for my reference to Area 54, I apologyze. I was looking for a way to sort out what kind of conspirationist you are: the paranoïd scares to death, or the curious mind observing two sports team 'conspire' again each other to win the game (or beat the concurrence in business ... as usual)

    That C word has become a great way to shunt people curiosity. There are a lot of bullies on this site, but even more en-lighted/ing people
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Guess what: science is difficult; learning to apply the methodology correctly takes time and effort; acquiring an understanding of the terminology that allows efficient discussion takes time and effort; studying the basic concepts of a specific field take time and effort. Expecting things to fall neatly in to place, like some Sesame Street production is unreasonable.
    sorry John I completely missed your comment.

    I'm not talking about learning to apply the scientific method... I intended to speak more about the availability or accessibility of results and conclusions.

    QFY posted: "But it seems even with stuff that is available to be studied, the knowledge and data is presented in a language and style which is very hard to see through in order to gain an understanding.
    Surely i'm not the only one who thinks this?"

    Even if six billion people think this all that means is that six billion people are wrong.[/QUOTE]

    John, your first comment concedes that what I said was correct... it is hard to see through the technical stuff to form an understanding, so 6 million people would by your own admission be correct. I don't mean to be presumptious but I think you have taken offence from my message and now your desire to condemn my message is causing you to talk bollocks. I say that very respectfully with a smile


    [QUOTE=John Galt;362668]
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    The way I see it is... Science is invested in by people who have an agenda. People who are very powerful and wealthy. People who are probably involved in running the world in some way.

    Therefore, in order to maintain there own status within societies, they shroud the results of there scientific investment in a cloak of secrecy.
    Bollocks. Application of some scientific concepts through technology is carefully guarded. Science in general is very open: I mean seriously, look at the vast number of scientific journals publishing huge volumes of research results. Where is the secrecy in that. your suggestion is ludicrous.[/
    QUOTE]

    No my suggestion is not ludicrous, your interpretation might be.

    How is application of scientific concepts by the millitary in order to develope technology gauded? Do you have a team to help you with this?
    Yes, seriously much much science is available to people who have been educated and want to learn about it. That was never in dispute.

    If in the old days or in modern times somebody rich and powerful wanted to employ a scientist to study a particular thing... Who is going to insist that it's made public in a paper? nobody. Theres nothing bollocks about it.

    You even say yourself 'most science is very open'... This is an admition that some science is secretive!!! Why do you on the one hand insist I speak bollocks and on the other hand admit what I say is true?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Say as an example: if the catholic church invested in a science, and the results prooved that the catholic beleif system is complete rubbish, then the catholic church is not going to allow the science to be read and understood by all. Quite simples really.
    No, not quite simples, quite simplistic.
    Constructive! thanks for that!. Simplicity is one of the principles of design and is associated with things that are beautiful. I'll take it as a compliment.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    If I want to visit Paris and talk to French people in their own language I realise I have to put in a considerable effort. The only secrets in science are those which depend upon you learning the background, methodologies and language of the subject. There is not an easy route.
    I'd love to go to paris, but then i'd love to go to amsterdam and i'd love to go to prague, and i'd love to go to stockholm, I'd love to go to nigeria, I'd love to go to madrid, i'd love to go to venice... I'd love to go to every country in the world and speak to every member of the family homo sapien. But no amount of effort is going to enable me to be able to do that... NO AMOUNT OF EFFORT WILL SURFFICE!

    Therefor it is beyond me means... So it is my choice, MY CHOICE, that instead of spending every waking moment working out how to speak all these languages, I spend my time working out why we all speak different languages.

    I found out so far, that not so long ago we all spread out from major civilisations in mesopotamia where the same language was spoken by all.
    It seems that the division of the world into countries with boundaries and different languages may not have been entirely 'naturally occuring' but was engineered divisions between members of the global Human family... This might seem hard to comprehend. You see society was never natural, authority was never natural. The elders were brave strong people and they did not want to be controlled by a society or an authority... therefor it is most likely that the people who wanted control, decided that it was best to divide and conquor. ( I don't want to hear you opinion on this if I'm honest, but if you have any facts or evidence, then feel free to present it)

    So now, in my mind which is as valid as anything else - in my mind, I know why the countries all speak different languages. Now, do I spend my energy learning how to speak as many of those languages as possible befor I die? Or do I spend my energy trying to promote and understanding that we are all one family and should break down barriers that prevent us from relating to and understanding each other?

    Both might be equally futile but it is my choice, and I think the later makes more sense.... so forgive me if im ignorant of how to speak to a frenchman, but if ever I organise a message thats worth sharing then hopefully I will find a few translators to spread it around.

    For me, it isn't about me me me experiencing paris or mozambique or where ever... I'd be happier if I could do something which helps to make the world a better place for future generations.

    I'm not interested in studying every science paper for my own benefit... I'm more interested intrying to work out a way that in the future knowledge is more readilly available to everybody with the most simple education.

    The reason is that I beleive one can function on instincts perfectly well... instincts have ensured evolution for long enough. But since we'r all forgetting our instincts and trying to guide our decisions via our intellect... then comprehensive truth should be available for the intellect to work with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Okay. What exactly is the Cloak of Secrecy that is being employed by the very powerful and wealthy who are probable involved in running the world and how are they using what particular science development to maintain their status within societies?

    What is this well kept secret you claim to see? How did you arrive to this rational opinion?
    I never mentioned a widespread cloak of secrecy. If there was one it would have been built a long time ago. It would be a secret.
    I gave some hyperthetical example in order to try relating what I meant.

    I don't really know what you're talking about, I will confess.

    But since your putting words into my mouth i will allow you to lead me a little futher....(so that someone else can come and criticise my comment)

    Capitalist rule the world... capitalists want capitalism. Anything that endangers capitalism will be supressed as much as possible by those who want capitalism to be maintained.

    They will not have an easy job, but they will do there best... eventually capitalism will end.
    The same kinds of people who have accumalated much wealth will still try to maintain dominance whatever the name of the system that is employed.

    This seems perfectly rational and logica to me.

    The methods that are used, the secrets that are held, the aims or beliefs of the people involved I do not know fully at all.

    It has always been the same since society was born... it's all about power and 'growth'... but the model is unsustainable, especially at current rates of growth.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    The second point, I also do not agree with. You can in fact sweep the street and have a nobel prize. I think that many scientific people would take as an insult to be concidered as not even able to handle a broom (many magician too You are dam right when you say that our 'prejudice' or even 'brain washing' can play against us. But in a way, it has been selected by the course of event, like survival of the fittest...

    As for my reference to Area 54, I apologyze. I was looking for a way to sort out what kind of conspirationist you are: the paranoïd scares to death, or the curious mind observing two sports team 'conspire' again each other to win the game (or beat the concurrence in business ... as usual)

    That C word has become a great way to shunt people curiosity. There are a lot of bullies on this site, but even more en-lighted/ing people
    I agree with some of your sentiments.

    I'm certainly no a 'scare to death' or a scred to death conspiracy theorist.

    I beleive many conspiracies exist, I know they do... thats abotu it... i'm not interested in conspiracy any further.

    I'm what could be called a unity theorist... I beleive that people should be united like one big family. I beleive that is the way which will benefit us all now, and in the future.

    The only theory I ever want to promote is the theory of unity of mankind... If I have to mention some who conspire against this to get people to see where the problems lie, then I will have to.

    Indeed there are many who like to lable somebody a conspiracy theorist and hope that will stop people from taking there own brother seriously...

    I'm a 'Human family theorist' and a 'Human gaurdian of life on earth theorist'

    Im against any who conspire against the theories I promote.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    While I completely agree that 'everything works', I'm thinking that those presently enduring Hurricane Sandy would debate your idea of 'harmony' and 'fairness', these being subjective terms which are largely dependent on perspective and context. Yet this same weather phenomenon which is wrecking such destruction on the east coast of the continent will also provide a huge economic opportunity for those who will be called upon to do the clean-up and rebuilding. It is rather ironic that nothing fosters co-operation between humans faster than shared misfortune.
    Despite a keen interest in nature... I do not know anything about the science of this storm. Assuming that it is a perfectly natural occurence (which in itself seems a bit unlikely these days but who am I to say), then I would have to say it is one of the mechanism of nature. All other species are subject to phenomena that keeps their populations to a limit that the environment can cope with.
    Is this storm something to do with global warming? and mans practices? I don't know, but I geuss that no matter how much we learn to tame nature, nature will come back and bite us in the ass. That might not seem like harmony from our point of view, but from the point of view of the earth as a sustainable environment for various eco systems, it seems like it is in harmony with the natural processes.

    As for your link about niche habitats... I dont feel that is evidence that an organism would choose a lifestyle, or a niche which doesnt seem to be the easiest. We all go for the path that SEEMS to be of least resistence. Maybe it wasnt clear from my comment

    Lucky you living in the wilderness Shceherezade... I sincerely hope you do not see the environment ruined by the garbage of capitolism.

    Can you imagine how the natives must have felt? ( I assume your talking america with the bears n all).

    We have so much knowledge... yet we cannot even manage to live in anything that even resembles harmony with mother earth, most sad
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    To be honest, I've always had these ideas about how science isn't very accessible.
    Think of any subject you want: alternatives to the big bang, weaponizing smallpox, building a small scale nuclear reactor, use of cannabis for medicine, whatever. Now do a search on Google scholar. I am pretty certain that you will find many published research papers on the subject of your choice. You might have to pay to get them. You may need to have a master or doctorate in the appropriate subject to have any chance of understanding. But, as they didn't say in X-Files, the information is out there.
    I completely agree... the info is out their if you can afford it and if you are part of a minority who is educated enough to be able to understand it, no question.

    My question is... who in our societies are sourcing this information impartially and sharing it with those who cannot access it in it's current format? those who have the capacity to make good judgments, but dont have the information at hand... they are the people that society should have a responsibility to inform impartially. So that science is there for all, and so that all have an informed say in the direction of policy. Instead of going along with the corrupt media's version.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    There is a difference between necessary new language to describe a specific thing that occurs only in this feild, and deliberately changing words and over complicating in order to stiffle understanding.

    I know you understand that difference deep down Adelady.
    I know no such thing.

    The reason jargon and specific vocabulary arise in every occupation is that people who are talking to other people who do the same work and have the same skill set don't bother to use the same style of communication as they do for novices and outsiders. It just takes too long. Ordinary language is is just too broad, clumsy and blunt a tool for specialist communications. I can assure you that even in fields entirely unrelated to science or technology, say company law, employment and taxes (my former specialised occupation), the untrained observer might understand every single word every one of us uttered without ever grasping the meaning of a single sentence.

    The main reason is that specialists specialise. The more finely one divides concepts and ideas, the more one has to find ways to refer to fine distinctions that are, as often as not, indistinguishable to the non-specialist. All you have to do is to look at formal nomenclature for species - it often takes a trained eye even to see that one lizard or shrub is ever-so-slightly different from another. Let alone to accurately choose from maybe 3 or more categories to say which sub-species name to attach to each one. Then you take those same species and let biologists look at their genetics. And a whole new vocabulary arises about which techniques to use to extract which kinds of information.

    It's a bit like music really. Learning violin, oboe, piano or any other musical instrument might look like "learning music" to someone who doesn't know much about performance, but each instrument has its own techniques and words or expressions to describe them. And I can assure you that when a violinist tries to tell a singer that their techniques are "the same" because violin strings under a bow are, really, essentially the same process as pushing air through vocal chords, the singer will get pretty agitated. Because even if the physics is the same, the process is completely different.

    Netball, swimming and ballroom dancing are all physical activities, but I can't imagine that there's much overlap in the language used when teaching or coaching these skills. Having briefly acted as a netball coach, I'm pretty sure I never said anything that I might have used in swimming or dancing. And there'd be lots, heaps, of specialist words or expressions used in each one of them that are never used outside those activities.

    Specialists specialise. We can't avoid it. We have to be willing to learn.
    westwind likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    While I completely agree that 'everything works', I'm thinking that those presently enduring Hurricane Sandy would debate your idea of 'harmony' and 'fairness', these being subjective terms which are largely dependent on perspective and context. Yet this same weather phenomenon which is wrecking such destruction on the east coast of the continent will also provide a huge economic opportunity for those who will be called upon to do the clean-up and rebuilding. It is rather ironic that nothing fosters co-operation between humans faster than shared misfortune.
    Despite a keen interest in nature... I do not know anything about the science of this storm. Assuming that it is a perfectly natural occurence (which in itself seems a bit unlikely these days but who am I to say), then I would have to say it is one of the mechanism of nature. All other species are subject to phenomena that keeps their populations to a limit that the environment can cope with.
    Is this storm something to do with global warming? and mans practices? I don't know, but I geuss that no matter how much we learn to tame nature, nature will come back and bite us in the ass. That might not seem like harmony from our point of view, but from the point of view of the earth as a sustainable environment for various eco systems, it seems like it is in harmony with the natural processes.
    Perhaps the word 'balance' would be a better descriptor than 'harmony'? 'Nature' is completely ambivalent in regards to the outcomes. Admittedly, humans do not seem to take a long term view of their activities and habitat degradation. For an 'intelligent species', we are short-sighted, in my opinion.

    As for your link about niche habitats... I dont feel that is evidence that an organism would choose a lifestyle, or a niche which doesnt seem to be the easiest. We all go for the path that SEEMS to be of least resistence. Maybe it wasnt clear from my comment
    As you prefer.

    Lucky you living in the wilderness Shceherezade... I sincerely hope you do not see the environment ruined by the garbage of capitolism.

    Can you imagine how the natives must have felt? ( I assume your talking america with the bears n all).
    I reside in Yukon Territory, Canada. The natives or First Nations Peoples are a third level of government here and they have been very proactive in protecting and managing our natural and wildlife resources. ( From several years as co-chair on the Yukon Fish & Wildlife Management Board, I am familiar with their feelings and concerns of previous displacement and mismanagement.)

    We have so much knowledge... yet we cannot even manage to live in anything that even resembles harmony with mother earth, most sad
    Collectively, we aren't doing exactly a great job of it but there are plenty of individuals and groups that are doing what they can to raise awareness of various concerns. One of those concerns is that many people are confused and mistrusting of the 'information' being raised by 'science' on both sides of any issue. What or who does one have confidence in any more?
    Last edited by scheherazade; October 30th, 2012 at 06:00 PM.
    westwind and question for you like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I'm a 'Human family theorist' and a 'Human gaurdian of life on earth theorist'

    Im against any who conspire against the theories I promote.

    A very very difficult position to hold, because you will then be your worst enemy. I am afraid that science can teach us a lot of things about family or unity of mankind. This is not a pessimistic view either. Just the anthropological facts. Human trives in small unit call tribes (between 20-50 people)
    That is the only proven success on evolution/selection scale.... because here we are. Anything beyond (that last 5000 year) is not at all significant, and nature/selection is going to do its usual trick.

    The dream about some kind of unity is really dangerous and misleading. It is a fantasy also called 'civilisation' that can be as well seen as a sick gene/cancerous behavior, or unsustainable, like you said yourself.
    You said in another thread that at one time, every body was speaking a unique languages. Have you got any proof of that ? I live in europe, where there is a different langage every 100 km. No kidding. If there where no tv, texan won't be able to talk to new-yorkers anymore. That the way it is. Don't fight nature, go with the flow. And nature is deeply fractal.

    Human cannot be guardian of anything. They are not elected by nature, and even less competent then the average predator (which won't hunt to death their preys). Human should only take care of themselves and try to get back in the track of sanity, if possible.

    So, even if I share a lot of your concern, I will never state them like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    I never mentioned a widespread cloak of secrecy. If there was one it would have been built a long time ago. It would be a secret.
    If it was a secret, how would you know? You added the widespread part of this not me.

    I don't really know what you're talking about, I will confess.
    I've simply asked why do you see it as you do.

    But since your putting words into my mouth i will allow you to lead me a little futher....(so that someone else can come and criticise my comment)
    I've quoted you directly. These were your own words. "As I see it...in the first place" I've simply asked how or why.

    Capitalist rule the world... capitalists want capitalism. Anything that endangers capitalism will be supressed as much as possible by those who want capitalism to be maintained....
    I understand that in capitalistic societies this may be a theme, but beyond the ability to generate income everyone's interest are not exactly the same. China seems to do quite well in their limited capitalistic commerce within a communistic government. Not sure if your "Capitalism rules the world" claim is accurate in regards to a society of 1.3 Billion people.

    It seems you have some personal disdain for capitalism. Do you have a better system where an individual can market their craft, service, or produce at a fair value?

    It seems you have a good curiosity for knowledge and I do applaud it. I don't agree with you in claims which boil down to, "It's the MAN (e.g. some amorphous secretive cabal of people) that is making decisions which affect all the world." If you have such evidence which you allude to, I'd be glad to see/hear it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    China seems to do quite well...
    You keep asking for evidence, of plots and manipulation. I don't know if there is any means by which you could observe some. Your frame of references miss some crucial information like what "Well" means for you.
    If "well", means 1 Billion people leaving in conditions better described as "slaves" or "beyond dignity", in a wasteland of poverty were all means of production/survival has been stolen or privatized by some corporation of powerful people (they call themselves communist in china).
    Maybe "well" is just the word you are told by some media, on a daily basis, and not driven by some amorphous secretive cabal of people, but just by lazy incompetent journalist.
    Maybe thinking outside the box is evil after all. You must be right, somehow...

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    It seems you have some personal disdain for capitalism. Do you have a better system where an individual can market their craft, service, or produce at a fair value?
    I also have some disdain for that. Having people able to claim 'right' enforced by coercion/law, on the means of production, seem to me like the perfect incentive to have incompetent (unable to do anything by themselves) at the top of the ownership tree. I pretty much consider them as lazy-thieves. The most accurate synonym for capitalism is racket. You may love it, and I may understand it. After all it is pretty efficient....

    There is, has been, will be thousands of way for people to organize (or produce value, if I get you right). Here is two that you should be able to understand inside the box:
    -communism: The one you have lived in until +-18 year. It is called a family. Everything is free, belong to everybody, and everybody live in perfect harmony (well...)
    -tribal version X (Cherokee): look at history Chanel, and learn how they were organizing themselves, exchanging services and goods, for the greater good.

    If you want another example of those hidden decision that affect the world, is when some corporate dummy was send to stole 'their property' (I doubt they had a word/notion for that), by simply going genocide on them.

    I really hope I haven't scares you too much, generally one gets really suspicious on me after that, like if I were a conspirasionnist of some kind, with a hidden agenda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    You keep asking for evidence, of plots and manipulation.
    Yes. This is a science blog site, evidence and reason should be the criteria for evaluating claims.


    If "well", means 1 Billion people leaving in conditions better described as "slaves" or "beyond dignity", in a wasteland of poverty were all means of production/survival has been stolen or privatized by some corporation of powerful people (they call themselves communist in china)...
    This is way off topic of the OP as it relates to science shrouded in secrecy and capitalists having complete control of the world so others may skip this response:

    I define slavery as the selling of a human being for forced manual labor. Those sold do not have agency leave their working conditions due to harsh/brutal enforcement. Slaves are not paid for their labor, deprived of their free will to refuse to work or leave that environment (see video link below). To the best of my understanding, the average Chinese factory worker isn't living in this environment. Many work in factories, earn money, stay in dormitories, and return home with income earned during the Chinese New Years Holiday. Many return to that factory some don't after holiday. There isn't a system in place that rounds these employees up and forces them back to work. From stories that I've read about some companies (e.g. Foxconn) it appears the working conditions can be mundane with long hours, but this a far cry from "slavery." If you have information to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. Do you have any evidence of 1 Billion Slaves in China?

    As for as "beyond dignity" in a wasteland of poverty..." my response is compared to whom (again see video link below)? I am well aware that there is poverty all over the world, it isn't unique to China. I find a that a deep shaft coal miner is at greater risk for long term health risks and even loss of life from mine cave-ins (2010 Copiapó mining accident).

    As far as the rest of your post, I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. You agree that capitalism is efficient, yet disdain it.



    TED: Lisa Kristine: Glimpses of modern day slavery...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Our civilization is corrupt, and doesnt realize it, its a heritage that has gradually evolved from the cavemen and feudal medieval age with warlords etc, its hard to see our society from a step back because we are born and raised in it, from our perspective, everything is pretty much as its always been and we assume it makes sense, even if other societies in the future may see its utterly aberrant morally bankrupt and primitive. In our corrupt society, characterized by ubiquitous conflicts of interest inherent to a monetary system, a narrow individualistic perspective, institutionalization corporatism and hierarchies, and secrecy/opacity, many problems are not seen as symptoms of an inherent systemic failure, but as instances of a problem. Its not the moldy barrel, its this or that bad apple (you are supposed to find it normal that there is always been and will always be a bunch of bad apples in the barrel). There's nothing wrong with the hull of the ship, no need to question that, we just need bigger buckets to cast the water out of the boat (theres always been water rising in the boat, there will always be, poverty, famine, war, are givens).


    Like any other information, science, can be not accessible or accessible but incomprehensible(you dont have the reference needed). Thats not unique to science. A simple picture, with dolphins and lovers, will not be seen the same by adults who have the reference lovers and children that do not have that reference to the same extent.

    In our corrupt civilization, (conflicts of interests, hierarchies, opacity, etc), scientists dont live with love and water, they are paid by an organization (that exists within a conflict of interest ridden society with corporatism), if a scientist is paid by cigarette companies, and finds cigarette cause cancer, this information will not be easily accessible, which means the average joe will not just "not understand" the jargon, but will not have access to it period. The cigarette company is not part of a giant scheme to conspire against the world, its just a cog in a giant corrupt system, the problem is systemic.

    Also education as it exists is an archaic and retrograde institution, universities dont want to be obsolete, their goal is not to freely educate the population in general, its to educate some along institutional lines. If they are able to freely distribute a course, most wont, they want tuition revenues, most are chained in our system.

    So there is information that we cant access because its not made public, and there is information we might not understand for lack of education which is not necessarily made available to the population at large (though there will always be information that requires prerequisite to fully grasp). In an alternate more civilized society, all information would be accessible, and everyone would have access to the knowledge (needed references) to understand if they want to learn more about it, freely, with the best explanations evolving over time with broad participation. There will be information a lot of people dont understand, but a lot more people will have a lot more basic knowledge, and conflicts of interests would be much reduced (less perceived need to keep things hidden, less ability to keep things hidden).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Specialists specialise. We can't avoid it. We have to be willing to learn.
    I understand your whole text adelady, but I think there will be a lot of employment of confusing language that you wouldn't be able to explain away with the facts you present. Language needs different words for different things, thats no problem. It's when it uses several words for the same thing (persistently and consistently), that one has to wonder how necesary it is.

    I don't want to argue over this as the thread has moved on in my absence and at the moment im not in the mood for any hard work in order to give examples.

    I think what you say is right, but I think you're too quick to think it's all absolutely logical and necesary. Naive even.

    Take the division of latin and greek languages into the national languages that derive from them. That has nothing to do with specialists or specialist areas. It is simply a completely different way of relating that is alien to anybody outside of that division.

    Thanks for your comments,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Language needs different words for different things, thats no problem. It's when it uses several words for the same thing (persistently and consistently), that one has to wonder how necesary it is.
    I was going to ask if you could give an example of this, just because it is not clear what sort of thing you are thinking of. (I'm interested because my job is technical communication, so I am always interested in the barriers to effective communication.)

    But I have just noticed: " im not in the mood for any hard work in order to give examples." So I don't mind waiting if you want to think of some later....
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Our civilization is corrupt, and doesnt realize it, its a heritage that has gradually evolved from the cavemen and feudal medieval age with warlords etc, its hard to see our society from a step back because we are born and raised in it, from our perspective, everything is pretty much as its always been and we assume it makes sense, even if other societies in the future may see its utterly aberrant morally bankrupt and primitive.
    These are some brilliant observations. Here is a person who observes the truth without being deceived and confused by much misinformation. I notice Icewendigo has the ability to percieve things from a completely different perspective than the perspectives that most of us are taught. Putting themself into the viewpoint of a future society and how it may look back upon us and our ways and see them/us for what we are.

    Thankyou sincerely for your contribution Icewendigo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But I have just noticed: " im not in the mood for any hard work in order to give examples." So I don't mind waiting if you want to think of some later....
    I will put my mind to it and hopefully come up with some prime examples.
    It will not be an easy thing to do, and you will probably come up with justifiable 'reasons' why language might have evolved in such a way... but that wouldn't necesarily mean the reasons are as sound as they appear.

    I attempted weakly to give 'national languages' that have evolved from latin/greek in the past couple of thousand years... as an example of barriers to understanding each other. Booing 3000 holds the opinion that it is completely natural for language barriers to evolve, and I take their point, we could argue it all day long but without the evidence which would be very unlikely to exist in the public domain, we won't get anywhere.

    As for barriers within a language... I will attempt to come up with some good examples. In the meaning, pick a word out of nowhere, a random, common word. Now think of all the alternatives to that word (put it into a hypothetical sentence if necesary)... Now analyse how necesary each alternative to the word is, if they arose due to reason, if they convey slightly different messages. I'm certain there will be many examples of words that yes, we could claim there is a reason for having many words for the same meaning, but actually, if we are such an advanced collective inttelligence, there is no need for (unless that need is to muddy the waters in someway or develope a language that isn't easily accessible).

    As a second experiment... one could take any random word, and look at how many different meanings that word has, giving the word an ambiguity which allows for misinterpration, sometimes even when taken in context of the entire sentence.

    I didn't want to get fixated on the nature of language, it's a very intersting subject and deserves a thread of its own.

    I feel there are comments on this thread now which are pertinent to the title and I'm satified the conversation has been constructive in raising awareness of how we operate as a collective (or not as the case may be ), I don't want to bury these comments in a huge thread on language ambiguity. I had a thought to start a thread on language recently and that might be able to adress both yours and my questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    typo, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence.... in the meantime*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Mr mojo and Booing 3000 thank you also for your comments.

    I beleive Mr mojo asked me a question or two, I also beleive Booing 3000 answered in my absence.

    All I will add is that yes I do have some disdain for 'capitolism' (the philosophy of capitolising as much as possible in the present from the earths resouces including number one resource human beings, with disdain for the future, and present, needs of organisms occupying Earth). I have disdain for unsustainable ways of living. I also have disdain for greed and consider greed and striving for power to be pathological, the result of suffering and causing further suffering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Mr Mojo... just one more thing.

    If I had evidence of some secret 'cabel' or organisation, I would not want to share it here.

    It's one thing for me to accuse a system of being in the wrong. It's quite another thing if I start making it personal and blowing the whistle on individuals or individual organisations. (They may not take kindly to it).

    It's my philosophy that nobody is to blame. Justice seeks revenge where compassion seeks understanding. I'm all for compassion, IMO if somebody is sick, they need help, not punishment. The same goes for anything, including any ideology or philosophy. I am a dreamy idealist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    As a second experiment... one could take any random word, and look at how many different meanings that word has, giving the word an ambiguity which allows for misinterpration, sometimes even when taken in context of the entire sentence.
    Indeed. Nearly all words have multiple meanings that change over time and across dialects. This is an inevitable result of language use.

    And that is exactly the reason that science, technology and other specialised fields have their own vocabulary. This may consist of some words which are unknown outside of the field, and common words which are used with a precise meaning that may not be obvious to someone outside the field. But even that doesn't avoid the problem. For example, the word "normal" has at least two (that I know of) very specific meanings in mathematics. Neither of which would be obvious to someone who hasn't studied the appropriate branch of mathematics.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Indeed. Nearly all words have multiple meanings that change over time and across dialects. This is an inevitable result of language use.

    And that is exactly the reason that science, technology and other specialised fields have their own vocabulary. This may consist of some words which are unknown outside of the field, and common words which are used with a precise meaning that may not be obvious to someone outside the field. But even that doesn't avoid the problem. For example, the word "normal" has at least two (that I know of) very specific meanings in mathematics. Neither of which would be obvious to someone who hasn't studied the appropriate branch of mathematics.
    Like Adelady you have focussed on one point an made some good contributions on that point.

    Perhaps the multiple meanings of all words is justifiable at least in it's evolutionary context, I find it highly unlikely that it has evolved completely naturally with the best of intentions.

    The underlying problem is that we currently have a lot of ambiguity which makes understanding very difficult and we are not generally being educated to a sufficient level which enables us to understand problems in society and make informed decisions on how to act or how to vote, or even how to live our lives.

    Lets pretend all ambiguity in laguage (general and speialist) is justifiable and needs to be that way... How do we go about teaching the masses what science has learnt so far so that we can all come up with the same philosophy from the facts?

    The facts are the facts... if we all knew the same facts then we could all use them to inform our decisions and draw the same conclusions.

    Thats nothing to do with a homogenisation of culture... but just a homogenisation of philosophy to a point where we'r all heading in the same direction.
    I love variety and think its the spice of life but when theres one group who beleive in dog eat dog survivalism (thats not actually fair on wolves who are a co-operative species, but we all know the expression), and another group who beleive in co-operation and fairness for the good of all... they can't both be right surely? And, when we have a massive group of people who beleive in both of these philosophies at the same time, then surely we'r dealing with 'double thinking' hypocrasy which does not conform to logic or science!..?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Perhaps the multiple meanings of all words is justifiable at least in it's evolutionary context, I find it highly unlikely that it has evolved completely naturally with the best of intentions.
    An interesting statement. What do you think would be responsible for the changes in the meaning of words if not the natural evolution of language? In this context it is worth noting that when governments have tried to control language use it has never worked.

    [I know this is getting slightly off topic, but it is an interesting subject]

    The facts are the facts... if we all knew the same facts then we could all use them to inform our decisions and draw the same conclusions.
    I don't think we would all draw the same conclusions, though. Even with perfect information, people would still give different weight to the pros and cons of a particular decision. This sort of idealism is what leads to things like Rousseau's Social Contract, which is totally unrealistic.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    An interesting statement. What do you think would be responsible for the changes in the meaning of words if not the natural evolution of language? In this context it is worth noting that when governments have tried to control language use it has never worked.

    I know this is getting slightly off topic, but it is an interesting subject]
    Yep it's getting off topic. I really do wanna start a thread on evolution of languages so maybe we can discuss it there. Though I really would rather not speculate too much on it. For a start theres the debate on what constitutes 'natural'... which is probably EVERYTHING, therefor rendering the conversation invalid.
    Pretty obviously without being too specific it could be called 'the desire for control/power/wealth'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The facts are the facts... if we all knew the same facts then we could all use them to inform our decisions and draw the same conclusions.
    I don't think we would all draw the same conclusions, though. Even with perfect information, people would still give different weight to the pros and cons of a particular decision. This sort of idealism is what leads to things like Rousseau's Social Contract, which is totally unrealistic.
    I agree you're right. It was a pretty generalistic comment from me. The fact your right I beleive indicates that we don't know it all. If 'perfect information' was available, as well as perfect education in critical thinking, then I beleive we would pretty much draw the same conclusions as each other, at least the majority would, thus ensuring a truely democratic society would follow an informed course towards greatness. If ya know what I mean? I don't think this idealism at all, it just seems like logic. (perfect information and perfect education might be idealism, but people with same education, drawing same conclusions, from same information, just seems logical. IMHO.

    So, lets not discuss any further here Strange. Language is for another thread an we both know each others ideas on people forming conclusions from information. I never heard of Rousseau's social contract but will try to look that up, thankyou.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Just in regard to the whole thread.
    I might have said somethings that might be construed as... well all sorts of things.
    So I just want to say from the heart, I think society is a great accomplishment, it does benefit us all in someway and don't think doing away with society would be the best way forward! I wouldn't want to say anything that poses a threat to anybody (not that I imagine my comments are ever taken seriously enough to ever be a threat). I think we'd be in a very bad situaion if society crumbled. It's not society in itself I beleive is a problem, I just want it to evolve into something fairer.
    My only wish would be that we could tweak and improve the current systems, to make society faire for all, than at present.

    Hopefully that clarification will be enough to prevent me being taken in to the Ministry of Love.

    I really do love society, I really do. Just expressing issues thats all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    This is way off topic of the OP as it relates to science shrouded in secrecy and capitalists having complete control of the world so others may skip this response:
    This remark is remarkable. This is the kind of evidence that elude you and on which you won't be able to do any reason'ing.
    My take is that we are right on topic because there is a lot of ways to "shrouded" those evidences, yours is quite surprising, and completely benevolent. It is worth analyzing further, to lift the veil of obfuscation...

    -Yes I find capitalism efficient. Like racket is efficient. You do not work, and your slaves do it for you. I know that I should not use irony, given my level in English, but that much is for sure: I disdain it. The thing that is strange, is that you find this simple assertion strange or illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    I define slavery as the selling of a human being for forced manual labor.
    You are quite right. That is the dictionary definition. I am sure that the board members at Nike and pretty much every corporations employing "cheap labor"do repeat that every night before going to bed. I should have been more careful when using "better describe as slavery", so I apologies and I will try to fill the gap for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Those sold do not have agency leave their working conditions due to harsh/brutal enforcement. Slaves are not paid for their labor, deprived of their free will to refuse to work or leave that environment (see video link below).
    This is a romantic perspective. The scientific one is that you can not not produce any 'labor' (especially physical one) without being fed. Because you don't have much energy left to go hunting after 60 hour in a mine/factory.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    To the best of my understanding, the average Chinese factory worker isn't living in this environment.
    To mine it depend on position on the factory in question on the scale of 0 - carrying bricks on you head to 10 - working at Starbucks (I mean working not managing)
    China is very slowly shifting from 0 to 10, and will never be able to reach high score because they won't be able to afford even cheaper labor (mechanical/fossil fuel) or plundering raw material from colonies (sorry too late, there is no more left !)

    Now you are perfectly right, the correct word is "modern slavery" or employment, which is the capitalist word use to describe "working your ass of without anything to say, while being sell and buy on the employ ability market.
    If you really feel that someone working two shift to earn barely enough to stay alive, is someone that have free will, then ...

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    As for as "beyond dignity" in a wasteland of poverty..." my response is compared to whom (again see video link below)?
    Compare to themselves in the previous paradigm (before capitalism/communism), then compared to the previous one. Maybe we can agree that is is more historical then philosophical. But the point of this thread is what science can bring to the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    I am well aware that there is poverty all over the world, it isn't unique to China.
    So we agree, but it is not a very scientific statement. Because poor does not mean anything. It is a word born with capitalism as the opposite notion of rich. Because only in such paradigm, you can be deprived for your mean of subsistence by forced coercion (controled by the rich). You can find primitives tribes (well no many anymore) and say they are poor. But you'll be scientifically wrong.
    Their stress level is zero (you know you measure the various stress hormones in the blood yes ?). There is no suicide. They live in a safe environment. They are not poor, because there is no rich. They 'work' 2-4 hours a day. Do they have free will ? go figure ... but first try to explain that notion to me, or them. What is sure is that there is no coercion exerted upon them, not by a land owner at least.

    I found the questioning of "question for you" maybe a little rough, but the deeper you learn about science fact/proven-theory (not conjecture), the more you can replace 'shrouded in secrecy' by 'shrouded in denial/hypocrisy/self-interest'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Science itself isn't shrouded in secrecy but it does take some formal training to understand its methodologies. I wish publications were far more visible as well--nothing irks me more than to find major results from studies funding with tax payer dollars behind expensive paywalls.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; November 4th, 2012 at 06:22 PM.
    ccoale427 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    nothing irks me more than to find major results from studies funding with tax payer dollars behind expensive paywalls.
    That does seem rather disgusting. Irksome indeed. Don't they even try to come up with an excuse for such behaviour?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Don't they even try to come up with an excuse for such behaviour?
    Yes they do. They claim they have to edit and print and all that stuff. Unfortunately some of them claim that the editing includes the 'costs' of review. Which gets everybody's backs up even more. Because it's other scientists or academics who do the reviews. And they aren't paid a single penny for the hours of work they put in. Collectively, it's like having the whole senior faculty of a handful of universities or other institutions as a volunteer labour force.

    Though the universities are pushing back. A lot of funding bodies are now being made aware of this. Many grants now contain a clause that the results must be publicly available for free when published. And some governments are also tying funding in the same way when they find out that the results of research done on salaries paid by taxpayers has to be paid for by the libraries of the same institutions.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Though the universities are pushing back. A lot of funding bodies are now being made aware of this. Many grants now contain a clause that the results must be publicly available for free when published. And some governments are also tying funding in the same way when they find out that the results of research done on salaries paid by taxpayers has to be paid for by the libraries of the same institutions.
    Hmmm... so it tends to be the science which is invested in by governments which has a cost attached to reading it? Well I suspose thats the only science that the public should feel entitled to, and indeed the only science we should need in order to understand how things work.

    Now if a government can take it's peoples money, do research and experiment and then charge the people to see the results of the work they funded... then i'm not sure that governments work is going to be worth reading, or that it is done for the right motives, or seeking to answer the right questions!

    But now this thread is begining to highlight some 'shrouded' shrouding practices...

    At least steps are being taken in some instances to make the knowledge publically available.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Now if a government can take it's peoples money, do research and experiment and then charge the people to see the results of the work they funded... t
    That's not what I said. Governments are a bit peeved when they find out that the research they've paid for can't be accessed by students or academics in the same institution or any other institution they fund without the library - in every one of them - having to fork out $20000+ a year for subscriptions. (The publishers treat academic publishing the same way they treat newsagents. If you want a particular magazine you have no option but to take a "parcel" of publications. So if a university wants a journal which might cost 4 or 5 thousand a year, the library has to take a bundle of journals costing 4 or 5 times that much. Multiply that by half a dozen or 20 universities teaching similar courses, and you can see why governments and grant institutions are starting to pay attention. )

    Governments are doing nothing wrong. It's the publishers that are making a fortune here out of a seriously warped business model. If they're not careful, they'll finish up with no business at all. I see a bright future for on-line publishing with no hard-copy versions at all in some specialities.
    Lynx_Fox and question for you like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Can you feel X rays?
    By Jon889 in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2011, 01:33 AM
  2. something I feel
    By allenyuang in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 28th, 2010, 04:41 AM
  3. How Many Individuals Feel Science Is a Democracy?
    By William McCormick in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 4th, 2008, 04:31 AM
  4. how castrated would science feel in reading about the G.U.T?
    By streamSystems in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 25th, 2007, 01:04 PM
  5. What do you feel about your life?
    By anandsatya in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 11th, 2006, 08:07 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •