Notices
Results 1 to 94 of 94
Like Tree33Likes
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 5 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By fred91
  • 1 Post By fred91
  • 1 Post By fred91
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 4 Post By Flick Montana
  • 3 Post By AlexG
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 3 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 4 Post By Flick Montana

Thread: Is Science the final answer?

  1. #1 Is Science the final answer? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    In his book, The Magic of Reality, Richard Dawkins makes the following assertion: “If present day science encounters an observation, or an experimental result, that it cannot explain, then we should not rest until we have improved our science so that it can provide an explanation. If it requires a radically new kind of science, a revolutionary new kind of science so strange that old scientists scarcely recognise it as science at all, that’s fine too.”

    Scientists often make his kind of claim. It seems to make science impregnable. How can something that is willing and able to change in order to come up with the explanations for phenomena that lie outside its present compass possible not end up being able to explain everything that it is possible to explain?

    Well, firstly, just because you can come up with an explanation for something does not mean it is the right explanation. That is one thing, but there is something
    else that I think more fundamentally wrong-foots that claim: a scientist is trained. The discipline of science trains the minds’ of scientists to thing and do things in specific ways, so that they are, as it were, trapped in the box of science and cannot think out of that box.

    I have just been listening to a pianist talking on the Radio and saying how music swirls through her head all the time, and how, even when she is doing other things, she is always practicing the piano in her mind. That is it: highly trained people cannot stop their minds from running on and on along those same ‘tracks’; once your are a trained pianist, or scientist, you ‘do it in your sleep’. Piano teachers often say that they far prefer to get a pupil untrained that to take on one that has already learned to play the piano because it is so very, very difficult to ‘untrain’ someone, to get them out of the habits they have already learned.

    So I think science cannot change as scientist claim to encompass things that are currently beyond its grasp.

    In addition, the peer review system means that, even if a young scientist, or an outsider, were to try to change the system, they would be caught out by the older people who are unable to change.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Theoretically science can give answer of every question, but it also leaves every question unsolved.
    It tells how it happens, but does not describe why this happen.
    Yes, I personally believe there may be something that may be beyond science/human knowledge
    or may not be , But I personally think it would not be illogical to give some chances although may be very low
    I think life is not as simple thing as it looks,
    Awareness , thinking , observation, feelings etc characteristics etc characteristics of life are really unbelievable for me

    I can not believe in this space how thinking can exist ? How feelings can exist?

    Most possibly all may happen just according to properties of nature and there may not be something special or beyond sciecne

    My reference to "strange" means just anything that does not fit on current sciecne & outside of human reach

    Religions etc has nothing to do with this as these are all just products of human brain and under the reach of
    human being


    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    So I think science cannot change as scientist claim to encompass things that are currently beyond its grasp.

    There's really no reason or evidence that suggest it should change. The scientific method, is thus far, the best truth/reality finding means that's ever been conceived by a long shot--at least thus far it seems to have no limitation to resolving how things work. But of course there are some reasons why science may not be able to find out everything--sometimes the information is completely gone (e.g. the size and age of the goose from which a feather landed on your head), sometimes our observational technology or maths aren't up to the task, and perhaps there are cognitive limits to our species we won't be able to overcome in the near term (i.e. much like teaching my cat the intricacies of a thunderstorm). But in general, if science can't examine it, because no other human endeavor can or it's make-believe.

    It tells how it happens, but does not describe why this happen.
    In most cases that "why" is a nonsensical question, or the answer is known but people are simply unwilling to hear the explanation.

    For example the question "How feelings can exist?" aren't really that difficult to explain in evolutionary terms and because they are observable, aren't that difficult to study in animals (including humans).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    The discipline of science trains the minds’ of scientists to thing and do things in specific ways, so that they are, as it were, trapped in the box of science and cannot think out of that box.
    The "box" scientists are trapped in is one that demands, among other things, that they:

    1. Require objective and repeatable evidence

    2. Are creative

    3. Test any ideas against the evidence and reject those that don't match

    4. Consider as many possible alternative hypotheses and sources of error as they can think of

    5. That they share their ideas for critical review by their peers


    I suppose someone who is ignorant of how science works might consider those to be Bad Things.

    So I think science cannot change as scientist claim to encompass things that are currently beyond its grasp.
    You appear to be mixing up two different meanings of "science" here. On the one hand, it is a body of knowledge and accepted theories. This is what is susceptible to change; sometime dramatic change as we see occasionally. (There have been several quite fundamental paradigm shifts just in my lifetime.)

    The other meaning is the process by which this body of knowledge is acquired (see above). This only changes slowly, if at all, as the basic principles seem to work pretty well.

    In addition, the peer review system means that, even if a young scientist, or an outsider, were to try to change the system, they would be caught out by the older people who are unable to change.
    This is obviously not true or we wouldn't have had the dramatic changes we have seen in science.

    There are occasional examples of individuals who hold back another individual (Eddington and Chandrasekhar comes to mind). And there are examples of older scientists who resist new ideas (Einstein and quantum mechanics, for example). But these are usually very bright minds challenging the theory and so tend to make it better tested.

    Either way, in the long run the scientific process works, independent of individual foibles. Which is what it is designed to do.
    John Galt, Ken Fabos and MrMojo1 like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    alternately:
    Science ain't the 'final' answer. Science is just a series of better'n'better questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    [/quote]
    In most cases that "why" is a nonsensical question, or the answer is known but people are simply unwilling to hear the explanation.

    For example the question "How feelings can exist?" aren't really that difficult to explain in evolutionary terms and because they are observable, aren't that difficult to study in animals (including humans).
    [/QUOTE]
    Almost best knowledge to human being is provided by science
    And I fully believe in science as it finds true picture

    But if viewed from other angle, thinking power/life yet is a surprising fact in a space that is nothing just a material
    I have no doubt about origin of life what science describle
    But yet thinking power,feelings/life etc in a space that was just material is a surprising fact
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    In his book, ... interminable waffle ... unable to change.
    I didn't reply to this earlier because I was so stunned that we now have a "Comedy" sub-forum.
    Whatever, this isn't philosophy.

    @ Pantodragon:
    From my perspective, it is more important to be ABLE to think than to merely be able to quote facts and figures.
    When I was a child and asked my mother how to do something or the meaning of a word, she would say "Think it out for yourself" or "Go and look up the dictionary for yourself". A very healthy attitude and a good antidote to laziness.
    Please do so.
    And don't come back until you realise where and how you're wrong.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    But if viewed from other angle, thinking power/life yet is a surprising fact in a space that is nothing just a material
    I have no doubt about origin of life what science describle
    But yet thinking power,feelings/life etc in a space that was just material is a surprising fact


    That "angle" is nonsensicle....it's make believe. I think many of us find it surprising because we are taught such nonsense from our youngest years and a huge number of people for whatever reason cling to it even as they learn to reason.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    But if viewed from other angle, thinking power/life yet is a surprising fact in a space that is nothing just a material
    I have no doubt about origin of life what science describle
    But yet thinking power,feelings/life etc in a space that was just material is a surprising fact


    That "angle" is nonsensicle....it's make believe. I think many of us find it surprising because we are taught such nonsense from our youngest years and a huge number of people for whatever reason cling to it even as they learn to reason.
    Nothing regarding this is derived from parents/society
    Its natural surprise for me
    & I am not a conservative or orthodox
    And completely materialistic
    If can believe a thing only if it seems logical to me
    Yet from an angle, presence of awareness in matter is a surprise fact for me
    I do not make any illogical result for this fact like God,soul or any thing etc
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Science is but only one way to determine answers and a very good one when used properly by those who strive for understanding what the facts and the truth really are. There are other possibilities out there to do so and perhaps other ways one day will be found but to use science correctly is one way that is used to determine what we need to understand and learn.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    So I think science cannot change as scientist claim to encompass things that are currently beyond its grasp.

    There's really no reason or evidence that suggest it should change. The scientific method, is thus far, the best truth/reality finding means that's ever been conceived by a long shot--at least thus far it seems to have no limitation to resolving how things work. But of course there are some reasons why science may not be able to find out everything--sometimes the information is completely gone (e.g. the size and age of the goose from which a feather landed on your head), sometimes our observational technology or maths aren't up to the task, and perhaps there are cognitive limits to our species we won't be able to overcome in the near term (i.e. much like teaching my cat the intricacies of a thunderstorm). But in general, if science can't examine it, because no other human endeavor can or it's make-believe.
    the scientific method does not included peer review in the sense that something is liked or disliked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Do you know what peer review is? It is not about liking or not liking the work it is about the quality of the work and whether the conclusions made can be logically inferred from the data presented. I actually peer review articles for scientific journals and if you saw some of the shoddy nonsense that passes across my desk on occasion you would appreciate that peer review is a "good thing" and an integral part of science.
    yes I know, and it is dependent on an individual's perspective. what a person likes or dislikes plays a role and may be more influential for some decisions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman fred91's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cagliari (Italy)
    Posts
    19
    The fact that science in "confined" in a box and one cannot think outside of it is what is important. The fact is that science uses a logical structure, and this is the only structure that produces meaningful answers. Every question that embraces illogical arguments produces illogical answers and will always be subject to contradictions, because of this disparity between our brain (which is logical) and our tendence to wonder about unanswerable questions. We cannot escape this fact, but it is always interesting to think about it, gives us the illusion to be really free Science is wonderful because it gives us a lot of power, the power to manipulate energies to our aims. But the thing is, how can we be so sure that its answers are the truth? Assuming that this question makes sense.. One day a teacher of mine (a terrible teacher, but that day told something interesting), told us: "If you ask me 'Does the electron exist?' I'll tell you 'I don't know', but if we assume its existence, it all works". So maybe we should interpret truth simply as "something that, if assumed, can explain what we see". Sorry if I've been confusing, maybe I'm confused too, it's a difficult topic
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by fred91 View Post
    But the thing is, how can we be so sure that its answers are the truth?
    The scientific method requires constantly checking and testing theories for accuracy. We can never be 100% sure that the results of experiment and observation reveal "all truth" but we can be rationally and reasonably certain that we are attaining the highest degree of accuracy we can and will be looking forward to more data to increase accuracy in the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman fred91's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cagliari (Italy)
    Posts
    19
    Of course, we just build models and test their accuracy. Until they work, they work. And when they are not enough, we change model, but without throwing our results away! Just building the new model above the old one, it's like a robot that can learn from its mistakes and get better. It's by far our best way to explain reality, and my opinion is that questioning it is meaningless. Wondering if there is something else or if there is a chance that science is completely wrong is just a mental exercise, we have no interest at all in this question because we won't give it an answer, and the important thing is that science works and can improve our life, allowing us to be here and have a talk from the most disparate places of the world.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by fred91 View Post
    and my opinion is that questioning it is meaningless.
    Minor nitpick:
    You mean, questioning the validity of the methodology will not necessarily invalidate it.

    You might agree that there is purpose in questioning everything, as long as one is willing to objectively review the results.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman fred91's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cagliari (Italy)
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fred91 View Post
    and my opinion is that questioning it is meaningless.
    Minor nitpick:
    You mean, questioning the validity of the methodology will not necessarily invalidate it.

    You might agree that there is purpose in questioning everything, as long as one is willing to objectively review the results.
    Ops, sorry! An italian false friend
    Sure Neverfly, don't misunderstand me, I love to wonder about anything, and also if I can't always have an answer, it is surely stimulating and sometimes also useful in terms of "open-mindedness"
    Neverfly likes this.
    Davis was questioning the increasing length of John Coltrane solos, and Trane answered "I don't know how to stop."

    Try taking the fucking horn out of your mouth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Awareness , thinking , observation, feelings etc characteristics etc characteristics of life are really unbelievable for me

    I think one can come at this (if I understand what you are getting at) from another direction. What we actually experience are thoughts and feelings and sensations. When I touch the table I experience the sensation of solidity. In my dreams I might also touch a table and I might also feel a sensation of solidity. My point being that it is surely the sensation of solidity that I experience rather than the actuality of the table. This might lead me to doubt the real existence of the table, but what I cannot doubt is my own sensations.

    So, when you think about it, it seems to me that what are most real are thoughts and feelings and sensations, and it is tables and the rest of the ‘real’ material world that one can most easily doubt the existence of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    For example the question "How feelings can exist?" aren't really that difficult to explain in evolutionary terms and because they are observable, aren't that difficult to study in animals (including humans).
    Surely it is not ‘feelings’ that are observable, but the effects, or even causes, of feelings that are observable? As far as I am aware the actual feelings themselves remain undetectable. I know that lots of animals behave as though they have feelings, but so too can robots be made to behave like they have feelings. And that leaves open lots of questions like: do animals actually have feelings? or which animals have feelings, beetles? Fish? Amoeba? Or maybe just the higher animals, dogs and cats etc?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The "box" scientists are trapped in is one that demands, among other things, that they:

    1. Require objective and repeatable evidence

    2. Are creative

    3. Test any ideas against the evidence and reject those that don't match

    4. Consider as many possible alternative hypotheses and sources of error as they can think of

    5. That they share their ideas for critical review by their peers



    .
    I do not quarrel with how you describe/define science. Consider a couple of scenarios: suppose there is a God, that he is all powerful to the extent that he can create worlds and change them as if by magic, and suppose that he considers it to be in our best interests that we think that the world is a natural phenomenon subject to laws of nature etc He maybe thinks that interacting with his creation scientifically gives us a beneficial and ‘improving’ occupation that will enable us to live good and fulfilling lives. Science will only work, then, as long as he wants it to. If the cosmos is the way it is at the whimsy of a God, then one wonders if it is even appropriate to think of trying to understand how it all REALLY works. It might be more appropriate to think of trying to COMMUNICATE with the God.

    Suppose it was to turn out to be the case that the cosmos was highly interactive, and that it interacted with the INDIVIDUAL. This could then mean that each person could, to some extent, experience the world differently from every other person. Obviously there would have to be sufficient overlap of experience that we could all interact with and understand each other, but that still leaves room for some experience being unique to the individual. It could also mean that the ‘rules of engagement’ could be different for each person, could depend on the individual psychology. If each individual had such a ‘personal’ interaction with the cosmos, would there any room for, or point, to the objectivity of science, or the peer review system?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    alternately:
    Science ain't the 'final' answer. Science is just a series of better'n'better questions.


    Well, that has science reaching the place that philosophy has already reached: it is not the answer that is important, but the question.

    While I appreciate that refining one’s ability to ask ever more searching questions is useful, can bring clarity to one’s thinking, I cannot help but feel that there is something profoundly unsatisfactory about giving up on ever finding the ’final’ answer.

    Is this to say that there IS no final answer (and what is the implication of that?), or is it that there is a real, working cosmos out there waiting to be understood but that we will never be capable of understanding it?

    If we can never know the truth about existence, then we are, it seems to me, in a very uncomfortable position. There are all sorts of ways in which our behaviors and the things we do affect our health and well-being and the quality of our lives. If we cannot find the answers to the questions, then we leave ourselves vulnerable to making mistakes in our behaviors and the things we do that could cost us very dear, could potentially cost us our very existence!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    That "angle" is nonsensicle....it's make believe. I think many of us find it surprising because we are taught such nonsense from our youngest years and a huge number of people for whatever reason cling to it even as they learn to reason.
    That does not accord with my experience. Personally, I just took thoughts and feelings and sensations for granted when I was young. When I was very young I was told that bulls saw only in black and white, and I wondered how anyone could know that. That led me to wonder how I could know that another person’s experience of colour was the same as mine. I mean, if I could really see the world through someone else’s eyes, maybe it would look quite different. That led, eventually, to: ‘reality is all in the mind’; which is still a position philosophers are unable to escape, as far as I know.

    My understanding of the current position in philosophy is this: there may or may not be a real, material world. You just have to decide for yourself whether to believe that there is or that there is not. If you choose to believe that there is, then you have to deal with another problem: the mind/body problem.

    The mind/body problem is this: if we accept, or believe, that there is a real material world, we still have a problem with knowing what thoughts, feelings, consciousness etc are. They have no real, physical existence, yet they appear to be able to interact with real, physical objects --- how can this be so? I mean, first I decide that I am going to type something on this computer, ie I have the thought that I want to type something on this computer, then my hands move and press the keys. So the thought causes my hands to move. Physical objects have properties such as mass, electric charge, magnetism etc, and it is through these properties, or the forces associated with them, that physical objects interact. Consciousness, feelings, thoughts etc do not have these properties, so how can they interact with physical objects; how can a thought cause my hands to move?

    There have been numerous attempts to answer this question, but none of them have been entirely successful, and once again, one is left in the position if just having to choose what to believe.

    One choice is to say that consciousness, feelings etc are just natural attributes of complex systems. But that does not answer the questions; it is just a choice about what to believe.

    So, as far as I am aware, your position cannot be justified by logic or reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Science is but only one way to determine answers and a very good one when used properly by those who strive for understanding what the facts and the truth really are. There are other possibilities out there to do so and perhaps other ways one day will be found but to use science correctly is one way that is used to determine what we need to understand and learn.

    I have no quarrel with this. Practiced properly and within its own bounds science works, I agree. I just felt that Dawkins was making rather grandiose claims for science, asserting that it will be the one way of truly getting to understand the cosmos now and for ever more. Also, I wanted to raise the issue of the argument he used since I think it is an invalid argument, yet it is one I keep coming across.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by fred91 View Post
    Of course, we just build models and test their accuracy. Until they work, they work. And when they are not enough, we change model, but without throwing our results away! Just building the new model above the old one, it's like a robot that can learn from its mistakes and get better. It's by far our best way to explain reality, and my opinion is that questioning it is meaningless. Wondering if there is something else or if there is a chance that science is completely wrong is just a mental exercise, we have no interest at all in this question because we won't give it an answer, and the important thing is that science works and can improve our life, allowing us to be here and have a talk from the most disparate places of the world.
    I think you are rather pessimistic concerning the possibility of other appraoches to understanding the world. I have takled in other comments about the problems concerning the fundamental constituents of existence, and I've pointed out the possibility that we live in a virtual reality, which might be alternatively expressed as: life is a dream, where I mean literally a dream like we have at night. If this turned out to be the case, then science would reduce to a limiting case of a larger philosophy of existence. It would be rather similar to the way newtonian physics has been reduced to a limiting case of Quantum Theory i.e. Newtonian physics is valid in the limiting case of large size whereas Quantum Theory has universal validity. To return to virtual reality, under these circumstances the world might be ordered "meaningfully" rather than by a set of scientific laws, and might be accessible to the individual rather than to objective study.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Surely it is not ‘feelings’ that are observable, but the effects, or even causes, of feelings that are observable? As far as I am aware the actual feelings themselves remain undetectable. I know that lots of animals behave as though they have feelings, but so too can robots be made to behave like they have feelings. And that leaves open lots of questions like: do animals actually have feelings? or which animals have feelings, beetles? Fish? Amoeba? Or maybe just the higher animals, dogs and cats etc?
    Externally, through behaviors or just asking, or internally by looking at changes in the brain, all feelings are indeed observable. And yes, with behavior and by application of the same measuring device we can see them in animals as well.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    I think you are rather pessimistic concerning the possibility of other appraoches to understanding the world. I have takled in other comments about the problems concerning the fundamental constituents of existence, and I've pointed out the possibility that we live in a virtual reality, which might be alternatively expressed as: life is a dream, where I mean literally a dream like we have at night. If this turned out to be the case, then science would reduce to a limiting case of a larger philosophy of existence. It would be rather similar to the way newtonian physics has been reduced to a limiting case of Quantum Theory i.e. Newtonian physics is valid in the limiting case of large size whereas Quantum Theory has universal validity. To return to virtual reality, under these circumstances the world might be ordered "meaningfully" rather than by a set of scientific laws, and might be accessible to the individual rather than to objective study.
    Yak, yak, except that evidence remains verified by independent verification.

    If it were a dream, it would need to be one that all things and all people are caught up in, shared in all experience by all.

    To entertain such a fanciful notion is quite irrational. At that point, you may as well claim we are in the Matrix or a padded room drooling on ourselves.
    Why bother? The evidence that is independently verifiable is more convincing to me than your fantastic delusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Why bother?
    Two reaons, I would say. The first is the reason I have always pursued an interest in philosophy and science (amongst other things), and that is that I have always wanted to know the TRUTH. I would suspect that that motivates many a philosopher and scientist, though I'm perfectly aware that science and philosophy can also be seen as simply good jobs, a way to increase social status. Nevertheless, the time honoured motivation for science and philosophy has been to find out the truth about existence. The second reason would be this: I do not think anyone would argue that the world is in a sorry state. Science has been doing its best but to myself that best seems to be failing us. It may have provided much physical comfort, much technology, but I do not think the quality of life is improving greatly, if at all. Hence a second motivation to seek other answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Consider a couple of scenarios: blah blah blah.
    So what?
    What if...?

    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    I just felt that Dawkins was making rather grandiose claims for science, asserting that it will be the one way of truly getting to understand the cosmos now and for ever more.
    Is there any other candidate?
    Is there any candidate that even comes close?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Why bother?
    Two reaons, I would say. The first is the reason I have always pursued an interest in philosophy and science (amongst other things), and that is that I have always wanted to know the TRUTH. I would suspect that that motivates many a philosopher and scientist, though I'm perfectly aware that science and philosophy can also be seen as simply good jobs, a way to increase social status. Nevertheless, the time honoured motivation for science and philosophy has been to find out the truth about existence. The second reason would be this: I do not think anyone would argue that the world is in a sorry state. Science has been doing its best but to myself that best seems to be failing us. It may have provided much physical comfort, much technology, but I do not think the quality of life is improving greatly, if at all. Hence a second motivation to seek other answers.
    Than you are using odd measures for quality of life, or are deeply ignorant of how generations lived before us. Generally and across most of the globe we live much longer, healthier during most of our lives, with much less violence, better education and less vulnerability to regional disasters than at any time before us. Science and engineering coupled with the social changes made possible with better infrastructures and communications have made this possible.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Two reaons, I would say. The first is the reason I have always pursued an interest in philosophy and science (amongst other things), and that is that I have always wanted to know the TRUTH.
    I like the way you are interpreting philosophy, you are good at it. Once I thought it was applying logic/rationality to "the thinking process". By that measure, you can discover great flaws into Dawkins thinking, even if its scientific contribution is quite good.
    Like him, and like many people that likes the power of science, you get it completely upside down.

    If you want the truth, or if like Dawkins you think you can reach rational conclusion about anything beyond experimental measurement or mathematical proof (like the non-existence of God), then go to any religion recipe, or dwell on some scientific forum. You'll meet plenty of Truther.

    Science is about proving what is false, and to encompass reality with models that try to reach more and more precision/power of prediction.

    In that sense you are right, science is definitely impregnable, because it is not a fort, a goal, a place. It is a force, a method, a path.

    Science can handle the "meaning of life" problem quite easily. Just ask people and make average. Quite boring science. Maybe a fun philosophical subject, if I am allowed a beer or two.

    I would suspect that that motivates many a philosopher and scientist, though I'm perfectly aware that science and philosophy can also be seen as simply good jobs, a way to increase social status.
    Yes quite obvious. But don't blow the whistle to loudly, it is not politically correct. Not by human science standard, but by science panderer standard.

    Nevertheless, the time honoured motivation for science and philosophy has been to find out the truth about existence.
    I have no clue what this "truth about existence" mean for you. Didn't you know the answer is "42" ?

    Seriously thou, the main mistake you make shown in your OP title. It should have been "Is science the final question ?".
    And the answer is yes for the precise domain of experimentable reality. The "meaning of life" had better be kept for philosopher, or other gurus.

    The second reason would be this: I do not think anyone would argue that the world is in a sorry state.
    You'd be surprised. Most people that use science has a belief system cook-book, not has a method to explore reality, will deny the facts, usually resorting of longer life span, and better health. The fact that those people are slaves, on drugs, and display a wide range of mental disorder like destroying their environment, or mass murdering their neighbor, will not enter the mix.
    They are called technocopians, a subset of cornucopians.

    Science has been doing its best but to myself that best seems to be failing us.
    That one have always blow my mind. Were on earth is it written somewhere that "science" goal is to "make things better" (given the fact that it is not possible to scientifically assert what "better things" is).

    Science is doing nothing. Human are doing the things. And scientific are not driving societies, never have, never will (at least I hope so).

    It may have provided much physical comfort, much technology, but I do not think the quality of life is improving greatly, if at all. Hence a second motivation to seek other answers.
    Yes, lets seek other answers. Let's begin rationally, what is the question ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ... Generally and across most of the globe we live much longer, ... .
    Kind of a tricky phrase that:
    We do not actually "live longer" , "much longer" or "any longer" it is just that by eliminating some early deaths, the average (and median) life-span is longer.
    But, we pretty much tap out with the same number of max years as did our longer lived ancestors, tens, hundreds, thousands, and maybe millions of years ago.

    .....
    It almost seems that somewhere in our dna is a death gene which tells our cells when to stop regenerating, rebuilding and repairing themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Consider a couple of scenarios: suppose there is a God, that he is all powerful to the extent that he can create worlds and change them as if by magic, and suppose that he considers it to be in our best interests that we think that the world is a natural phenomenon subject to laws of nature etc He maybe thinks that interacting with his creation scientifically gives us a beneficial and ‘improving’ occupation that will enable us to live good and fulfilling lives. Science will only work, then, as long as he wants it to. If the cosmos is the way it is at the whimsy of a God, then one wonders if it is even appropriate to think of trying to understand how it all REALLY works.
    Well, while the universe continues to behave in predictable and organised ways, it is appropriate to continue using the scientific approach to understand it.

    If at some point your hypothetical "god" decided to start making the universe behave arbitrarily - randomly changing the length of the day, the fundamental constants of nature, etc - then we can give up science. There is no reason to expect this to happen though.

    It might be more appropriate to think of trying to COMMUNICATE with the God.
    If such a thing existed, maybe.

    Suppose it was to turn out to be the case that the cosmos was highly interactive, and that it interacted with the INDIVIDUAL.
    You missed out:

    Suppose it turned out that invisible pink unicorns do push the planets around after all.
    Suppose it turned out that the Earth does ride on the back of an elephant supported by four turtles.
    Suppose it turned out that it was all a dream.

    And an infinite other number of idiotic ideas for which there is not evidence.

    None of them will provide anything productive or useful.

    The only reason you are able to make your comments on this forum is because science and technology work. Not because little pixies watch you fingers on the keyboard and then write the same words on my screen.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Two reaons, I would say. The first is the reason I have always pursued an interest in philosophy and science
    Then why do you dismiss scientific knowledge and make insulting comments about those involved ins cience?

    I have always wanted to know the TRUTH.
    Neither science or philosophy will help you with that. Science will give you a useful and practical model of the world. Philosophy will let you make up any stories you like.

    Only religion will give you "The Truth".

    Science has been doing its best but to myself that best seems to be failing us. It may have provided much physical comfort, much technology, but I do not think the quality of life is improving greatly, if at all.
    That is not the fault of science. It is the fault of politicians, businesses, religious leaders, individuals, teachers, unions ... in fact, pretty much everything except science.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    "GOD" has evolved with the rest of us
    we were, after all, created in "GOD"s image

    (It's in the "book")

    (poor god, I wonder if she has a back ache too?)

    .......................
    back to the op?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ... Generally and across most of the globe we live much longer, ... .
    Kind of a tricky phrase that:
    We do not actually "live longer" , "much longer" or "any longer" it is just that by eliminating some early deaths, the average (and median) life-span is longer.
    But, we pretty much tap out with the same number of max years as did our longer lived ancestors, tens, hundreds, thousands, and maybe millions of years ago.

    .....
    It almost seems that somewhere in our dna is a death gene which tells our cells when to stop regenerating, rebuilding and repairing themselves.
    We could quibble about definition, but what you refer to is maximum life span....which we also know has increased by 20 years, from 103 to 122 in the past couple hundred years. Maximum life span - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (don't usually reference Wiki...but this one is well referenced)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Lynx as/re centenarians:
    You and I are just two more looking at the same question that has been debated many times before, most likely for many many centuries..
    The problem, arises that many in preliterate societies simply did not know their actual age.
    An example would be my uncle by marriage, Mike Wagon Klyaic. When he asked his mother when he was born, she said; "about 15-16 years ago during harvest time"
    However, we do have some records from greece( the philosopher Democritus of Abdera (c. 470/460 – c. 370/360 BC, lived 109 years) and Asyrian(Shumuadanq, mother of Narbonidus, Neo-Babylonian king , 555-539 BCE, lived 107-108 years).

    from live science: Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years | LiveScience
    The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.
    and:
    The "bottom line" is that there is no reason to believe that there couldn't have been a lot of men/women in a population of 2,500 years ago who were Centenarians, even if they weren't commonplace.
    [ Olivier Postel-Vinay, "Histoire Le Cas de la Grece Antique," La Recherche Special -- Vivre 120 Ans, Vol. 322, p. 90 (Paris; July-August 1999).

    and
    from the national institute on aging
    Maximum human life span seems to be another matter. There is no
    evidence that it has changed for thousands of years
    There are many more examples from Rome and Greece and China ---which we have due to their literacy.
    Bones tell the same story, though the percentage of centenarians and supercentenarians has (most likely) always been low and therefore really hard to find, we have neanderthal bones estimated to be of a man in his 70s, and sapiens sapiens of like age.

    bottom line
    beware of folks claiming that we have increased the "maximum human lifespan"
    They may be right, and they may be snake oil salesmen.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Tricky, this one. But the point Lynx Fox makes also has validity. I lean more toward the idea that lifespans have not increased that much but if so- why would they appear to have?
    Mortality rates is why.
    Babies dying just after birth, etc. You can imagine what that does the numbers. Where's the 'bell curve?'

    Mortality rate, quality of life, birthrate and survival of both child and mother, vaccinations and resistance to illness have drastically improved. (Improved being a relative measure...)
    So the point made remains valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I agree, cut out lots of infant mortality, and women dying young in childbirth, and control simple infectous diseases, improve sanitation, and avoid starvation and the average and median life expectancy do go up by decades.

    With my way of thinking, it's a lot like the old
    Nature vs. Nurture debate. My take is that optomizing nurture allows the child to grow to the upper limits of inherited natural abilities.
    and, on this note, I think that expectations by parents, peers, and society may matter more than most people think.

    But even the best nurturing, schooling, tutoring, and high expectations ain't gonna raise some folks higher then idiot ranking.
    alternately........
    long ago as part of alpha phi omega, I led a "retarded" boy scout troop. Fortunately, I was too ignorant to know that these children were too stupid to build and fly kites. So I got some paper, sticks, string and glue and we all made our own kites, then went outside to fly them on a warm breezy oklahoma spring day.
    The other scout leaders had trouble believing that each scout had made his own kite(with a little help and guidance). So had the "retarded troop" suffered under those expectations, my scouts would have never had the opportunity to make and fly their very own kites. But, as I said, at the time, "I was too ignorant to know that". and damned lucky too.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I'll change my vocabulary to life expectency.

    On the other hand statements such as:
    "beware of folks claiming that we have increased the "maximum human lifespan"
    They may be right, and they may be snake oil salesmen. "
    Is exagerated. We don't have reliable life spans from the Greeks, we do have for the past few hundred years. Also the percentage reaching great age has been increasingly rising:

    percentage of centenarians and super centenarians has (most likely) always been low and therefore really hard to find,[
    They once were, but our estimates are a 1/3 of people born in modern nations are going to reach 100. This is the official estimates from UK. Here was another article about the same data the year before that estimated new borns in 2011 were 8 times greater chance to reach 100 than prior generations:
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232282.php



    Life expectancy and maximum life spans are increasing dramatically for a variety of reasons--abortion screening, medical, nutrition, safer work places etc.

    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 19th, 2013 at 09:26 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I love the graph. It is constantly downhill until the very end.
    When you turn 99 years old, your chances of reaching 100 years of age skyrocket from just 6% to almost 70%.

    This proves that there are advantages to being older than dirt. Eventually.

    That really should be a factor in getting life insurance. "Listen you little whippersnapper! My chances or reaching 100 years old are 70%!"
    "But sir, that's 7 months from now..."
    If we count gestation period as proper age- we can really throw the numbers off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ... our estimates are a 1/3 of people born in modern nations are going to reach 100.
    If I thought I'd live long enough to collect on a wager, I'd take a bet on that.
    If memory serves medical crystal ball gazers were claiming the same thing 40 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    I hope that Pantodragon is still on this thread, to learn what an healthy debate means, and how science can be used has a weapon to repeat urban legend or snake oil technocopian fantasy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Tricky, this one. But the point Lynx Fox makes also has validity.
    Well, if there are some validity in the Lynx_Fox post #31, it would be kind to out them in a rational and scientific framework, not in a personal feeling of what good/progress is.

    I lean more toward the idea that lifespans have not increased that much but if so- why would they appear to have?
    There is not much leaning to do about lifespans, and Sculptor point about maximum life span is somehow of topic, although it brings the perspective needed on the following affirmation:

    Mortality rates is why.
    Babies dying just after birth, etc. You can imagine what that does the numbers. Where's the 'bell curve?'
    And the normal had gone from +-25 prehistoric to +-70 in "advanced civilization". These are the civilization were elderly are maintained in a state of comatose drugged tortured state, while the medical-industrial complex is sucking dry their bank-account. "Progress" in another word.

    Mortality rate, quality of life, birthrate and survival of both child and mother, vaccinations and resistance to illness have drastically improved. (Improved being a relative measure...)
    relative measure ? ok, but related to what ? can you be more specific ?

    Mortality rate: I am gona go for "per sapiens capita". Because if you try it human/year, or worse measuring the mortality of the environment, we are all dead.

    Quality of life: How easy it is to sneak in this criteria as it would be so obvious or even measurable. Probably because 25% of female are now on prozac. I can even buy it from my sofa from the Internet. Life is so good, thanks Bayer.

    Birthrate and survival of both child and mother: Playing the Nany card now. I doubt that science as anything to do with the fact than losing "loved one" is pretty much awful, and is terminal in case of the mother. Anyway, this patriarchal consideration should imply that you now have to install a drastic birth control system, something that do not work very well. If we could have controlled our birth rate properly, we wouldn't have explode our footprint in the last 200 years. A total failure.

    vaccinations and resistance to illness have drastically improved : Just the opposite. Artificial boosting of vaccine and antibiotic have somewhat weaken the resistance of sapien by allowing the "weakest" to survive, and allowing the "stronger" diseases bacteria to be selected in the concentrated petri-dish that are hospitals. (as a side not the more deathly thing you can enter, beside a car, is an hospital)

    So the point made remains valid.
    Nope
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    So the point made remains valid.
    Nope
    Yep.

    Your only point of contest appears to be the definition of "good" or "progress."
    Now, I actually agree with you on quite a bit, here, such as the elderly being a source of revenue.

    Yes, some of these folks last longer in years- but at what price? By price, I do not just mean financial, here.
    Here's an unscientific point, if you will:
    The concept of "good" or "progress" is based on the general consensus of what the majority of people want.
    Sometimes, I want what the majority want. Sometimes, I don't. It doesn't alter much anything to say that there's progress as agreed by the majority if someone points out that the concept of progres is based only on what they want. They are still getting what they want.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I hope that Pantodragon is still on this thread, to learn what an healthy debate means, and how science can be used has a weapon to repeat urban legend or snake oil technocopian fantasy.
    ...
    And the normal had gone from +-25 prehistoric to +-70 in "advanced civilization". These are the civilization were elderly are maintained in a state of comatose drugged tortured state, while the medical-industrial complex is sucking dry their bank-account. "Progress" in another word.

    vaccinations and resistance to illness have drastically improved : Just the opposite. Artificial boosting of vaccine and antibiotic have somewhat weaken the resistance of sapien by allowing the "weakest" to survive, and allowing the "stronger" diseases bacteria to be selected in the concentrated petri-dish that are hospitals. (as a side not the more deathly thing you can enter, beside a car, is an hospital)
    as/re "comatose drugged tortured state"
    In the may the Atlantic, J. Rauch did an article on the work of Dr. A. Volandes, who, seems to agree with this statement, refering to the "care" as "avoidable care", "unwanted care", "wrongful care" or "torture" . Great minds think alike? or are you familiar with his words?
    I think the article a good read, especially if you need to increase or establish your skepticism of the "Health care industry"
    Recently an aunt, the last of my mother's siblings died in a nursing home(extended care facility). After the ceremonies, my brother confided that she had been pleading "Why don't you just let me die?" for 2 years.

    kinda creepy, gives me the shivers
    .............................

    snake oil technocopian fantasy
    I like that
    I'm gonna use it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Here's an unscientific point, if you will:
    The concept of "good" or "progress" is based on the general consensus of what the majority of people want.
    That is not unscientific at all, because that is at least a definition you can work with or analyse.

    The problem with that definition can be seen in Pantodragon thinking, as in many other science freak. The majority of people thinks that science is there to give you truth. He may even think that science do progress, because science explain more things.
    Maybe even a lot of scientific people think along this line. It would be fun to read studies about that.

    That definition is also somewhat specious, because general consensus is more or less the inverse of what normality/majority is. In the consensus process, the extreme and louder opinion gets a totally unfair amount of representation.

    Anyway, using science with that amended definition, you can try to measure wants people "wants". Live longer may be their least preoccupation. It maybe a by product of real wants like "security" "health" "peace" "happiness", but living longer does not imply those things. It is a perfect example of syllogism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    as/re "comatose drugged tortured state"
    In the may the Atlantic, J. Rauch did an article on the work of Dr. A. Volandes, who, seems to agree with this statement, refering to the "care" as "avoidable care", "unwanted care", "wrongful care" or "torture" . Great minds think alike? or are you familiar with his words?
    No, I was not aware of that particular doctor. I read that article, thank you for pointing it. But unlike him, who is doing things about it, I am just an avatar on the internet, and like nearly everybody, I have witness the horrible way its grand-ma has last its final years. (and every people working at the "maison de repos"/hospice was just normal an caring people). For whatever reason I was one of the few people she would recognize, and sometime talk to, to say "where am I ? can I go home?". Heart breaking.

    I think the article a good read, especially if you need to increase or establish your skepticism of the "Health care industry"
    Recently an aunt, the last of my mother's siblings died in a nursing home(extended care facility). After the ceremonies, my brother confided that she had been pleading "Why don't you just let me die?" for 2 years.

    kinda creepy, gives me the shivers
    Yes, is is really really sad. And still some people clings to the "more" paradigm, like if it was science related.

    I tend do understand people like Pantadragon, which has bought this fairy tale about science, probably because it was the story that most of people including many scientist (generally the bad ones) has sell them. They all can witness the absolute failure of the situation, and they will blame science and reject it, because they think "expert"/science is in charge of this failure.

    The arrogance of technologist, their totally perverse usage of science, has deprived us of one of our best tool to understand the world.

    snake oil technocopian fantasy
    I like that
    I'm gonna use it
    It is no mine, and not yet patented, so go ahead
    Last edited by Boing3000; May 20th, 2013 at 04:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    No, I was not aware of that particular doctor. I read that article, thank you for pointing it. But unlike him, who is doing things about it, I am just an avatar on the internet, and like nearly everybody, I have witness the horrible way its grand-ma has last its final years. (and every people working at the "maison de repos"/hospice was just normal an caring people). For whatever reason I was one of the few people she would recognize, and sometime talk to, to say "where am I ? can I go home?". Heart breaking.
    Indeed that's life...the end years have always been terrible. Fortunately they come much later now, often the suffering is less because of modern medicines and many ailments that used to kill us as children to middle age completely avoided. It's not only that we're living longer (actual life expectancy as well as potential maximum lifespan) but were remaining healthier longer as well--with average 60 year old doing things an average 50 year old couldn't do half a century ago. I do share concerns with many that unrealistic and excessive ethics (mostly religious forced by law) sometimes treat the most ill worse than we treat our pets--making them suffer unnecessarily to eek out another few months of life--often at the tremendous cost to the family (medical cost are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    So what?
    The point I was trying to make, albeit with perhaps insufficient imagination or education, and perhaps straying too far into the territory of philosophy, is that one can, or, perhaps I should say, philosophers have, imagined other kinds of realities and ones in which science, as it is currently defined, would not work.


    .

    Is there any other candidate?
    Is there any candidate that even comes close?
    Well, it is true that there is no other candidate, that I know of, that comes close to being as well developed as science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Than you are using odd measures for quality of life,
    I think I would rather say that you and I have different ideas concerning what contributes to the quality of life --- always an arguable subject. I have the temperament of a traveler and explorer, and my temperament is not well suited in modern society. Other types of people, will of course, have different priorities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post

    Science is about proving what is false, and to encompass reality with models that try to reach more and more precision/power of prediction.
    An interesting definition of science. I will have to give it some thought.



    I
    have no clue what this "truth about existence" mean for you. Didn't you know the answer is "42" ?
    Well, according to my calculations, Deep Thought got it wrong, and the correct answer is 22.



    You'd be surprised. Most people that use science has a belief system cook-book, not has a method to explore reality, will deny the facts, usually resorting of longer life span, and better health. The fact that those people are slaves, on drugs, and display a wide range of mental disorder like destroying their environment, or mass murdering their neighbor, will not enter the mix.
    Yes, I think you are right. There are many people who view the world through ‘rose-tinted spectacles’!



    That one have always blow my mind. Were on earth is it written somewhere that "science" goal is to "make things better" (given the fact that it is not possible to scientifically assert what "better things" is).
    Once again you catch me out! No, I do not suppose that science, or scientists as a whole, have ever promised that the goal of science is to ‘make things better’. I would argue, however, that many scientists justify science by claiming that it HAS made things better. But, as you point out, there are many different opinions on that subject.



    Let's begin rationally, what is the question ?
    Well, there’s a challenge!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post



    Well, while the universe continues to behave in predictable and organised ways, it is appropriate to continue using the scientific approach to understand it..
    True.


    Suppose it turned out that it was all a dream.
    This is the one that interests me.



    T
    he only reason you are able to make your comments on this forum is because science and technology work.
    True again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post



    Then why do you dismiss scientific knowledge and make insulting comments about those involved ins cience?
    Well, I would say that having an interest in science does not mean that I have to condone everything science or scientists are or do. I do not demand perfection of my friends …… I would be a lonely person indeed if I did. It is just a shame that my views and my modes of expression are so offensive to aficionados of science.

    .
    Neither science or philosophy will help you with that. Science will give you a useful and practical model of the world. Philosophy will let you make up any stories you like.

    Only religion will give you "The Truth".
    You may be right, but I find that too pessimistic for my liking. I am not yet ready to give up on the idea that humanity can find a way to find out what the world REALLY is, how it REALLY works, what people REALLY are and how people REALLY work etc.

    That is not the fault of science. It is the fault of politicians, businesses, religious leaders, individuals, teachers, unions ... in fact, pretty much everything except science.
    Well, I have to agree. In an ideal society full of ideal people we would have an ideal science. But as things are, science is severely hampered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post



    I hope that Pantodragon is still on this thread, to learn what an healthy debate means, and how science can be used has a weapon to repeat urban legend or snake oil technocopian fantasy.
    Still here, and learning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    I would argue, however, that many scientists justify science by claiming that it HAS made things better. But, as you point out, there are many different opinions on that subject.
    I would certainly counter the "why bother spending [my tax] money on science" with that sort of response.

    It has provided enormous benefits to society, which could not have been achieved by any other means. If we consider things like engineering and medicine to be "applied science", where are the products of "applied philosophy" and "applied theology" (if such disciplines even exist).

    (Obviously, like anything the results produced by science can be used for good or ill, but that is no reason not to do it. And the good probably enormously outweighs the ill. But that may be a value judgement which is at least partly subjective.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    The preceding series of comments was my second response to the comments following my own last input. My first response was this:

    “Om mani padme hum“ (being an instruction as to how to read what follows.)


    The humming bird. (DH Lawrence)

    I can imagine, in some otherworld
    Primeval-dumb, far back
    In that most awful stillness, that only gasped and hummed,
    Humming-birds raced down the avenues.
    Before anything had a soul,
    While life was a heave of Matter, half inanimate,
    This little bit chipped off in brilliance
    And went whizzing through the slow, vast, succulent stems.
    I believe there were no flowers, then,
    In the world where the humming-bird flashed ahead of creation.
    I believe he pierced the slow vegetable veins with his long beak.
    Probably he was big
    As mosses, and little lizards, they say were once big.
    Probably he was a jabbing, terrifying monster.
    We look at him through the wrong end of the long telescope of Time,
    Luckily for us


    The Devil’s Advice to Story-tellers.


    “…………………………………………
    Nice contradiction between fact and fact
    Will make the whole read human, and exact.”
    (Robert Graves)


    I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
    Even with truths that lie too deep for taint
    I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
    Even with truths that lie too deep for taint
    I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
    Even with truths that lie too deep for taint
    I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
    Even with truths that lie too deep for taint


    I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
    Even with truths that lie too deep for taint (Wilfred Owen)

    The Listeners de la Mare

    "Is there anybody there?" said the Traveller,
    Knocking on the moonlit door;
    And his horse in the silence champed the grass
    Of the forest's ferny floor;
    And a bird flew up out of the turret,
    Above the Traveller's head:
    And he smote upon the door again a second time;
    "Is there anybody there?" he said.
    But no one descended to the Traveller;
    No head from the leaf-fringed sill
    Leaned over and looked into his grey eyes,
    Where he stood perplexed and still.
    But only a host of phantom listeners
    That dwelt in the lone house then
    Stood listening in the quiet of the moonlight
    To that voice from the world of men:
    Stood thronging the faint moonbeams on the dark stair,
    That goes down to the empty hall,
    Hearkening in an air stirred and shaken
    By the lonely Traveller's call.
    And he felt in his heart their strangeness,
    Their stillness answering his cry,
    While his horse moved, cropping the dark turf,
    'Neath the starred and leafy sky;
    For he suddenly smote on the door, even
    Louder, and lifted his head:--
    "Tell them I came, and no one answered,
    That I kept my word," he said.
    Never the least stir made the listeners,
    Though every word he spake
    Fell echoing through the shadowiness of the still house
    From the one man left awake:
    Ay, they heard his foot upon the stirrup,
    And the sound of iron on stone,
    And how the silence surged softly backward,
    When the plunging hoofs were gone.


    “Wake Duncan with thy knocking; I would thou could’st.”
    (Shakespeare)


    “Oh the Grand old Duke of York
    He had ten thousand men
    He marched them up to the top of the hill
    And he marched them down again
    And when they were up they were up
    And when they were down they were down
    And when they were only half way up
    They were neither up nor down.”


    “The road winding above among the mountains
    If there were water we should stop and drink
    Amongst the rock one cannot stop or think
    Sweat is dry and feet are in the sand
    If there were only water amongst the rock
    Dead mountain mouth of carious teeth that cannot spit
    Here one can neither stand nor lie nor sit
    There is not even silence among the mountains
    But dry sterile thunder without rain
    There is not even solitude in the mountains
    But red sullen faces sneer and snarl
    From doors of mudcracked houses” (TS Elliot)


    “………………….big and dark, only dark
    Darkening the day-time, torch-like with the smoking blueness of Pluto’s gloom
    ……………………………………………
    Even where Persephone goes, just now, from the frosted September
    To the sightless realm where darkness is awake upon the dark
    And Persephone herself is but a voice
    Or a darkness invisible enfolded in the deeper dark”
    (DH Lawrence)

    Futility by W Owen

    Move him into the sun—
    Gently its touch awoke him once,
    At home, whispering of fields unsown.
    Always it awoke him, even in France,
    Until this morning and this snow.
    If anything might rouse him now
    The kind old sun will know.
    Think how it wakes the seeds—
    Woke, once, the clays of a cold star.
    Are limbs so dear-achieved, are sides
    Full-nerved,—still warm,—too hard to stir?
    Was it for this the clay grew tall?
    —O what made fatuous sunbeams toil
    To break earth's sleep at all?


    And what response to this colourful comment do I expect?


    “……a little modesty would suit you better” (P Shaffer)

    “…………just this or that in you disgusts me,
    Here you miss, or there exceed, the mark”
    (R Browning……a suggestion here: go and read the whole of that poem (My Last Duchess) and see if you cannot get a better grasp of the concept of arrogance.)

    Danny Deever, last verse.


    "What's that so black agin' the sun?" said Files-on-Parade.
    "It's Danny fightin' 'ard for life", the Colour-Sergeant said.
    "What's that that whimpers over'ead?" said Files-on-Parade.
    "It's Danny's soul that's passin' now", the Colour-Sergeant said.
    For they're done with Danny Deever, you can 'ear the quickstep play,
    The regiment's in column, an' they're marchin' us away;
    Ho! the young recruits are shakin', an' they'll want their beer to-day,
    After hangin' Danny Deever in the mornin'.


    And finally, let Peter Shaffer have the last word: “Come on now, be honest! You'd rather listen to your hairdresser than Hercules, Horatius or Orpheus. People so lofty, they sound as if they shit marble!.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    That is not the fault of science. It is the fault of politicians, businesses, religious leaders, individuals, teachers, unions ... in fact, pretty much everything except science.
    Well, I have to agree. In an ideal society full of ideal people we would have an ideal science. But as things are, science is severely hampered.
    I don't think I would say that science is "hampered" just that the results may be used for things that the scientists did not anticipate or agree with. (And, of course, scientists have to fight and argue for funding to research what they are interested in.)

    p.s. welcome to the world of friendly discussion. That's much better, isn't it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    It has provided enormous benefits to society, which could not have been achieved by any other means. If we consider things like engineering and medicine to be "applied science", where are the products of "applied philosophy" and "applied theology" (if such disciplines even exist).

    I'm sure you're familiar with this quote which is less than flattering on the subjects of science and philosophy:

    "There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
    We know her woof, her texture; she is given
    In the dull catalogue of common things."



    I would add the following (Coventry Padmore):

    "An idle poet, here and there,
    Looks round him; but, for all the rest,
    The world, unfathomably fair,
    Is duller than a witling's jest.
    Love wakes men, once a lifetime each;
    They lift their heavy lids, and look;
    And, lo, what one sweet page can teach,
    They read with joy, then shut the book.
    And some give thanks, and some blaspheme,
    And most forget; but, either way,
    That and the Child's unheeded dream
    Is all the light of all their day."


    The bold highlight is mine.

    "If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don't have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal." (Corinthians 13:1)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    p.s. welcome to the world of friendly discussion. That's much better, isn't it.
    Did you read my last post, the poetry one? If you did, and if you understood it, I can only suppose that you are ignoring it in favour of my favour currying efforts. For myself, I'm for the poetry. Never did like currying favour. I prefer my curry out of the local Indian restaurant.

    PS: Uuuhm....aaah....don't you see that your comment is just a TEENSY bit patronising? No? Oh well. Nothing like being unable to see your own faults.
    Last edited by pantodragon; May 23rd, 2013 at 10:25 AM. Reason: afterthought
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    I'm sure you're familiar with this quote which is less than flattering on the subjects of science and philosophy:

    "There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
    We know her woof, her texture; she is given
    In the dull catalogue of common things."
    I know there are some people who think that understanding a rainbow or a piece of music somehow removes the pleasure. I find exactly the opposite. When I see a rainbow, it is still sublimely beautiful but knowing something about how it is created just adds another layer of wonder. Similarly, I find that having a musician explain how a piece of music or poetry "works" (in the sense of what rhythms, rhymes, harmonies, etc are used and why) adds to my enjoyment.

    As a rather more mundane example, I saw Penn and Teller do a classic stage magic trick. Yes, I am entertained and baffled. "Ho hum" But because I have no idea what they have done, I don't know if it is easy or difficult, that sort of skill it needs, etc. Then the did the same trick with a transparent set so you could see exactly how it was done. It was so much more impressive to see what was actually involved.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    PS: Uuuhm....aaah....don't you see that your comment is just a TEENSY bit patronising? No? Oh well. Nothing like being unable to see your own faults.
    I apologise. It certainly wasn't intended that way. It was mainly an expression of my pleasure that the thread had moved to a more constructive level of conversation rather than out and out disagreement. (Even if we still disagree )
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    PS: Uuuhm....aaah....don't you see that your comment is just a TEENSY bit patronising? No? Oh well. Nothing like being unable to see your own faults.
    I apologise. It certainly wasn't intended that way. It was mainly an expression of my pleasure that the thread had moved to a more constructive level of conversation rather than out and out disagreement. (Even if we still disagree )
    No need to apologise --- I do not expect perfection from anyone, not even myself --- but thanks anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It was mainly an expression of my pleasure that the thread had moved to a more constructive level of conversation rather than out and out disagreement. (Even if we still disagree )
    Then try once again to bring perspective on this piece of yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It has provided enormous benefits to society, which could not have been achieved by any other means. If we consider things like engineering and medicine to be "applied science", where are the products of "applied philosophy" and "applied theology" (if such disciplines even exist).


    Where is the science ? Where are the benefit ? Were is the theory of beneficial-relativity that would allow us to agree WHATEVER our different perspective ?

    Science does not provide beneficial/good solutions (nor bad one). It provide temporary answers, and then more tough questions. Can you at least agree on that ?

    Then we will discus the billions death we could have avoid buy using a little logic back in the time when we were not yet blind by our smartness...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Where is the science ? Where are the benefit ? Were is the theory of beneficial-relativity that would allow us to agree WHATEVER our different perspective ?
    I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying it has not provided any benefits? Or simply complainign that I failed to quantify them? (I am not a sociologist or statistician.)

    Anyway, the obvious things are the massive improvements in lifespan and health. Not to mention simple things like anaesthetics and antibiotics (you really wouldn't have wanted to have major surgery in the past: excrutiatingly painful and you would probably die).

    Statisticians use quality adjusted years of life (or something like that) to evaluate both quality and length of life. Science and technology has contributed to both of those.

    I suppose, on the other side, you could look at deaths caused by science and technology (more deaths per war [but fewer wars], auto accidents, etc) and put those on the other side of the balance.

    Overall, you could come up with some sort of measure of benefit. But it would still have to be subjective because different people have different values (some would be happy to live isolated with little technology around them, others would prefer all the benefits the modern world has to offer).

    Science does not provide beneficial/good solutions (nor bad one). It provide temporary answers, and then more tough questions. Can you at least agree on that ?
    Partly. As noted, we can use scientific knowledge to produce practical benefits. Or are you denying that?

    Then we will discus the billions death we could have avoid buy using a little logic back in the time when we were not yet blind by our smartness...
    Which billions of deaths? When? How blinded?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Than you are using odd measures for quality of life,
    I think I would rather say that you and I have different ideas concerning what contributes to the quality of life --- always an arguable subject. I have the temperament of a traveler and explorer, and my temperament is not well suited in modern society. Other types of people, will of course, have different priorities.
    I think this is a matter of one of views the world as the half empty glass while the other perhaps sees it as half full.

    You'll find few people as well traveled as I, nor one that shun excessive technical complexities as much as I can. I don't carry a cell phone because I see few uses for it, and don't need the hassle nor monthly expense, I drive a 13 year old pickup truck for example. I use both a drafting table as well as a computer to design small boats and use hand tools as well as power tools to build them. I enjoy gardening, my hands in the soil as well as my ability to choice from a remarkable range of hybrid vegetables.

    I love to fly fish, but usually leave the museum quality bamboo rods because it doesn't work nearly as well as my graphite rods.

    On the other hand, I'm a nearly completely disable military vet who takes meds completely unavailable less than ten years ago that will likely allow me to livee at least as long as my grandparents (one side to their late 70s the other side to their mid-90s)--probably ten years longer; I'm also the first generation in my family who has a solution to sleep apnea and doesn't wake every morning with headaches from oxygen deprivation (and all its heart complications), and reach middle age without being a low energy, accident prone zombie by mid afternoon.

    My wife is completely disabled with a hereditary nerve disease that was complete mystery until recently that stuck down many of her ancestors leaving them helpless for decades or if it appears early suffocating many of their youngest children. Now her siblings and cousins can now choose not to have a child (it's 50% chance per child--my kid was lucky), or test a fetus for the condition and severity and choice to avoid birthing a short suffering life (my wife lost a baby brother when his lungs gave up). Others, such as my wife who's symptoms appeared as an adult, know what to watch for and what can be treated. For most (one exception, her mom, lives nearly paralyzed in bitter denial) it's a huge comfort just knowing that's dramatically improved their quality of life.

    People can still live simple without turning away from the fruits of science and engineering that improve lives.

    Quality of life for me is about lowering the degree of suffering--it's that simple. It's been center stage for the vast majority of science funding during our lifetimes and has reduced suffering by nearly every reasonable measure--whether it be the medical examples I discussed, or the grants for my graduate education doing basic research on state-sized thunderstorm storm complexes that ravage Midwestern states with catastrophic flash flooding every summer (part of a body of work that allows us to now forecast them).
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 23rd, 2013 at 02:06 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying it has not provided any benefits? Or simply complainign that I failed to quantify them? (I am not a sociologist or statistician.)
    So you perfectly understand what I meant. You may not be a statistician, but me neither. We still can use 6 grade level math. don't we ?

    Anyway, the obvious things are the massive improvements in lifespan and health.
    It is as much obvious as the light need ether to travel onto. How do you propose that I accept that living a longest live in a better health is not enough of a criterion. If those long lived being are tight to a machine to work on is it still OK ? What if their entire means of existence is threaten constantly by their owner ?
    Do you want me to tell you how many people per day were dying from asbestos cancer 10000k year ago ? Or kill in car accident ?
    Do you want to stick to per capita ? Shall we play ? What was the suicidal rate in primal tribe again ?

    Not to mention simple things like anaesthetics and antibiotics (you really wouldn't have wanted to have major surgery in the past: excrutiatingly painful and you would probably die).
    And hospital is the first killer and not because of the reason one goes in. Antibiotics cause and have all but worsen the situation.
    I am glad that you could save a few people from terrible injury they could never have endured if not using AK47 or a bicycle.
    Removing pain from the human experience is so useful, now we all think we are invincible.

    Statisticians use quality adjusted years of life (or something like that) to evaluate both quality and length of life. Science and technology has contributed to both of those.
    Science has contribute NOTHING. Care by people and social interaction is the only scientifically proved factor of well being (like you said).
    No need of an electrical stair chair, just a family and a live to participate into.

    I suppose, on the other side, you could look at deaths caused by science and technology (more deaths per war [but fewer wars], auto accidents, etc) and put those on the other side of the balance.
    Absolutely right, except that science is NOT technologies. Technologies kill science, actually.

    Science does not provide beneficial/good solutions (nor bad one). It provide temporary answers, and then more tough questions. Can you at least agree on that ?
    Partly. As noted, we can use scientific knowledge to produce practical benefits. Or are you denying that?
    No, I don't deny that, not even partly. Because if I am going to do it scientifically, I'll require first the exact description of the way I am gona measure the benefits.

    In fact it is not even science, is is math. If you live twice has long, you'll need to grow twice more food. Build twice more house.
    Computing our foot print is not so complicated. Can we afford it ? Were do we stop ?

    Which billions of deaths? When? How blinded?
    Blinded because even a smart guy like you is apparently not aware that the only way we BARELY sustains our artificial ultra low quality food chain, depending entirely on the horse power and chemical fertilizer we did out from the crust. From that time the population has gone from 1Billion to 7. How do you propose to feed people where every calories a food need 7 to 10 calories of fossil fuel to grow. In 100 year(well 15 really) how many people will survive when we will have once again to use bull not to eat but as a tractor ?
    Hello science ? Are you there ? Do I have to introduce climate change or pollution on top of that ?

    Blinded also because apparently having beautiful tooth is definitely not a cultural marketing thingy, but the very scientific fabric of our well being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying it has not provided any benefits? Or simply complainign that I failed to quantify them? (I am not a sociologist or statistician.)
    So you perfectly understand what I meant.
    That was one of my guesses at what you might have meant. Not at all obvious. However, as you have nothing sensible to say, I'm off.
    John Galt likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    I think this is a matter of one of views the world as the half empty glass while the other perhaps sees it as half full.

    You'll find few people as well traveled as I, nor one that shun excessive technical complexities as much as I can. I don't carry a cell phone because I see few uses for it, and don't need the hassle nor monthly expense, I drive a 13 year old pickup truck for example. I use both a drafting table as well as a computer to design small boats and use hand tools as well as power tools to build them. I enjoy gardening, my hands in the soil as well as my ability to choice from a remarkable range of hybrid vegetables.

    I love to fly fish, but usually leave the museum quality bamboo rods because it doesn't work nearly as well as my graphite rods.

    On the other hand, I'm a nearly completely disable military vet who takes meds completely unavailable less than ten years ago that will likely allow me to livee at least as long as my grandparents (one side to their late 70s the other side to their mid-90s)--probably ten years longer; I'm also the first generation in my family who has a solution to sleep apnea and doesn't wake every morning with headaches from oxygen deprivation (and all its heart complications), and reach middle age without being a low energy, accident prone zombie by mid afternoon.

    My wife is completely disabled with a hereditary nerve disease that was complete mystery until recently that stuck down many of her ancestors leaving them helpless for decades or if it appears early suffocating many of their youngest children. Now her siblings and cousins can now choose not to have a child (it's 50% chance per child--my kid was lucky), or test a fetus for the condition and severity and choice to avoid birthing a short suffering life (my wife lost a baby brother when his lungs gave up). Others, such as my wife who's symptoms appeared as an adult, know what to watch for and what can be treated. For most (one exception, her mom, lives nearly paralyzed in bitter denial) it's a huge comfort just knowing that's dramatically improved their quality of life.

    People can still live simple without turning away from the fruits of science and engineering that improve lives.

    Quality of life for me is about lowering the degree of suffering--it's that simple. It's been center stage for the vast majority of science funding during our lifetimes and has reduced suffering by nearly every reasonable measure--whether it be the medical examples I discussed, or the grants for my graduate education doing basic research on state-sized thunderstorm storm complexes that ravage Midwestern states with catastrophic flash flooding every summer (part of a body of work that allows us to now forecast them).
    Science relieves suffering? I find that highly questionable. The issue is complex so I won't pursue it. But this: even if science does relieve suffering, it's a pity it does not know where that suffering comes from in the first place. Science is itself one of the bogies. It reduces people to living machines and you cannot turn a human being into a machine without causing it extreme suffering. Actually, though, I'm blaming science, but science is not the final culprit. People would not have been reduced to mechanistic rationality, to science, if they had not been addicted to power.

    PS: if you learned how to interpret dreams, you could forecast those storm complexes with confidence --- in fact, if you could interpret dreams, you would first have to recover your intuitive mind. And if you did that, then you would find that, miraculously, you were not in the locality when the storm hit. Furthermore, you would find that you suffered no serious losses from the storm and furthermore, you would find that the consequences for you of the storm were positive rather than negative --- it's a wonderful life when you can interpret dreams. People cannot interpret dreams today because they have reduced their minds to machines. Even your medical problems could be taken care of, or at the very least, hugely alleviated, if you could interpret dreams.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Science relieves suffering? I find that highly questionable. The issue is complex so I won't pursue it. But this: even if science does relieve suffering, it's a pity it does not know where that suffering comes from in the first place. Science is itself one of the bogies. It reduces people to living machines and you cannot turn a human being into a machine without causing it extreme suffering. Actually, though, I'm blaming science, but science is not the final culprit. People would not have been reduced to mechanistic rationality, to science, if they had not been addicted to power.

    PS: if you learned how to interpret dreams, you could forecast those storm complexes with confidence --- in fact, if you could interpret dreams, you would first have to recover your intuitive mind. And if you did that, then you would find that, miraculously, you were not in the locality when the storm hit. Furthermore, you would find that you suffered no serious losses from the storm and furthermore, you would find that the consequences for you of the storm were positive rather than negative --- it's a wonderful life when you can interpret dreams. People cannot interpret dreams today because they have reduced their minds to machines. Even your medical problems could be taken care of, or at the very least, hugely alleviated, if you could interpret dreams.
    qffr.
    Last edited by scoobydoo1; May 25th, 2013 at 11:12 AM. Reason: Quotation error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Science relieves suffering? I find that highly questionable. The issue is complex so I won't pursue it. But this: even if science does relieve suffering, it's a pity it does not know where that suffering comes from in the first place. Science is itself one of the bogies. It reduces people to living machines and you cannot turn a human being into a machine without causing it extreme suffering. Actually, though, I'm blaming science, but science is not the final culprit. People would not have been reduced to mechanistic rationality, to science, if they had not been addicted to power.

    PS: if you learned how to interpret dreams, you could forecast those storm complexes with confidence --- in fact, if you could interpret dreams, you would first have to recover your intuitive mind. And if you did that, then you would find that, miraculously, you were not in the locality when the storm hit. Furthermore, you would find that you suffered no serious losses from the storm and furthermore, you would find that the consequences for you of the storm were positive rather than negative --- it's a wonderful life when you can interpret dreams. People cannot interpret dreams today because they have reduced their minds to machines. Even your medical problems could be taken care of, or at the very least, hugely alleviated, if you could interpret dreams.
    Every. Single. Sentence. of this post is absolute nonsense.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    PS: if you learned how to interpret dreams, you could forecast those storm complexes with confidence --- in fact, if you could interpret dreams, you would first have to recover your intuitive mind. And if you did that, then you would find that, miraculously, you were not in the locality when the storm hit. Furthermore, you would find that you suffered no serious losses from the storm and furthermore, you would find that the consequences for you of the storm were positive rather than negative --- it's a wonderful life when you can interpret dreams. People cannot interpret dreams today because they have reduced their minds to machines. Even your medical problems could be taken care of, or at the very least, hugely alleviated, if you could interpret dreams.
    Simple, unadulterated bullshit. Which pretty much describes everything this poster writes. How do people this stupid keep on breathing? This is so dumb even the autonomous nervous system should shut down.
    Strange, Neverfly and PhDemon like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Postscript with the mystical dream interpretation garbage ignored for now...
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Science relieves suffering? I find that highly questionable. The issue is complex so I won't pursue it. But this: even if science does relieve suffering, it's a pity it does not know where that suffering comes from in the first place. Science is itself one of the bogies. It reduces people to living machines and you cannot turn a human being into a machine without causing it extreme suffering. Actually, though, I'm blaming science, but science is not the final culprit. People would not have been reduced to mechanistic rationality, to science, if they had not been addicted to power.
    "Science" is nothing more than the practice of a method to build the most accurate model of reality.
    It is neither good nor bad- it is based on what is.

    The entire post is a incoherent babbling. You did not organize your thoughts, first. You say one thing, then you contradict it... then you contradict that... then you go off on that insane postscript after... It boggles the mind.
    Like academia, you blame and blame and you write these posts where hatred drips off your words like honey and every last bit of it is in the full glare of ignorance.
    You are a person that is bitter and angry and proud of yourself for it.

    I certainly hope that children out there are not exposed to you. Or at least anyone that needs medical advice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Science relieves suffering? I find that highly questionable.
    If you ever need major surgery, I assume you will refuse all those tiresome things like "anaesthetics" and "antibiotics" that those idiot scientists came up. What is wrong with a drop of whiskey and a rusty saw... Slap some leeches on afterwards and we're done.
    Flick Montana and Neverfly like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Science relieves suffering? I find that highly questionable. The issue is complex so I won't pursue it.


    Just wow. I helped a recent middle aged relative back from the hospital last month. She had cataracts removed and both lenses of her eyes replaced with multi-focal lens, which is supposed to be a recent invention. She'd been reluctant for years, but finally got convinced when she could not pass the eye exam to renew her drivers licence; according to her doctor could be considered legally blind--she'd already given up reading and had dark shades installed on her home to block the glare from the windows. After a couple hours of outpatient surgery and a few weeks of recovery, she now reads, drives herself, and for the first time since she was a child doesn't even need to wear glasses because she has 20-20 vision. She feels better emotionally, is safer on the road to herself and others, it house isn't dark anymore and she's less likely to mix up miss read of mix up instructions on her prescriptions or a recipe for her granddaughters birthday cake. In numerous and measurable ways medical science and engineering has relieved her suffering and improved her quality of life.


    John Galt, Strange and Neverfly like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    The passion of your attacks is very revealing. It says you feel threatened. It says you sense a power equal or superior to your own. It is reminiscent of the USA's paranoid response to Communisn, reminiscent of McCarthy's Reds Under the Beds. That blew up, of course, because Russia was as big and powerful as America. So for all your bluster and your vitriol, the simple fact is that you KNOW there is something in what I say and you KNOW that it is likely to overthrow science.

    Although I am responding at the time of reading to your "comments", I will confirm my own assessment either by using oracle/tarot cards, or wait for a dream. Very likely I will have a dream tonight which will further elucidate what is going on in the minds of the people on this forum. Dreams are wondeful things: they do all sorts of things from telling you what is going on in your own mind to telling you what is going on in other people's --- in fact, if Freud had known how to interpret dreams, he would never have published his own because they tell as clearly as clear can be that he was a charlatan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    The passion of your attacks is very revealing. It says you feel threatened. It says you sense a power equal or superior to your own. It is reminiscent of the USA's paranoid response to Communisn, reminiscent of McCarthy's Reds Under the Beds. That blew up, of course, because Russia was as big and powerful as America. So for all your bluster and your vitriol, the simple fact is that you KNOW there is something in what I say and you KNOW that it is likely to overthrow science.

    Although I am responding at the time of reading to your "comments", I will confirm my own assessment either by using oracle/tarot cards, or wait for a dream. Very likely I will have a dream tonight which will further elucidate what is going on in the minds of the people on this forum. Dreams are wondeful things: they do all sorts of things from telling you what is going on in your own mind to telling you what is going on in other people's --- in fact, if Freud had known how to interpret dreams, he would never have published his own because they tell as clearly as clear can be that he was a charlatan.
    Dishonesty is your only course of rebuttal.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Please ban this cretinous troll.
    Gladly.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    The passion of your attacks is very revealing.
    If you attack people and their interests, you must expect a vigorous response. I assume that is why you do it. You appear to have nothing useful or intelligent to contribute.

    It says you feel threatened.
    No one feels threatened by a pathetic and immature troll. I feel sorry for you, if anything.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Although I am responding at the time of reading to your "comments", I will confirm my own assessment either by using oracle/tarot cards, or wait for a dream. Very likely I will have a dream tonight which will further elucidate what is going on in the minds of the people on this forum. Dreams are wondeful things: they do all sorts of things from telling you what is going on in your own mind to telling you what is going on in other people's --- in fact, if Freud had known how to interpret dreams, he would never have published his own because they tell as clearly as clear can be that he was a charlatan.
    This is not just stupidity, this is fractal stupidity. It is stupid at every possible scale. It is not just stupid as a whole, but when broken down into the smallest possible pieces it simply manages to be stupid on an infinitesimal level.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    fractal stupidity
    A wonderful term I shall no doubt employ in the future.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Making logical conclusion of observation of facts around us limited to our physical capacity is "Science"
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    With science humans may become equal to GOD in power but not in judgement.
    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    The claim that knowledge can only come from science is unfalsifiable. It's unfalsifiable because science has no test that it can conduct that could find knowledge of a different nature than causality or matter/energy. So science does not the final say due to its limited method.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Utopian View Post
    The claim that knowledge can only come from science is unfalsifiable.
    That is irrelevant. The scientific method is not a hypothesis to be tested. It is just a process that has been devloped (and is still evolving) to be effective.

    It's unfalsifiable because science has no test that it can conduct that could find knowledge of a different nature than causality or matter/energy.
    If that unsupported assertion were true then it would mean that there was no "knowledge of a different nature than causality or matter/energy". And would therefore prove you wrong.

    If, as seems likely, the assertion is just something you made up, then it is irrelevant.

    So science does not the final say due to its limited method.
    Which you have totally failed to establish.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Utopian View Post
    The claim that knowledge can only come from science is unfalsifiable.
    That is irrelevant. The scientific method is not a hypothesis to be tested. It is just a process that has been devloped (and is still evolving) to be effective.
    Then the assertion of science having all of the knowledge is not a hypothesis therefore is not science.

    It's unfalsifiable because science has no test that it can conduct that could find knowledge of a different nature than causality or matter/energy.
    If that unsupported assertion were true then it would mean that there was no "knowledge of a different nature than causality or matter/energy". And would therefore prove you wrong.
    I am correct by deductive reasoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Utopian View Post
    Then the assertion of science having all of the knowledge is not a hypothesis therefore is not science.
    An assertion is not, by definition, a hypothesis.

    And I don't know who would assert "science has all of the knowledge". Someone who doesn't know much about science, I guess.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Utopian View Post
    The claim that knowledge can only come from science is unfalsifiable. It's unfalsifiable because science has no test that it can conduct that could find knowledge of a different nature than causality or matter/energy.
    What nonsense.
    All that is needed is for some other method to produce some knowledge.
    The fact that this "knowledge" would then be tested by science to see if it is actually knowledge is beside the point.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Utopian View Post
    Then the assertion of science having all of the knowledge is not a hypothesis therefore is not science.
    An assertion is not, by definition, a hypothesis.
    Pardon me, proposition.

    And I don't know who would assert "science has all of the knowledge". Someone who doesn't know much about science, I guess.
    The final answer would be, to me, dictatorship over knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Utopian View Post
    The claim that knowledge can only come from science is unfalsifiable. It's unfalsifiable because science has no test that it can conduct that could find knowledge of a different nature than causality or matter/energy.
    What nonsense.
    All that is needed is for some other method to produce some knowledge.
    The fact that this "knowledge" would then be tested by science to see if it is actually knowledge is beside the point.
    It can be scientific knowledge, sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Utopian View Post
    It can be scientific knowledge, sure.
    I wasn't talking exclusively about scientific knowledge.
    How would you decide if it actually is knowledge?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Utopian, I'm interested as to why someone who clearly does not understand science or how it works felt compelled to post nonsense in this thread on a science forum. Why bother joining a science forum if you are only going to post ignorant misconceptions?
    Are you the authority on the philosophy of science? I plead not guilty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Utopian View Post
    The final answer would be, to me, dictatorship over knowledge.
    The final answer to what?

    And how would anyone enforce a "dictatorship over knowledge" (I assume that means some sort of control of what information people are allowed to have access to?) especially in the days of the Internet? Are you thinking of North Korea?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Utopian View Post
    The final answer would be, to me, dictatorship over knowledge.
    The final answer to what?

    And how would anyone enforce a "dictatorship over knowledge" (I assume that means some sort of control of what information people are allowed to have access to?) especially in the days of the Internet? Are you thinking of North Korea?
    See OP.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Science is not a separate thing which is belong to someone or other
    Simply true information , according to our (human being ) capacity is scientific information
    Anything that seem true according to best available method of judgement is science
    Science is related to knowing truth and reality and nothing more
    So it is not a nature made thing
    Its simply a word we use for knowing truth with best available method of judgment
    If you find Moon is square and satisfy your information with proofs and logic
    Then it would be a scientific information , because you show it, you show it true
    But if you do not show it, its means your information is not valid and false
    Finally science is nothing more than finding "true" information from best available options
    Science is not mine, your or anyone 's other


    It is not final answer , but it is best answer we can give
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    Science is basically thereabout.
    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: March 13th, 2013, 05:36 AM
  2. Can Mathematic answer all Questions in science?
    By Abrakadabra in forum Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 1st, 2013, 05:46 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 6th, 2011, 05:45 PM
  4. The Final Freedoms
    By klatu in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: October 16th, 2008, 11:34 AM
  5. The final hit
    By water in forum Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 4th, 2005, 03:15 PM
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
  •