On 14 Jan, 15:59, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Don, I even took the golden fiddle with me as a peace offering! > > I take the same view Orn, perhaps from a Quaker perspective. In fact, > if I was of draftable age, I might well become a Plymouth Bretheren > member. Jared Diamond has put the same view in 'Collapse'. I don't > really believe we can do anything "active" on bringing about (or > letting come about) sustainable communities until we get to a proper > understanding of the vile state of politics throughout history. That > we have no real history ready-to-hand all over the world is surely the > most damning evidence of conspiracy. Water supply in parts of Peru > strikes me as a classic. They had technology (admittedly religious > cult power related) thousands of years back better than now. > > I suppose one the the words we use as though we know what it is with > almost no clue is "evidence". I can think here of gel-coated slides > stuck in an electro-chemical experiment that come out with a few > 'scratches' on them - "evidence of cold-fusion" - yet surely not to > the untrained, ignorant eye. But I can also think of mad examples > from our legal systems, where "experts" convince judges, defence > barristers and juries not to trust the evidence of their eyes in > looking at CCTV footage, where, in the end, the whole performance was > about suppressing the real evidence and the truth is really about mad > human behaviour in authority situations. > > I can imagine a few of us in here on the Nico Bento jury. Let's say > me, you, Fidd, Molly, Gabby, Ian, Chris, Don (add others to taste). > Apparently quite a diverse group as we often disagree and even 'fall > out', though probably not so diverse when one considers the whole > population. It seems impossible to believe we would have convicted > the fellow because we would have scrutinized the "evidence" (however > much we might worry about the term's epistemological status) and, one > hopes, asked relevant questions. Could we have been hornswaggled and > kow-towed by the now known to be loony "expert" telling us not to > believe the evidence of our eyes in relevant CCTV footage? I suspect > the presence of any one of us on the jury would have prevented the > conviction, even by majority verdict. We know enough. Yet the > British system did find 12 'men good and true' to convict a man of > murder with no evidence there was one, and plenty to suggest the > accused was telling the truth. I guess too, on the inside of the > later cold-fusion experiments we could learn enough to conclude (a > long way down the line from the Fleischman-Pons flim-flam), there is > enough evidence to continue investigation, at least to provide a > better understanding of electro-chemistry. > > Your assertions, Bill, on the 'dogma of evidence' could be seen as > rather tired, or as another example of the religious denial of > evidence in favour of faith. I find them neither. Your reference to > Alan Wallace (say) is an exciting possibility, as is the existence of > your general view across the board whilst 'leaving in' spiritual > possibilities, strongly held, but not dogmatically imposed. There no > doubt remain questions, down to whether non-dogmatism could itself be > dogmatic (as in fatuous undecidable deconstruction taken strongly > rather than as a weak version). I doubt Nico Bento would have cared > if one of us had been able to stand up for justice for him. > > I often wonder whether one can do science at all without passion from > at least quasi-religious experience, other than the cook-book- > engineering form (my slap-in-the-face with a wet fish 'realism'). I > can make gunpowder (and worse) because I can 'destructibly distill > wood' (charcoal), buy flowers of sulphur (or make it from photographic > chemicals and lemon juice) and turn urine into potassium nitrate with > some burned sea-weed, use a pestle and mortar, dissolve the lot and > dry it out. This is no more 'science' than baking a cake (indeed such > skills are involved). I can throw numbers into equations ('string > theory' - though my expertise is in stoichiometry) and wonder whether > experimental discovery of one-way speeds of light might return us to > Galilean relativism more powerful than Einstein's. I favour space > exploration, both up and down. >
That reminds me of the time a friend of mine and I (at about age 16-17) decided to make some home-made ether. I had some pure sulpher from an old chemisty set. We mixed that with some cigarette ashes (for carbon, as a catalyst, so that, when we burned it, we got sulpher trioxide rather than sulpher dioxide, which we WOULD have gotten had we burned the sulpher without the carbon), burned it, captured the smoke in a bottle. Then turned that bottle upside down into another, slightly smaller bottle (as the one fit into the other pretty snugly) and shook it up until the smoke was mostly absorbed into the water. We repeated that process until we had a reasonable strong sulphuric acid. Then, went down to the local pharmacy, bought some glycerine, and mixed that in and, voila, we had our own ether. And it was definitely strong enough to have immediate effects upon smelling it. And all that was done on my parents' back porch. Ahh, those were the days!! ;-) > 'Why questions' do not miraculously disappear in any of this. I am > not likely to threaten a set of under-performing lasers with the bible > (yet in exasperation have been known to do something very similar). I > am enraged when simple statistical methods are not used to evaluate > problems in our legal systems, and note it's a scientist that is > enraged. The problem with science is not that it is value-free, but > that it can be done by those with perverse values. It is profoundly > unscientific not to try and discover, to exclude 'data' from > consideration, not to experiment in experience. I cannot even > hypothesise there is 'no god' (though I do think most history on this > is bunk) as a scientist and remain intellectually honest. I make > epistemological decisions that involve faith and 'epistemic risk'. In > every scientific activity I can think of one has to exclude (after > consideration) all sorts of barking dross. The same seems true of > history in general. It may be true of religion. > > The fact that I will go through this effort rather than have a life > with a 'string of broads on the Riviera' after a few bwanking lies > seems itself to imply I am 'after something deeper'. I may die and > look back wishing I had done 'more of the enjoyable stuff'! I may > well have swallowed some moralising incantations and not recovered. > So might Dawkins. I find most religion stupid, selfish, rotten at the > core and manipulative. Rather like social science and politics. If > there was a way to explain all this in 'cold logic' and evidence, one > might still have the problem of this 'magical experience of all' not > being communable with everyone else (as they would be too dumb). So I > am not a man of the gleaming rays of inner peace or virtue that bloats > to sanctimony at the drop of a patronising Socrates pun or a scrabble > over crumbs in times of hardship. > > If we can defend Nico Bento (and properly get near to real social > justice) we have come far enough. We haven't. I just prioritize this > as something we could do in ordinary practice as a core of what our > research programme should be. The 'light' comes later for me. In a > forced decision, I would burn religious scrolls and books to stay warm > before turning to others. To dismiss religion in the name of science > is merely religious. This should not stop us expressing what > 'religion' makes us feel or what 'science' makes us feel, though > something does tend to stop us letting people who think mechanics is > the work of the Devil build our bridges. > > An inner route to an 'understanding and perspective of One' could be a > good or bad thing. I doubt it is worth much consideration in a world > that could put a lot right through some honesty. > > On 14 Jan, 06:55, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > But did ya go to the crossroads and say the right words? > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd60nI4sa9A > > > -Don > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:55 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I made a pact with the devil myself GW, but he didn't show. I have > > > generally found him as unreliable as God. I might get to believe in > > > politics if we find a way to redistribute the Haitians, establish > > > decent homes, services and productive jobs. I might even support Pat > > > Robertson if he could do that. > > > > On 14 Jan, 00:01, [email protected] wrote: > > >> Isn't it refreshing to know there are people like Pat Robertson who is > > >> convinced that he is able to scientifically account for catastrophic > > >> occurrences such as the Haitian disaster. He understands that 200 years > > >> ago Haity (I guess he means every Hatian) made a pact with the devil. > > >> And now 200 years ago they are getting their due. Now how come I > > >> couldn't have figured that out for myself.; It is so obvious and neat > > >> and clean. If only we had more thinkers lie him. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: archytas <[email protected]> > > >> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 13, 2010 6:31 pm > > >> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: science > > > >> The sum of energy in the universe is often considered as zero. > > >> Science is clearly not just about answers. Most of us would say it is > > >> about asking questions that can be resolved by observation and > > >> experiment, one reason string theories may not qualify as physics > > >> (yet). > > >> Problems in social science often arise because we are dealing with > > >> interpretations rather than 'nature' (though science accepts > > >> observations are theory laden and hence our views on what nature > > >> 'is'). Hence 'hermeneutics', though I feel these are unreliable > > >> rather than 'guaranteeing truth' in Gadamer's dogma. > > >> At some point in any enquiry we are likely to be in a creative > > >> thinking phase in an imagination in which anything goes if we can > > >> think it up. This is needed to break up dogma, even if we end up > > >> putting it together again, perhaps with a better idea of how it works. > > >> The 'observation states' of observers are often excluded from > > >> consideration, generally a mistake across all the disciplines. > > >> There is still a prevalent notion that one can somehow achieve an > > >> objective state of observation and thinking. On analysis, this turns > > >> out to have a great deal to do with manners and connected social > > >> dogmas. General argumentation contains many rhetorical tricks and > > >> plays with words, often to conceal lying and ignorance and present an > > >> objective voice that is nothing of the kind and actually appeals to > > >> ignorance and soaked-up tradition. > > >> Science tries to makes its assumptions patent. Often we get very > > >> precise, as in our understanding of CO2 absorption of long-wave > > >> energies and subsequent photon-puking; but to pretend this in global > > >> warming models (the precision) is not science. Lay > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
