A guy called Rivers started something off when he looked at visual processing amongst Papa New Guinea tribes, discovering their discernment was equal to ours. In the weird way connections are made, he believed anthropology applied to our own societies, which were much less rational than supposed. Whilst I don't see a slippery slope to 'anything goes' in admitting our cultures play a massive role in what we come to count as knowledge or what it is to try to be rational, it does seem to me that we consistently fail to try to remember what human beings are made to forget. There is a general pretence at 'disinterestedness' in our public arguments which acts to suppress interests all round. Whilst we seem to have excluded Slip's 'eugenic cull', there is little doubt we effectively exclude (toss out?) many with disability. I doubt 'faith science' could exist if we did not. I've been interested for a long time in why people adopt racist, religious and other defensive strategies so easily when it seems easy enough to dismiss the stuff in rational argument, and one 'answer' that lurks in it all is that may people do not feel invited to rational discussion at all, but to a situation in which they are unarmed, unrepresented and simply subject to patronisation. For them, it is thus rational to band together. Science and actual rationality suppose a commitment to argument that is not ideological and in which only Reason has force. Yet what equips a human being in Reason? Who gets the 'faith dollars' Slip alludes to? Why should any human not be able to play as full a part in society as they can without telethon urging? I need medical help to survive now and would gladly give up life for others who have not yet had as much of it as me, were this really a matter of resource priority. Altruism is by no means all here - I hurt - and weirdly because much of this is about despair about the human condition, this drives me on, partly wondering whether the madness is mine or society's. 'Deformity' may be what eventually makes something 'human' or beyond it purposeful - perhaps the mutation that changes how we can be. What is the deformity of current society? I'm not arguing against Slip here - I think his point is merely one of many places to start and already share many of his views. My best mate is now teaching, though blind. We met when his Guide Dog blundered into my office in around 1994. He could have done my job then, with modest support. It was really only two years ago that he got established, after around eight years of unnecessary 'education' that had to be fought for tooth and nail. He was a better man then than most of my colleagues. There are many others. The problems are very deep. Young kids are growing up round here with almost no real attention paid to what they need. One of the things that makes both my mate and I weep is the 'social model of disability' which seeks to do away with impairment and recognise society causes much disability. It's the very kind of farcical response that sounds good and yet instantly fails because it's too big to be anything other than glib.
Faith in science is a matter of epistemic risk analysis. I can follow the arguments in reason. In religion, I'm told I must respect the views of others, not make judgements in reason. Strangely, the religious system fails to respect the worship of blue, cross-eyed rabbits, but insists on respect for much weirder-based 'faith'. And what is this 'faith'? Do those professing it really have it? It generally seems not, if it's about love and goodwill to all, as they say it is. There are many practical uses of Slip's thought experiment. One can obviously raise Godwin's Law, but the Nazis were just one example of a wider horror. Human resource management leads us to deselect most as disabled in terms of producing soccer teams and the rest (and how 'disabled' are many of these obsessives?) and the Athenian Democracy was prepared to practise this to genocidal extreme. Whole rafts of people are excluded from work (really the dignity of income) under 'capitalism' - soon robots will be able to do most of it. What of the 'unnecessary rest'? Many believe they are doing necessary work, yet count around you, think of the cops and social workers who should be stopping vile abuses but don't. Ask who is doing what, for what purpose, what there is once one knows to have faith in? Slip is not, in my experience, some vile example of a Muslim sect member, become so holy all others must die because they are not so pure. Yet the thought experiment leads to much the same; and yet in the process of reviewing it, much that we are doing wrong can emerge. Having paid my dues, I see many others taking my contribution away without having made any, yet how much of what I have was really laboured for by Indonesians (etc.) slaving away on tuna boats, how much of the cheap meat in the US was produced via subsidies making beef cheaper than broccoli and so on, leading immigrant labour to subsist on burgers - blah, blah. Good way in Slip; do you have any answers? On 27 Feb, 02:57, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Is the cure for cancer just faith in science? I've been watching the > Jerry Lewis telethon for years and wonder if that is just faith in > science. Millions and millions of dollars invested in faith? Did > anyone consider that we should just take that money and invest it in > whole beings instead of investing it into "faith science"? Birds toss > out those that are less than likely to survive, what is it about > humans that they find purpose in deformity? > > On Feb 24, 1:48 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "It's a most peculiar psychology - this business of "Science is based on > > faith too, so there!" Typically this is said by people who claim that faith > > is a *good* thing. Then why do they say "Science is based on faith too!" in > > that angry-triumphal tone, rather than as a compliment? And a rather * > > dangerous* compliment to give, one would think, from their perspective. If > > science is based on 'faith', then science is of the same kind as religion - > > directly comparable. If science is a religion, it is the religion that > > heals the sick and reveals the secrets of the stars. It would make sense to > > say, "The priests of science can blatantly, publicly, verifiably walk on the > > Moon as a faith-based miracle, and your priests' faith can't do the same." > > Are you sure you wish to go there, oh faithist? Perhaps, on further > > reflection, you would prefer to retract this whole business of "Science is a > > religion too!" > > >http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/ -- 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.
