|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2004 : 12:38:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If we must invent the wheel on each posting then the world stands still. This is a great example of the problem that the natural sciences do not encounter. Accepted facts are common in these sciences but not in the humanities thus the humanities are constantly inventing the wheel.
This is the part I have the most problem with. I agree that our knowledge base is the physical sciences is growing, and grows on the back of what knowledge we already have. The physical sciences are not humanities. There are some signifigant differences.
Why then should the humanities be required to contain the same volume of information that the physical sciences do?
quote:
Our technological intelligence is accretive our wisdom intelligence is not. In wisdom we are not able to stand on the shoulders of giants of the past. The wisdom of man is buried with him his technology lives on.
How so? The wisdom of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle is lost? The works of the worlds great philosophers just die off with them? I have to strongly disagree.
And.... the stuff Dave W. said. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 15:21:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The technology of "fire" gave us that capability, actually. Wood fires are a major source of carbon dioxide emissions, and simply as our population increased, they added (and still add today) to the greenhouse effect, a shifting climate, and die-off of species which fail to adapt. This has been going on for tens of thousands of years, not just for decades or centuries.
Another major source of carbon dioxide are volcanos. But volcanos are part of the natural cycle of CO2. What the ratio is between volcanos and man's different sources, I don't know. And unfortunatly I don't have time to research it right now. Just wanted you to keep in mind that man is probably not the biggest contributor to the CO2 level in the atmosphere. However, we might be the ones to tip the scales. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 20:23:44 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse wrote:quote:
Just wanted you to keep in mind that man is probably not the biggest contributor to the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
Oh, I was well aware of that possibility. Wood fires are a major source, I said, not necessarily the major. And I remember, but haven't had a chance to re-check, that wood fires actually spew more CO2 into the air per year than automobiles (especially considering the frequency of wood fires where cars aren't ubiquitous).
And while volcanoes do indeed toss a lot of crap out, we were talking about man's alleged ability to "destroy nature," and when that ability came about. That volcanoes - if enough of 'em blow at the same time - have the ability was not in question. 
Dude, I think coberst's protest hinges on this one line: "If we must invent the wheel on each posting then the world stands still." I believe he just wants to discuss things as if "common knowledge" were true, instead of having to defend that knowledge. Unfortunately, in my opinion, if we give him a pass on this, so that the idea can "move forward," we would also have to give (for example) fundamentalist Christians a pass with the premise that the Bible is scientifically correct.
Certainly, the difference is that coberst claims to be a critical thinker himself, but to let him say whatever he wants, without challenge, is elitist and will get this whole forum discredited with claims that we ignore our own biases. I definitely do not want things to go that way.
Perhaps coberst is worried that every time he brings up this particular topic, we'll get dragged into a dispute about the premises. Of course, if the premises can be shown to be sound (and they'd have to be before "moving forward" with an idea makes sense), people can just link back to this thread - or to a detailed article - for the things that have already been discussed and agreed upon.
Of course, I may also be completely off. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 23:17:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude, I think coberst's protest hinges on this one line: "If we must invent the wheel on each posting then the world stands still." I believe he just wants to discuss things as if "common knowledge" were true, instead of having to defend that knowledge.
Well, I would agree that there are plenty(possibly millions) of "common knowledge" claims out there that almost nobody would dispute. The ones made by coberst, in this thread, are not among them. I do not know that nature can heal itself, ect...
And, as I have said before, I do not agree with the premise that the humanities should necessarily have expanded in volume as much as the phisical sciences have.... just because the physical sciences have expanded. I also disagree with the idea that we don't preserve and build upon the knowledge of our philosophers the same way we do our scientists. The difference between the two fields makes a comparison meaningless... The physical sciences have a largely objective set of data, while the humanities is a snarly mix of the objective and subjective. All philosophy concerning wisdom and ethics falls into the realm of the subjective. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 05:51:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
<snip>and I don't treat a person with less respect because he/she doesn't have a degree (I don't)<snip>
YOU don't have a DEGREE? And all this time I thought you were smart....
quote:
Seems he was shocked to learn that half the U.S. population was below average intelligence. <snip>
Is it a major surprise that half are below the average and half above? I know this isn't the same as a median and if there were some REALLY stupid people out there dragging the average down, then more than half might be above average. But likewise there are also some really smart people dragging it up. That this surprised LBJ makes me wonder about HIS intelligence.
On the other hand, some of the smartest people I've known were too stupid to pass an algebra class or to read a novel cover to cover. Why? More because they just weren't interested - or didn't accept the importance of higher learning - than anything else, I think. I've known people who were genuinely stupid, but most people who I've known who didn't do well in school weren't necessarily of lower intelligence.
And I'm skeptical of intelligence testing in general. IQ testing only measures part of the spectrum . . . but that's another topic.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 06:59:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
<snip>For example, you say,quote:
We now are, thanks to technology, capable of destroying nature.
The technology of "fire" gave us that capability, actually. Wood fires are a major source of carbon dioxide emissions, and simply as our population increased, they added (and still add today) to the greenhouse effect, a shifting climate, and die-off of species which fail to adapt. This has been going on for tens of thousands of years, not just for decades or centuries.
Dave, Although it's not pertinent to your main point, I just have to comment on the 'destroy nature' issue at hand, and let me say I'm disappointed you indulged it as much as you did. I think without a definition of what 'nature' is in this context, this claim is ambiguous as hell. For example, if 'nature' means 'life in it's totality' I don't believe humanity has yet gained the ability 'destroy nature' - that is, sterilize the planet. If we set off all our nuclear weapons evenly all over the whole planet, would that sterilize the entire world, effectively destroying life permanently? Would it destroy the deep ocean trench ecosystems thriving off the energy from volcanic vents? Doubtful. So if 'nature' means 'life in it's totality,' humanity isn't quite capable of destroying it yet.
If by 'nature' you mean specific ecosystems and species and that 'destroying nature' is disrupting ecosystems by changing their physical characteristics, introducing materials poisonous to existing species, introducing alien species that upset the existing balance, causing wholesale extinctions, etc etc, I would respond that the word 'destroy' is not at all appropriate. Distruption of ecosystems, and the accompanying extinctions, is every bit a 'natural' occurance and doesn't leave behind a sterile vacuum. Indeed, the history of life is riddled with various, regularly occuring, ecosystem disrupting disasters, sometimes on vast scales - from giant meteors to volcanic explosions, to iceage causing 'wobbles' in the Earth's orbit. In every case, life flows back it, evolving to suit the newly changed world.
IMO humanity is just one more of those natural processes. In a worst case scenario, we will wreak havoc across the world, turning the entire biosphere upside down, probably causing our own population to crash in the process, maybe even our own extinction, but NATURE will THRIVE because of it. New species will arise and be more resistant to our activities (it's already happening with pesticide resistant insects and antibiotic resistant bacteria), the new and changed ecosystems will be repopulated, and life will hum along as it always has. The claim our activities are 'destroying' nature is absurd.
And finally, to suggest that stem cell research - or genetic engineering for that matter - is some how accelerating this 'destruction of nature' throws this claim into the realm of the stupid. We have awful abilities to upset the natural world as we found it, but the natural world is well positioned to roll with our punches. Now, with genetic engineering, we're actually tinkering with the mechanism by which nature rolls with these punches, but the bottom line is that whatever we make with genetic engineering is not 'unnatural' in that it will sweep out into the world and kill all life. Gene mod plants and animals are still part of the living world and will eventually face natural selection like everything else and they will either thrive or die. Big deal.
Nature is safe - we need not fear we will destroy all life on the planet. We DO need to fear for our civilization and for our very species, as our survival is by no means a sure thing. It becomes less so every day, IMO.
Sorry for the OT rant. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 07:42:04 [Permalink]
|
| If every engineer had to prove that force equal mass times acceleration every day no engineer could build anything. If every beiologist had to prove the Theory every day we could never move forward. If there is no accepted knowledge in the humanities the humanities cannot move forward. Such is the delimma. You need not accept any knowledge as being commonplace and require an authority for every statement. Then you can require of that authority further authority. That is not Critical Thinking that is willful blindness. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 07:58:36 [Permalink]
|
| I will not try to convince every doubter that the Theory is valid. I will not play the role of Sisyphus. If one chooses not to study Critical Thinking, that is his/her problem not mine. If one wishes to argue the obvious that is his/her problem. Daddy why is the sky blue? |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 08:24:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
I will not try to convince every doubter that the Theory is valid. I will not play the role of Sisyphus. If one chooses not to study Critical Thinking, that is his/her problem not mine. If one wishes to argue the obvious that is his/her problem. Daddy why is the sky blue?
I'm not your daddy, but I can tell you why the sky is blue:
"Blue light's short wavelength causes it to get scattered around 10 times more by oxygen and nitrogen molecules than the longer wavelengths (like red) of the other colors visible to us.
The blue in the sky we see is scattered blue light. "
The above is a summary from this web site. Follow the link for a MUCH more detailed explanation:
http://www.why-is-the-sky-blue.org/why-is-the-sky-blue.html
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 12:51:58 [Permalink]
|
| The sky is blue bit was the wrong thing to say to a scientist. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 13:27:19 [Permalink]
|
Coberst wrote:quote:
If one chooses not to study Critical Thinking, that is his/her problem not mine. If one wishes to argue the obvious that is his/her problem.
Okay, now you're missing the point. The point is expressed aptly by Dude with the items that he doesn't see as "common knowledge." I don't, either. Chaloobi properly corrected one of the items I pointed out.
Those are the premises you chose to use. Unless they are accepted by others here, your ideas will not move forward in this thread. How could they? We are asking you to support your assertions, and we get back whining about what scientists do, as if this were a scientific discussion. You are discussing 'wisdom', after all.
Why - me being a critical thinker and all - should I accept your premise that humans can destroy nature? I have no idea who you are, and that idea runs counter to Chaloobi's excellent points (which are "common knowledge" to ecologists and evolutionary biologists). So, given that Chaloobi's idea fits the fact better than yours, at least on that one point, my "idea filter" says to give tentative assent to his idea, and not yours.
Now, if you could give us even one supporting article for one of your ideas, we could stop wasting this time, and move on. That you refuse to make such an attempt, and instead complain about it, implies that perhaps these ideas aren't "common knowledge" at all, and are instead "coberst knowledge." That's what my critical thought on this matter is.
Scientists, by the way, do not give support to new ideas very easily. Plate Tectonics took 40 years to catch hold as being "common knowledge" among geologists. At first, it was scorned for lack of evidence. It took decades for the support to be gathered.
Given the response you've received, your ideas appear to be new here. If you could educate us, instead of insult us, it'd go a long way towards moving this thread along. Right now, we're stalled, because of you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 13:35:53 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
YOU don't have a DEGREE? And all this time I thought you were smart....
Remember, it's only my butt that's got high IQ.quote:
That this surprised LBJ makes me wonder about HIS intelligence.
If I remember correctly, Carl Sagan tells that story in The Demon-Haunted World as an example of innumerancy or inattention to statistics or something like that. Ask a bunch of people how many two-cent stamps there are in a dozen, and most of the time you'll get the answer "six." Even very intelligent people get "caught" by that one. They just don't pay close-enough attention. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 13:48:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If every engineer had to prove that force equal mass times acceleration every day no engineer could build anything. If every beiologist had to prove the Theory every day we could never move forward. If there is no accepted knowledge in the humanities the humanities cannot move forward. Such is the delimma.
I'll say it again. Physical sciences can build a set of objective evidence to support claims. Humanities, especially concerning ethics and wisdom, have to deal with the subjective. The two fields are not comparable in the way you are trying to compare them. There is no necessity for humanities to contain the same volume of information as the physical sciences.
And I really don't know where your comming from with the claim that humanities must reprove the things that become established as objective data. Yes, sometime sthis happens. But it happens in the physical sciences ALL the time as well. If somebody observes something that doesn't fit with current theories.... then guess what? They make a new theory. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Baza
New Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 14:59:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If every engineer had to prove that force equal mass times acceleration every day no engineer could build anything. If every beiologist had to prove the Theory every day we could never move forward. If there is no accepted knowledge in the humanities the humanities cannot move forward. Such is the delimma.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This only true when engineers are talking to engineers or biologists are talking to biologist. Each specialism has its own knowledge. In a debate that includes many disciplines it is often required to back up assertions that may not be common knowledge to some of the audience. |
Baza |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 16:20:39 [Permalink]
|
| One new area that creates a difficult problem is in molecular biology. We are quickly reaching a point in which we can play the role of god. That is we are begining to be able to make significant modifications in the very nature and structure of humans. This capacity creats a dangerous problem that requires wisdom to make good decisions. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
