• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Natural Science “don allow no meaning in here”!

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
Natural Science “don allow no meaning in here”!

Natural science clears the land before it builds its structures. NATURAL SCIENCE IS BULLDOZIER might be a useful linguistic metaphor for comprehending how the natural sciences function.

The first thing that a Normal Science (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) does is create a paradigm, which is to say that the bulldozer comes in and clears the land of all obstructions and establishes a foundation upon the solid rock of “measurement by standards”. If it cannot be properly measured in accordance to an established paradigm it does not exist. Since emotion, feeling, and meaning cannot be so measured then such things must be removed.

Only the measurable and the commodified are meaningful in the land of the natural and economic sciences.

This habit of removing all the things that do not fit the science has allowed the natural and economic sciences to be very productive in the human competition with Mother Nature. But I claim that this success, obtained by eliminating considerations based upon human meaning, comes at a heavy price.

The science of economics has emulated the natural sciences and has reaped great successes as a result; if one does not take into consideration the human, social, and ecological costs of such sciences one can be deluded into bulldozing aside all considerations of human meaning as we construct our high tech society.

In his book The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time Karl Polanyi argues that a self-regulating market economy requires “that human beings and the natural environment be turned into pure commodities, which assures the destruction of both society and the natural environment…the definition of a commodity is something that has been produce for sale on a market…land, labor, and money are fictitious commodities because they were not produced for sale on a market…Modern economics starts by pretending that these fictitious commodities will behave in the same way as real commodities…economic theorizing is based on a lie, and this lie places human society at risk.”
 

Chris_in_Orbit

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
504
MBTI Type
ESTJ
What is human meaning? Human/Social considerations?

I find it strange that businesses and the sciences produce something, people buy it, and then they are burned at the stake because they haven't considered the social impact of what they do.

No one said anyone had to buy a product or buy into a scientific mindset.

So I just wonder what it is you are trying to say?
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
What is human meaning? Human/Social considerations?

I find it strange that businesses and the sciences produce something, people buy it, and then they are burned at the stake because they haven't considered the social impact of what they do.

No one said anyone had to buy a product or buy into a scientific mindset.

So I just wonder what it is you are trying to say?


When the citizens lack the intellectual sophistication to comprehend the problems we face they cannot help solve these problems but will in fact be the cause that those who do comprehend the matter cannot deal with them because our democracy will not accept the sacrifices demand.

America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status. The question becomes: "can a democracy survive in a world where technology is driving change at a very rapid pace?” Darwin informs us that if a species cannot adapt to its changing environment that species will soon become toast.

I suspect that China represents an example of how such a fact plays out. China, an authoritarian form of capitalism, is likely destined to become the dominant power in the 21st century because an authoritarian system can better adapt to a rapidly changing world. America displays a nation unable to quickly adapt to a rapidly changing world.
 

Chris_in_Orbit

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
504
MBTI Type
ESTJ
I agree, a species that doesn't adapt will go extinct.

People who don't adapt will be left by the curb. That's part of evolution. I don't think humans as a species are in danger. Just the people who can't adapt. Do you expect progress to happen in inches so everyone can keep up?
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
Yes, humans would be better served and more just if we took human (and environmental)concerns into account rather than simple profit. This is a failing of human nature rather than one of economics, or science, IMO.
 

Chris_in_Orbit

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
504
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Yes, humans would be better served and more just if we took human (and environmental)concerns into account rather than simple profit. This is a failing of human nature rather than one of economics, or science, IMO.

What are these human considerations you are talking about?
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
What are these human considerations you are talking about?

What would happen if the oil well blew? Are we prepared for that eventuality? How would it impact the livelihood of the people who live here? Do we have a reserve of money for such an event?
Maybe we should invest in other technology, since it appears that the one we are currently invested in is harmful to the environment, and will become obsolete, and creates social upheaval, both domestic and abroad.
What if BP asked those questions instead of going for maximum short-term profit? that is what I'm talking about. IS that not a failing of human nature? Is greed/covetousness not a failing when one sees what it untimately can lead to, in this case, natural disaster?
 

Stevo

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Natural Science “don allow no meaning in here”!

Natural science clears the land before it builds its structures. NATURAL SCIENCE IS BULLDOZIER might be a useful linguistic metaphor for comprehending how the natural sciences function.

The first thing that a Normal Science (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) does is create a paradigm, which is to say that the bulldozer comes in and clears the land of all obstructions and establishes a foundation upon the solid rock of “measurement by standards”. If it cannot be properly measured in accordance to an established paradigm it does not exist. Since emotion, feeling, and meaning cannot be so measured then such things must be removed.

Only the measurable and the commodified are meaningful in the land of the natural and economic sciences.

This habit of removing all the things that do not fit the science has allowed the natural and economic sciences to be very productive in the human competition with Mother Nature. But I claim that this success, obtained by eliminating considerations based upon human meaning, comes at a heavy price.

The science of economics has emulated the natural sciences and has reaped great successes as a result; if one does not take into consideration the human, social, and ecological costs of such sciences one can be deluded into bulldozing aside all considerations of human meaning as we construct our high tech society.

In his book The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time Karl Polanyi argues that a self-regulating market economy requires “that human beings and the natural environment be turned into pure commodities, which assures the destruction of both society and the natural environment…the definition of a commodity is something that has been produce for sale on a market…land, labor, and money are fictitious commodities because they were not produced for sale on a market…Modern economics starts by pretending that these fictitious commodities will behave in the same way as real commodities…economic theorizing is based on a lie, and this lie places human society at risk.”

Meaningless word salad. Are you trying to make some sort of point or are you just vomiting on your keyboard?
 

Chris_in_Orbit

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
504
MBTI Type
ESTJ
What would happen if the oil well blew? Are we prepared for that eventuality? How would it impact the livelihood of the people who live here? Do we have a reserve of money for such an event?
Maybe we should invest in other technology, since it appears that the one we are currently invested in is harmful to the environment, and will become obsolete, and creates social upheaval, both domestic and abroad.
What if BP asked those questions instead of going for maximum short-term profit? that is what I'm talking about. IS that not a failing of human nature? Is green/covetousness not a failing when one sees what it untimately can lead to, in this case, natural disaster?

I disagree with you for the most part. Certainly a business should consider technologies that will make them the most profit in the long run (like ones that would prevent natural disasters that would kill their business.)

But no, I don't think businesses are responsible for the "social upheaval" you are talking about.

A business produces a product. People decide if they are going to buy it or not.

If there is any sort of human failing, it is that people expect businesses to be responsible for themselves and for their customers. Or that they don't educate themselves before feeding money to a fire.
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
I agree, a species that doesn't adapt will go extinct.

People who don't adapt will be left by the curb. That's part of evolution. I don't think humans as a species are in danger. Just the people who can't adapt. Do you expect progress to happen in inches so everyone can keep up?

In a democracy such as ours (America) the citizens can prevent required actions because they cannot comprehend the dangers that exist. Our whole civilization and perhaps our species are dependent upon a sophisticated population because technology has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people.
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
He's just a social scientist. Pay him no mind.

Therein is a perfect example of our problem. In a democracy, when the vast majority are unable to think criticallly and to make good judgments, there is little hope that we can survive. Uncritcal humans are either staring blankly into the distance or stampeding.
 

Resonance

Energizer Bunny
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
740
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
6w5
Therein is a perfect example of our problem. In a democracy, when the vast majority are unable to think criticallly and to make good judgments, there is little hope that we can survive. Uncritcal humans are either staring blankly into the distance or stampeding.

I think you're confused about which of us are failing to think critically, here.

We've come this far with a majority of sheeple; how does 'little hope that we can survive' follow from that?
 

Stevo

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Therein is a perfect example of our problem. In a democracy, when the vast majority are unable to think criticallly and to make good judgments, there is little hope that we can survive. Uncritcal humans are either staring blankly into the distance or stampeding.

That is a valid point, however, I am still curious how this relates back to your apparently meaningless and unnecessary jabs at "Natural Science", which has nothing to do with how most people make judgements and decisions.
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
That is a valid point, however, I am still curious how this relates back to your apparently meaningless and unnecessary jabs at "Natural Science", which has nothing to do with how most people make judgements and decisions.

The fault does not lie within the science but only within the naiveté of the individual who fails to comprehend the limitations of the science and the dimensions of the self and the world.
 

MoneyTick

New member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
252
MBTI Type
ENTJ
In a democracy such as ours (America) the citizens can prevent required actions because they cannot comprehend the dangers that exist. Our whole civilization and perhaps our species are dependent upon a sophisticated population because technology has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people.


THANK YOU!!!!! I thought I was alone here. Because there are two modes of living: the truth, and what you believe.

Take for example, the healthcare bill.

The TRUTH is:

There exists factual data and evidence pointing that the health care bill is an economicaly detrimental sanction, requiring billions of dollars (from your tax tab), and will impede the progression of our exodus from this recession.

Employers will have do deduct 5-16% of their employees paychecks ON TOP OF ALL THE OTHER TAXES, as an obligation for obamacare. THEN -- THE EMPLOYERS (JUST LIKE FICA/SS TAX) MUST MATCH THAT DEDUCTED AMOUNT AND PAY IT FROM THEIR OWN POCKETS, APART FROM THE ALREADY DEDUCTED EMPLOYEE AMMOUNT. HENCE "DOUBLE TAXATION" - THE EMPLOYEE GETS FREE HEALTH INSURANCE, BUT GETS AN 15% "HEALTH INSURANCE" DEDUCTION JAMMED UP HIS ASS AND THE EMPLOYER GET'S FUCKED FROM BEHIND AS WELL.

THEN -- EMPLOYERS CAN'T AFFORD THE SOCIALIST PURLOINS SO THEY LAY OFF WORKERS.

UNEMPLOYMENT GOES UP, THE ECONOMY TAKES A PURGING DIVE, AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST ......

PEOPLE COMPLAIN! AND WE DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HERE? SOMEONE HELP - I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL GOOD

OOPS!

OBAMA fulfills the socialist maxim of "GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT, AND THEY WILL LOVE YOU FOR IT"

ASPECT #2:
WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE:

We love obama now, we love free health insurance. IT'S SWEET CANDY, for THE ADULT/CHILDISH population of this country, THAT BRINGS DISEASE AND CANCER IN THE END.

We'll spend our saving's on nice goodies today -- lets get free health insurance because the hospitals are too expensive (because of illegal immigrants not paying a dime) --- and tomorrow can worry about tomorrow.

Tomorrow, starts off with a nice cup of coffee - opening the morning mail with that nice "UNEMPLOYMENT CHECK" and an big red arrow pointing down on the NASDAQ.

TURNS OUT, what you believe may not always be right.

Opps

So if someone says "I disagree with you on the healthcare bill, i want free health insurance"

I WOULD SAY: "Thank you for being stupid, because the more stupid people we have - the less "intelligent" intellectuals i have to compete with. The less of that, the larger my bank figure grows from the plentifull harvest in sowing, retailing, selling, and convincing, converting, profiting of stupid minds"

BOTTOMLINE

"Where a Government Shall Prevail Over Humanity, Humanity Shall Fall Before It...

Before Us Lies America, unmoving and desolate, Broken In the Name Of Social Welfare"

Disagree with the facts at your own discretion.
 

ThinkingAboutIt

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
264
MBTI Type
INTP
America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status. The question becomes: "can a democracy survive in a world where technology is driving change at a very rapid pace?” Darwin informs us that if a species cannot adapt to its changing environment that species will soon become toast.

Ummm...The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a republic - a federal constitutional republic to be exact - a HUGE difference from a democracy.

I think it is absurd to call America a 'species' since America is the 'melting pot of the world'.

I think it is also absurd to ask if America can "survive in a world where technology is driving change at a very rapid pace?" since America is and has been driving that pace for over a century.

"an authoritarian system can better adapt to a rapidly changing world."

That made me laugh. Those poor people can't even search freely online yet they are better able to adapt? lol
 
Top