The Second Apocalypse

Miscellaneous Chatter => The Forum of Interesting Things => Topic started by: Madness on February 21, 2018, 02:46:51 am

Title: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Madness on February 21, 2018, 02:46:51 am
Link (https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Intellectual-War-on/242538?key=VUoegFJonv4-gPdfGkNzj5JCle183igojXR00dEZ3a-K9X9t7CA8mtDo8K8vRcq4RlZLNE83ZGFLWmd1alAtTmRRVElPV3RrRkdFOU1acmFOcE5IbDFxWmV1cw).
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 21, 2018, 09:09:50 am
First sentence:

"The waging of a 'war on science' by right-wing know-nothings....."

Thanks for the link, Madness.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Madness on February 21, 2018, 10:33:16 am
Fortunately for me I don't have to condone an author's use of rhetoric to read something.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 21, 2018, 12:08:20 pm
More from/on Stephen Pinker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/11/06/arguing-for-infanticide/b02d23b0-b521-4abe-8b02-c626a1b6b4e0/?utm_term=.a98ab58a3a25
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 21, 2018, 12:48:52 pm
The irony being that an article that boils down to the essential truth of human bias is, of course, slathered with bias.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Madness on February 21, 2018, 01:15:56 pm
The irony being that an article that boils down to the essential truth of human bias is, of course, slathered with bias.

;)

More from Stephen Pinker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/11/06/arguing-for-infanticide/b02d23b0-b521-4abe-8b02-c626a1b6b4e0/?utm_term=.a98ab58a3a25

You mean, more from Kelly?
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 21, 2018, 03:36:42 pm
More from Stephen Pinker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/11/06/arguing-for-infanticide/b02d23b0-b521-4abe-8b02-c626a1b6b4e0/?utm_term=.a98ab58a3a25

You mean, more from Kelly?
Kelly includes direct quotes from Pinker, but point taken....how about this formulation:

"Here's a perspective on Pinker's views."
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 21, 2018, 05:01:52 pm
More from Stephen Pinker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/11/06/arguing-for-infanticide/b02d23b0-b521-4abe-8b02-c626a1b6b4e0/?utm_term=.a98ab58a3a25

You mean, more from Kelly?
Kelly includes direct quotes from Pinker, but point taken....how about this formulation:

"Here's a perspective on Pinker's views."
Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 21, 2018, 06:47:56 pm
Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

That sure is a hot take that requires a great deal of operationalizing definitions to even begin to possibly be deconstructed.

Hard to imagine such a thing being so cut and dry.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 21, 2018, 07:02:38 pm
Some interesting theories about the ascendancy of mankind being attributed to early humans with social handicaps - OCD, Asperger, anxiety, etc. The idea being that those who were making fire, tools, traps, early science, were the marginalized antisocials who couldn't stand the idiot chiefs dancing around the fire. Even today, and throughout history, there are lots of examples of imperfect individuals making the highest contributions to science at large.

There's also a lot of danger trying to weed out seemingly useless genetic combinations from the gene pool. A more obvious example being someone heterozygous for sickle cell is rendered immune to malaria, while homozygous has deadly sickle cell anemia.

It is, unfortunately, rather difficult to predict what genes serve no purpose.

Though we'd probably need a populations of a several million and entire planets to do it on, studying the effects of completely removing specific things from the genetic pool and watching how it turns out over a few dozens generations would probably yield truly fascinating results.

Maybe until that's possible, a subclass of 'not humans' can be kept around with all of evolution's genetic baggage in case of emergency, and the rest of 'true humanity' can be freed from the bondage of nature. 
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 21, 2018, 09:44:33 pm
Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

That sure is a hot take that requires a great deal of operationalizing definitions to even begin to possibly be deconstructed.

Hard to imagine such a thing being so cut and dry.
I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.
Quote
A more obvious example being someone heterozygous for sickle cell is rendered immune to malaria, while homozygous has deadly sickle cell anemia.
They tend to die before they grow up.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Madness on February 22, 2018, 01:55:17 am
Frustrating when article content is only available free for a limited period of time.

Kelly includes direct quotes from Pinker, but point taken....how about this formulation:

"Here's a perspective on Pinker's views."

Sure. I found both articles (and I was going to reread both but sadly the original link is now unavailable) to be excessively hyperbolic.

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

That sure is a hot take that requires a great deal of operationalizing definitions to even begin to possibly be deconstructed.

Hard to imagine such a thing being so cut and dry.

It would be nice to see some argumentative support for tleilaxu's claim.

And I'd probably amend any argument to include that tleilaxu, as the person arguing for such extremity, be the one to euthanize them.

...

It is, unfortunately, rather difficult to predict what genes serve no purpose.

Mutations with some advantage in their "birth ecology" survive to reproduce.

I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.

As I said, sure, so long as you kill them. It would take a whole another thread to discuss abortion, methinks.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 22, 2018, 03:54:52 am
Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.
I've gotta say, if there were ever a post that needed to be moved to the "Building Better Communities" thread, this is it.

I mean, that's what eugenics and the elimination of defectives is all about, right? Building Better Communities?
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 22, 2018, 11:16:09 am
I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.

First you have to define the definition of children.  At what point are they no longer a child?

Second, since you now brought in the issue of conscious, we need to tightly define it and be able to measure it.

Third, there are people, like, Steven Hawking, who are wheelchair bound and do a fair amount of drooling (not only, of course) but are highly useful to society.  How do we know when someone isn't (won't be)?  See the second point here also.

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.
I've gotta say, if there were ever a post that needed to be moved to the "Building Better Communities" thread, this is it.

I mean, that's what eugenics and the elimination of defectives is all about, right? Building Better Communities?

I think we are doing ok.  Was his response gruff?  Possibly.  Uncouth?  Also, possibly.  Uncivil?  No, I don't think that is the case.

[EDIT Madness: Fixed quote tag.]
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 22, 2018, 01:14:52 pm
BFK, you cry foul more than any kid on the playground. If you can't participate, please don't. I grow tired of babysitting you.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 22, 2018, 02:25:47 pm
BFK, you cry foul more than any kid on the playground. If you can't participate, please don't. I grow tired of babysitting you.
Wow, Wilshire. You completely missed the point of my post. Did I refer Tleilaxu's post for moderation? No. I was making a rather labored joke (of sorts) concerning the goal of pro-eugenics advocates to literally attempt to build better communities.

To repeat, I didn't refer the post for moderation.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 22, 2018, 02:30:20 pm
BFK, you cry foul more than any kid on the playground. If you can't participate, please don't. I grow tired of babysitting you.
Wow, Wilshire. You completely missed the point of my post. Did I refer Tleilaxu's post for moderation? No. I was making a rather labored joke (of sorts) concerning the goal of pro-eugenics advocates to literally attempt to build better communities.

To repeat, I didn't refer the post for moderation.
Ha ha.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 22, 2018, 02:36:09 pm
Glad you finally got it.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 22, 2018, 03:26:26 pm
Let's move on, no one did anything wrong.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 22, 2018, 04:39:42 pm
Let's move on, no one did anything wrong.
And the moral of this story, children, is: No joking about the Building Better Communities thread! Not even pointedly ironic jokes!!
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 22, 2018, 06:22:16 pm
And the moral of this story, children, is: No joking about the Building Better Communities thread! Not even pointedly ironic jokes!!

Meta-humor too meta.

On the actual issue that got us here, there is always the issue of human truths that turn out to only be true if we assume, at minimum, a several not-so-cut-and-dry "facts" and extrapolate from there.  Turns out when we begin in different places, we end up to further different ones...
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 22, 2018, 08:51:02 pm
And I'd probably amend any argument to include that tleilaxu, as the person arguing for such extremity, be the one to euthanize them.
I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.

As I said, sure, so long as you kill them. It would take a whole another thread to discuss abortion, methinks.
I'd have no problems with that to be honest.

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.
I've gotta say, if there were ever a post that needed to be moved to the "Building Better Communities" thread, this is it.

I mean, that's what eugenics and the elimination of defectives is all about, right? Building Better Communities?
Nah, Eugenics is very different. It's a historic pseudoscience about eliminating """inferior""" genes through selective breeding/breeding restriction. I'm mostly talking about people who will probably never reproduce anyway, e.g. because they're wheelchair bound and brain damaged. Take the example with sickle cell kids. There's a pragmatic/moral argument here whether you kill them early or let them eventually die painfully of an airway infection (although in the West that disease can be treated somewhat decently IIRC).

I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.

First you have to define the definition of children.  At what point are they no longer a child?

Second, since you now brought in the issue of conscious, we need to tightly define it and be able to measure it.
Idk, we could set an initial cut-off at 6 months and go from there.

Quote
Third, there are people, like, Steven Hawking, who are wheelchair bound and do a fair amount of drooling (not only, of course) but are highly useful to society.  How do we know when someone isn't (won't be)?  See the second point here also.
That's the thing though. Stephen Hawking is not mentally retarded, and he wasn't born in a wheelchair.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 22, 2018, 09:18:09 pm
Nah, Eugenics is very different. It's a historic pseudoscience about eliminating """inferior""" genes through selective breeding/breeding restriction. I'm mostly talking about people who will probably never reproduce anyway, e.g. because they're wheelchair bound and brain damaged. Take the example with sickle cell kids. There's a pragmatic/moral argument here whether you kill them early or let them eventually die painfully of an airway infection (although in the West that disease can be treated somewhat decently IIRC).

Right, it can be treated, so where do we grant a "right to life" or deny it?  What measure do we use for "treat-ability?"  In the same manner, where do we delineate consciousness?  Also, what if the outcome is not 100% guaranteed?  What arbitrary percent do we declare the cut off?

What are the moral (and ethical) implications of what we choose also and how do we navigate them?  It really is a quagmire...

Idk, we could set an initial cut-off at 6 months and go from there.

OK, but an arbitrary cut off is arbitrary.  Why not 5 or 7?  You see the issue then, right?

That's the thing though. Stephen Hawking is not mentally retarded, and he wasn't born in a wheelchair.

Sure, not exactly the best example, but lets consider the future.  Plausibly there could be a genetic test, before birth, that allowed his parents too know what his ultimate fate would have been.  Do we offer then the possibility of the life he had (has) or not?

Again we can answer simply, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a complex "problem."
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 22, 2018, 09:42:39 pm
Nah, Eugenics is very different. It's a historic pseudoscience about eliminating """inferior""" genes through selective breeding/breeding restriction. I'm mostly talking about people who will probably never reproduce anyway, e.g. because they're wheelchair bound and brain damaged. Take the example with sickle cell kids. There's a pragmatic/moral argument here whether you kill them early or let them eventually die painfully of an airway infection (although in the West that disease can be treated somewhat decently IIRC).

Right, it can be treated, so where do we grant a "right to life" or deny it?  What measure do we use for "treat-ability?"  In the same manner, where do we delineate consciousness?  Also, what if the outcome is not 100% guaranteed?  What arbitrary percent do we declare the cut off?

What are the moral (and ethical) implications of what we choose also and how do we navigate them?  It really is a quagmire...
Whenever we want. You can come up with a list of diseases that severely negatively impact the lives and viability of fetuses and then let the parents decide whether they should be killed.

Quote
OK, but an arbitrary cut off is arbitrary.  Why not 5 or 7?  You see the issue then, right?
Any cut-off is arbitrary by definition. Why should abortions only be allowed in the first trimester? Why not the first trimester + 1 week?

Quote
Plausibly there could be a genetic test, before birth, that allowed his parents too know what his ultimate fate would have been.  Do we offer then the possibility of the life he had (has) or not?
Statistically speaking, your child is not going to be the next Stephen Hawking.

I think that without the shaming that comes with the "all life is sacred" attitude most people would probably be relieved if it were legal to euthanize e.g. children with cerebral palsy.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TaoHorror on February 22, 2018, 10:59:24 pm
H is correct from implementation perspective. Arbitrariness is quite the challenge to legislate; didn't seem to stop USA's forefathers, but nowadays it's tough with attempts at such getting tossed out in higher courts. You have to provide standing for the numbers you choose, they cannot be arbitrary or you enable damn near any argument against it to have legs.

That said, we are moving in TL's direction as a society. They test fetuses for abnormalities and parents are increasing their decisions to abort based on those tests. There are a few "hero" stories of parents swearing their child with cerebral palsy saved their lives by the incredible continuing effort in keeping their child alive, but a large majority break ( and quick ) and send their child to an institution. The rubber meets the road with parents who want to keep the child - don't think you can deny them even on grounds if they cannot prove their ability to support the child ( i.e. they don't have the financial resources themselves and would be relying on help from society, welfare, etc ). We're inching our way closer to allowing parents to euthanize their newborn if perceived "defective". It's alarming to many people's sensibilities now, but if you told a 19th century people that in 100 years the United States would be performing over 1 million abortions a year, they would collectively faint. I am of the mind that the "special sauce" of evolution is mutation/randomness/error/etc, as from that comes innovation/creativity/progress, so I'm on the fence on this issue.

Quote
Asperger

By the way, no more "Aspergers" or "PDD NOS", etc - it's all ASD now ( Autism Spectrum Disorder ); doesn't matter, just letting you know.

Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 22, 2018, 11:35:57 pm
I am of the mind that the "special sauce" of evolution is mutation/randomness/error/etc, as from that comes innovation/creativity/progress, so I'm on the fence on this issue.
Keep in mind the probability that you will procreate if you have a mutation/congenital error that leaves you mentally or physically handicapped, such as cerebral palsy.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TaoHorror on February 22, 2018, 11:38:57 pm
I am of the mind that the "special sauce" of evolution is mutation/randomness/error/etc, as from that comes innovation/creativity/progress, so I'm on the fence on this issue.
Keep in mind the probability that you will procreate if you have a mutation/congenital error that leaves you mentally or physically handicapped, such as cerebral palsy.

Agreed, but could be in the future treatments render such individuals with greater capacity to contribute and one of them concocts a worm hole for interstellar travel ... can't source it, but I believe we've come up with useful innovations by developing aides for disabled people.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 23, 2018, 11:44:25 am
Whenever we want. You can come up with a list of diseases that severely negatively impact the lives and viability of fetuses and then let the parents decide whether they should be killed.

OK, if we go with "whenever we want" how do we when someone has (perhaps) gone too far?  So, if the test says, "will be blind" is that "severe?"  What about deaf, "severe?"  Who gets to decide that?  And why?

Claiming moral certainty doesn't assure moral certainty is what I am trying to convey to you.

If the bar is set to "able to procreate" what should happen if some test said the child would be born sterile?  If it's "likely to procreate" how do we rate the statistical probability and what should the threshold be?
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 27, 2018, 01:15:42 pm
Not sure why ability to procreate is in here.

Honestly I think most leaps forward in scientific knowlege happened to be with children before they were adults - by today's standards at least.

Why not just start killing everyone that hasn't achieved Newton level of scientific achievement by the age of 16ish? That would solve a lot more issues than pretending like getting rid of a few kids who can't think good would solve anything.

Far, far more fully functioning adults that are more worthless than their genetically encumbered counterparts.

Maybe give everyone a flat 20 years. If you haven't done anything by then, its off to the oven with you. We don't need worker drones - we have actual drones for that. Too many worthless people taking up space, wasting valuable resources, doing things that don't matter.

Anyone who finds joy in doing any thing other than working should be killed too. Reading SFF? Dead. Playing video games? Dead. Gardening? Dead. In fact, why not just off everyone that not contributing to the technological singularity - let our AI offspring rule the galaxy and do the universe a favour and off ourselves in the process.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 27, 2018, 01:24:31 pm
This thread needs a new name.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TaoHorror on February 27, 2018, 01:59:22 pm
Anyone who finds joy in doing any thing other than working should be killed too. Reading SFF? Dead. Playing video games? Dead. Gardening? Dead. In fact, why not just off everyone that not contributing to the technological singularity - let our AI offspring rule the galaxy and do the universe a favour and off ourselves in the process.

To clarify, you're not including board gaming and miniatures collecting, of course - the contribution of these activities to humanity and the cosmos is an immeasurable. Just making sure before you spy yours truly for this "efficiency" endeavor.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 27, 2018, 02:02:37 pm
To the Gallows!

Really anyone and anything that's not contributing to the thing that I think is most important - to the ovens! And of course, everyone else should have that right to designate their own goals and their own oven fuel.

Without sarcasm, I'm sure that the only conclusion to the path of 'hey lets kill a certain group of people' ends with everyone being dead - or at the very least, genocide and holocaust. Once you label a group as subhuman, you can easily put anyone else into that group as well. It becomes trivial to use the designation as a permanent and ultimate scapegoat. We've literally already seen it happen many times in human history. We even have a bunch of neat names for it: apartheid, holocaust, slavery, genocide, etc. etc.

"But this time, we'll just do it to this ONE group, what could possibly go wrong." - humans are stupid.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 27, 2018, 06:15:02 pm
Wilshire follows my point in illustrating that if we declare that we should only offer the opportunity for life based off certain objective criteria, how do we decide which?  And to what degrees?

Also, how to we unsure we don't slip into subjective criteria?

And who gets to decide?
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 27, 2018, 07:15:01 pm
For additional discussion: I don't think all life is sacred. I just don't think humans are good at deciding how to draw that line, nor do I think that doing so would be helpful, as shown above. Not to be confused with the idea that humans are sacred either - in fact I think we should do a far better job controlling our population and managing our waste so as to stop the genocide of every other lifeform on the planet (as it'll lead to our own downfall, but whatever, that's perhaps another issue).

What I wanted to get to was, rather than killing off people who don't look the way we want them too, I'm much more for the manipulation of genetics to create humans that are 'better'. Rather than letting sloppy evolution drive us into the idiot corner, I think we need to take control of it. Stop letting people decide how many babies they make, and who they make them with.

Much better, though the outcome risks being similar to the above, to let let people augment their offspring as they choose. Better still to limit the number of new humans each human gets to make at the same time.

I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 28, 2018, 01:22:41 am
For additional discussion: I don't think all life is sacred. I just don't think humans are good at deciding how to draw that line, nor do I think that doing so would be helpful, as shown above. Not to be confused with the idea that humans are sacred either - in fact I think we should do a far better job controlling our population and managing our waste so as to stop the genocide of every other lifeform on the planet (as it'll lead to our own downfall, but whatever, that's perhaps another issue).

What I wanted to get to was, rather than killing off people who don't look the way we want them too, I'm much more for the manipulation of genetics to create humans that are 'better'. Rather than letting sloppy evolution drive us into the idiot corner, I think we need to take control of it. Stop letting people decide how many babies they make, and who they make them with.

Much better, though the outcome risks being similar to the above, to let let people augment their offspring as they choose. Better still to limit the number of new humans each human gets to make at the same time.

I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.
Laughed a little bit at how your posts started out (what I presume to be) exaggerating my posts into eugenics territory, and then turned into actually advocating for eugenics themselves  8)

Wilshire follows my point in illustrating that if we declare that we should only offer the opportunity for life based off certain objective criteria, how do we decide which?  And to what degrees?

Also, how to we unsure we don't slip into subjective criteria?

And who gets to decide?
We decide based on prior knowledge about life quality, life potential, potential for suffering etc.
All criteria are ultimately subjective.
Parents in dialogue with doctors should decide, or vice versa, e.g. a doctor might recommend euthanasia if a child e.g. is found to have mutations leading to severe disease and early death.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 28, 2018, 11:58:15 am
I really wasn't trying to poke fun at you lol.
Euthanizing groups just doesn't work, humans can't handle it. Maybe someday in the future, but right now definitely not.

Eugenics, of the scientific Gene manipulation kind, seems like a much better option.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Madness on February 28, 2018, 01:41:43 pm
I'd have no problems with that to be honest.

Easier said than done, perhaps.

That's the thing though. Stephen Hawking is not mentally retarded, and he wasn't born in a wheelchair.

I'm sure I'm going to be further unimpressed moving forward in this thread by the way you write but could you please tone it down?

Whenever we want. You can come up with a list of diseases that severely negatively impact the lives and viability of fetuses and then let the parents decide whether they should be killed.

We already do this to some extent (given parental income) with genomic sequencing (if I have that right).

Any cut-off is arbitrary by definition. Why should abortions only be allowed in the first trimester? Why not the first trimester + 1 week?

I honestly don't have a stance on this conversation but a thought about these questions: many people find it visually disturbing and some find it socially abhorrent. A pregnant woman often is showing in that period and then has to explain to her peers (who, let's just say, can have a very wide range of responses to this topic) what happened to the baby.

This thread needs a new name.

This is fine for now, I think. Ease facilitates conversation and at this point everyone partaking knows where to find this thread - a new title would only serve to direct newcomers. Though, you're largely the "first cause" for this tangential conversation. Any ideas what to call the newly sorted thread?

in fact I think we should do a far better job controlling our population and managing our waste so as to stop the genocide of every other lifeform on the planet (as it'll lead to our own downfall, but whatever, that's perhaps another issue).

It's only the biosphere that enables our survival ;).

We decide based on prior knowledge about life quality, life potential, potential for suffering etc.
All criteria are ultimately subjective.
Parents in dialogue with doctors should decide, or vice versa, e.g. a doctor might recommend euthanasia if a child e.g. is found to have mutations leading to severe disease and early death.

I think a problem for you in advocating your position here, here or anywhere, is that the actual starting conditions aren't this conversation - you'd spend your whole life consolidating this position (which is what H and Wilshire are asking of you) and then facilitating the social conditions to enact it in the world as it is (fighting the same fight that the "pro-choice" camp has already been fighting for years) but also people would vehemently oppose you with much less grace than is shown here.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 28, 2018, 04:20:54 pm
This thread needs a new name.

This is fine for now, I think. Ease facilitates conversation and at this point everyone partaking knows where to find this thread - a new title would only serve to direct newcomers. Though, you're largely the "first cause" for this tangential conversation. Any ideas what to call the newly sorted thread?

Try "The euthanization of defectives, a discussion".
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 28, 2018, 04:41:12 pm
What about:
"How to Start a Modern Dunyain Cult: Step One - Drowning in Unwatered Wine"?

Of course, it'd be the first in a series. I imagine step two would be something like: how to convince a bunch of people that something imaginary is real, step three: how to have a migration to some far off mountain, step four: how to create a secret compound.

Gets more complicated from there - sending out christ-figures to make new world religions to condition the ground for the eventual return, create the literal anti-christ and send him off into the world, unite the world against a shared foe, purposefully create a fake worldwide apocalypse, accidentally make it a real one (almost), repeat the last few steps until the world ends.

We could call the whole series: "TSA IRL LOL"... though "Apocalypse For Dummies" has a catchier ring to it.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: BeardFisher-King on February 28, 2018, 05:05:38 pm
Sounds like a lot of work, Wilshire. A lot of work.....

But TaoHorror might be on board. He's seriously (?) interested in creating a new religion.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 28, 2018, 05:11:52 pm
I imagine step two would be something like: how to convince a bunch of people that something imaginary is real

It's not imaginary any more if we make it real.

step three: how to have a migration to some far off mountain, step four: how to create a secret compound.

First rule of the secret compound: we don't discuss the secret compound...
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 28, 2018, 05:49:42 pm
I'm sure I'm going to be further unimpressed moving forward in this thread by the way you write but could you please tone it down?
How am I supposed to know that retard and wheelchair are no longer acceptable words? I'll use "handicapped" if you inst.

Quote
We already do this to some extent (given parental income) with genomic sequencing (if I have that right).
Exactly.

Quote
I honestly don't have a stance on this conversation but a thought about these questions: many people find it visually disturbing and some find it socially abhorrent. A pregnant woman often is showing in that period and then has to explain to her peers (who, let's just say, can have a very wide range of responses to this topic) what happened to the baby.
Hence why I mentioned the thing about shaming earlier.

Quote
I think a problem for you in advocating your position here, here or anywhere, is that the actual starting conditions aren't this conversation - you'd spend your whole life consolidating this position (which is what H and Wilshire are asking of you) and then facilitating the social conditions to enact it in the world as it is (fighting the same fight that the "pro-choice" camp has already been fighting for years) but also people would vehemently oppose you with much less grace than is shown here.
Sure, I don't actually believe this will ever be implemented in the West, for the same reason people are morally opposed to genetic modification. Countries with less restrictive views on human nature like China will march ahead, and in North Korea they already kill all disabled babies AFAIK, although North Korea is definitely not a good role-model.

Quote
I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.
If you think about it, these are actually not separate things ontologically speaking.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 28, 2018, 07:30:35 pm
Quote
I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.

If you think about it, these are actually not separate things ontologically speaking.

I'm not sure I follow. Which thing's aren't separate?

Evolution vs. Eugenics? I guess yy strict definition they are pretty much same, but by common understanding and implication they really aren't. Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction, eugenics is evolution with a goal. So yeah, while the scientific term evolution (change of allele frequency over time) necessarily covers eugenics, its misguided (mislead) to suggest that they are the same thing.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 28, 2018, 07:59:36 pm
Quote
I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.

If you think about it, these are actually not separate things ontologically speaking.

I'm not sure I follow. Which thing's aren't separate?

Evolution vs. Eugenics? I guess yy strict definition they are pretty much same, but by common understanding and implication they really aren't. Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction, eugenics is evolution with a goal. So yeah, while the scientific term evolution (change of allele frequency over time) necessarily covers eugenics, its misguided (mislead) to suggest that they are the same thing.
Think: "What am I?" and then reflect over this again.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 28, 2018, 08:03:40 pm
A collection of tightly bound quarks and gluons popping in and out of existence?
I'm not sure rhetorical questions are going to help me out here, but if you can't articulate what you're getting at,  I won't lose sleep :) .
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 28, 2018, 08:05:11 pm
A collection of tightly bound quarks and gluons popping in and out of existence?
I'm not sure rhetorical questions are going to help me out here, but if you can't articulate what you're getting at,  I won't lose sleep :) .
How do those quarks and gluons interact?
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 28, 2018, 08:06:44 pm
Magically?
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 28, 2018, 08:08:36 pm
Magically?
Stochastic
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on February 28, 2018, 08:16:48 pm
Hurray!
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 28, 2018, 09:57:16 pm
Hurray!
Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction...
As Above, So Below
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on February 28, 2018, 10:00:35 pm
Hurray!
Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction...
As Above, So Below

I don't buy that at all.  Evolution cannot be random, everything has a cause and effect.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 28, 2018, 10:17:15 pm
Hurray!
Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction...
As Above, So Below

I don't buy that at all.  Evolution cannot be random, everything has a cause and effect.
Depends on what you mean. We wouldn't say that breeding horses is random, because we select the horses containing the traits we want to breed, but overall evolution is very random, i.e. mutations arise randomly, individuals mate randomly, chromosomes segregate randomly, the number of offspring can be random etc. At the molecular/atomic level, things are stochastic, so ultimately evolution is intrinsically stochastic as well, it's just on a different scale.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TaoHorror on February 28, 2018, 11:14:56 pm
I agree with Wilshire - evolution is the mother of all fuckers - to "follow" it blindly is self-destructive at best, globally destructive at worst.

I agree with TL - evolution's greatest contribution is randomness/error.

To synthesize, everyone having babies yields the differentiation needed to yield the uber menches. But, once you make it out of infancy, time to learn to override your instinct/programming and forge your own way. Case in point, evolution hasn't caught up with modernity - sugars and fats were awesome for 2 million+ years and now they're a poison, but we still love them. If not for non-consensual relations, we would've died out by now - but now it's correctly understood to be a horrible violent crime. Any ideology/theology based on "the validity" of evolution has led to disaster.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: themerchant on March 01, 2018, 12:17:26 am
" If not for non-consensual relations, we would've died out by now "

I'm ignorant of this concept. Any reading guide on it?
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TaoHorror on March 01, 2018, 01:34:48 am
" If not for non-consensual relations, we would've died out by now "

I'm ignorant of this concept. Any reading guide on it?

I read it years ago - but now Googling it, appears could well be bullshit ( apologies ). Regardless ( ignore the above point for now ), our sex drive is far out of sync with what we currently need to continue the species. At a very young age, testosterone kicks in and our instinct/hormones/psychological drive is to procreate as much as possible - the species is at a population level where acting on that drive without consideration or restraint is damaging to yourself as well as the world. There are all kinds of real world risks to frequent random procreation ( disease, unwanted pregnancies, legal and financial ramifications ), so it's in our collective interests to not "fulfill" that evolutionary drive.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on March 01, 2018, 11:35:35 am
Depends on what you mean. We wouldn't say that breeding horses is random, because we select the horses containing the traits we want to breed, but overall evolution is very random, i.e. mutations arise randomly, individuals mate randomly, chromosomes segregate randomly, the number of offspring can be random etc. At the molecular/atomic level, things are stochastic, so ultimately evolution is intrinsically stochastic as well, it's just on a different scale.

Everything still follows the chain of cause and effect.  In no way do mutations happen for "no reason."  Something caused the change.  It might seem random to us, because the trends are slight, the causes disparate and hard to directly identify, but they absolute exist, as they must.  Nothing happens just because, there is a cause for it all.  So, number of offspring is random?  No, certainly determined by a number of conditions.  Mating?  Surely not random, selected by a number of factors, some minor or seemingly "chancy" but still no less determinate if you were able to enumerate them.

Sure, the best way we have to model the interactions of atoms is through probability, but that doesn't mean things aren't following cause and effect, just we aren't able to identify and model such interactions.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on March 01, 2018, 01:23:19 pm
Hurray!
Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction...
As Above, So Below

I don't buy that at all.  Evolution cannot be random, everything has a cause and effect.
Depends on what you mean. We wouldn't say that breeding horses is random, because we select the horses containing the traits we want to breed, but overall evolution is very random, i.e. mutations arise randomly, individuals mate randomly, chromosomes segregate randomly, the number of offspring can be random etc. At the molecular/atomic level, things are stochastic, so ultimately evolution is intrinsically stochastic as well, it's just on a different scale.
Which is what I was saying. Evoltuion is random, so lets not pray to the random-number-generator-gods that thigns work out. Lets direct it, via animal husbandry/eugenics, which we've been doing for thousands of years, except with people rather than livestock. :)

Depends on what you mean. We wouldn't say that breeding horses is random, because we select the horses containing the traits we want to breed, but overall evolution is very random, i.e. mutations arise randomly, individuals mate randomly, chromosomes segregate randomly, the number of offspring can be random etc. At the molecular/atomic level, things are stochastic, so ultimately evolution is intrinsically stochastic as well, it's just on a different scale.

Everything still follows the chain of cause and effect.  In no way do mutations happen for "no reason."  Something caused the change.  It might seem random to us, because the trends are slight, the causes disparate and hard to directly identify, but they absolute exist, as they must.  Nothing happens just because, there is a cause for it all.  So, number of offspring is random?  No, certainly determined by a number of conditions.  Mating?  Surely not random, selected by a number of factors, some minor or seemingly "chancy" but still no less determinate if you were able to enumerate them.

Sure, the best way we have to model the interactions of atoms is through probability, but that doesn't mean things aren't following cause and effect, just we aren't able to identify and model such interactions.

I don't think I'm following that line of reasoning.
Take mutations: gene transcription happens millions and millions of times, sometimes a gene gets transcribed improperly and you make something different. If the gene leads to increased survival, then it gets passed on.
Mate selection is a further extension of this. While it might have a whole host of factors that don't seem random, they're based on the person's genes and partner suitability, which was ultimetly determined randomly.

If we could actually see the tools we're using to select partners - hormone smells, face symmetry, etc. - I'd maybe consider it was random, but the fact that we're blind to almost all of it seems to suggest otherwise. On top of that, if it wasn't random, we'd have a whole lot fewer bad genes wandering around making life miserable. But since we can't see, and we let disease rule us, I'd say there's little that shows its not completely random.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on March 01, 2018, 02:18:15 pm
I don't think I'm following that line of reasoning.
Take mutations: gene transcription happens millions and millions of times, sometimes a gene gets transcribed improperly and you make something different. If the gene leads to increased survival, then it gets passed on.
Mate selection is a further extension of this. While it might have a whole host of factors that don't seem random, they're based on the person's genes and partner suitability, which was ultimetly determined randomly.

If we could actually see the tools we're using to select partners - hormone smells, face symmetry, etc. - I'd maybe consider it was random, but the fact that we're blind to almost all of it seems to suggest otherwise. On top of that, if it wasn't random, we'd have a whole lot fewer bad genes wandering around making life miserable. But since we can't see, and we let disease rule us, I'd say there's little that shows its not completely random.

Random: lack of pattern or predictability in events.

We do know why mutations happen though.  It isn't as if there is just some cosmic random number generator that determines if a gene will replicate properly or not.  If it fails, it fails for a reason.  Lets call it, for simplicity's sake, fatigue, or even effect of some radiation (i.e. cosmic rays), or compositional weakness.  In any case, there is predictability, if we could enumerate every possible cause.  To quote Spinoza "Nothing in Nature is random. … A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge."

The question of, say, mate selection sure appears random, because there is a huge range of possible outcomes if we select two people "randomly" out of the entire population of the earth (so, lets say 3 billion males combined with 3 billion females, just for an examples sake yields something like 4.4999999985E+18 possible combinations).  Yet, of course, there is only a far, far smaller actual set of real combinations that could even really happen, because events don't just happen, they are caused by something.  So, someone in, say, having never left rural Africa has almost essentially zero (or functionally zero) chance to mate with someone in, say, the dense jungle of South America because they will never, ever, even possibly interact, unless they specially left the area, which would then change the entire scope of the calculation and in doing so, prove that there is some element of determinism based on causes having effects.

You could only possibly mate with someone you actually encounter.  The people you encounter are not random, they are wherever they are for some reason or other.  And you interact with them for some reason or other.  You decide to mate with them for some reason or other.  I really don't understand how this is random, even if it is vastly complicated and incredibly hard to predict.  We simulate it with something that approaches randomness, because that is the best we can do, but that doesn't make it actually random.

Same with a computer generating "random numbers."  Even something like "GetTickCount" yields something that appears random, but really isn't.  So, there are very expensive "random number tables" one could buy, that use vastly complicated data sets (like captured cosmic radiation) but even those are determined by something, and are not truly "random."
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on March 01, 2018, 02:22:43 pm
I guess I'm not making a distinction between 'random' and 'directionless cause and effect'.
Like to me you can either talk about intelligent design, or evolution.

ID requires someone or something directing outcomes. We've been doing this for thousands of years with lifestock.
Evolution is everything else. We're talking past each other because we're using the world 'random' differently, but I think we're all talking about the same thing.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on March 01, 2018, 02:39:53 pm
I guess I'm not making a distinction between 'random' and 'directionless cause and effect'.
Like to me you can either talk about intelligent design, or evolution.

ID requires someone or something directing outcomes. We've been doing this for thousands of years with lifestock.
Evolution is everything else. We're talking past each other because we're using the world 'random' differently, but I think we're all talking about the same thing.

You know I am all about distinction in definition,  ;)

Indeed, I am not saying there has to be "intelligent design" but there is cause and effect.  Evolution has a "course" because only certain things are possible, given the chain of cause and effect, but that isn't specially designed or reaching an aim.  People do sometimes confuse "evolution" with something like, say, "progress" or mistakenly assume that evolution is a process that increases complexity or sophistication.  In reality, evolution does not favor a rise in complex organisms at all, just difference.  We favor a view though that flatters complex organisms, because we just so happen to be one.  But this is, has been, and probably always will be bacteria's (and virus' to a less extent) world, we are just living in it.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on March 01, 2018, 03:08:08 pm
We're just a means to convey bacteria from one place to another.

Oh, and water bears. The true rulers.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TaoHorror on March 01, 2018, 03:53:42 pm
I guess I'm not making a distinction between 'random' and 'directionless cause and effect'.
Like to me you can either talk about intelligent design, or evolution.

ID requires someone or something directing outcomes. We've been doing this for thousands of years with lifestock.
Evolution is everything else. We're talking past each other because we're using the world 'random' differently, but I think we're all talking about the same thing.

You know I am all about distinction in definition,  ;)

Indeed, I am not saying there has to be "intelligent design" but there is cause and effect.  Evolution has a "course" because only certain things are possible, given the chain of cause and effect, but that isn't specially designed or reaching an aim.  People do sometimes confuse "evolution" with something like, say, "progress" or mistakenly assume that evolution is a process that increases complexity or sophistication.  In reality, evolution does not favor a rise in complex organisms at all, just difference.  We favor a view though that flatters complex organisms, because we just so happen to be one.  But this is, has been, and probably always will be bacteria's (and virus' to a less extent) world, we are just living in it.

H, you detail your position very well - but I think ultimately you're talking past this discussion. An amalgam of arbitrariness can be considered random for purposes of this conversation. So we have trillions of cause/effects going on ( some independent, some not ) that allows for the meeting of 2 people. Trillions of arbitrary cause/effects yields randomness for the purpose of understanding how increasing evolutionary outcomes drives diversity and opportunities. The fact that the sub-structure(s) are "caused" doesn't disqualify as a human encountering another human "by chance" as it could well be any dependencies that drove that encounter could be buried a trillion layers deep. I know you're not saying an "intelligence" determined the encounter, but you're inadvertently arguing that may well be the case. Trillions of cause/effects do not yield pure/actual randomness by definition - but it is accurately understood as a random event because the trillions of causes are arbitrary. At some point arbitrary is indeed random.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on March 01, 2018, 05:02:07 pm
I know you're not saying an "intelligence" determined the encounter, but you're inadvertently arguing that may well be the case. Trillions of cause/effects do not yield pure/actual randomness by definition - but it is accurately understood as a random event because the trillions of causes are arbitrary. At some point arbitrary is indeed random.

Hmm, I guess that is a possible inference, since I have no idea what the initial cause, of which everything is then the derivitive effect thereof.  Intelligent or not, there still must have been Cause Zero.  And if every effect has a cause and every cause is an effect of a subsequent effect, than Cause Zero is the basis of everything.

I don't see where there is room there for any randomness.  Arbitrary is again a human code-word to denote that which we don't have a definitive explanation for.  This doesn't preclude an explanation existing.  It's just too exhaustive to find it in a sea of possible trivial factors and the added complication of the interaction being key in all of that.  But nothing is arbitrary.  If there is an action, it is for a determinate reason.  I can't think of anything happening with no cause at all.  I didn't arbitrarily meet my wife.  We were both, for different reasons, in the same place at the same time, having known someone in common that brought us both there.  It also wasn't arbitrary that we started talking, I was talking to someone else and she agreed with what I was saying and said as much.  I can't follow this idea that everything happens "randomly."  We know there are reasons why everything happens.  We can call it random if we want to concede that we can't predict it, but that is a failure of knowledge on our part, not an accurate representation of the structure of the universe (in my opinion).

We can encapsulate the idea that no human intelligence might dictate a "chance" encounter between two humans, but the fact of the matter is, the encounter was determined by some number of factors.  Just because we cannot or will not enumerate them, doesn't mean they don't exist.  Everything is happening for some reason or reasons.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TaoHorror on March 01, 2018, 05:34:12 pm
We can encapsulate the idea that no human intelligence might dictate a "chance" encounter between two humans, but the fact of the matter is, the encounter was determined by some number of factors.  Just because we cannot or will not enumerate them, doesn't mean they don't exist.  Everything is happening for some reason or reasons.

No, I conceded the point they exist. You gave an example, I'll offer one. I have several plausible paths to a destination and I take one because "I feel like it", which is to say, there wasn't much conscious deliberation of picking a path ( but yes, there are causes for me taking that path ). Another person does the same thing from somewhere else. Neither of us has any conscious knowledge of the other person's existence, none of the underlining causes of our trajectories occurred due to that other person's existence/reality/location. We cross paths and have sex in a department store's storage room. It is accurate to say we crossed paths randomly given the underlying causes that drove us to cross were independent of each other. Disconnected causes colliding can be accurately viewed as random for purposes of understanding and discussing our reality. Simply not useful to caveat discussion with "the amalgam of causes that make/move me collided with another stack of causes today, for which appears neither stack of causes had any prior connection and for which I don't understand" ... or simply/more useful, "I randomly bumped into a stranger today". I guess if you're saying we don't have Free Will, then the initial break on the white ball determined all else - regardless, it's valid to discuss the nature of evolution with terms such as random. And why dis the term arbitrary? That's a sweet spot word that clarifies your point all the more. Arbitrary simply means while events are not random, since they occurred without conscious intention/design or relevance, they are arbitrary.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on March 01, 2018, 05:46:15 pm
I don't think I'm following that line of reasoning.
Take mutations: gene transcription happens millions and millions of times, sometimes a gene gets transcribed improperly and you make something different. If the gene leads to increased survival, then it gets passed on.
Mate selection is a further extension of this. While it might have a whole host of factors that don't seem random, they're based on the person's genes and partner suitability, which was ultimetly determined randomly.

If we could actually see the tools we're using to select partners - hormone smells, face symmetry, etc. - I'd maybe consider it was random, but the fact that we're blind to almost all of it seems to suggest otherwise. On top of that, if it wasn't random, we'd have a whole lot fewer bad genes wandering around making life miserable. But since we can't see, and we let disease rule us, I'd say there's little that shows its not completely random.

Random: lack of pattern or predictability in events.

We do know why mutations happen though.  It isn't as if there is just some cosmic random number generator that determines if a gene will replicate properly or not.  If it fails, it fails for a reason.  Lets call it, for simplicity's sake, fatigue, or even effect of some radiation (i.e. cosmic rays), or compositional weakness.  In any case, there is predictability, if we could enumerate every possible cause.  To quote Spinoza "Nothing in Nature is random. … A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge."

The question of, say, mate selection sure appears random, because there is a huge range of possible outcomes if we select two people "randomly" out of the entire population of the earth (so, lets say 3 billion males combined with 3 billion females, just for an examples sake yields something like 4.4999999985E+18 possible combinations).  Yet, of course, there is only a far, far smaller actual set of real combinations that could even really happen, because events don't just happen, they are caused by something.  So, someone in, say, having never left rural Africa has almost essentially zero (or functionally zero) chance to mate with someone in, say, the dense jungle of South America because they will never, ever, even possibly interact, unless they specially left the area, which would then change the entire scope of the calculation and in doing so, prove that there is some element of determinism based on causes having effects.

You could only possibly mate with someone you actually encounter.  The people you encounter are not random, they are wherever they are for some reason or other.  And you interact with them for some reason or other.  You decide to mate with them for some reason or other.  I really don't understand how this is random, even if it is vastly complicated and incredibly hard to predict.  We simulate it with something that approaches randomness, because that is the best we can do, but that doesn't make it actually random.

Same with a computer generating "random numbers."  Even something like "GetTickCount" yields something that appears random, but really isn't.  So, there are very expensive "random number tables" one could buy, that use vastly complicated data sets (like captured cosmic radiation) but even those are determined by something, and are not truly "random."
No, this is all very wrong. Even if we could somehow measure "all causes" everything breaks down at the quantum level where things are fundamentally probabilistic. The universe is not deterministic. You can look it up on wikipedia.
Quote
To quote Spinoza "Nothing in Nature is random. … A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge."
17th century philosophers (or philosophers in general) aren't exactly authorities when it comes to matters relating to the natural world...
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on March 01, 2018, 06:22:15 pm
I'd guess applying quantum physics to the problem of determinism(?) probably takes a deeper understanding of both physics and philosophy than anyone here has the right to claim.

But using ignorance, or lack of understanding, as proof of something, is fundamentally illogical. Knowledge grows as time goes on. The nature of things do not - only how we understand them.

Human understanding of quantum physics is a joke. We can't even fit it properly into our other fundamental theories yet, and there are wildly different reasons for why we think this is. Using our (humanities) lack of understanding of quantum physics to hang an esoteric theory of causality on is ... hilarious. Like using an imaginary nail to try and hang a fake picture and complaining that its not straight.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on March 01, 2018, 06:24:14 pm
No, I conceded the point they exist. You gave an example, I'll offer one. I have several plausible paths to a destination and I take one because "I feel like it", which is to say, there wasn't much conscious deliberation of picking a path ( but yes, there are causes for me taking that path ). Another person does the same thing from somewhere else. Neither of us has any conscious knowledge of the other person's existence, none of the underlining causes of our trajectories occurred due to that other person's existence/reality/location. We cross paths and have sex in a department store's storage room. It is accurate to say we crossed paths randomly given the underlying causes that drove us to cross were independent of each other. Disconnected causes colliding can be accurately viewed as random for purposes of understanding and discussing our reality. Simply not useful to caveat discussion with "the amalgam of causes that make/move me collided with another stack of causes today, for which appears neither stack of causes had any prior connection and for which I don't understand" ... or simply/more useful, "I randomly bumped into a stranger today". I guess if you're saying we don't have Free Will, then the initial break on the white ball determined all else - regardless, it's valid to discuss the nature of evolution with terms such as random. And why dis the term arbitrary? That's a sweet spot word that clarifies your point all the more. Arbitrary simply means while events are not random, since they occurred without conscious intention/design or relevance, they are arbitrary.

Arbitrary is a fine word, but applied to something like evolution, I feel it is misplaced.  Sure, that is a "chance" encounter in your example, but there is something of a critical gap in your example.  Sure, the two people did not deliberately choose to meet, but surely, since you beleive in free will, they decided to subsequently have sex.  So from an evolutionary standpoint, there absolutely were reasons why the choose to reproduce.  Surely they did not both have sex with every person on their way from point A to point B.  There was some selection in the process.  So it wasn't purely arbitrary, even if the chance of the encounter seemingly was.

No, this is all very wrong. Even if we could somehow measure "all causes" everything breaks down at the quantum level where things are fundamentally probabilistic. The universe is not deterministic. You can look it up on wikipedia.

Is there something to definitively prove that quantum particles actually behave randomly or that our understanding can only, at best, approximate their behavior by evoking randomness?

Also, is there a way to show that quantum mechanical processes apply to macro-events?  So, is Schrödinger's cat alive or dead?


Quote
To quote Spinoza "Nothing in Nature is random. … A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge."
17th century philosophers (or philosophers in general) aren't exactly authorities when it comes to matters relating to the natural world...

Sure, but that statement is as much about knowledge as it is about the natural world.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on March 01, 2018, 07:27:47 pm
No, this is all very wrong. Even if we could somehow measure "all causes" everything breaks down at the quantum level where things are fundamentally probabilistic. The universe is not deterministic. You can look it up on wikipedia.

Is there something to definitively prove that quantum particles actually behave randomly or that our understanding can only, at best, approximate their behavior by evoking randomness?

Also, is there a way to show that quantum mechanical processes apply to macro-events?  So, is Schrödinger's cat alive or dead?


Quote
To quote Spinoza "Nothing in Nature is random. … A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge."
17th century philosophers (or philosophers in general) aren't exactly authorities when it comes to matters relating to the natural world...

Sure, but that statement is as much about knowledge as it is about the natural world.

No, this is all very wrong. Even if we could somehow measure "all causes" everything breaks down at the quantum level where things are fundamentally probabilistic. The universe is not deterministic. You can look it up on wikipedia.

Is there something to definitively prove that quantum particles actually behave randomly or that our understanding can only, at best, approximate their behavior by evoking randomness?

Also, is there a way to show that quantum mechanical processes apply to macro-events?  So, is Schrödinger's cat alive or dead?
I'm not an expert on this, but from googling around it seems consensus is relatively clear: quantum mechanics are probabilistic.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: MSJ on March 01, 2018, 07:48:18 pm
Just reading through the thread, don't have much to offer. Besides, whoever said they would kill children because what they see as a defective human being, should be strung up on a tree in front of your local courthouse. Sorry, if that's too blunt. But, I'm pissed. I see the words regard and such being thrown around, how old are you? And, if you could kill a human being because you think its defective, you should be in a mental institution. Your a soulless sack of shit. Ban me. Do whatever you want. That's downright the worst thing I've ever seen on this board and shame on the moderators who allow it to take place.

I agree that abortion is an option women should have the right to. Bit, some fucking egotistical basted saying who should live and who shouldn't....no. No one has that right. We are not gods. And, because you learned a little science at your UNI doesn't make you one. I ask, how could that be allowed to be said on this forum without any repercussions? Huh? What a fucking joke you are whoever said that. As if you're the perfect human being, you should be put down like a dog for suggesting such a thing. Fucking scientists you all got it all figured out do you?

Controlled mating sonwe can evolve better? Nah, ill stick with love. That's what makes a family and a person into something great, love. Not your white coats and labs. Blows my mind that that would even come out of one of your mouths.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on March 01, 2018, 07:55:57 pm
Just reading through the thread, don't have much to offer. Besides, whoever said they would kill children because what they see as a defective human being, should be strung up on a tree in front of your local courthouse. Sorry, if that's too blunt. But, I'm pissed. I see the words regard and such being thrown around, how old are you? And, if you could kill a human being because you think its defective, you should be in a mental institution. Your a soulless sack of shit. Ban me. Do whatever you want. That's downright the worst thing I've ever seen on this board and shame on the moderators who allow it to take place.

I agree that abortion is an option women should have the right to. Bit, some fucking egotistical basted saying who should live and who shouldn't....no. No one has that right. We are not gods. And, because you learned a little science at your UNI doesn't make you one. I ask, how could that be allowed to be said on this forum without any repercussions? Huh? What a fucking joke you are whoever said that. As if you're the perfect human being, you should be put down like a dog for suggesting such a thing. Fucking scientists you all got it all figured out do you?

Controlled mating sonwe can evolve better? Nah, ill stick with love. That's what makes a family and a person into something great, love. Not your white coats and labs. Blows my mind that that would even come out of one of your mouths.
Oh the irony. I also like how you obviously barely read the thread or the arguments presented, yet feel entitled pass on judgement and lynching  8). Also, what's with the bashing on scientists? Showing some deep prejudices there.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on March 01, 2018, 07:58:21 pm
Just reading through the thread, don't have much to offer.
I agree, you probably shouldn't have offered, but you did

Besides, whoever said they would kill children because what they see as a defective human being,
Not everyone has the same values

should be strung up on a tree in front of your local courthouse.
IMO, you're no better. You're suggesting killing someone for having different values than you.

Sorry, if that's too blunt. But, I'm pissed. I see the words regard and such being thrown around, how old are you?
Again, you're exactly the same. You suggesting killing someone for seeing the world differently than you. At what point does that give you moral high ground?

And, if you could kill a human being because you think its defective, you should be in a mental institution.
You right along with them, as you fall into your own category here.

Your a soulless sack of shit. Ban me. Do whatever you want. That's downright the worst thing I've ever seen on this board and shame on the moderators who allow it to take place.
IMO you've done nothing but act like a child who needs a spanking.

I agree that abortion
Not at all part of the conversation up to this point. You needlessly complicate things.

is an option women should have the right to. Bit, some fucking egotistical basted saying who should live and who shouldn't....no. No one has that right. We are not gods. And, because you learned a little science at your UNI doesn't make you one. I ask, how could that be allowed to be said on this forum without any repercussions? Huh? What a fucking joke you are whoever said that. As if you're the perfect human being, you should be put down like a dog for suggesting such a thing. Fucking scientists you all got it all figured out do you?
By my reading, you're the only one that isn't here to have a discussion, just to deride people who think differently than you. I'm disappointed.

Controlled mating sonwe can evolve better? Nah, ill stick with love. That's what makes a family and a person into something great, love. Not your white coats and labs. Blows my mind that that would even come out of one of your mouths.
What makes a family and what makes for better humans are not the same discussion.
By that logic, an adopted child cannot be loved. I assume you don't believe that.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Wilshire on March 01, 2018, 07:58:52 pm
Just reading through the thread, don't have much to offer. Besides, whoever said they would kill children because what they see as a defective human being, should be strung up on a tree in front of your local courthouse. Sorry, if that's too blunt. But, I'm pissed. I see the words regard and such being thrown around, how old are you? And, if you could kill a human being because you think its defective, you should be in a mental institution. Your a soulless sack of shit. Ban me. Do whatever you want. That's downright the worst thing I've ever seen on this board and shame on the moderators who allow it to take place.

I agree that abortion is an option women should have the right to. Bit, some fucking egotistical basted saying who should live and who shouldn't....no. No one has that right. We are not gods. And, because you learned a little science at your UNI doesn't make you one. I ask, how could that be allowed to be said on this forum without any repercussions? Huh? What a fucking joke you are whoever said that. As if you're the perfect human being, you should be put down like a dog for suggesting such a thing. Fucking scientists you all got it all figured out do you?

Controlled mating sonwe can evolve better? Nah, ill stick with love. That's what makes a family and a person into something great, love. Not your white coats and labs. Blows my mind that that would even come out of one of your mouths.
Oh the irony. I also like how you obviously barely read the thread or the arguments presented, yet feel entitled pass on judgement and lynching  8). Also, what's with the bashing on scientists? Showing some deep prejudices there.

Yeah I'm pretty surprised someone with MSJ's family heritage would be so quick to jump to lynching as a solution to solve ones differences.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: themerchant on March 01, 2018, 09:07:16 pm
Hurray!
Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction...
As Above, So Below

I don't buy that at all.  Evolution cannot be random, everything has a cause and effect.

Aren't quarks and muons described by a different set of rules that don't describe evolution though? So comparing the two doesn't work as what we use to understand one doesn't work to understand the other.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on March 01, 2018, 09:09:04 pm
I'm not an expert on this, but from googling around it seems consensus is relatively clear: quantum mechanics are probabilistic.

As far as we understand.  Which, as Wilshire points out, is not complete by any stretch of the imagination.  In fact, a "problem" of quantum mechanics is that, while it "works" it fails to integrate with the rest of physics.  So, this, in all probability, points to there being an incompleteness to our understanding.  It is plausible (I have no idea how probable) that what we can currently understand only as "random" and "probabilistic" might be governed by forces and laws that we simply do not yet understand, nor do we understand how the fundamental particles interact at the macro-scale, which is why physics and quantum mechanics are different fields completely.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: H on March 01, 2018, 09:12:15 pm
Hurray!
Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction...
As Above, So Below

I don't buy that at all.  Evolution cannot be random, everything has a cause and effect.

Aren't quarks and muons described by a different set of rules that don't describe evolution though? So comparing the two doesn't work as what we use to understand one doesn't work to understand the other.

Yes and futher, now that I think about Wilshire's quote, evolution, through natural selection absolutely is not random, because natural selection is litterally the opposite of "directionless."  Natural selection does not favor things randomly, it favors things that are best suited to reproduce.  That is a direction and the whole process is "designed" to make organisms better able to make more organisms.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on March 01, 2018, 09:48:29 pm
I'm not an expert on this, but from googling around it seems consensus is relatively clear: quantum mechanics are probabilistic.

As far as we understand.  Which, as Wilshire points out, is not complete by any stretch of the imagination.  In fact, a "problem" of quantum mechanics is that, while it "works" it fails to integrate with the rest of physics.  So, this, in all probability, points to there being an incompleteness to our understanding.  It is plausible (I have no idea how probable) that what we can currently understand only as "random" and "probabilistic" might be governed by forces and laws that we simply do not yet understand, nor do we understand how the fundamental particles interact at the macro-scale, which is why physics and quantum mechanics are different fields completely.
That's not correct though. I've watched enough Nima Arkani Hamed (can recommend this guy, he's awesome) talks to know that quantum physics describes fundamental particles /extremely/ well. The thing that doesn't integrate is relativity and quantum physics, i.e. gravity and the three other forces. Physics and quantum mechanics are not different fields, it's just that depending on what you're looking at requires different tools. For larger systems you need statistical mechanics etc. since you cannot do quantum mechanical calculations on these systems.

Hurray!
Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction...
As Above, So Below

I don't buy that at all.  Evolution cannot be random, everything has a cause and effect.

Aren't quarks and muons described by a different set of rules that don't describe evolution though? So comparing the two doesn't work as what we use to understand one doesn't work to understand the other.

Yes and futher, now that I think about Wilshire's quote, evolution, through natural selection absolutely is not random, because natural selection is litterally the opposite of "directionless."  Natural selection does not favor things randomly, it favors things that are best suited to reproduce.  That is a direction and the whole process is "designed" to make organisms better able to make more organisms.
Even if everything has some deterministic cause, evolution is effectively random. Genetic drift is a huge factor in evolution, and that is basically alleles taking random walks. Even if they're under selection, they still behave stochastic, such that genes that confer advantages can be lost by chance and genes that confer disadvantages (to a certain degree) can get fixed by chance. This is especially pronounced in small populations where random fluctuations have a bigger effect.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: themerchant on March 02, 2018, 01:44:33 am
Yeah you can't use one theory to describe the other. They aren't compatible. Sure if you add in mathematically extra dimensions to account for the relative weakness of gravity you might create some model but you need an experiment to go along with it, otherwise it's just conjecture.

Scottish Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell unified the electrical and magnetic forces with his elegant equations in his A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, this included experimentation as well as mathematical models.

Quantum gravity is an idea at the moment.

On evolution for it to be truly random wouldn't it be immune to outside influence? I imagine if we took earth and then took a counterfactual earth but lower the temperature 5 degrees evolution would take different paths.

I guess it depends on what you mean by random, there are different meanings to different people.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: themerchant on March 02, 2018, 01:50:35 am
use relativity to describe gravity in quantum scales you run into infinite gravity problems.

Use quantum mechanics to parse large systems it predicts energy levels so high to be wrong.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: themerchant on March 02, 2018, 01:58:16 am
Nima Arkani Hamed statisically has already done his greatest work. Most Great physicists do their best work early, much like athletes. I was reading a Paul Dirac biography that was pointing this out. I'll have to get it back out and have a look at it. At 46 it's very unlilkely he'll be the person to solve this for us.

Newton- about 45 but he was late and never published anything. Done much of his work much earlier.

Clerk-maxwell- 34

Einstein- 26

Paul Dirac- 31

"A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of thirty will never do so." Einstein.

http://www.openaccessweek.org/profiles/blogs/age-amp-science-do-scientists-make-their-best-discoveries-during
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on March 02, 2018, 02:52:24 am
Yeah you can't use one theory to describe the other. They aren't compatible. Sure if you add in mathematically extra dimensions to account for the relative weakness of gravity you might create some model but you need an experiment to go along with it, otherwise it's just conjecture.

Scottish Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell unified the electrical and magnetic forces with his elegant equations in his A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, this included experimentation as well as mathematical models.

Quantum gravity is an idea at the moment.

On evolution for it to be truly random wouldn't it be immune to outside influence? I imagine if we took earth and then took a counterfactual earth but lower the temperature 5 degrees evolution would take different paths.

I guess it depends on what you mean by random, there are different meanings to different people.
Random to me just means that you cannot predict something exact, only the probability that x will happen etc.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: themerchant on March 02, 2018, 04:19:17 am
Yeah you can't use one theory to describe the other. They aren't compatible. Sure if you add in mathematically extra dimensions to account for the relative weakness of gravity you might create some model but you need an experiment to go along with it, otherwise it's just conjecture.

Scottish Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell unified the electrical and magnetic forces with his elegant equations in his A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, this included experimentation as well as mathematical models.

Quantum gravity is an idea at the moment.

On evolution for it to be truly random wouldn't it be immune to outside influence? I imagine if we took earth and then took a counterfactual earth but lower the temperature 5 degrees evolution would take different paths.

I guess it depends on what you mean by random, there are different meanings to different people.
Random to me just means that you cannot predict something exact, only the probability that x will happen etc.

You mean right now or in an absolute way, i mean, even with all information we cannot predict like say a particle, either velocity of position cannot know both.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: MSJ on March 03, 2018, 12:09:01 am
Quote from:  Wilshire
Yeah I'm pretty surprised someone with MSJ's family heritage would be so quick to jump to lynching as a solution to solve ones differences.

My family heritage has nothing to do with it. I have 3 half sisters whom are black. Lynching and the death penalty by hanging are two different things.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: MSJ on March 03, 2018, 12:22:05 am
Quote from:  Wilshire
Again, you're exactly the same. You suggesting killing someone for seeing the world differently than you. At what point does that give you moral high ground?

Killing "defective" children is totally different than killing the adult who thinks they have the right to do so.

Quote
You right along with them, as you fall into your own category here.

No, I'm not trying to play god. But, handing out a death penalty to those trying to play god.



Quote
What makes a family and what makes for better humans are not the same discussion.
By that logic, an adopted child cannot be loved. I assume you don't believe that.

Of course a adopted child should deserve that same love. I was talking about government or scientists deciding who mates with who.


Quote
Not everyone has the same values.

Apparently. Ill let you all get back to your playing god and fixing the world. No problem with scientists when they work towards bettering life and extending life and curing diseases. Not when deciding on who should live and die.

Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: MSJ on March 03, 2018, 12:52:06 am
Quote from:  TLEILAXU
Oh the irony. I also like how you obviously barely read the thread or the arguments presented, yet feel entitled pass on judgement and lynching  8). Also, what's with the bashing on scientists? Showing some deep prejudices there.

Oh, I've read the threads. And, seen the comment that you'd have no problem with putting down "defective" kids. And, again, no problems with scientists as long as their not playing god.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: TLEILAXU on March 03, 2018, 01:12:12 am
Quote from:  TLEILAXU
Oh the irony. I also like how you obviously barely read the thread or the arguments presented, yet feel entitled pass on judgement and lynching  8). Also, what's with the bashing on scientists? Showing some deep prejudices there.

Oh, I've read the threads. And, seen the comment that you'd have no problem with putting down "defective" kids. And, again, no problems with scientists as long as their not playing god.
No you haven't. You skimmed through it on your phone, got triggered and sperged out. Read the arguments instead closing your ears and insisting on executions.

You mean right now or in an absolute way, i mean, even with all information we cannot predict like say a particle, either velocity of position cannot know both.
I guess both, but they become the same by recursion eventually in a sense.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: themerchant on March 03, 2018, 02:36:43 am
It's a mad world in the smaller scales

Considering the very act of observation changes the result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

So you can predict but if you go to check your prediction...

if you fancy a a non animated one here's the royal institution one :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: MSJ on March 03, 2018, 04:16:05 am
I've read the arguments. Its interesting, except for killing whom some of you deem defective. There's no argument for that in my eyes. You or no one else gets to choose who lives and who dies, or decide on who gets to mate with whom. I've read it all just fine. Because, I find it disgusting doesn't mean I haven't read it and no amount of further evidence for why it would be good would change my mind.
Title: Re: The Intellectual War on Science
Post by: Madness on March 03, 2018, 02:42:17 pm
I was going to respond but then I realized I'm going to close the thread and I don't need to have "a last word" on the content in that case.

If any of you want to talk to me about that privately, do so. There are a couple of conversations in this thread that could be continued in more specific threads so we can try those anew separately as members choose.