What is wrong with science today?

[spice756]

There so much debate now in the science community about smoking pot can lead to lung cancer or kill brain cells some say it true and other people say no this is not true.What with the DEA fear they use.

And saying smoking pot can lead to short term memory proccessing problem.

[Stephen Colbert]

Science is becoming politicized

[Revolution starts with U]

1 study does not science make

[communard71]

Exactly revolution starts with U, besides, when was science not politicized? Also, I'm pretty sure there is solid science which points out the physiological damage of smoking pot. Not a value judgment, just saying that smoking anything is dangerous in the long term and that there are properties inherent in the plant which can be dangerous or at least adverse to people. Besides, if you’re worried about bad science, we should be concerned over the politicized science of economics!

[Havet]

I made a video two years ago about some myths of marijuana. They link to several studies and news, so maybe you'll find them as a refreshing new point of view

VyzlxzBXMJ4

[Mr.Awesome]

There so much debate now in the science community about smoking pot can lead to lung cancer or kill brain cells some say it true and other people say no this is not true.What with the DEA fear they use.

And saying smoking pot can lead to short term memory proccessing problem.

Several studies have been done on this and many suggest that it does have negative effects on the brain. However, all studies are defined by those who make them.

news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/2/newsid_2540000/2540141.stm

As you can see from this article, some studies show it does. But notice how the study was funded by the US government.

I would not be surprised to discover that the effects were hugely exaggerated if not completely untrue. The majority of people who acquire problems through cannabis already had some underlying issue as far as I know.

However, I'm pretty sure it would cause cancer like any other kind of smoking.

I personally would never take any of these type of drugs. The hardest drug I've ever taken is caffeine :blushing:

ps. Sorry I cant link, I haven't made enough posts :(

[Tablo]

Marijuana has no permanent negative effects on the brain based on the studies I have seen. I have seen, however, that longterm use can effect the brain as with the use of any other substances would, but this can be reversed from not doing it for a while. Don't remember the study though..

[Bud Struggle]

Marijuana has no permanent negative effects on the brain based on the studies I have seen. I have seen, however, that longterm use can effect the brain as with the use of any other substances would, but this can be reversed from not doing it for a while.

I imagine liquor has a similar effect.



Don't remember the study though..

Any particular reason for your memory loss? :D

[danyboy27]

there is nothing wrong with multiples contradictory studies on a particular subject, all it mean is that, more research are needed to have a conclusive answer to a particular subject.

of course, politicians, leftist and non-leftist will always try to use science at their advantage, ask for made up research but, science being what it is, the truth always come out.

That the beauty of science; the ability to constantly questionand to improve things over the years.

Some scientist might have demonstrated that marijuana COULD cause disease. GOOD! another good reason to research more about it, and perhaps accidentaly discover a critical coponent to treat AIDS!

Dont worry, science always prevail, always.

[Havet]

Dont worry, science always prevail, always.

Thankfully you weren't around the Middle Ages :(

[Noinu]

Thankfully you weren't around the Middle Ages :(

Well that was unfortunate, but science did prevail in the end, right?

[Havet]

Well that was unfortunate, but science did prevail in the end, right?

we don't know that. We know that right know it prevails, but as for the future, we just can't tell. Who knows, maybe religion will come to dominate the future. In which case, religious people would argue: "religion will always prevail".

Or maybe some extreme form of primitivism would prevail. we cant expect things to always stay the way they are, nor to ignore the tremendous amount of effort and humans lives that have gone into reaching this day, or ignore that we must continue to work to keep maintaining the good things we treasure, such as science.

[Noinu]

we don't know that. We know that right know it prevails, but as for the future, we just can't tell. Who knows, maybe religion will come to dominate the future. In which case, religious people would argue: "religion will always prevail".

Or maybe some extreme form of primitivism would prevail. we cant expect things to always stay the way they are, nor to ignore the tremendous amount of effort and humans lives that have gone into reaching this day, or ignore that we must continue to work to keep maintaining the good things we treasure, such as science.

Well I actually kinda meant in much smaller terms, like the Middle Ages ending with the finding of germs and hygiene and the blood circulation system and so on....

Basically I agree with you completely, you just ventured muuuch further. One should never ignore anything anyways, even the tiniest detail can be of utmost importance some day (not just the effort that's gone, but ignoring something now can make things much more difficult to get past later).

[danyboy27]

we don't know that. We know that right know it prevails, but as for the future, we just can't tell. Who knows, maybe religion will come to dominate the future. In which case, religious people would argue: "religion will always prevail".

Or maybe some extreme form of primitivism would prevail. we cant expect things to always stay the way they are, nor to ignore the tremendous amount of effort and humans lives that have gone into reaching this day, or ignore that we must continue to work to keep maintaining the good things we treasure, such as science.

what prevail is what put humanity foward, not backward.

Religion, like authoritarism seem to have the purpose to rebuild the fundation of a destroyed society, Or for that matter to build one from scratch when nobody know jack shit about nothing.

Once the evolution of a society reach a certain degree, religion and authoritarism cease to be relevant and become destructive, at this point, radical change tend to happen for either the best or the worst of that society.

Science and democracy have propelled mankind during all those millenia.

If we happen to destroy society again, well, be assured that what gonna come out from those ashes will be something stronger than before.

it might take a lot of time, but at the end, science will prevail.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Science and democracy have propelled mankind during all those millenia.

Wow, we were all invested in the liberal project all along? Who knew?!
I wonder where the definite trajectory of History is headed.

Where next, Columbus?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wow, we were all invested in the liberal project all along? Who knew?!
I wonder where the definite trajectory of History is headed.

Where next, Columbus?

So tell me, is there a specific definition of liberal you're using, or were you just chucking around political cusswords?

[Tablo]

I imagine liquor has a similar effect.
Yeah, that is pretty much what the study showed. Difference was the areas of the brain it had an effect on.. I'm going to try and look it up.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So tell me, is there a specific definition of liberal you're using, or were you just chucking around political cusswords?

In reference to the ideology of that contends Science is the only way of knowing, that individuals are distinct and alienable free agents, that all History is the history of Progress, etc.
You know, that whole scheme that rose to prominence in Europe around the time of "the enlightenment"(realistically, "enlightenment" is just a name for the emergence of said hegemony).
It's not so much a political cussword as a reality that taints Marxism and the left that we need to confront.

(See signature)

[NGNM85]

A 2006 study that was fairly substantial, (Over 2,000 subjects, which is really the kind of numbers you need to conduct a substantive medical study.) debuted at a gathering of the American Thoracic Society (They have the best parties, maaan.:D) concluded that the was, quote;
“no association whatsoever between marijuana use, or frequency of marijuana use and lung, neck, or head cancers.” However, pot smoke does contain two carcinogens, tar and benzopyrene, which are also found in commercial cigarettes. However, commercial cigarettes also contain more than 30 additional carcinogens. So, I would say regular pot smoking might very well increase your likelihood to develop lung cancer, but there's no comparison. It's a favorite talking point in anti-drug rhetoric and literature that pot is just as bad as cigarettes, or (Usually.) worse. Anybody who tells you that has no idea what they are talking about, or they are fucking lying to you. Pot's effect on the brain is a little more complicated. However, to break it down to simplest terms; cannabis is one of the most benign drugs in the pharmacopia. Thousands of Americans die from over-the-counter medications every year. (In addition to the thousands who die from perscribed drugs.) For christs' sake Cannabis doesn't even have a Lethal Dose. ('LD') There are decades of medical studies that have confirmed this, including, arguably, the most famous studies; the LaGuardia commission in the 50's, and the Nixon comission in the 70's, both of which concluded that there was so scientific reason for prohibiting Cannabis. Look, all else being equal, the person who doesn't smoke pot is going to be healthier, every time. However, as I said, it's one of the most benign drugs in existence, and there is no moral, scientific, or social justification for our present laws regarding Cannabis, whatsoever.

[RGacky3]

Peer reviewed studies are the ones that count, those are the ones science takes seriously.

Non-peer reviewed industry sponsered studies are ones that you should just ignore (which make up pretty much ALL of the anti-global warming studies)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In reference to the ideology of that contends Science is the only way of knowing, that individuals are distinct and alienable free agents, that all History is the history of Progress, etc.

All ideas which both pre-date modern liberalism and are embraced by plenty of other ideologies. You should know this.


You know, that whole scheme that rose to prominence in Europe around the time of "the enlightenment"(realistically, "enlightenment" is just a name for the emergence of said hegemony).
It's not so much a political cussword as a reality that taints Marxism and the left that we need to confront.

Bollocks. The very idea that Marxism can somehow be "tainted" by those eeevul librulz is something entirely foreign to any remotely rational ideology, and is more akin to religious dogmatism.

Besides, I thought it was the job of conservatives to be scared of liberal influence?

[Amphictyonis]

There so much debate now in the science community about smoking pot can lead to lung cancer or kill brain cells some say it true and other people say no this is not true.What with the DEA fear they use.

And saying smoking pot can lead to short term memory proccessing problem.

I think a bigger problem with science is in order to get funding projects either need to be profitable to some capitalist or the military. Innovations which could marginalize capitalism will never be funded and sadly most of our modern technology is a result of military bullshit.

[Queercommie Girl]

In reference to the ideology of that contends Science is the only way of knowing, that individuals are distinct and alienable free agents, that all History is the history of Progress, etc.
You know, that whole scheme that rose to prominence in Europe around the time of "the enlightenment"(realistically, "enlightenment" is just a name for the emergence of said hegemony).
It's not so much a political cussword as a reality that taints Marxism and the left that we need to confront.

(See signature)

I'm much more concerned with how religions, especially reactionary orthodox religions and fundamentalist religions, have tainted the left in general.

Religion is a far bigger problem for Marxists than science is. See how cozying up to the Islamists by the Communist Tudeh Party in Iran meant the defeat of the revolution there and the Islamist theocrats coming to power.

And generally I'm more against semi-feudalism than bourgeois liberalism. I'd rather have the latter than the former.

Also, it's culturally racist in itself to assume that the "enlightenment" must be European or Western in origin. Have you ever heard of the May 4th movement in China?

[danyboy27]

Wow, we were all invested in the liberal project all along? Who knew?!
I wonder where the definite trajectory of History is headed.

Where next, Columbus?

hoo for christ sake (if he ever existed), stop deforming my sentences.

it dosnt have nothing to do with liberalism or colombus.

what i meant to say is that, science and democracy where constant variable linked with the progress of societies, i didnt preach a particular brand of democracy.

The american natives for exemples where at some extent democratic, and if left undisturbed, who know what they could have achieved has a people.

Right now, we are at a stage in history where authoritarism will have to go for the sake of our societies, look at capitalism and the damages it does, its inherent instability, it will have to go.

that what i meant.

[NecroCommie]

Science is becoming politicized
Science has always been politicized. Scientific theories that are obvious to us today, were in their time opposed fanatically in the academic circles, mainly due to political reasons. There has always been a constant struggle in scientific circles between politics and actual respectable science ---> the birth of the empiric philosophy and it's utter triumph. I still don't get the "philosophers" and "scientists" who try to act as if empiricism has not completely wiped out the basis for other alternative approaches. There is a reason why our computers work, why medicines work and why nuclear energy is possible. Because empiricism is just right.

[ComradeMan]

Science has always been politicized. Scientific theories that are obvious to us today, were in their time opposed fanatically in the academic circles, mainly due to political reasons. There has always been a constant struggle in scientific circles between politics and actual respectable science ---> the birth of the empiric philosophy and it's utter triumph. I still don't get the "philosophers" and "scientists" who try to act as if empiricism has not completely wiped out the basis for other alternative approaches. There is a reason why our computers work, why medicines work and why nuclear energy is possible. Because empiricism is just right.


Scientists can also have cognitive biases. The problem is that science may well be slow to react to an idea or because an idea challenges the current view it may be rejected- empiricism can become subjective. Plate tectonics is one example that was laughed out of court- but now is accepted theory.

Remember that gaining knowledge through empiricism is a process, but not an absolute answer.

The trouble with it is the old dilemma, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who's to say that scientists are always empirical? Who's to say that they sometimes don't extend their empiricism to new ideas and approaches if these may threaten their previous positions, theses, research grants and so on?

[Revolution starts with U]

Science is not a an acting body. Science isn't doing anything wrong. People are what's wrong with science.
Also science is not a snapshot; take Piltodown for example. Many would say it's proof of confirmation bias, and the fallacies of the scientific method. True, one could say that about the British anthropological community at the time. But the americans were immediately crying out that Piltdown was a fake. And through the scientific method they proved as such, a decade later.
Science doesn't stop when a new thoery is made.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The very idea that Marxism can somehow be "tainted" by those eeevul librulz is something entirely foreign to any remotely rational ideology.

Yeah, geeze, no baggage there. My bad.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Science will find what it is looking for. If we only use science to find the unwanted effects of marijuana, that's all we're going to find. Because researchers are not randomly chosen, but because the people with the money create a purposive sample of researchers with specific research interests, we as a whole will research what the people with the funds want us to research. Therefore, marijuana is a terrible TERRIBLE drug.

[danyboy27]

Science will find what it is looking for. If we only use science to find the unwanted effects of marijuana, that's all we're going to find. Because researchers are not randomly chosen, but because the people with the money create a purposive sample of researchers with specific research interests, we as a whole will research what the people with the funds want us to research. Therefore, marijuana is a terrible TERRIBLE drug.
Not necessarly, scientist have a bad habit of discovering stuff that they arnt supposed while looking for something else.

[NGNM85]

In reference to the ideology of that contends Science is the only way of knowing,..

Well, that's because it is.


that individuals are distinct and alienable free agents, that all History is the history of Progress, etc.

It's not a straight line, but there has definitely been a general upward trajectory.


You know, that whole scheme that rose to prominence in Europe around the time of "the enlightenment"(realistically, "enlightenment" is just a name for the emergence of said hegemony).
It's not so much a political cussword as a reality that taints Marxism and the left that we need to confront.

(See signature)

Let's not forget those other shitty ideas that came out of the Liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment; inalienable rights, equality under the law, democracy, separation of church and state, etc. All that horseshit.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It's not a straight line, but there has definitely been a general upward trajectory.

An upward trajectory toward what? Can you honestly say that life in existing society is "upward" from, say, the Six Nations Confederacy, or The Diggers, or any number of other historical moments of egalitarian/communitarian organization? I'm certainly not arguing that today is in any way "worse" than any other given moment on the planet (though human-driven mass extinctions and the possibility of total nuclear annihilation are something of a unique "downer" about these days), but to suggest a "general upward trajectory" is, well, again, holy-baggage-of-liberal-ideology.


Let's not forget those other shitty ideas that came out of the Liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment; inalienable rights, equality under the law, democracy, separation of church and state, etc. All that horseshit.

Wait, you have a circle-A as yr avatar, and you buy that crap? The discourse of "rights" and "equality under the law" is necessarily defined by its exceptions - its obscene supplement. "Rights" are only relevant insofar as they are granted by a sovereign power which retains the "right" to take those same rights away. Similarly, equality under the law not only reflects the class content of laws (neither rich nor poor may sleep on park benches), but, again, the law is defined by its limits - who is inside and outside of it. The law creates the conditions by which it legitimates itself - outside of domination by the law, these ideas are irrelevant and unnecessary.
For example, I don't need my right to free speech guaranteed, except under the condition by which its guarantor also holds the power to take it away. Prisoners of War don't need their rights guaranteed, except insofar as "illegal combatants" don't have the same rights.

Hopefully, by exposing the ideological content of the rest of yr post, I can at least call into question the credibility of yr initial statement vis- science. To suggest that cultures that approached reality through mysticism, or whatever other framework knew "less" than those that have embraced science seems to fly in the face of practical evidence - many of them seem to have done just fine, whereas I think it's evident that we're pretty fucked.



Again, see signature.

[Revolution starts with U]

An upward trajectory toward what? Can you honestly say that life in existing society is "upward" from, say, the Six Nations Confederacy, or The Diggers, or any number of other historical moments of egalitarian/communitarian organization?

For the Irriquois, or Diggers, no. Despite the "primitive" technology, those communities generally have a much higher leisure/labor ratio, and much more socially balanced (egalitarian). For the people of the world at large, definitely. While the Irriquois lived in relative peace and stablilty (you're kidding yourself if you don't think they had some of the same problems), others were suffering under the yoke of feudal appropriators, and "holy" emporers.


I'm certainly not arguing that today is in any way "worse" than any other given moment on the planet (though human-driven mass extinctions and the possibility of total nuclear annihilation are something of a unique "downer" about these days), but to suggest a "general upward trajectory" is, well, again, holy-baggage-of-liberal-ideology.

I think you will find humans had a very large impact on the disappearance of mammoths and other "big game." We have always been a "dirty" species. Technology has the possiblilty to clean that up, and it largely has. Compare industry today (in developed countries) to that of 100 years ago. (What's not told is the struggle people had to go through to get such things implemented).

You're seeing the bush-man from the bush-man's perspective, and the same for the roman slave. But you need to see the bush-man from the slave's perspective too, and vice versa.





Wait, you have a circle-A as yr avatar, and you buy that crap? The discourse of "rights" and "equality under the law" is necessarily defined by its exceptions - its obscene supplement. "Rights" are only relevant insofar as they are granted by a sovereign power which retains the "right" to take those same rights away. Similarly, equality under the law not only reflects the class content of laws (neither rich nor poor may sleep on park benches), but, again, the law is defined by its limits - who is inside and outside of it. The law creates the conditions by which it legitimates itself - outside of domination by the law, these ideas are irrelevant and unnecessary.
For example, I don't need my right to free speech guaranteed, except under the condition by which its guarantor also holds the power to take it away. Prisoners of War don't need their rights guaranteed, except insofar as "illegal combatants" don't have the same rights.


Brother... you just blew my mind :cool:
No really, that's like intro to law. But I like the way you put it much better. (forgive me if I interpret you correctly) That the law in itself creates statism, and therefore class divisions.
This is basically what I wrote in my final paper, but from a class struggle perspective. There is really no rule of law. Go back through the history, the law has changed dramatically, and sometimes sudden. The law only legitimizes itself by the power of those who can define it. Empower the people at large, and the law, in any set sense will disappear, as it was before history.

Hopefully, by exposing the ideological content of the rest of yr post, I can at least call into question the credibility of yr initial statement vis- science. To suggest that cultures that approached reality through mysticism, or whatever other framework knew "less" than those that have embraced science seems to fly in the face of practical evidence - many of them seem to have done just fine, whereas I think it's evident that we're pretty fucked.

Whereas the indeginous culture can be socially progressive, can it build a rocket? Can it cure small pox?
Wheras the industrial culture can fly to the moon and cure disease, can it feed and shelter its people?

Neither culture has, nor ever will, reach perfection. But I don't think star gods and flat earth legends can do for 10m people what they can for a few thousand.

[¿Que?]

Comments are tl;dr so I apologize in advance if I repeat a point already made.

I think saying science is politicized only touches on the surface of the problem. We have to ask if it is even possible not to politicize science. If we accept, for example, that politics inheres in how people understand the world, then how can we assume an objective point of view? We generally think that the scientific method is best applied when the investigator puts aside his political opinions in the search for objective truth. But did Soviet scientists cease to be Soviet, simply because they were looking through a microscope? The scientific method assumes an apolitical observer, and yet has determined that such an observer is impossible. Science disproves itself.

The science behind policy, and this applies to pot, is nothing more than the application of a value system, and a methodology to confirm of refute if such values are being fulfilled. If one were to ask, does smoking pot increase the risk of X, the answer becomes relevant only when we accept that X is some undesired condition that outweighs the benefits of getting high. And it is these same values which ultimately determine political outlook as well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

An upward trajectory toward what? Can you honestly say that life in existing society is "upward" from, say, the Six Nations Confederacy, or The Diggers, or any number of other historical moments of egalitarian/communitarian organization?

Yes, because those got destroyed. You may disagree, but I generally think it's better to be alive than to be dead. Quality of life among the Six Nations or the Diggers may have been better than their contemporaries (while they lasted), but the difference is miniscule compared to what can be achieved today.


I'm certainly not arguing that today is in any way "worse" than any other given moment on the planet (though human-driven mass extinctions and the possibility of total nuclear annihilation are something of a unique "downer" about these days), but to suggest a "general upward trajectory" is, well, again, holy-baggage-of-liberal-ideology.

"Liberal" is not synonymous with "evil". You have yet to show that an idea is bad just because liberals hold to it.


For example, I don't need my right to free speech guaranteed, except under the condition by which its guarantor also holds the power to take it away. Prisoners of War don't need their rights guaranteed, except insofar as "illegal combatants" don't have the same rights.

So what else do your call the ability to speak one's mind without negative repercussions? If communist society doesn't have a "right to free speech", then what mechanisms does it have in place to ensure that people can express themselves freely? This includes opinions that are unpopular, by the way.


Hopefully, by exposing the ideological content of the rest of yr post, I can at least call into question the credibility of yr initial statement vis- science. To suggest that cultures that approached reality through mysticism, or whatever other framework knew "less" than those that have embraced science seems to fly in the face of practical evidence - many of them seem to have done just fine, whereas I think it's evident that we're pretty fucked.

Actually, the practical evidence says that mysticism will get you bitten on the ass sooner or later.


Again, see signature.

I'm sure it impresses teenybopper philospher-wannabes, but I remain distinctly underwhelmed.


Wheras the industrial culture can fly to the moon and cure disease, can it feed and shelter its people?

Not for lack of skill or resources.

[NecroCommie]

Scientists can also have cognitive biases. The problem is that science may well be slow to react to an idea or because an idea challenges the current view it may be rejected- empiricism can become subjective. Plate tectonics is one example that was laughed out of court- but now is accepted theory.
Still, as you said, empiricism is a process, so while evidence is accumulated most honest scientists have been known to accept the "correct" theory. The word correct in quotation marks because new evidence can ofcourse change that view too.


The trouble with it is the old dilemma, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who's to say that scientists are always empirical? Who's to say that they sometimes don't extend their empiricism to new ideas and approaches if these may threaten their previous positions, theses, research grants and so on?
As I see it, constant questioning is a central part of empiricism. Even for theories considered obvious.

And whether this is all just me or not, I think empiricism has done a pretty good job lessening the amount of politically inspired looneys in the academic circles.

[NGNM85]

An upward trajectory toward what? Can you honestly say that life in existing society is "upward" from, say, the Six Nations Confederacy, or The Diggers, or any number of other historical moments of egalitarian/communitarian organization? I'm certainly not arguing that today is in any way "worse" than any other given moment on the planet (though human-driven mass extinctions and the possibility of total nuclear annihilation are something of a unique "downer" about these days), but to suggest a "general upward trajectory" is, well, again, holy-baggage-of-liberal-ideology.

Maybe. It’s also a strong point. Violence, as a part of daily life has substantially decreased, life expectancy has risen dramatically, infant mortality has dropped precipitously, plagues and pandemics are far less frequent, and far less severe. Even many of the poor and impoverished enjoy benefits that would have been nothing short of magical a hundred years ago. Yes, I would stack the present-day US against the feudal past any day of the week, by almost every metric you could choose, it’s better. That’s not to say things couldn’t be much better than they are, just they are substantially better than they were.


Wait, you have a circle-A as yr avatar, and you buy that crap?

Yes, the A in the circle, created by Italian Anarchists has a visual representation of Proudhon’s maxim; “Anarchy is order.”

I’m not ‘buying into’ any ‘crap.’


The discourse of "rights" and "equality under the law" is necessarily defined by its exceptions - its obscene supplement. "Rights" are only relevant insofar as they are granted by a sovereign power which retains the "right" to take those same rights away. Similarly, equality under the law not only reflects the class content of laws (neither rich nor poor may sleep on park benches), but, again, the law is defined by its limits - who is inside and outside of it. The law creates the conditions by which it legitimates itself - outside of domination by the law, these ideas are irrelevant and unnecessary.
For example, I don't need my right to free speech guaranteed, except under the condition by which its guarantor also holds the power to take it away. Prisoners of War don't need their rights guaranteed, except insofar as "illegal combatants" don't have the same rights.

This is the heart of the matter. Rights are that which all sentient beings are entitled to, and the rest of us are morally and ethically obligated to respect. Some governments, the better ones, have legally defined rights, which are guaranteed. However, this is merely a reflection of something deeper. The law doesn’t create rights, it can only recognize them. The Chinese, or North Koreans have the same right to liberty as anyone else, however, unfortunately, they live under oppressive police states which systematically deny their rights.

Also, there’s nothing wrong with laws, in general. The Anarchist criticism of the law would be twofold; there would be a larger, general, philosophical problem with the way laws are made, then there would be problems with specific laws, like how gay Americans don’t have equal rights, or the absurd prohibition of cannabis. However, there’s every reason to believe a Libertarian Socialist society would still have laws, and there's no reason to expect that homicide or child molestation would be any less prohibited.


Hopefully, by exposing the ideological content of the rest of yr post, I can at least call into question the credibility of yr initial statement vis- science. To suggest that cultures that approached reality through mysticism, or whatever other framework knew "less" than those that have embraced science seems to fly in the face of practical evidence.

I think it’s quite apparent. I mean, we can definitively answer this fairly easily. I would gladly take the Pepsi challenge on fMRIs, particle accelerators, electron microscopes and gene sequencing against vision quests, ritual magic, astrology, and faith healing any day. As mechanisms to understand how the world works, science and reason are infinitely superior. It’s the only game in town.


- many of them seem to have done just fine,

This is a bit of a retreat from your initial statement. First, you seem to subscribe to the myth of the noble savage. Let’s just put aside the short lifespan, high infant mortality rate, frequent plagues and pandemics, starvation, and violence, etc., for now. Those societies may have lived by your measure ‘in harmony with nature,’ (Which of course necessitates the false dichotomy of nature vs. technology.) however, that is undermined by the fact that they didn’t have modern technology, and they didn’t even understand ecosystems, or climate change.


whereas I think it's evident that we're pretty fucked.


Maybe. It could go either way. However, unlike the Tyrannosaur we will not be victims of circumstance, and awaken one day to find ourselves inexplicably on the wrong side of history. We’ve, essentially, won the game of the survival of the fittest, as we are no longer threatened, as a species, by predators, or what-have-you. Now, we are in the unique circumstance of managing ourselves, something no other species on this planet has ever had to do, before.

[Fulanito de Tal]

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h111/durancm/phd091606s.gif

[NecroCommie]

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h111/durancm/phd091606s.gif
Now, I don't know whether you posted this seriously or not, but I might as well tackle it seeing that some people nowadays seem to think this is a valid approach.

The "comparison" in the picture is biased through and through with the intention to invalidate the scientific method. If it seriously attempted to find out the usefulness of the scientific method, it would have to take into account that the same propblem of honesty exists despite the method. Whether we have the scientific method, or the method of listening to magic men, we still have the problem of the subjective honesty in both cases. If there is a man whose epistemological view held pure belief as a good thing, he too could still twist his epistemological position to favor whatever political party he supports.

If we put aside the problems that all methods share equally, we can clearly see how empiricism and the scientific method have no contest.

And a nice quote that I like, and which goes with the topic :D : "It requires inductive reasoning to arrive at the premises for the principle of inductive reasoning, and therefore the justification for inductive reasoning is a circular argument" - David Hume

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Maybe. It’s also a strong point. Violence, as a part of daily life has substantially decreased, life expectancy has risen dramatically, infant mortality has dropped precipitously, plagues and pandemics are far less frequent, and far less severe.

Violence has substantially decreased? Seriously?
Violence has certainly changed, but I'd hardly call the armed peace of omnipresent police, humanitarian missions, etc. a decrease in violence. The capacity for violence which sustains existing states is fantastic, and exists on a scale that is totally unprecedented.

As for life expectancy, infant mortality, a decrease in pandemics, I'm not sure these are good in and of themselves - as far as life goes I'm more interested in quality than quantity. Sure, I might live to be ninety, but I spent the first eighteen years of my life in schools, and now I have to sell my labour power to reproduce the means of a project I detest in order to survive. I'd trade a few years of living in a nursing home for a few days of freedom, thanks.

Further, we're looking at increases in cancers, buildups of terrifying toxins that pass from generation to generation, increasing frequency of environmental and technological catastrophe (chemical spills, meltdowns, flooding, etc.). Sure, the first world might be living longer (unless you're say, a native living on-rez), but . . . so what?


Yes, I would stack the present-day US against the feudal past any day of the week, by almost every metric you could choose, it’s better.

Augh. By every quantitative metric I could choose, yes, it's probably better. The numbers are fucking fantastic. That would be the essence of liberal ideology - what interests me are not metrics and measurements, but lived experiences, which are not reconcilible with the underlying (ideological) assumptions of what you're getting at.



This is the heart of the matter. Rights are that which all sentient beings are entitled to, and the rest of us are morally and ethically obligated to respect. Some governments, the better ones [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - VMC], have legally defined rights, which are guaranteed. However, this is merely a reflection of something deeper. The law doesn’t create rights, it can only recognize them. The Chinese, or North Koreans have the same right to liberty as anyone else, however, unfortunately, they live under oppressive police states which systematically deny their rights.

The thing is, the law does create "rights" - rights are a discourse that arise in the context of law. They are not that which is inherent and inalienable to sentient creatures since concrete experience shows that they can and are regularly taken away.

The sooner we stop talking about rights and start practicing autonomy, the better.


Also, there’s nothing wrong with laws, in general. The Anarchist criticism of the law would be twofold; there would be a larger, general, philosophical problem with the way laws are made, then there would be problems with specific laws, like how gay Americans don’t have equal rights, or the absurd prohibition of cannabis.

Actually "the anarchist criticism" (if there were only one) would be with laws in-and-of-themselves.


However, there’s every reason to believe a Libertarian Socialist society would still have laws, and there's no reason to expect that homicide or child molestation would be any less prohibited.

But what about, for example, the homicide of a child molestor? Laws are always defined by to whom they do and don't apply, and who has the power to make the decision. For this reason, laws as such are not compatable with authentic communism (libertarian socialism? fuck, go eat Chomsky's asshole) - rather than relying on a "law" against molesting children, well . . . I mean, this example should speak for itself.


I think it’s quite apparent. I mean, we can definitively answer this fairly easily. I would gladly take the Pepsi challenge on fMRIs, particle accelerators, electron microscopes and gene sequencing against vision quests, ritual magic, astrology, and faith healing any day. As mechanisms to understand how the world works, science and reason are infinitely superior. It’s the only game in town.

That's really dependent on what you want to understand about how the world works, and what you want to accomplish with the knowledge. Again, I'm not suggesting that science is invalid, but it's not the exclusive means of knowing. Hell, there's even some overlap - theoretical math and LSD are like a match made in heaven!


This is a bit of a retreat from your initial statement. First, you seem to subscribe to the myth of the noble savage.

Uh, no.


they didn’t even understand ecosystems

Actually, this is a terrific example illustrating the problem with yr ideas of what contitutes authentic knowledge. Sure, they may not have known the scientific details of the watercycle, but they knew to not dump toxic sludge into it (which, clearly, despite our objective understandings, we still have yet to practically grasp).


Maybe. It could go either way. However, unlike the Tyrannosaur we will not be victims of circumstance, and awaken one day to find ourselves inexplicably on the wrong side of history. We’ve, essentially, won the game of the survival of the fittest, as we are no longer threatened, as a species, by predators, or what-have-you. Now, we are in the unique circumstance of managing ourselves, something no other species on this planet has ever had to do, before.

You know, I'd go so far as to say even most scientists would disagree with you on that one. Not only is predicting the future a messy business, but there are huge ammounts of stored methane in the polar ice that might yet land us on the "wrong side of history". But at that point history isn't even really relevent as a catagory, is it?

[L.A.P.]

I read that most studies show that weed actually prevents lung cancer although there isn't enough evidence to reach a full conclusion, but there's more studies that show cancer prevention than causing cancer.

[¿Que?]

I read that most studies show that weed actually prevents lung cancer although there isn't enough evidence to reach a full conclusion, but there's more studies that show cancer prevention than causing cancer.
Do you seriously believe this, or are you just saying that to confuse credulous people?

[Fulanito de Tal]

Now, I don't know whether you posted this seriously or not, but I might as well tackle it seeing that some people nowadays seem to think this is a valid approach.

The "comparison" in the picture is biased through and through with the intention to invalidate the scientific method. If it seriously attempted to find out the usefulness of the scientific method, it would have to take into account that the same propblem of honesty exists despite the method. Whether we have the scientific method, or the method of listening to magic men, we still have the problem of the subjective honesty in both cases. If there is a man whose epistemological view held pure belief as a good thing, he too could still twist his epistemological position to favor whatever political party he supports.

If we put aside the problems that all methods share equally, we can clearly see how empiricism and the scientific method have no contest.

And a nice quote that I like, and which goes with the topic :D : "It requires inductive reasoning to arrive at the premises for the principle of inductive reasoning, and therefore the justification for inductive reasoning is a circular argument" - David Hume

I posted an illustration that someone else made to show that what happens in practice is not the scientific method.

[spice756]

Here is what I dig up


-==================


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, as the inhalation of smoke (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Smoke) from organic materials (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Organic_compound) can cause various health problems.[71] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-journalHarm_Reduction_Associated_with_Inhalation_a nd_Oral_Administration_of_Cannabis_and_THC-70)
By comparison, studies on the vaporization (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Vaporizer) of cannabis found that subjects were "only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled."[72] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid17437626-71) Another study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system."[73] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid17429350-72)[74] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid16637053-73)

While a study in New Zealand of 79 lung-cancer patients suggested daily cannabis smokers have a 5.7 times higher risk of lung cancer than non-users,[76] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-75)[77] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid:18238947-76) another study of 2252 people in Los Angeles failed to find a correlation between the smoking of cannabis (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cannabis) and lung, head or neck cancers.[78] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Study_Finds_No_Link_Between_Marijuana_Use_And_Lung _Cancer-77)[79] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid:17035389-78) Some studies have also found that moderate cannabis use may protect against head and neck cancers,[80] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid19638490-79) as well as lung cancer.[81] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Study_finds_no_marijuana-cancer_connection-80) Some studies have shown that cannabidiol (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cannabidiol) may also be useful in treating breast cancer.[82] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Marijuana_compound_may_stop_spread_of_breast_cance r-81) These effects have been attributed to the well documented anti-tumoral properties of cannabinoids (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cannabinoids), specifically tetrahydrocannabinol (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol) (THC) and cannabidiol (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cannabidiol).
Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Dual_diagnosis) of anxiety, psychosis, and depression.[83] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid.3D15574485-82)[84] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid12446533-83) A 2007 meta-analysis (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Meta-analysis) estimated that cannabis use is statistically associated (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Association_(statistics)), in a dose-dependent (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Dose-response_relationship) manner, to an increased risk in the development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia.[85] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-84) No causal mechanism has been proven (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation), however, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use,[86] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid15733249-85) while other studies assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of a "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use.[87] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-86)[88] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-87)
Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown.[89] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid1932970-88) Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease.[90] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-pmid18294478-89) Though some fMRI (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/FMRI) studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes.

[Ovi]

Do you seriously believe this, or are you just saying that to confuse credulous people?
Cannabis contains cannabidiol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol), which inhibits cancer cell growth. Now whether that's strong enough to fully prevent the carcinogenic effects of smoking cannabis is another matter.
Edit: Should have read spice756's comment

[spice756]

A major 2006 study compared the effects of tobacco (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Tobacco) and Cannabis (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cannabis) smoke on the lungs.[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-cancer-16)[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-tashkin-17) The outcome of the study showed that even very heavy cannabis smokers "do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Lung_cancer),"[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-tashkin-17) while the same study showed a twenty-fold increase in lung cancer risk for tobacco smokers who smoked two or more packs of tobacco cigarettes (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cigarette) a day.[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-cancer-16)[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-tashkin-17) It is known that Cannabis smoke, like all smoke (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Smoke), contains carcinogens (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Carcinogens) and thus has a probability of triggering lung cancer, but THC (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/THC), unlike nicotine (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Nicotine), is thought to "encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-tashkin-17) Cannabidiol (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cannabidiol) (CBD), an isomer (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Isomer) of THC and another major cannabinoid (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cannabinoid) that is also present in cannabis, has been reported elsewhere to have anti-tumor properties as well. [19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-18)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_pot

==============================================


You know I remeber a story of some doctors doing research and the feds shut them down .The DEA and food and drug is shit it all hard core conservative and that is what the media quotes all the time.

Even the hard drugs are not is bad has the DEA saying .

Look at the food testing how the FDA is all hard core conservative .

[NecroCommie]

I posted an illustration that someone else made to show that what happens in practice is not the scientific method.
And how has that person arrived in that decision? Inductive reasoning? The claim that no scientist actually wants to know the truth is quite frankly an absurd one. Ofcourse there exists those kind of scientists too, but to arrive in a decision that their number would be in any way significant has no basis in real life. Also, the graph is in it's own way a strawman, as it makes pretty big assumptions as to the very motives of most scientists.

[Fulanito de Tal]

And how has that person arrived in that decision? Inductive reasoning? The claim that no scientist actually wants to know the truth is quite frankly an absurd one. Ofcourse there exists those kind of scientists too, but to arrive in a decision that their number would be in any way significant has no basis in real life. Also, the graph is in it's own way a strawman, as it makes pretty big assumptions as to the very motives of most scientists.

I don't know why you claim my stance is that no scientist actually wants to know the truth. I can't find were I have mentioned the desires of scientists.

My interpretation of the model is that scientists are at the mercy of the people that fund research. Therefore, the main factor that guides the direction of our research is the motive of the wealthy.

[NGNM85]

Violence has substantially decreased? Seriously?

Seriously. I know it flies completely in the face of the ‘popular wisdom’, which is, in some cases, (This being one of them.) anything but. Here’s Steven Pinker’s lecture on the subject at TED;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk&feature=player_embedded


Violence has certainly changed, but I'd hardly call the armed peace of omnipresent police, humanitarian missions, etc. a decrease in violence. The capacity for violence which sustains existing states is fantastic, and exists on a scale that is totally unprecedented.

It depends on how you use the word ‘violence.’ In the literal sense, physical assault or murder of human beings, is significant decreased, however, again, I don’t deny there is substantial room for improvement. In the more abstract sense it’s hard to measure, and there’s no clear definition, however, considering before the modern era virtually all governments were straight autocracies I don’t think we’re any worse off, at least.


As for life expectancy, infant mortality, a decrease in pandemics, I'm not sure these are good in and of themselves - as far as life goes I'm more interested in quality than quantity. Sure, I might live to be ninety, but I spent the first eighteen years of my life in schools, and now I have to sell my labour power to reproduce the means of a project I detest in order to survive. I'd trade a few years of living in a nursing home for a few days of freedom, thanks.

We’re talking about modern civilization contrasted with it’s predecessors. In that case, you would be much less likely to survive childbirth, you would spend your short life devoted almost exclusively to procuring food and shelter, with the added bonuses of frequent plagues and tribal conflicts, and so forth. For most of human history the average person was pretty lucky to make it to 30.


Further, we're looking at increases in cancers,

In feudal societies most people died of something else before they could succumb to cancer. Cancer patients are also faring better than ever, with new novel therapies on the horizon which will make the prognosis for cancer patients even better. It used to be a death sentence, now, many people survive it, and live for years, afterwards.


buildups of terrifying toxins that pass from generation to generation, increasing frequency of environmental and technological catastrophe (chemical spills, meltdowns, flooding, etc.). Sure, the first world might be living longer (unless you're say, a native living on-rez), but . . . so what?

Would you rather be dead? In order to worry about the meaning of life, you must first be alive. Second, again, compared to our feudal past even a poor, blue-collar worker in the United States lives a life of luxury by comparison.


Augh. By every quantitative metric I could choose, yes, it's probably better. The numbers are fucking fantastic. That would be the essence of liberal ideology - what interests me are not metrics and measurements, but lived experiences, which are not reconcilible with the underlying (ideological) assumptions of what you're getting at.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

That’s colorful bullshit. In order to have lived experiences you have to be alive, and modern technology allows for a standard of living that was inaccessible to all of our ancestors. It can be more accessible, we can live longer, healthier, happier, more productive lives. Also, if you think civilization is so worthless, so totally bereft of redeeming features, you can feel encouraged to sharpen some sticks and try the alternative.




The thing is, the law does create "rights" - rights are a discourse that arise in the context of law. They are not that which is inherent and inalienable to sentient creatures since concrete experience shows that they can and are regularly taken away.

This is total nonsense. Just because rights are violated, even systematically, does not mean they do not exist. Again, rights are that which every sentient being is entitled to, and the rest of us are ethically obligated to respect.


The sooner we stop talking about rights and start practicing autonomy, the better.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

This is just a meaningless platitude, it has no substance.


Actually "the anarchist criticism" (if there were only one) would be with laws in-and-of-themselves.[/FONT][/COLOR]

No. Again, the objection from an Anarchist perspective, would be that laws were not made democratically, or, specific grievances with specific pieces of legislation.


But what about, for example, the homicide of a child molestor?

I’m going to assume you mean the murder of a child molester, and not a murder committed by a child molester. Both are criminal behavior which would be discouraged in any even remotely sane society.


Laws are always defined by to whom they do and don't apply, and who has the power to make the decision.

You’re combining the product with the way it has been, historically, manufactured. To make a simple analogy, Coca-Cola co. is a parasitical, totalitarian institution, Coca-Cola is a sweet, if nutritionally dubious beverage. It may rot your teeth, but it is not inherently totalitarian, or parasitical, or capitalist, or anything of the sort. In every society, that is groups of more than one person, living together, there will have to be laws. There is every reason to believe an Anarchist society would have speed limits and building safety codes because it makes sense.


For this reason, laws as such are not compatable with authentic communism

I don’t see any value in that determination. I am not a Communist, or a Marxist.


(libertarian socialism? fuck, go eat Chomsky's asshole)

Brilliant.


- rather than relying on a "law" against molesting children, well . . . I mean, this example should speak for itself.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

I don’t think it says what you think it does.


That's really dependent on what you want to understand about how the world works, and what you want to accomplish with the knowledge. Again, I'm not suggesting that science is invalid, but it's not the exclusive means of knowing. Hell, there's even some overlap - theoretical math and LSD are like a match made in heaven!


[/FONT][/COLOR]

Again, if you actually want to understand anything, the scientific method is the only game in town. Even if you were to try and prove the scientific method invalid, you’d have to use it to do so, invalidating your initial hypothesis.


Uh, no.

You’re comments are dripping with nostalgia for a fictional, idealized past. No such entity exists. Medival life was, in the words of Thomas Hobbes; ‘nasty, brutish, and short.’




Actually, this is a terrific example illustrating the problem with yr ideas of what contitutes authentic knowledge. Sure, they may not have known the scientific details of the watercycle, but they knew to not dump toxic sludge into it (which, clearly, despite our objective understandings, we still have yet to practically grasp).


[/FONT][/COLOR]

That is not an issue of intelligence. This is a flawed argument. It’s like saying your dog is stupid because he wrote a novel, but his punctuation sucks. This is not an issue of intelligence, it is an issue of social responsibility, and ethics, it also has to do with technological and economic development, which are, again, unique to the human species. Here we encounter another fallacy. Other life forms appear to live in accordance with nature, however that is only because they generally have no choice. Beavers can build dams but they can’t build chainsaws, or nuclear power plants, or discotheques, because they don’t have the capacity to do these things. Also, if they did have the capacity to do these things, we could be relatively sure that they would. Also, given the opportunity, animals will gladly destroy their own ecosystem, even to the point of decimating their own population.


You know, I'd go so far as to say even most scientists would disagree with you on that one. Not only is predicting the future a messy business, but there are huge ammounts of stored methane in the polar ice that might yet land us on the "wrong side of history".

‘Natural’ disasters that could destroy the human race are relatively few. Humanity could theoretically survive the scenario you describe, we’d probably see an asteroid coming and, if not destroy or deflect it, at least defend enough people from the blast to maintain our species. There could be some epidemic, some mutated virus, or something, but we have quarantine and detection capabilities to diminish that threat. Even the bigger threats like a gamma ray burster or the sun entering it’s red giant stage would not necessarily spell the demise of our species. As I said, it’s up to us, we will choose to survive or not, we are the first to face this choice.


But at that point history isn't even really relevent as a catagory, is it?

Assuming that we are the last sentient lifeforms in the universe, yes.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

[Paraphrase]
Better democracy.
Better laws.
Better technology.

If this isn't the implicit core of liberal ideology, I don't know what is.
The fact that you cite Hobbes, Pinker, etc. speaks to a further explicit theoretical limit - if you wanted to convince anyone that you are not mired in the muck of liberalism, then one would assume that you would draw sources from outside the liberal tradition.
The circular logic of, "to try and prove the scientific method invalid, you’d have to use it to do so," speaks volumes about yr ideological commitment. I could also say, "English is the only real language, and to prove me wrong, you'd need to speak English," and within the ideological framework I've constructed, it would be impossible to prove me wrong. Other lifeworlds, however, do exist.
In any case, insofar as you seem to conceive the anarchist project as the realization of the modernist project - the existent ideology of progress, etc. without its obscene supplement (having the cake and eating it) - we have no basis for discussion.

[NGNM85]

If this isn't the implicit core of liberal ideology, I don't know what is.p

I’d say that’s a distinct possibility.


The fact that you cite Hobbes, Pinker, etc. speaks to a further explicit theoretical limit - if you wanted to convince anyone that you are not mired in the muck of liberalism, then one would assume that you would draw sources from outside the liberal tradition.

I have absolutely no interest in justifying myself to you because there’s no reason why I should feel compelled to do so. My intention was to address particular erroneous statements that you made; that human progress is a myth, that there is some other means to understand the world besides science, and a bogus assessment of Liberalism.

Second, facts should come before ideology. Pinker’s politics should be less important then the factual accuracy of what he said. His lecture on violence throughout the history of the human species is valuable because what he is saying is true; it represents something real about the world.


The circular logic of, "to try and prove the scientific method invalid, you’d have to use it to do so," speaks volumes about yr ideological commitment. I could also say, "English is the only real language, and to prove me wrong, you'd need to speak English," and within the ideological framework I've constructed, it would be impossible to prove me wrong.

First of all, that premise isn’t true and, frankly, doesn’t make much sense. Pay attention, in order to prove that the Scientific method is not the best, and only, means to understand the world you would have to provide sufficient evidence that this was not the case, which is the Scientific Method, which, incidentally, undermines the whole thesis. The technical term for this, incidentally, is an Epimenides paradox.


Other lifeworlds, however, do exist.

Like what? Seriously. By what other means could you come to understand gravity, or general relativity? Please, dazzle me.

This is empty bullshit.


In any case, insofar as you seem to conceive the anarchist project as the realization of the modernist project - the existent ideology of progress, etc. without its obscene supplement (having the cake and eating it)

I’d find this more interesting if the preponderance of Anarchist literature wasn’t on my side. The vast majority of Anarchist philosophers envisioned a modern, technologically sophisticated society.

This thesis that human progress doesn’t exist is completely devoid of substance. There is less violence, less disease, less starvation than there has ever been in human history. We have split the atom, taken pictures of distant galaxies, walked on the moon, etc. I never once claimed things couldn’t be much better than they are, but it is an empirical fact that they are now better than they have ever been, in human history. That you can dismiss all of this, centuries of accomplishments and the pain and sacrifice it took to achieve them so callously is a disgrace. Again, please, since you find civilization so completely worthless, trouble yourself no longer. Vaya con Dios, mac.


we have no basis for discussion.

Insofar as you do not subscribe to logic and reason, that is so.

[NKVD]

I read that most studies show that weed actually prevents lung cancer although there isn't enough evidence to reach a full conclusion, but there's more studies that show cancer prevention than causing cancer.

Wonder what those scientists were smoking. :laugh:

[spice756]

Is it me but it seems members are having a debate with self? Where are the posts they are replying to?

And this Virgin Molotov Cocktail where is his posts people are replying to?

[Havet]

Wonder what those scientists were smoking. :laugh:

Didn't you get the memo? Everybody's under the influence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNUCLO6gDhs)

[Revolution starts with U]

I think it is safe to say the scientific method has proven far better than sky god myths. So until something is found to be better, I'd say we stick to it... at least for now.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is it me but it seems members are having a debate with self? Where are the posts they are replying to?

And this Virgin Molotov Cocktail where is his posts people are replying to?

I can see them. Are you sure they've not somehow made it onto your ignore list?