The Anti-Science

[stone]

Storm,  in the developed world, we could reduce our consumption of goods as a way of reducing emissions even if the goods are produced in the developing world.

[doodle]

Storm,

I hate to say it, but if human kind wants to progress to the next level and become a "Star Trek" type utopia, it will probably take a single world government that can put a stop to these practices of outsourcing manufacturing to whatever country is so poor as to not care if you dump raw waste into the rivers and skies.

This is basically the conclusion that my brother came to after finishing his Phd in anthropology. He was a big Ayn Rand libertarian "let the market" decide kind of guy, but realized after many many years of study that this particular philosophy was unable to address the large global threats that humans face.

[doodle]

Ronald Reagan even realized this to some degree. I think he gave a number of speeches at the UN where he wished that aliens would invade the Earth so that humans could put their petty differences behind them and join together.

When you look at a picture of our little Earth floating in the vast universe, you realize how perverse it is that we spend so much time poisoning, polluting, fighting, and killing one another.

[MediumTex]

When you look at a picture of our little Earth floating in the vast universe, you realize how perverse it is that we spend so much time poisoning, polluting, fighting, and killing one another.

After overcoming all of our natural predators (with the exception of bacteria and viruses), we have simply become predators of one another.

[doodle]

John Connor: We're not gonna make it, are we? People, I mean.
The Terminator: It's in your nature to destroy yourselves.
John Connor: Yeah. Major drag, huh?

[Tortoise]

Ronald Reagan even realized this to some degree. I think he gave a number of speeches at the UN where he wished that aliens would invade the Earth so that humans could put their petty differences behind them and join together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOJxqJe_ZuA

[SmallPotatoes]

Is America becoming anti-science? Does anyone get the impression that half of our country wants to turn its back on scientific progress? There seems to be a backlash against climate change, alternative energy tech, evolution, genetic research etc. in this country that doesn't permeate other western developed countries as deeply. Why is such a large segement of America (which has benefitted so much from the high tech sector) suddenly becoming so luddite?

This article: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_a ... atters_em/strongly argues why science and the scientific method are so important for the well being of humanity.

In response to the OP on the topic of anti-science:

What separates most of us form the giants upon whose shoulders we stand is at extremes a talent in the sciences, mathematics, and logic (e.g. Stephen Hawking), or at least our desire to understand our world by a more objective, working paradigm.  The human being is unparalleled in its willingness, perhaps nature, to try to understand the natural world, but when confronted with difficulties doing so, will employ supernatural explanations.  

It is ironic that parents rarely involve themselves in their children's academic lives, but march the entire family to church every week under penalty of eternal hell and damnation.  What is more ironic is that compared to many popular religions science and math are easier to grasp.  But, it is precisely because we have no God Test, no hard evidence to conclude the Jews or the Christians are right about it all (or wrong about it all), which makes religion all the more tempting.  You can literally say that something occurred as a act of god and only god knows why and in the view of religion you are a genius.

Mark Twain wrote in his book Christian Science that we are all--and we must admit it--a little insane.  Our sanity is manifest in things such as simple mathematics (e.g., two and two equals four, fifteen take way seven leaves eight) which no one would object to.  Our insanity is how we are viewed when we proclaim some fanciful religious truths or how we view those who do not believe as we do.  

Consider that Galileo's heliocentric universe was denounced, persecuted, shunned and rejected until long after his death by the Catholic church.  With a bit of knowledge in both math and science I think anyone could find his proofs persuasive.  Not to mention more recent evident in support of his claim.  Perhaps another relevant candidate for this distinction would be Harry Browne whose investing insight is at once disturbingly lucid and doggedly immutable.

How many people burned for witchcraft because they float in water?  What percentage of the human population claims to have been abducted by aliens, and has also been abused by an adult as a child?  Were crop circles not just an elaborate hoax that even some scientists guessed could not have been man made?

It is everyone's job, then, to promote sane thought, introspection, and reasonable, objective explanations to our world.  Speak not so much as your opinion, but as factually as possible when confronted with anti-science and leave it at that.  The next time a shaman or witchdoctor proclaims some unprovable divine truth it will be preceded with a momentary silence to consider your words.

TLDR; The human being is unparalleled in its willingness, perhaps nature, to try to understand the natural world, but when confronted with difficulties doing so, will employ supernatural explanations.  Our sanity is manifest in things such as simple mathematics (e.g., two and two equals four, fifteen take way seven leaves eight) which no one would object to. Our insanity... people burned for witchcraft because they float in water. It is everyone's job, then, to promote sane thought, introspection, and reasonable, objective explanations to our world.

[MediumTex]

Toward the end of Jon Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven", he reports on legal proceedings to try to determine whether someone who murdered several people because he believed God told him to meets the definition of insanity under Utah state law.

Excerpts:

Gardner [an expert witness and psychologist] said: "The idea that Christians should pray to have the Holy Spirit fill their lives, to come in and control their lives, possess them,...is a very common notion....The idea that people can be influenced by evil, and that Satan is a personal being who can influence us, and that Satan can take control of our minds and influence our behavior, is a very common notion to Christians and non-Christian religious people."  Gardner reminded the court that a number of religions still engage in exorcisms, to remove evil spirits that have taken possession of individuals.

"Are people who practice exorcisms," Horton [the state attorney] asked, "are they mentally ill, necessarily, because they believe in evil spirits?"

"Certainly not," Gardner answered.

Later, Gardner expounded further on the distinction between believing in preposterous religious tenets and clinical delusion.  "A false belief," he reiterated, "isn't necessarily a basis of a mental illness."  He emphasized that most of mankind subscribes to "ideas that are not particularly rational....For example, many of us believe in something referred to as trans-substantiation.  That is when the priest performs the Mass, that the bread and wine become the actual blood and body of Christ.  From a scientific standpoint, that is a very strange, irrational, absurd idea.  But we accept that on the basis of faith, those of us who believe that.  And because it has become so familiar and common to us, that we don't even notice, in a sense, that it has an irrational quality to it.  Or the idea of the virgin birth, which from a medical standpoint is highly irrational, but it is an article of faith from a religious standpoint." 

Gardner explained that what makes Ron Lafferty's [the defendant charged with murder] religious beliefs "so striking is not that they are somewhat strange or even irrational, because all religious people have...irrational ideas; what make them different is that they are so uniquely his own."

"There are many irrational ideas that are shared in the community that are non-psychotic," Gardner replied [to a question from the defense].  "We all hold to non-reality based ideas."

This exchange always struck me as a person who who holds himself out as an expert in rationality trying to somehow show that a person who believes God told him to brutally murder his own family members is basically occupying the same type of mental space as many members of the community, and what makes him different is merely the uniqueness of his own beliefs.  That seems incredibly lacking in any sort of intellectual curiosity about what the existence of a killer like this might suggest about the dangers of irrational belief in general.

It always amazes me when I see people who are trained in science and their stock in trade is the cause and effect relationships within the visible world, but yet they can also hold in their heads beliefs in many types of supernatural events which, if true, would negate the existence of ANY hard and fast cause and effect relationships in the visible world since any such relationships would be subject to periodic "overruling" through various forms of supernatural intervention. 

I'm not suggesting that there is a right or wrong view on these things, but it just seems that a belief in a supernatural force that periodically intervenes in the physical world would make the study of immutable laws of science sort of pointless, since what would the point be of mastering the "laws" of the physical world when one of the premises of the belief in the supernatural is that these "laws" are really not laws at all, but merely what tends to happen when supernatural forces are not at work modifying outcomes from what they would otherwise be to fulfill some predestined plan or design.

But I understand that as human beings we are all probably a bit conflicted and/or inconsistent in the beliefs we hold at any given time.

[stone]

Medium Tex, in my experience (I've had a psychotic episode in the past), the psychiatric profession didn't seem bothered about unique far-out ideas. Instead they were just concerned with "sanity". I think the common conception of sanity is the absence of  unique irrational beliefs but I think that is wrong.  Psychiatric professionals have a check list to give you marks out of ten for psychosis and marks out of ten for mania. From my own personal experience, insanity felt like my mind was a bit like the wheels of a car spinning on ice rather than propelling the car. Insanity was as hard to repress by an act of will as pain is hard to control by an act of will. I find it very hard to decribe or even comprehend myself but it was very much something else beyond any beliefs etc. Obviously it can all be intertwined. Unique far-out ideas are prone to triggering insanity and insanity is prone to leading to a gross extrapolation of far-out ideas -creating a destructive feedback loop.
A psychiatric nurse gave me a great example. He said that someone could have a belief that his neighbour was stealing his milk from outside his door (in the UK you can get milk deliveries). That person could be so agitated about that, that they never slept, could not think about anything else, started halluciating and became incapacitated with severe mental illness even though the neighbour really was stealing milk. Conversely other people can have a unique, elaborate and entirely irrational belief system that they are comfortable with and live a happy, productive and socially integrated life. The psychiatric nurse told me that he saw his role as helping patients try to put to one side any consideration about the validity or otherwise of the patient's beliefs. Trying to work out the truth or otherwise of the beliefs was just a distraction for the patient who instead needs to focus on being sane.
For me the whole experience was very sobering. When psychotic, I had a comprehension of the world totally at odds with how things seemed before and since. It has tempered my trust in my own and other peoples sense of "rationality".

[MediumTex]

Stone,

Thanks for sharing your experiences with sanity.

There is no doubt that irrational belief systems provide countless millions of people with a mental framework for maintaining their sanity, and Job One for all of us should always be to maintain our own personal sanity.

What creates a real dilemma for lots of people, I think, is when they are faced with an urge to move outside their traditional belief system because they believe there is some sturdier "truth" out on that frontier.  As they move away from the shelter of their traditional belief structure, however, they often find that there is a sense of alienation or other confusing experience that at some point begins to threaten their sanity, which can make the whole truth seeking experiment counterproductive. 

It's a difficult set of mental and spiritual challenges to sort through.  It's sort of like the PP, if you're mind is not ready for certain things, it's not always a good idea to expose yourself to them.  (I am only speaking from my own experience with these matters.)

[SmallPotatoes]

Toward the end of Jon Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven", he reports on legal proceedings to try to determine whether someone who murdered several people because he believed God told him to meets the definition of insanity under Utah state law.

Excerpts:

Gardner [an expert witness and psychologist] said: "The idea that Christians should pray to have the Holy Spirit fill their lives, to come in and control their lives, possess them,...is a very common notion....The idea that people can be influenced by evil, and that Satan is a personal being who can influence us, and that Satan can take control of our minds and influence our behavior, is a very common notion to Christians and non-Christian religious people."  Gardner reminded the court that a number of religions still engage in exorcisms, to remove evil spirits that have taken possession of individuals.

"Are people who practice exorcisms," Horton [the state attorney] asked, "are they mentally ill, necessarily, because they believe in evil spirits?"

"Certainly not," Gardner answered.

Later, Gardner expounded further on the distinction between believing in preposterous religious tenets and clinical delusion.  "A false belief," he reiterated, "isn't necessarily a basis of a mental illness."  He emphasized that most of mankind subscribes to "ideas that are not particularly rational....For example, many of us believe in something referred to as trans-substantiation.  That is when the priest performs the Mass, that the bread and wine become the actual blood and body of Christ.  From a scientific standpoint, that is a very strange, irrational, absurd idea.  But we accept that on the basis of faith, those of us who believe that.  And because it has become so familiar and common to us, that we don't even notice, in a sense, that it has an irrational quality to it.  Or the idea of the virgin birth, which from a medical standpoint is highly irrational, but it is an article of faith from a religious standpoint." 

Gardner explained that what makes Ron Lafferty's [the defendant charged with murder] religious beliefs "so striking is not that they are somewhat strange or even irrational, because all religious people have...irrational ideas; what make them different is that they are so uniquely his own."

"There are many irrational ideas that are shared in the community that are non-psychotic," Gardner replied [to a question from the defense].  "We all hold to non-reality based ideas."

This exchange always struck me as a person who who holds himself out as an expert in rationality trying to somehow show that a person who believes God told him to brutally murder his own family members is basically occupying the same type of mental space as many members of the community, and what makes him different is merely the uniqueness of his own beliefs.  That seems incredibly lacking in any sort of intellectual curiosity about what the existence of a killer like this might suggest about the dangers of irrational belief in general.

It always amazes me when I see people who are trained in science and their stock in trade is the cause and effect relationships within the visible world, but yet they can also hold in their heads beliefs in many types of supernatural events which, if true, would negate the existence of ANY hard and fast cause and effect relationships in the visible world since any such relationships would be subject to periodic "overruling" through various forms of supernatural intervention. 

I'm not suggesting that there is a right or wrong view on these things, but it just seems that a belief in a supernatural force that periodically intervenes in the physical world would make the study of immutable laws of science sort of pointless, since what would the point be of mastering the "laws" of the physical world when one of the premises of the belief in the supernatural is that these "laws" are really not laws at all, but merely what tends to happen when supernatural forces are not at work modifying outcomes from what they would otherwise be to fulfill some predestined plan or design.

But I understand that as human beings we are all probably a bit conflicted and/or inconsistent in the beliefs we hold at any given time.

Under the Banner... is a very striking read, Tex.  I would suggest it to anyone here regardless of your literature preference. 

Another read related to Tex's point here would be The Voice of Genius by Denis Brian.  It probes the personal beliefs of many notable scientific (and other) geniuses of our age.

Since I'm on this tangent I would also recommend The Immortalists.  The true store of two pretty ordinary guys Dr. Alexis Carrel and Charles Lindbergh (yes, the Charles Lindbergh) who get together for a good cause, i.e., to live forever... It's pretty macabre at some points, so be forewarned.

As far as a belief vs. a fact I think it's safe to say that all we have are beliefs.  Some are just tested, tried, and true enough to be called fact.  However, all of science is a theory at best.  It's all 99.9%.  Already we have seen how some scientific fact of the day becomes obsolete in the face of new discovery.  Not as much now as in the 19th and 20th centuries, but we have seen seemingly solid foundations shaken before.

When Ghandi was gunned down, when John Paul II lay on his death bed, when JFK was shot...when Amelia Earhart disappeared,  Sept. 11 Flight 93... people prayed for their lives in millions!  Nothing happened.  Predictably, they all died from mortal wounds and/or natural causes.  Personally, I have no need for religious precepts, spiritual realms, or prayer.  They just don't work.  Science works.  Medicine works. Math works.  Until something better comes along I will stick with those.  Believe what you will, America.

[Storm]

When Ghandi was gunned down, when John Paul II lay on his death bed, when JFK was shot...when Amelia Earhart disappeared,  Sept. 11 Flight 93... people prayed for their lives in millions!  Nothing happened.  Predictably, they all died from mortal wounds and/or natural causes.  Personally, I have no need for religious precepts, spiritual realms, or prayer.  They just don't work.  Science works.  Medicine works. Math works.  Until something better comes along I will stick with those.  Believe what you will, America.

Right on, SmallPotatoes.