The Trabant Model Of Science

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 11:18:40 PM9/12/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com

Remember the Trabant? It was the national automobile of East-Germany. After World War II, the existing factories of car manufacturers were forced to make Trabants. In line with communist ideology, the car had to be cheap and not too extravagant, so it came equipped with a two-stroke engine. Moreover, as a showcase of futuristic design and ingenuity, its light weight allowed it to come with a plastic body! Eventually, the engine was replaced with a four-stroke 1.1 VW Polo, but it remained the epitome of what's wrong with socialism: poor performance; simplistic design that has contempt for any style, beauty, quality or class; fabricated with wasteful, inflexible, inefficient and polluting production methods; not responding to customer demand; etc, etc. Production finally stopped after over three million Trabants had been produced. Demand collapsed when Germany's reunification finally allowed people to buy other cars. 
 
Science, in the way it is controlled by government, has many similarities with the Trabant. Government directly controls what students are taught under the subject "science" in public schools. Government, through its control over funding, decides what kind of scientific research and education gets financial support. Government controls a huge military budget, deciding which scientific research and development projects get priority. Most scientists will end up working either in education or on military projects, either directly or indirectly under this government control.

Between World War II and Germany's reunification, people who worked in the car industry in East Germany had no choice but to work on the Trabant project. Not walking in line with the communist doctrine not only meant risking one's job, political dissidents were deported all the way to Siberia.

In the US, freedom of speech and religion are supposed to be rights that are cherished. Yet, few scientists seem to have the courage to speak out against the fact that science seems to follow the Trabant model. Instead, in an effort to impress those who control funding for science, scientists glorify the Trabant model, rushing to attack someone who points at the facts. Moreover, in an epistemology forum, where one would expect these kind of issues to be discussed, those who call themselves scientists appear to resort to personal attacks, offensive language and brutal twisting of the truth, all to prevent someone to speak out on these matters.

But the truth is that science is knowingly and deliberately structured in the same mould as the Trabant. The most important epistemological question therefore is whether this was the best model. Just like we cherish things like competition between manufacturers and suppliers of cars, and choice for people who are considering buying a car, shouldn't we cherish those same values in regard to science?

Sam

zinnic

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 11:01:20 AM9/13/05
to Epistemology

This post is (as usual for the author) blatent politics. Why she is not
'moderated' is beyond me?

Ken Kelley

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 6:07:48 PM9/13/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
<snip>

> Science, in the way it is controlled by government, has many similarities
> with the Trabant. Government directly controls what students are taught
> under the subject "science" in public schools. Government, through its
> control over funding, decides what kind of scientific research and education
> gets financial support. Government controls a huge military budget, deciding
> which scientific research and development projects get priority. Most
> scientists will end up working either in education or on military projects,
> either directly or indirectly under this government control.
>

Yes, the government decides what should be taught in government-funded
schools, and the government decides what research should be done using
government funds. However, the government does not decide what is
taught in non-government-funded private school science classes and does
not decide what research is done at non-government-funded private labs.
In general, whoever is providing the funding decides what is done with
the funding. This applies to pretty much any field of endeavor. Would
you hire a contractor to work on your house and then let him decide
what to do with your money?

> In the US, freedom of speech and religion are supposed to be rights that are
> cherished. Yet, few scientists seem to have the courage to speak out against
> the fact that science seems to follow the Trabant model. Instead, in an
> effort to impress those who control funding for science, scientists glorify
> the Trabant model, rushing to attack someone who points at the facts.

I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the scenarios you describe here.
Could you point at some specific incidents of scientists rushing to
attack someone who points at the facts?


> But the truth is that science is knowingly and deliberately structured in
> the same mould as the Trabant. The most important epistemological question
> therefore is whether this was the best model. Just like we cherish things
> like competition between manufacturers and suppliers of cars, and choice for
> people who are considering buying a car, shouldn't we cherish those same
> values in regard to science?
>
> Sam

OK, I posited above that the *topics* of research are generally
dictated by those who provide the funding. However, it seems to me
that epistomology would be more interested in the *methods* of
research, no matter what topics they are applied to. Are you saying
the government (or other fund source) dictates the methods scientists
should use to do research in addition to dictating the topics to be
researched?

-- Ken

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 8:10:39 PM9/13/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Hi Ken, I'll add some comments to each of your responses below:
 
On 9/14/05, Ken Kelley <kenke...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
<snip>
Science, in the way it is controlled by government, has many similarities with the Trabant. Government directly controls what students are taught under the subject "science" in public schools. Government, through its control over funding, decides what kind of scientific research and education gets financial support. Government controls a huge military budget, deciding which scientific research and development projects get priority. Most scientists will end up working either in education or on military projects, either directly or indirectly under this government control.



Yes, the government decides what should be taught in government-funded schools, and the government decides what research should be done using government funds.  However, the government does not decide what is taught in non-government-funded private school science classes and does
not decide what research is done at non-government-funded private labs.
 
What is taught at non-government-funded private school science classes? Creationism? Intelligent Design? When science is taught at all, it's likely to glorify the monopoly-model of one coherent "nature" (as created by God) that responds to God's absolute and universal laws. That is no challenge to the monopoly grip of government over society and Trabant model of science. But can you name a single high school that tells students that the Trabant model is not necessarily the best approach?

 
(continued) .. In general, whoever is providing the funding decides what is done with the funding.  This applies to pretty much any field of endeavor.  Would you hire a contractor to work on your house and then let him decide what to do with your money?
 
We have anti-trust and cartel legislation to ensure that this contractor doesn't engage in unfair trade practices. We have anti-racketeering laws and more legislation like that to prevent that the contractor just did what he wanted. Shouldn't we wonder why such principles of fair trade are not applied to science and to security services? After all, we the people are the ones who provide the funding, thus in line with your reasoning, we should decide whether we wanted the Trabant model. Researchers and the education system in general don't even ask that question, they simply take it for granted that the Trabant model is the way to go. This makes it even more important for epistemologists to ask that question.

In the US, freedom of speech and religion are supposed to be rights that are cherished. Yet, few scientists seem to have the courage to speak out against the fact that science seems to follow the Trabant model. Instead, in an effort to impress those who control funding for science, scientists glorify the Trabant model, rushing to attack someone who points at the facts.


I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the scenarios you describe here. Could you point at some specific incidents of scientists rushing to attack someone who points at the facts?
 
I pointed at the fact when I started this thread and, moments later, a person who calls himself zinnic calls for me to be 'moderated'.  The fact that you seem to be unfamiliar with such scenarios suggests that anyone who has brought up the issue around you has been silenced.  Your own position seems to confirm that you wouldn't allocate any funding to the epistemological question whether the Trabant model was the best model for science. So, there you go!  That explains why the question is rarely asked, at least in the environment you're in. 

But the truth is that science is knowingly and deliberately structured in the same mould as the Trabant. The most important epistemological question therefore is whether this was the best model. Just like we cherish things like competition between manufacturers and suppliers of cars, and choice for people who are considering buying a car, shouldn't we cherish those same values in regard to science?


OK, I posited above that the *topics* of research are generally
dictated by those who provide the funding.  However, it seems to me that epistomology would be more interested in the *methods* of research, no matter what topics they are applied to.  Are you saying the government (or other fund source) dictates the methods scientists should use to do research in addition to dictating the topics to be researched?
 
The method prescribed by government is to shut up and follow orders. There is no tolerance for an open mind. Whenever there are two or more theories, researchers are told to apply Occam's Razor, so that the Trabant monopoly model will be preserved, as if reality adhered to a single and simplistic set of coherent laws. If someone notices that reality is actually different, then such a person will be silenced with the remark that "further research" is necessary in this area. Either such "further research" is never done because it doesn't get the funding, or the funding is given to the person most likely to further apply Occam's Razor and thus strip out any dissident views. The research method is to preserve the Trabant model. Epistemologically, there's little question about that. But the really interesting question is whether the Trabant was the best way to go...
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 1:30:09 AM9/14/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> The method prescribed by government is to shut up and follow orders. There
> is no tolerance for an open mind. Whenever there are two or more theories,
> researchers are told to apply Occam's Razor, so that the Trabant monopoly
> model will be preserved, as if reality adhered to a single and simplistic
> set of coherent laws. If someone notices that reality is actually different,
> then such a person will be silenced with the remark that "further research"
> is necessary in this area. Either such "further research" is never done
> because it doesn't get the funding, or the funding is given to the person
> most likely to further apply Occam's Razor and thus strip out any dissident
> views. The research method is to preserve the Trabant model.
> Epistemologically, there's little question about that. But the really
> interesting question is whether the Trabant was the best way to go...
> Sam

Why don't you propose a model of the world without using the Occam's
razor as a guiding principle? And I will add variable after variable to
your theory which do not influence the outcome measurably -- and
they'll all be perfectly alright theories according to you.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move
in the opposite direction.

-Souvik

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 2:14:59 AM9/14/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/14/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why don't you propose a model of the world without using the Occam's razor as a guiding principle? And I will add variable after variable to your theory which do not influence the outcome measurably -- and they'll all be perfectly alright theories according to you.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.

-Souvik
Occam's Razor isn't applied to car manufacturers and suppliers, and for very good reasons - if Occam's Razor was applied to the car industry, we'd end up with a Trabant in no time. 
 
So, the question is: Should suppliers of cars and suppliers of security services be treated differently? That's partly a political question, but it's also an epistemological question, and it arguably is the most important epistemological issue.
 
What's amazing is that some many people deny the importance of this matter. They like to put on a blindfold in regard to this issue, moreover, they come to a forum like this with the deliberate intention to attack someone who brings up this issue. The vigor of their attacks and the strong feelings raised by this issue are in itself a good indication that this is an important issue.
 
It doesn't take much courage or ingenuity to support the Trabant model. It's already there and there's lots of applause and financial support from the supporters of the Trabant model for scientists who collaborate and walk in line. It takes more imagination to envisage better ways to deal with things. For those who lack such imagination, it may suffice to mention that the Trabant is no longer in production. Time to catch up with reality!
 
Sam 

Souvik

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 10:04:52 PM9/14/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> Occam's Razor isn't applied to car manufacturers and suppliers, and for very
> good reasons - if Occam's Razor was applied to the car industry, we'd end up
> with a Trabant in no time.

Occam's Razor simply states: "one should not increase, beyond what is
necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".

It has *nothing* to do with car manufacturing or supplying and is as
useless as toilet paper would be in digging tunnels. It is entirely an
attitude in philosophy popularly endorsed.

> So, the question is: Should suppliers of cars and suppliers of security
> services be treated differently? That's partly a political question, but
> it's also an epistemological question, and it arguably is the most important
> epistemological issue.
> What's amazing is that some many people deny the importance of this matter.
> They like to put on a blindfold in regard to this issue, moreover, they come
> to a forum like this with the deliberate intention to attack someone who
> brings up this issue. The vigor of their attacks and the strong feelings
> raised by this issue are in itself a good indication that this is an
> important issue.
> It doesn't take much courage or ingenuity to support the Trabant model.
> It's already there and there's lots of applause and financial support from
> the supporters of the Trabant model for scientists who collaborate and walk
> in line. It takes more imagination to envisage better ways to deal with
> things. For those who lack such imagination, it may suffice to mention that
> the Trabant is no longer in production. Time to catch up with reality!
> Sam

Sadly the situation is thus: People who are can understand science
happen to be smart and independent thinkers to a large degree. They
understand what we know about nature and the degree of certainty with
which we know it. Then there are people who do not understand any
science, and are usually people who will read a thing or two in
pop-science books and are not very smart independent thinkers. *They
think the whole enterprise of science is a racket simply because they
cannot understand it.* Inspite of the obvious power over nature science
provides us through technology, they will continue to contend its
validity with useless ramblings (occassionally sprinkled with
soundbites (like 'duality'!) from science media). They are very funny
people.

-Souvik

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 11:27:50 PM9/15/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/15/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sadly the situation is thus: People who are can understand science happen to be smart and independent thinkers to a large degree. They understand what we know about nature and the degree of certainty with which we know it. Then there are people who do not understand any science, and are usually people who will read a thing or two in pop-science books and are not very smart independent thinkers. *They think the whole enterprise of science is a racket simply because they cannot understand it.* Inspite of the obvious power over nature science provides us through technology, they will continue to contend its validity with useless ramblings (occassionally sprinkled with soundbites (like 'duality'!) from science media). They are very funny people.

-Souvik
Apparently, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the Trabant as a car didn't work. The car did work, in the sense that it had an engine and it moved. It just didn't work as well as most other cars. Similarly, I'm not saying that science doesn't work, I'm saying that science currently follows the Trabant-model with all its shortcomings. The Trabant as a car only existed due to government coercion - people in East Germany simply weren't allowed to buy other cars. Those who questioned the Trabant model were treated with the very hostility and contempt that you are expressing. In East Germany, they called people who questioned the Trabant-model dissidents and imprisoned them. The demagogues who ran the Trabant scheme accused people who questioned the Trabant-model of being stupid, traitors, etc, in exactly the way you still seek to defame me.
 
But the more you personally attack me, the more you expose the typical methods and shortcomings of the Trabant-model. If you're saying that the education system fails a lot of people, then the more reason for reform. Just like the Trabant had its shortcomings, the education system needs reform. We should abandon the lesser model and instead embrace a plurality of alternatives, while encouraging reform not merely in education, but in many other areas as well. If scientists are as smart as you say, then they will have no problems understanding the need for reform. And unlike you, I have confidence in other people as well. I believe that people do recognize a Trabant when it's rolling down the street. You may feel that you currently benefit from this scheme, but long-term even you will be better off with reform. And while you may now dislike me for exposing the scheme, you will eventually thank me for making you see the light. You'll realize that I am really just the messenger - the scheme is there, if I don't expose it, someone else will, because it doesn't take rocket-science to work out that the current model of science looks suspiciously like a Trabant, and that's reality!
 
Sam 

Souvik

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 3:21:21 AM9/16/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> Apparently, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the
> Trabant as a car didn't work. The car did work, in the sense that it had an
> engine and it moved. It just didn't work as well as most other cars.

So show me an alternative to mainstream science and physics that does
work.
Everyone is *looking* for alternatives -- that IS the whole business of
science and that is how it progresses. Radical change.

However, the reason primary education in the physical sciences is so
narrow and unaccepting of alternatives is because of the following:

The basics of the physical sciences that deal with ordinary scale
phenomena have been exhaustively explored. Almost every alternative
theory worth pursuing *has* been pursued. So, unless one is training to
be a hardcore physicist/philosopher, but only an engineer fit enough to
use scientific results and not professionally discover them, one is
asked to stay on the treaded path. Otherwise, the person might end up
wasting a large portion of his life re-inventing the wheel or just
getting it all wrong.


> Similarly, I'm not saying that science doesn't work, I'm saying that science
> currently follows the Trabant-model with all its shortcomings. The Trabant
> as a car only existed due to government coercion - people in East Germany
> simply weren't allowed to buy other cars. Those who questioned the Trabant
> model were treated with the very hostility and contempt that you are
> expressing. In East Germany, they called people who questioned the
> Trabant-model dissidents and imprisoned them. The demagogues who ran the
> Trabant scheme accused people who questioned the Trabant-model of being
> stupid, traitors, etc, in exactly the way you still seek to defame me.
> But the more you personally attack me, the more you expose the typical
> methods and shortcomings of the Trabant-model. If you're saying that the
> education system fails a lot of people, then the more reason for reform.

You see, there is a definite right and wrong in the physical sciences,
unlike the humanities.

A person who says it takes 100 seconds for a mass to fall through 1
metre on the surface of the earth is simply wrong (proved
experimentally). It doesn't matter if 9 out of 10 people in a populace
think so -- they're all provably wrong and hence fail. The only reform
would be to teach things better with more clarity.

However, a person who says Hamlet had an Oedipus complex could be right
or wrong and if 9 out of 10 people in a populace think so -- then,
well, it could be so and there is reason for reform if the education
system fails 9 of them. T

Your defamation began when you feigned profundity by claiming
epistemologists discovered duality in string theory that does away with
singularities, or some equally potent nonsense sprinkled with
soundbites. In my experience, it is common among crackpots to do so.
The trend has continued with your claiming that Occam's Razor was used
to make the Trabant -- which makes absolutely no sense at all if one
looks up the definition of the Occam's Razor.


> Just like the Trabant had its shortcomings, the education system needs
> reform. We should abandon the lesser model and instead embrace a plurality
> of alternatives, while encouraging reform not merely in education, but in
> many other areas as well.

Making a car involves more degrees of freedom than making a physical
theory.
The very fundamental physical theories are the most highly constrained.
There are just about 50 to 60 alternatives for the ultimate theory
today.

That is nothing compared to the tens of thousands pf alternatives we
had to deal with about 15 years ago. They were systematically tested
and weeded out by what has become very streamlined procedures. Today
you can propose a theory and its test and get an experimental
confirmation or negation within two weeks.

-Souvik

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 5:53:31 AM9/16/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/16/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
> Apparently, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the
> Trabant as a car didn't work. The car did work, in the sense that it had an
> engine and it moved. It just didn't work as well as most other cars.

So show me an alternative to mainstream science and physics that does work. Everyone is *looking* for alternatives -- that IS the whole business of science and that is how it progresses. Radical change.
 
 
Vouchers would bring some much-needed differentiation to the way science is being taught in the education system. The problem is that so many scientists take a very political position in this matter and refuse to even consider alternatives to the Trabant-model. Instead, they prefer to work along with and stay within the Trabant-model. They have become embedded in the system with vested interests in preservation of the Trabant-model. They are unwilling and unable to contemplate radical change.
 

 
However, the reason primary education in the physical sciences is so narrow and unaccepting of alternatives is because of the following:

The basics of the physical sciences that deal with ordinary scale phenomena have been exhaustively explored. Almost every alternative theory worth pursuing *has* been pursued. So, unless one is training to be a hardcore physicist/philosopher, but only an engineer fit enough to use scientific results and not professionally discover them, one is
asked to stay on the treaded path. Otherwise, the person might end up wasting a large portion of his life re-inventing the wheel or just getting it all wrong.
 
 
Instead of following the Trabant-model, it makes more sense to introduce vouchers to encourage differentiation in education in physical sciences at both primary and higher education levels. We have to also look at other ways to reform the system, such as integrating education in work, leisure and day-to-day activities. The current model gives a lot of funding to classroom teaching, whereas other types of learning as as much effective, if not more effective. Examples are homeschooling, tutoring, self-study, online learning, apprenticeships and on the job training.    


 
Similarly, I'm not saying that science doesn't work, I'm saying that science currently follows the Trabant-model with all its shortcomings. The Trabant as a car only existed due to government coercion - people in East Germany simply weren't allowed to buy other cars. Those who questioned the Trabant-model were treated with the very hostility and contempt that you are expressing. In East Germany, they called people who questioned the Trabant-model dissidents and imprisoned them. The demagogues who ran the Trabant scheme accused people who questioned the Trabant-model of being stupid, traitors, etc, in exactly the way you still seek to defame me.  But the more you personally attack me, the more you expose the typical methods and shortcomings of the Trabant-model. If you're saying that the education system fails a lot of people, then the more reason for reform.
 
 
You see, there is a definite right and wrong in the physical sciences, unlike the humanities.

A person who says it takes 100 seconds for a mass to fall through 1 metre on the surface of the earth is simply wrong (proved experimentally). It doesn't matter if 9 out of 10 people in a populace think so -- they're all provably wrong and hence fail. The only reform would be to teach things better with more clarity.
 
 
If there's only one car on the market (the Trabant), then it is clear that government encourages this. But it doesn't have to be this way. Just like the Trabant-model was eventually abandoned in East Germany, the way science is being taught and funded can be reformed. Will this lead to new ideas about gravity? Perhaps, perhaps not. When other cars were finally allowed to be sold in East Germany, they all had the same four wheels and a steering wheel. But such similarities are no justification for the Trabant-model. The point is that in a free market, car manufacturers are free to follow different directions. Perhaps they do all arrive at the same conclusions, but if that was the case, then they did so without being coerced into doing so.  
 

 
However, a person who says Hamlet had an Oedipus complex could be right or wrong and if 9 out of 10 people in a populace think so -- then, well, it could be so and there is reason for reform if the education system fails 9 of them. T

Your defamation began when you feigned profundity by claiming epistemologists discovered duality in string theory that does away with singularities, or some equally potent nonsense sprinkled with soundbites. In my experience, it is common among crackpots to do so. The trend has continued with your claiming that Occam's Razor was used to make the Trabant -- which makes absolutely no sense at all if one looks up the definition of the Occam's Razor.

 
Your continued namecalling is evidence that you're unfit to discuss matters like this. What's more interesting than responding to such name-calling is to wonder why you would resort to name-calling. You must be felling the heat, not feeling at ease with the epistemological aspects of string theory and Occam's Razor. Of course, you've long ago admitted your contempt for epistemology. Suffice to say that your lack of epistemological depth is showing.

 
 
Just like the Trabant had its shortcomings, the education system needs reform. We should abandon the lesser model and instead embrace a plurality of alternatives, while encouraging reform not merely in education, but in many other areas as well.

 

Making a car involves more degrees of freedom than making a physical theory. The very fundamental physical theories are the most highly constrained. There are just about 50 to 60 alternatives for the ultimate theory today.

That is nothing compared to the tens of thousands pf alternatives we had to deal with about 15 years ago. They were systematically tested and weeded out by what has become very streamlined procedures. Today you can propose a theory and its test and get an experimental confirmation or negation within two weeks.

-Souvik


If physical theory really was that straightforward, then you would not have to be so fearful for any differentiation, wouldn't you? If you were right, then it wouldn't really matter much how education and funding of science took place, because your "nature" would force all into the same straitjacket, wouldn't it? If there truly was "a definite right and wrong in the physical sciences", then why are you so fearful that people might listen to me? Why would you resort to name-calling if there was such a straightforward singular truth, some kind of General Universal Theory (GUT) that encompassed everything, a Theory of Everthing that was more universal and absolute than the dogmas of the Pope?

But of course, there must be a reason why you oppose my suggestions with so much vigor. Deep in your heart you must know that I am right and that - if I expose this scheme - you as a scientist might lose your current privileges. Just like the comrades who pulled the strings within Trabant, you defend a monopoly model without even bothering to come up with arguments. You simple say that you are right. But the reality is that many scientists are convinced that a GUT is a dead-end-street, while mainstream science has long abandoned the false simplicity and certainty of the Newtonian Universe. Rave on, Souvik, you're doing a great job proving my point every time.
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 3:44:08 PM9/16/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> > Your defamation began when you feigned profundity by claiming
> > epistemologists discovered duality in string theory that does away with
> > singularities, or some equally potent nonsense sprinkled with soundbites. In
> > my experience, it is common among crackpots to do so. The trend has
> > continued with your claiming that Occam's Razor was used to make the Trabant
> > -- which makes absolutely no sense at all if one looks up the definition of
> > the Occam's Razor.
> >
>
> Your continued namecalling is evidence that you're unfit to discuss matters
> like this. What's more interesting than responding to such name-calling is
> to wonder why you would resort to name-calling. You must be felling the
> heat, not feeling at ease with the epistemological aspects of string theory
> and Occam's Razor. Of course, you've long ago admitted your contempt for
> epistemology. Suffice to say that your lack of epistemological depth is
> showing.

No, I do not think you're exposing any conspiracy scheme. Like most
post-modernists, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking
about most of the time. It's irritating and unproductive, that's all.

If you still think you're not feigning the profundity, you might want
to elaborate what you think are the epistemological issues with string
theory and what the 'duality' you are talking about is.

-Souvik

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 7:47:58 PM9/16/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/17/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, I do not think you're exposing any conspiracy scheme. Like most post-modernists, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about most of the time. It's irritating and unproductive, that's all.
 
Oh, the fact that there is a huge military budget for research and development of weapons was a conspiracy, was it? And the fact that government controls public school was also a conspiracy, was it? Wow, that's very productive! But rather than to delve into your fantasy world, I rather stick to reality, Souvik, that's far more productive than to twist the truth!

If you still think you're not feigning the profundity, you might want to elaborate what you think are the epistemological issues with string theory and what the 'duality' you are talking about is.
Why don't you stop whining about science and make some epistemological contributions for a change. You don't honestly think that your contempt for epistemology is appropriate in an epistemological forum, do you?
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 12:11:01 AM9/17/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> If you still think you're not feigning the profundity, you might want to
> > elaborate what you think are the epistemological issues with string theory
> > and what the 'duality' you are talking about is.
> >
> Why don't you stop whining about science and make some epistemological
> contributions for a change. You don't honestly think that your contempt for
> epistemology is appropriate in an epistemological forum, do you?
> Sam

Just elaborate on your comment about epistemologists pointing out a
'duality' in string theory that got rid of 'singularities' we were
stuck with. We'll take it from there.

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 10:04:20 PM9/17/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
(souvik:) No, I do not think you're exposing any conspiracy scheme. Like most post-modernists, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about most of the time. It's irritating and unproductive, that's all.
 
(Sam:) Oh, the fact that there is a huge military budget for research and development of weapons was a conspiracy, was it? And the fact that government controls public school was also a conspiracy, was it? Wow, that's very productive! But rather than to delve into your fantasy world, I rather stick to reality, Souvik, that's far more productive than to twist the truth!
 
Just explain why you keep twisting the truth, souvik. Why are you denying that there is a huge military budget for research and development of weapons? Why are you denying that government controls public school to a large extent. Why are you denying facts that are so obvious? What dark hole have you crept into, if you imagine that all this was just a conspiracy theory? And why do you have to resort to vulgar remarks and personal attacks, if you really had something to say that made sense? How can you expect readers of this thread to seriously consider what you're saying, if you keep failing to articulate what you do stand for and instead seem only interested in launching personal attacks against me, in violation of the terms set for groups like this by Google. If you have any integrity, I urge you to stop twisting the truth, and stick to the terms of these group and the epistemological theme of this group in particular. Just show a little integrity and honesty, souvik, and respect for the terms that members are expected to abide by, and we'll take it from there.
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 11:15:04 PM9/17/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> (Sam:) Oh, the fact that there is a huge military budget for research and
> development of weapons was a conspiracy, was it? And the fact that
> government controls public school was also a conspiracy, was it? Wow, that's
> very productive! But rather than to delve into your fantasy world, I rather
> stick to reality, Souvik, that's far more productive than to twist the
> truth!
> Just explain why you keep twisting the truth, souvik. Why are you denying
> that there is a huge military budget for research and development of
> weapons? Why are you denying that government controls public school to a
> large extent. Why are you denying facts that are so obvious? What dark hole
> have you crept into, if you imagine that all this was just a conspiracy
> theory? And why do you have to resort to vulgar remarks and personal
> attacks, if you really had something to say that made sense? How can you
> expect readers of this thread to seriously consider what you're saying, if
> you keep failing to articulate what you do stand for and instead seem only
> interested in launching personal attacks against me, in violation of the
> terms set for groups like this by Google. If you have any integrity, I urge
> you to stop twisting the truth, and stick to the terms of these group and
> the epistemological theme of this group in particular. Just show a little
> integrity and honesty, souvik, and respect for the terms that members are
> expected to abide by, and we'll take it from there.
> Sam

What you just blathered is not an answer to my question and therefore
should be an independent thread. Stop dodging. (And if you must, please
provide a reference to my saying that a large fraction of the budget is
on defence and that govt controls education. However, that belongs to a
seperate thread.)

Just elaborate on your comment about epistemologists pointing out a
'duality' in string theory that got rid of 'singularities' we were
stuck with.

-Souvik

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 12:32:10 AM9/18/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/18/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

What you just blathered is not an answer to my question and therefore should be an independent thread. Stop dodging. (And if you must, please provide a reference to my saying that a large fraction of the budget is on defence and that govt controls education. However, that belongs to a seperate thread.)

Just elaborate on your comment about epistemologists pointing out a 'duality' in string theory that got rid of 'singularities' we were stuck with.

-Souvik
What conspiracy theory were you referring to, when you introduced it in this thread?
 
Where in this thread did I introduce string theory?
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 1:49:01 AM9/18/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> What conspiracy theory were you referring to, when you introduced it in this
> thread?

>From post 10:


> Deep in your heart you must know that I am right and that - if I
> expose this scheme - you as a scientist might lose your current privileges.

You seem to think that science as an enterprise is a racket meant to
make a few 'scientists' rich. Especially with the tremendous flow of
funds into defence etc. You suppose that the whole enterprise of
science is a self-perpetrating conspiracy, much like organised
religions. You keep talking about 'the scheme' you are exposing.

Before you can deconstruct anything, you must know it inside out. If
you want to deconstruct Islam, you must be a Mussalman and experience
the Quoran. If you want to deconstruct Modern Art, you must be an
artist or at least have a profound understanding of it. If you want to
deconstruct Science to any effect, you must understand and do science
before you can step out of it and analyse its epistemological validity.

Sadly, in your case, I think you do not understand even basic science
like classical mechanics. You feign the occassional profundity by
splattering 'string theory' or 'Occam's Razor' completely out of
context (see below for reference). When followed up, your understanding
turns out to be entirely vacuous.

> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/da3f7f12cdfc6fed
> Where in this thread did I introduce string theory?

In post 10:

> You must be felling the
> heat, not feeling at ease with the epistemological aspects of string theory
> and Occam's Razor.

Honestly, I think you are academically challenged in the vigorous
sciences and have since been embittered against it. You think that what
you can't understand (relatively simple things like algebraic
equations) are just out there to intimidate people. Just because you do
not understand science, doesn't mean that there aren't smarter people
than you who do understand science and can create stuff with it you've
never seen before!

As for convincing people on this forum, I have seen nothing said
against my arguments (save from you), but I've seen Zinnic (who you
personally emailed and failed to convince! Hahaha!!) and Goozlefotz
assert your intellectual incompetence.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/53c71796d9699a0c?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/45a3970f1e2aa194?hl=en&

As for my contemptuous tone -- your feigning of profundity with
scientific jargon earns you my utter contempt. If you still think you
understand anything about string theory (or science) you will explain
what you meant by 'duality' and 'singularity' in the post linked below
instead of dodging it.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/f09f6527e202d316?hl=en&

-Souvik

Jorge Noreña

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 1:00:59 AM9/19/05
to Epistemology
Sincerely I don't personally think that Occam's razor is applied to
science, at least not to theoretical physics. Quite often nature proves
to be more complicated than we could naively expect, and old intuitive
science simply succumbs to experimental facts, being replaced by new
science which must then be tested and constantly reformed. Nature is
not simple, science is not simplistic and it does not have simplicity
as a goal. You would have to spend several nights solving QFT
path-integrals, or trying to understand singularity theorems, or the
Higgs mechanism and such to clearly perceive that, though economy of
notation, aesthetics and economy of thought are quite common, physics
and the fundamental laws that have been discovered are not simple. The
simplest solution (classical mechanics or further back a naive
Aristotelian view) is not the one chosen by scientists. Science became
great in a time where scientists were literally persecuted, and as such
became a discipline where an open mind is the most valued capacity;
someone once said that the quickest to unlearn something that has been
proven wrong are the physicists. It is VERY difficult to think
differently, to come up with a new idea, making science is not like
making cars.

I am a physics student in Latin America, we receive little support from
our government and the military simply buy their weapons to other
countries, and still we try to learn and make theoretical physics. So I
believe that scientist are not so tied to money, I think that what
drives most scientists I've met is simple and overwhelming curiosity,
the desire to understand. It surely is quite difficult to control
people with such "strange" interests. What I'm trying to say is: there
is freedom in science, even if the government controls the funding,
there will always be people with ideas that run parallel to the most
accepted, and these ideas are not rejected unless it is proven by
experiment that they must be rejected, and even then they still linger
as a possibility en the backs of some minds. I can think of no other
discipline besides art and science in which new and different and new
ideas receive a warm welcome, and are even encouraged.

On the other hand... about education, I cannot give a sincere opinion,
I assist classes almost every day, but I sincerely believe they are
useless. I think it was Gauss who once said that classes are useless
because the intelligent students can learn by themselves and the
not-so-intelligent are not worth the effort.

Jorge Noreña

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 1:13:58 AM9/19/05
to Epistemology
By the way, I don't think frontal insults is the best way to have an
intelligent discussion. It's bad taste. Half of what I read in this
forum is an exchange of explicit insults between Sam Carana on one side
and Souvik and zinic on the other. Please try to control that as a sign
of respect to other members.

zinnic

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 11:23:06 AM9/19/05
to Epistemology

I agree whole-heartedly with the view you express in your second post.
I no longer respond directly to Sam Carena's posts because the
experience became so frustrating. In my own defence, I refer you to two
threads-search under zinnic for " A pledge for epistemologists" July 9,
and "Why so little epistemology in an Epistemology forum?" July 25.
I will be interested in your views after you have experienced some
'intellectual' exchanges with Sam!

I enjoyed your first post in general, but disagree strongly with your
apparent view that a formal education is of little benefit to any
members of modern society. If this is the case, I am interested in
hearing more (provided your claim is not that public schools are simply
vehicles used by a cynical 'Government' to brain wash the masses).
Best regards...Zinnic

Souvik

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 6:10:12 PM9/19/05
to Epistemology
Jorge Noreña wrote:
> Sincerely I don't personally think that Occam's razor is applied to
> science, at least not to theoretical physics. Quite often nature proves
> to be more complicated than we could naively expect, and old intuitive
> science simply succumbs to experimental facts, being replaced by new
> science which must then be tested and constantly reformed. Nature is
> not simple, science is not simplistic and it does not have simplicity
> as a goal. You would have to spend several nights solving QFT
> path-integrals, or trying to understand singularity theorems, or the
> Higgs mechanism and such to clearly perceive that, though economy of
> notation, aesthetics and economy of thought are quite common, physics
> and the fundamental laws that have been discovered are not simple. The
> simplest solution (classical mechanics or further back a naive
> Aristotelian view) is not the one chosen by scientists. Science became
> great in a time where scientists were literally persecuted, and as such
> became a discipline where an open mind is the most valued capacity;
> someone once said that the quickest to unlearn something that has been
> proven wrong are the physicists. It is VERY difficult to think
> differently, to come up with a new idea, making science is not like
> making cars.

I think we need a hair splitting here. Physical theories are Occam's
Razored in the sense you cannot postulate more (fields or whatever)
than you need to. The smallest possible set of postulates to explain
the widest possible range of phenomena constitute the grandest
theories.

However, in the enterprise of doing science or discovering principles,
one needs to walk up and down a tree of possibilities and keep as many
of them open at a time.

While it is true that modern physics has a certain level of
sophistication, it is still razed down to the simplest possible set of
axioms to explain a mind-boggling array of phenomena. Also, the gritty
problem solving you are talking about often serves as an exercise in
getting used to conceptually simple, but abstract mathematics. It takes
so long, for example, to accept a Grassmanian field (for describing
fermions) -- but if you actually look into it, Grassman numbers are as
closed and legitimate as real numbers.


> I can think of no other
> discipline besides art and science in which new and different and new
> ideas receive a warm welcome, and are even encouraged.

I've tried my hand at a few arts myself but the role of arbitrary
tradition and authority in the arts is several times more pronounced
(and irritating) than in the sciences. For example: A Titian will sell
for millions just because it is a Titian. Its price will drop if found
to be by another artist.
Direction in art comes from contemporary fancy. Therefore, a lot of art
is fad.

-Souvik

Jorge Noreña

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 8:44:23 PM9/19/05
to Epistemology
As I said, I cannot give a sincere opinion on education since my view
is based solely on personal experience, I do not have solid ideas on
that subject. No... I'm not saying that education is a vehicle used by
the government to brain wash the masses. My very personal view, which I
do not like to discuss much, is that more freedom of choice should be
given to students, freedom to pursue their ideas, and develop
creativity. This freedom, I am aware, is achieved in graduate studies
in science, but undergraduate studies can become quite a pain due to
the lack of freedom, and school is even worse. I am not speaking about
the freedom to choose whether you want to take a test or not... I'm
talking about the freedom to pursue your interests and develop your
ideas.

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 20, 2005, 2:21:50 AM9/20/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com

(Ken Kelly wrote:) "Could you point at some specific incidents of scientists rushing to attack someone who points at the facts?"

(Sam:) I'll use the post below by Souvik to illustrate this, Ken!

On 9/18/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Souvik) You seem to think that science as an enterprise is a racket meant to make a few 'scientists' rich. Especially with the tremendous flow of funds into defence etc. You suppose that the whole enterprise of science is a self-perpetrating conspiracy, much like organised religions.

(Sam) Note how Souvik uses words like "racket" and "conspiracy", to make it look as if I said there was some secret illegal agreement between scientists who were conceiling their unlawful activities.

The truth is of course that I never used the word "conspiracy", but that I said the very opposite. It's no secret at all that the military has a huge budget. It's no secret at all that government controls public school. And it's not illegal at all. That's the very problem! This situation is imposed upon us with the full force of the law.

Souvik knows this very well, but sees political advantage in twisting my words. This choice of wording is meant to make it look as if I saw things that weren't there, as if I said that scientists and the army were engaged in secret and illegal acts. The next step would be to accuse me of seeing things that weren't there. It's the same strategy used earlier by zinnic. In discussions about school vouchers, they both tried to label me as an extremist, even though school vouchers have been introduced in many places by majority vote and under the full weight of our democratic system. There's a fundamental dishonesty in the way they are advocating some very political views. Yet another dishonesty lies of course in the fact that they are advocating their political views under the pretence of objective science.  

(Souvik) Sadly, in your case, I think you do not understand even basic science like classical mechanics. You feign the occassional profundity by splattering 'string theory' or 'Occam's Razor' completely out of context (see below for reference). When followed up, your understanding turns out to be entirely vacuous.
 
 
(Sam) Here's another example of a direct insult and personal attack, which violates the terms of any group at Google, let alone a group where epistemology is supposed to be the theme.  

 

http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/da3f7f12cdfc6fed
>  Where in this thread did I introduce string theory?

(Souvik) In post 10:

You must be felling the heat, not feeling at ease with the epistemological aspects of string theory and Occam's Razor.

(Sam) Here's another example. Anyone can check and see that it was Souvik who so inappropriate introduced string theory in this thread.  
 

(Souvik) Honestly, I think you are academically challenged in the vigorous sciences and have since been embittered against it. You think that what you can't understand (relatively simple things like algebraic equations) are just out there to intimidate people. Just because you do not understand science, doesn't mean that there aren't smarter people than you who do understand science and can create stuff with it you've never seen before!

(Sam) Yet another example of a direct insult and personal attack, grossly violating the terms of any group at Google, let alone a group where epistemology is supposed to be the theme.  

 

(Souvik) As for convincing people on this forum, I have seen nothing said against my arguments (save from you), but I've seen Zinnic (who you personally emailed and failed to convince! Hahaha!!) and Goozlefotz assert your intellectual incompetence.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/53c71796d9699a0c?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/45a3970f1e2aa194?hl=en&

(Sam) Yet another effort to discredit me, by adding yet another untruth. I am not aware of any personal correspondence between zinnic and me. By refusing to clarify things, zinnic lends his name to such an untruth. The truth is, of course, that I don't need to email people individually to convince them of anything. Anyone can simply check out these threads for themselves.

(Souvik) As for my contemptuous tone -- your feigning of profundity with scientific jargon earns you my utter contempt.

(Sam) Note this choice of words. Is Souvik trying to look literate here, as if this increased one's epistemological standing?  

(Souvik) If you still think you understand anything about string theory (or science) you will explain what you meant by 'duality' and 'singularity' in the post linked below instead of dodging it.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/f09f6527e202d316?hl=en&

(Sam) Yes, that's of course the thread where such discussion belongs. Anyone can check the vulgar behavior of souvik in this thread, where souvik, goozlfotz and zinnic take turns to ridicule and attack anyone who posted in that thread. Ironically, souvik accused me a few messages earlier of dodging his question about string theory here, while mentioning in the subsequent sentence that some discussions belongs to seperate threads.  

The picture that emerges from this is a pattern of abuse by persons pretending to be scientists, seeking to sabotage interesting epoistemological discussions here by following a clear pattern. The moment someone comes up with an interesting epistemological question, they launch vulgar attacks, presumably in the hope that this will discourage any serious discussion of the topic and silence anyone who seeks to seriously discuss epistemological issues.

What they achieve, of course, is the direct opposite. They do not succeed in silencing my views. They prove my very point. Scientists cannot be expected to admit the fact that science follows the Trabant model, with government control leading us down one specific road. It's up to epistemologists to poinmt out there is a problem with science in the way it's currently structured and controlled by government to follow one specific path.

There is growing urgency for us to act. The problem is that people may not become aware of the fact that it is a dead-end-street until we hit our head against the wall. In this respect, the situation is much like the East German society where people all drove around in Trabants as if this was the only way to go. It's time we recognize the truth and ditch the Trabant model of science. Such a move cannot take place in isolation - instead, reform needs to be introduced across the board.

Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 20, 2005, 3:05:04 AM9/20/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> >
> > (Ken Kelly wrote:) "Could you point at some specific incidents of
> > scientists rushing to attack someone who points at the facts?"
> >
> (Sam:) I'll use the post below by Souvik to illustrate this, Ken!
>
> > On 9/18/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (Souvik) You seem to think that science as an enterprise is a racket meant
> > to make a few 'scientists' rich. Especially with the tremendous flow of
> > funds into defence etc. You suppose that the whole enterprise of science is
> > a self-perpetrating conspiracy, much like organised religions.
>
> (Sam) Note how Souvik uses words like "racket" and "conspiracy", to make it
> look as if I said there was some secret illegal agreement between scientists
> who were conceiling their unlawful activities.

How many times have you said 'Epistemologists will quickly reveal your
scheme!'?
The word 'scheme' carries the same connotations as 'racket'.

> The truth is of course that I never used the word "conspiracy", but that I
> said the very opposite. It's no secret at all that the military has a huge
> budget. It's no secret at all that government controls public school. And
> it's not illegal at all. That's the very problem! This situation is imposed
> upon us with the full force of the law.

For a reason.
You might convince yourself of that by considering that every country,
irrespective of cultural or political tendencies have ended up pouring
huge amounts of their budget into science and technology.


> > (Sam) Here's another example. Anyone can check and see that it was Souvik
> who so inappropriate introduced string theory in this thread.

Introducing string theory in that thread was in response to its
previous post. However, your splattering of out of context jargon like
'duality' and 'singularity' that epistemologists apparently figured out
was and still has remained unexplained. I think that is sufficient
evidence that you are incapable as an epistemologist or any brand of
thinker and feign profundity with jargon you do not understand.

Unless you explain what you meant in that line, it stays that way.

> (Sam) Yes, that's of course the thread where such discussion belongs. Anyone
> can check the vulgar behavior of souvik in this thread, where souvik,
> goozlfotz and zinnic take turns to ridicule and attack anyone who posted in
> that thread. Ironically, souvik accused me a few messages earlier of dodging
> his question about string theory here, while mentioning in the subsequent
> sentence that some discussions belongs to seperate threads.

Its not anyone, just you. And that is because you're NOT being
profound, productive, exposing or anything beyond being dodgy, feinting
and irritating. I'm sure you see that in yourself by now. Especially
with your capacity for dodging a straightforward request for
elaboration on your string theory expertise. You splattered 'duality'
'singularity' -- now what does that mean?

This is a demonstration of Sam (and maybe most armchair
epistemologist)'s superficial understanding of most things scientific.
Even philosophy professors can hardly ever solve a problem in quantum
mechanics, but they'll keep talking about its epistemological and
social (oh yeah.. they do!) implications anyway.

-Souvik

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 20, 2005, 5:25:26 AM9/20/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/20/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

How many times have you said 'Epistemologists will quickly reveal your scheme!'? The word 'scheme' carries the same connotations as 'racket'.
 
Your scheme is quite obvious. You speak as if you were a spokesperson for science. But no self-respecting scientist will lower themselves to your level of vulgarities and contempt for epistemology. The fact that government controls science to such a large extent is another issue, which calls up some epistemological issues that should be able to be discussed in a forum like this. By continuing to sabotage such discussion, you merely prove that you don't belong in this group.  
 

The truth is of course that I never used the word "conspiracy", but that I said the very opposite. It's no secret at all that the military has a huge budget. It's no secret at all that government controls public school. And it's not illegal at all. That's the very problem! This situation is imposed upon us with the full force of the law.


For a reason. You might convince yourself of that by considering that every country, irrespective of cultural or political tendencies have ended up pouring huge amounts of their budget into science and technology.
 
Any dictator will resort to that kind of rhetoric, to argue that our rights were just a fad or that democracy doesn't work. But the fact remains that science as it is structured follows the Trabant model, which is a deliberate political choice. The dishonesty of people like you is that they support this political choice as if it was supported by scientific evidence. There should be a Pledge for Scientists, so that you could be deregistered from scientific activities for violating this Pledge. In the absence of such a Pledge, the evidence of your continued violation of the terms of groups like this should suffice to strip you from membership and ban you from re-joining as a member.

> > (Sam) Here's another example. Anyone can check and see that it was Souvik
> who so inappropriate introduced string theory in this thread.

Introducing string theory in that thread was in response to its
previous post. However, your splattering of out of context jargon like 'duality' and 'singularity' that epistemologists apparently figured out was and still has remained unexplained. I think that is sufficient evidence that you are incapable as an epistemologist or any brand of thinker and feign profundity with jargon you do not understand.

Unless you explain what you meant in that line, it stays that way.
 
Perhaps I will further discuss it there, but your attitude doesn't help. In fact, I have some doubts about your competence in this area. Anyway, your continued reference to string theory here is totally out of line. It was discussed over many posts in the thread were this discussion was appropriate. 
 
> (Sam) Yes, that's of course the thread where such discussion belongs. Anyone
> can check the vulgar behavior of souvik in this thread, where souvik,
> goozlfotz and zinnic take turns to ridicule and attack anyone who posted in
> that thread. Ironically, souvik accused me a few messages earlier of dodging
> his question about string theory here, while mentioning in the subsequent
> sentence that some discussions belongs to seperate threads.

Its not anyone, just you. And that is because you're NOT being
profound, productive, exposing or anything beyond being dodgy, feinting
and irritating. I'm sure you see that in yourself by now.
 
Was there anything constructive in your last few messages here?

Especially with your capacity for dodging a straightforward request for elaboration on your string theory expertise. You splattered 'duality' 'singularity' -- now what does that mean?
 
Repetitive. Totally inappropriate in this thread. The fact that you keep bringing it up here is further proof of sabotage. After all, you didn't do so at the appropriate thread.

This is a demonstration of Sam (and maybe most armchair
epistemologist)'s superficial understanding of most things scientific. Even philosophy professors can hardly ever solve a problem in quantum mechanics, but they'll keep talking about its epistemological and social (oh yeah.. they do!) implications anyway.
 
Again, further evidence of contempt towards epistemology and philosophy in general. It is further evidence that this person doesn't belong in this group. I hereby call for souvik to be banned from this group.
 
Sam

 

goozlefotz

unread,
Sep 20, 2005, 5:47:30 AM9/20/05
to Epistemology

You hurt my feelings! I have also insulted Sam. I admit that my
efforts were to no avail, but at least I tried.

goozlefotz

unread,
Sep 20, 2005, 5:50:46 AM9/20/05
to Epistemology

Ken Kelley wrote:
>
> Yes, the government decides what should be taught in government-funded
> schools, and the government decides what research should be done using
> government funds. However, the government does not decide what is
> taught in non-government-funded private school science classes and does
> not decide what research is done at non-government-funded private labs.
> In general, whoever is providing the funding decides what is done with
> the funding. This applies to pretty much any field of endeavor. Would
> you hire a contractor to work on your house and then let him decide
> what to do with your money?
>
The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

zinnic

unread,
Sep 20, 2005, 10:01:13 AM9/20/05
to Epistemology

Hush! Keep quiet about not believing in the government's "obvious"
policy to use public schools to stifle the independent thinking and
creativity of the people.
This is heresy for 'she who shall not be named'. Watch for your rear! I
sense a speeding car bearing down on you. You will know it is her. She
is driving a Trabant!

Souvik

unread,
Sep 20, 2005, 6:25:12 PM9/20/05
to Epistemology
Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!

You were asked a simple question -- to elaborate on what you yourself
meant by your comment on the role played by epistemologists in string
theory. The fact that you still can't answer that, in this thread, or
any other (there I just made one for you, happy?) is a good
demonstration of how superficial your understanding of things are. No
matter what whine about "Oh, I know but I won't tell!"

That is a statement of fact that stands till you answer the question.
You could interpret that as an insult. If you can't back your
statements, you get insulted. Fair, I'd say.

As for the contempt I have for philosophers in general, I'd probably be
in good company. It has been demonstrated time and time again that
academic philosophers have little or no understanding of science, let
alone its implications. In fact, there was a paper written in an
'esteemed' philosophy journal called the "Social Text" by a physicist
who used mind-numbing jargon to prove how a theory of quantum gravity
negated science. It got published with 3 reviewers who raved about the
depth of the article. Physicists were laughing their heads off
meanwhile, and in a few months Sokal confessed to the utter incoherence
of his own article. It was a test to see if those philosophy folks
could tell incoherent jargon from sense, and they couldn't! The Social
Text responded to this saying they didn't think they were important
enough for scientists to pay attention to them, and it was wrong for
scientists to put them through a shameful test like that. One of the
philosophers who reviewed the article, still believes there was
something deep and dark Sokal was uncovering.

The fact that you are intimidated by algebraic equations leads me to
conclude that you probably don't know any physics even at the level of
101-102.

Making unbacked assertions about my expertise in string theory is as
good as my asserting that you wear pink underwear. When I supposed your
ignorance of string theory, I backed it with the vacuity of your
comment. It stays that way till you explain it.

-Souvik

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 20, 2005, 8:48:33 PM9/20/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Indeed, he who pays the piper, should call the tune, which should put people in control over teachers who receive a salary for their services. Moreover, families have the prior right to ensure that their children's education is in line with what they believe in. The question is whether science - as typically taught at, say, public school - comes with political bias. One may argue that - on the subject of science - parents should delegate the authority over their children's education to science teachers, on the premise that science teachers were more competent. But what guarantee is there that teachers will not violate the trust bestowed upon them in order to indoctrinate children with specific political views? When you consult medical practitioners, you don't expect them to do you any harm, instead you expect them to work for the benefit of their patients, in line with the Hippocratic Oath. Similarly, business provide professional services on the basis of a contract, supported by their stated approach, mission statement, etc. In matters of science, however, there's no such Pledge by Scientists to use as a guiding principle.  
 
As said, the concern is that teachers fool people into thinking that science was too complicated for mere mortals to understand, with the aim of subsequently violating the trust bestowed upon them in order to indoctrinate children with specific political views. The concern is that, after grabbing control over the curriculum on the premise of greater competence, teachers proceed to indoctrinate children with the monopoly-model of one coherent "nature" that responded to a single set of absolute and universal laws - in other words, the Trabant model! Indeed, imposing the Trabant model upon young and impressionable children may lead them to accept this model as the way to go.
 
The basic question of this thread is whether or not science should follow this Trabant model. Science teachers may proceed to ignore this question. They may bully parents into handing over the authority over their children's education. They may insult people who warn parents not to do so without a prior pledge by science teachers. But from an epistemological perspective, this question is important and requires consideration and discussion without participants using personal attacks and vulgar language as distractions.
 
Sam

Jorge Noreña

unread,
Sep 20, 2005, 9:52:51 PM9/20/05
to Epistemology
As I said in a previous post... I don't see why science follows a
Trabant model. Science is not controlled by the government (at least
not by a single government), it does not exclude parallel ideas,
actually it encourages them, and science students are constantly
exposed to unlearning wrong models of nature, so in a way they learn to
unlearn, they learn to accept alternatives to previous ideas. Science
should never follow a Trabant model, and it does not follow such a
model. On the other hand, I agree that it is harmful to impose a single
model of nature, but scientists don't do this, they teach and study
several parallel models.

(Sam wrote:)

"As said, the concern is that teachers fool people into thinking that
science was too complicated for mere mortals to understand, with the
aim of
subsequently violating the trust bestowed upon them in order to
indoctrinate
children with specific political views. The concern is that, after
grabbing
control over the curriculum on the premise of greater competence,
teachers
proceed to indoctrinate children with the monopoly-model of one
coherent
"nature" that responded to a single set of absolute and universal laws
- in
other words, the Trabant model!"

Teachers do not fool people into thinking that science is too
complicated... rather people who believe that science is too
complicated have fooled themselves into thinking that way.

Also:

(The following expresses a very personal view of science, it is not
based on any references, except maybe indirectly.)

Physics presupposes that there is one objective nature to be studied,
that this nature can be understood by human rationality; this is the
starting point of physics, and to understand nature by rational means
is the basic goal of physics. To physicists there is one truth to be
discovered, and several ideas are constantly tested with experiment in
an effort to find such a truth. If physics ever deviates from this
fundamental supposition, then it will fall in the unstable grounds of
mere speculation, loosing its power to understand and predict, loosing
sight of its goal, and becoming something else. These are not political
ideas such as the search for beauty in poetry is not a political idea;
these are merely the basic presuppositions and goals of physics, merely
the starting point of a discipline. As to whether or not this
presupposition is valid, is a question that will remain unanswered
because no answer can be given; but in defense of physics let me remind
you that a great part of technology, including the computers we use to
post in this forum, is a direct sub product of physics, and even beyond
that, at each turn physics has fundamentally modified our way of
thought, our way of viewing the universe.

(If this post is published twice: I apologize, I had some trouble
posting it.)

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 21, 2005, 3:16:21 AM9/21/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/21/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

As for the contempt I have for philosophers in general, I'd probably be in good company. It has been demonstrated time and time again that academic philosophers have little or no understanding of science, let alone its implications. In fact, there was a paper written in an 'esteemed' philosophy journal called the "Social Text" by a physicist who used mind-numbing jargon to prove how a theory of quantum gravity
negated science. It got published with 3 reviewers who raved about the depth of the article. Physicists were laughing their heads off meanwhile, and in a few months Sokal confessed to the utter incoherence of his own article. It was a test to see if those philosophy folks could tell incoherent jargon from sense, and they couldn't!

Sokal showed that it's easier to indoctrinate people when a political view is advocated by someone sporting a title such as "professor of physics, New York University". Furthermore, parts of Sokal's article actually make sense and are relevant in important epistemological discussions. Make no mistake about it, Sokal's intentions were purely political! As Sokal himself says, "explicitly political: to combat a currently fashionable postmodernist/poststructuralist/social-constructivist discourse -- and more generally a penchant for subjectivism -- which is, I believe, inimical to the values and future of the Left".
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/afterword_v1a/afterword_v1a_singlefile.html
 
Should we trust the philosophy of someone who says that academic philosophers have "little or no understanding of science, let alone its implications"? Conversely, do scientists who delve into epistemology lack competence while their intentions are "explicitly political"? Sokal at least had the decency to admit that he was advocating a specific political view. Which brings us back to the epistemological questions: What view is advocated by the way science is structured? Is this view ethically and politically acceptable? Does it respect our rights?
 
Sam

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 21, 2005, 5:44:20 AM9/21/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/20/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think we need a hair splitting here. Physical theories are Occam's Razored in the sense you cannot postulate more (fields or whatever) than you need to. The smallest possible set of postulates to explain the widest possible range of phenomena constitute the grandest theories.

However, in the enterprise of doing science or discovering principles, one needs to walk up and down a tree of possibilities and keep as many of them open at a time.
It seems that you are using two different principles here: Occam's Razor on the one hand and keeping "as many of them open at a time" on the other hand. They seem directly opposing principles. So, what principle(s) does science follow? That's the epistemological question! One of them? Both? Can scientists have their cake and eat it too? Can and do scientists 'serve two masters'? Who decide which principle weighs most heavily, when a theory is about to be razored? Is there yet another principle that is used to make such decisions? Politics, perhaps?
 
Sam

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 21, 2005, 6:10:55 AM9/21/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/21/05, Jorge Noreña <nod...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I said in a previous post... I don't see why science follows a
Trabant model. Science is not controlled by the government (at least not by a single government), it does not exclude parallel ideas, actually it encourages them, and science students are constantly exposed to unlearning wrong models of nature, so in a way they learn to unlearn, they learn to accept alternatives to previous ideas. Science should never follow a Trabant model, and it does not follow such a model. On the other hand, I agree that it is harmful to impose a single model of nature, but scientists don't do this, they teach and study several parallel models.
 
So, which one is it, Occam's Razor or the Parallel Theories principle? Or both? Are there perhaps different types of science? Perhaps a third principle? Politics, perhaps?

(Sam wrote:)

"As said, the concern is that teachers fool people into thinking that science was too complicated for mere mortals to understand, with the aim of subsequently violating the trust bestowed upon them in order to indoctrinate children with specific political views. The concern is that, after grabbing control over the curriculum on the premise of greater competence, teachers proceed to indoctrinate children with the monopoly-model of one coherent "nature" that responded to a single set of absolute and universal laws - in other words, the Trabant model!"


(Jorge) Teachers do not fool people into thinking that science is too complicated... rather people who believe that science is too complicated have fooled themselves into thinking that way.
 
(Sam) Yet, only qualified people end up in front of the classroom.

(Jorge) Also:


(The following expresses a very personal view of science, it is not based on any references, except maybe indirectly.)

Physics presupposes that there is one objective nature to be studied, that this nature can be understood by human rationality; this is the starting point of physics, and to understand nature by rational means is the basic goal of physics. To physicists there is one truth to be discovered, and several ideas are constantly tested with experiment in an effort to find such a truth. If physics ever deviates from this fundamental supposition, then it will fall in the unstable grounds of mere speculation, loosing its power to understand and predict, loosing sight of its goal, and becoming something else.
 
(Sam) So, the idea that there is one "nature" that follows a single coherent set of laws, that is idea is glorified by you as a dogma is it. Even when tests tell you that this did not actually correspond with reality, you would still hang on the the dogma, rather than accept reality as it is? Is that what you're saying, Jorge?

(Jorge) These are not political ideas such as the search for beauty in poetry is not a political idea; these are merely the basic presuppositions and goals of physics, merely the starting point of a discipline.
 
(Sam) Yet, it looks very much like the dictator who says there's no need for voting, because there are no other good candidates out there anyways. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, then...there's concern that it IS a duck. If there's concern, then there's reason to look into that. That's what epistemology does.

(Jorge) As to whether or not this presupposition is valid, is a question that will remain unanswered because no answer can be given;
 
That's an epistemological question and I'm answering it.

(Jorge) ...  but in defense of physics let me remind you that a great part of technology, including the computers we use to post in this forum, is a direct sub product of physics, and even beyond that, at each turn physics has fundamentally modified our way of thought, our way of viewing the universe.
(Sam) Sure, people have made remarkable things. Dictators like to claim credit over people's work, but I say let's give credit where it belongs, with the people. People establish things, people get rewarded for their work, as it should be. Science, however, typically seeks funding by government. So, are you saying that the people who made the honest accomplishments should be taxed and that the money should be used by scientists who cannot get a decent job? What is it that you're saying, Jorge?
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 21, 2005, 7:15:45 PM9/21/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> On 9/20/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think we need a hair splitting here. Physical theories are Occam's
> > Razored in the sense you cannot postulate more (fields or whatever) than you
> > need to. The smallest possible set of postulates to explain the widest
> > possible range of phenomena constitute the grandest theories.
> >
> > However, in the enterprise of doing science or discovering principles, one
> > needs to walk up and down a tree of possibilities and keep as many of them
> > open at a time.
> >
> It seems that you are using two different principles here: Occam's Razor on
> the one hand and keeping "as many of them open at a time" on the other hand.
> They seem directly opposing principles.

Which is why I made the distinction between a scientific theory, and
the process of making a scientific theory.

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 21, 2005, 9:21:26 PM9/21/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/22/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
> It seems that you are using two different principles here: Occam's Razor on
> the one hand and keeping "as many of them open at a time" on the other hand.
> They seem directly opposing principles.

Which is why I made the distinction between a scientific theory, and the process of making a scientific theory.
It sounds like science can be whatever scientists want it to be. Switching from one principle to the other, scientists can claim they're verifying a theory, and even if all evidence points in the opposite direction, scientists can still do whatever they want, because they were keeping many possibilities open. It sounds like a piece of sophistry meant to give scientists a blank check to do whatever they want, while running a closed shop and demanding funding without accountability. 
 
Meanwhile, huge amount of money are taken away from hard-working and successful people to fund this lifestyle of scientists, who work on development of weapons or in education where they preach children that all this was the way to go, brainwashing and indoctrinating children with the Trabant model when they're still young and impressionable, unable to stand up against the bullying of such teachers. It's no coincidence that science teachers seek to indoctrinate people when they're still young and less able to come up with a well-articulated response. All this is done even if the families object against these practices. In fact, people who object against this are forced to walk in line and attacked for even bringing the issue up. 
 
Many people feed on this explotation of the people they hold captive and they deliberately seek to silence people about the structure behind all this, i.e. that the way science is structured in society follows the Trabant model. Scientists may claim to be keen to investigate just about anything EXCEPT their own situation, i.e. the Trabant model of science. The moment someone wonders whether this was indeed the best model for science, all doors suddenly close and there suddenly is no such thing as keeping possibilities open, etc.
 
Fortunately, there are some people who are interested in questions like this. For those who haven't heard about it, it's called epistemology.
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 21, 2005, 10:21:32 PM9/21/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> model. Scientists may claim to be keen to investigate just about anything
> EXCEPT their own situation, i.e. the Trabant model of science. The moment
> someone wonders whether this was indeed the best model for science, all
> doors suddenly close and there suddenly is no such thing as keeping
> possibilities open, etc.
> Fortunately, there are some people who are interested in questions like
> this. For those who haven't heard about it, it's called epistemology.

Scientists do in fact wonder if there may be other ways to understand
the world with -- like astrology, or dowsing, or maybe revelation, or
even voodoo. In fact, Newton himself dabbled in his contemporary
witchcraft. But as it turns out, there is no other model known to man
that works as well as science when it comes to gaining objective
knowledge about the world that can be put to good use.

If you know a better way, which can actually produce technology not
seen before, do let us know. Otherwise, I see no point in your vacuous
criticism of the epistemological validity of science.

Souvik

unread,
Sep 21, 2005, 10:24:21 PM9/21/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> On 9/21/05, Jorge Noreña <nod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As I said in a previous post... I don't see why science follows a
> > Trabant model. Science is not controlled by the government (at least not
> > by a single government), it does not exclude parallel ideas, actually it
> > encourages them, and science students are constantly exposed to unlearning
> > wrong models of nature, so in a way they learn to unlearn, they learn to
> > accept alternatives to previous ideas. Science should never follow a Trabant
> > model, and it does not follow such a model. On the other hand, I agree that
> > it is harmful to impose a single model of nature, but scientists don't do
> > this, they teach and study several parallel models.
>
> So, which one is it, Occam's Razor or the Parallel Theories principle? Or
> both? Are there perhaps different types of science? Perhaps a third
> principle? Politics, perhaps?

There are often, at one time, many candidate theories running parallel.
However, each individual theory is razed to a minimum set of
assumptions and external parameters.

Get it?

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 22, 2005, 2:01:57 AM9/22/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/22/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
> model. Scientists may claim to be keen to investigate just about anything
> EXCEPT their own situation, i.e. the Trabant model of science. The moment
> someone wonders whether this was indeed the best model for science, all
> doors suddenly close and there suddenly is no such thing as keeping
> possibilities open, etc.
>  Fortunately, there are some people who are interested in questions like
> this. For those who haven't heard about it, it's called epistemology.

Scientists do in fact wonder if there may be other ways to understand the world with -- like astrology, or dowsing, or maybe revelation, or even voodoo. In fact, Newton himself dabbled in his contemporary witchcraft.
 
So, for scientists anything can be science, as long as they feel interested in it? In other words, science is defined by scientists as what scientists do and scientists demand their lifestyle to be supported by public funding, whatever may take their fancy.  

But as it turns out, there is no other model known to man that works as well as science when it comes to gaining objective knowledge about the world that can be put to good use.
 
Sure, as long as scientists define what "objective knowledge" was, they can never go wrong, can they? When scientists are in disagreement, it's part of the "candidate theories running parallel", as long as they have fun. But when somebody questions the Trabant model of science, they all come draw their occam's razors under the pretence that anything else would unnecessarily complicate things for them.

If you know a better way, which can actually produce technology not seen before, do let us know. Otherwise, I see no point in your vacuous criticism of the epistemological validity of science.
Of course there is a better way than the Trabant model. Just look at the many different car manufacturers and distributors who operate next to each other, without collusion and without forcing customers to buy one or the other type of car. Government isn't dictating people to buy only one specific car (a Trabant), cars are not bought with public funding and people are not brainwashed at school that only the Trabant existed. Instead, customers choose what car they want and they pay the supplier directly. Why should science follow the Trabant-model if it is a proven failure? That's the question that scientists don't want to hear, because such a question might rock their overprivileged lifestyle in their cosy ivory tower, but it's an important, if not the most important question for epistemologists.
 
Sam

Jorge Noreña

unread,
Sep 22, 2005, 10:20:42 AM9/22/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
>It sounds like science can be whatever scientists want it to be. Switching
>from one principle to the other, scientists can claim they're verifying a
>theory, and even if all evidence points in the opposite direction,
>scientists can still do whatever they want, because they were keeping many
>possibilities open. It sounds like a piece of sophistry meant to give
>scientists a blank check to do whatever they want, while running a closed
>shop and demanding funding without accountability.

In the chaos of creativity of which science makes extensive use there
is no method. Some use Occam's razor to choose theories, others follow
other paths. In the end experiment shows who was on the right path, and
that does not mean that his path will be the right one in future
searches.

Jorge Noreña

unread,
Sep 22, 2005, 11:10:55 AM9/22/05
to Epistemology
>So, which one is it, Occam's Razor or the Parallel Theories principle? Or
>both? Are there perhaps different types of science? Perhaps a third
>principle? Politics, perhaps?

See below for Souvik's answer and above for my own...

>So, the idea that there is one "nature" that follows a single
>coherent set of laws, that is idea is glorified by you as a dogma is it.
>Even when tests tell you that this did not actually correspond with reality,
>you would still hang on the the dogma, rather than accept reality as it is?
>Is that what you're saying, Jorge?

No... That is not what I'm saying. I never said that physics
presupposes a nature that follows a single coherent set of laws (though
that is in the present the opinion of many scientists and me.) I simply
said that physics presupposes an objective reality... Those are quite
different statements.

>Yet, it looks very much like the dictator who says there's no need
>for voting, because there are no other good candidates out there anyways. If
>it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, then...there's concern that it IS a
>duck. If there's concern, then there's reason to look into that. That's what
>epistemology does.

I never said there are no alternatives to science, maybe there are, I
do not know, no one knows. I personally like science. I simply said,
and I repeat, that there is nothing political about presupposing a
single objective reality.

>That's an epistemological question and I'm answering it.

Even epistemologists of a very high order never dare to state that they
have answered such a question, any answer to any question can only be
partial and incomplete, even the answers that science gives are
incomplete (that's why scientists constantly reform science).
Furthermore, your answer attacks science in a social and political way,
but not in its validity as the correct view of nature, which is the way
in which I stated the question, as can be interpreted from its context.

>(Sam) Sure, people have made remarkable things. Dictators like to claim
>credit over people's work, but I say let's give credit where it belongs,
>with the people. People establish things, people get rewarded for their
>work, as it should be. Science, however, typically seeks funding by
>government. So, are you saying that the people who made the honest
>accomplishments should be taxed and that the money should be used by
>scientists who cannot get a decent job? What is it that you're saying,
>Jorge?

You are forgetting that many "decent jobs" are directly related to
technology and therefore to science, you forget also that most of USA's
and Europe's income comes from sub products of science and that
scientists and science only recieve a small percentage of this,
furthermore the superiority of dominant countries is due to science,
the commodity of modern life is due to science, and many of our present
problems such as famine, energy shortage, and others, can be
potentially solved by science. Also, if you are interested in anything
of an intellectual order you must admit that science has given mankind
an entirely new view of the universe, it has enriched mankind as a
whole, it has been essential for the development of our civilization,
and it is, in short, an essential part of our culture. And as far as I
know, being a scientist is a decent and in many cases not well-paid job
(where I live it pays a lot more to be in commerce, engineering, law,
and other such jobs, and still there are scientists.) Scientists are
often people who are talented in many useful skills like the use of
computers, modeling, use of technology in general, etc, so it is hard
to believe that scientists could not get a decent job, I would rather
believe they chose to become scientists.

I repeat once more: I do not see why science follows a Trabant model of
nature (the reasons I give can be read above).

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 22, 2005, 10:03:19 PM9/22/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/23/05, Jorge Noreña <nod...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Jorge) In the chaos of creativity of which science makes extensive use there is no method. Some use Occam's razor to choose theories, others follow other paths. In the end experiment shows who was on the right path, and that does not mean that his path will be the right one in future searches.

 
(Sam) If experimentation should show what are better paths, then why hang on to the dogma that science should be organized along the lines of the Trabant model? The way science is structured along the lines of the Trabant model disadvantages, discourages and in many respects rules out any experimentation regarding the Trabant model itself. As long as everyone is forced to keep driving Trabants, there's little or no experimentation to find out whether the Trabant-model was any better or worse than other cars. All we can do is make comparisons and look at the facts. Fact is that once people were allowed to buy other cars, the Trabant disappeared. Why do so few scientists question this Trabant model, despite the ominous signs? Perhaps their vested interests in the Trabant model causes too much of a conflict of interests, but any honest person would admit this upfront. To some extent, a Pledge for Scientists could help out with that.
 
 
(Jorge) I simply said that physics presupposes an objective reality...  <snip> ...your answer attacks science in a social and political way, but not in its validity as the correct view of nature, which is the way in which I stated the question, as can be interpreted from its context.

 
 
(Sam) What is this "correct view of nature"? That nature followed a Trabant model and that society should accordingly be organized in a similar manner? What is the objective reality? Fact is that science gets funding to a large extent through government and most scientists are working for the military or in education, which are areas that are controlled to a large extent by government. Most scientists are either directly or indirectly on the government payroll. So, fact is that science is driving around in a Trabant. Now that's the objective reality! 
 
You may close your eyes for this. You may choose to follow a fabricated model that makes distinctions between physics on the one hand and social and political science on the other hand. But that model is in itself a specific political and socio-economic model and, yes, I am questioning the validity of this model, because it's part of the Trabant framework, it's part of the way things are classified in the Trabant model with the purpose of avoiding that the Trabant model itself will be questioned. 
 
If scientists are so objective, decent, talented and multi-skilled, as you claim, why then are there so few scientists who admit that science as it's currently structured, follows the Trabant model?
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 2:05:46 AM9/23/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> (Sam) If experimentation should show what are better paths, then why hang
> on to the dogma that science should be organized along the lines of the
> Trabant model?

Sam, can you read? Jorge just explained to you why science doesn't
follow the Trabant model. He emphasized that in his last line too. And
I've showed that to you with several examples in previous posts. Just
because you cannot, or pretend not to follow and insist on saying
'science follows the Trabant model' doesn't make it so.

Also, if you had any decent understanding of science, you'd know that
experimentation doesn't show better paths. Experiments just produce
results and we guess at theories to fit them.

Jorge, I hope you realise by now that Sam's main issue is her language
comprehension faculties. And her concern lies mainly in sounding
concerned about the epistemological validity of science. Which I
suspect she never really engaged in, even as a healthy curious child --
as is obvious from her profound misunderstanding of how science is
done, or what it contributes. Sam is an excellent example of 'a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing' -- she has a little knowledge of
post-modern philosophy that tries to deconstruct science, but like
their authors, has absolutely no working knowledge of science or
anything scientific.

-Souvik

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 6:06:02 AM9/23/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/23/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
>  (Sam) If experimentation should show what are better paths, then why hang
> on to the dogma that science should be organized along the lines of the
> Trabant model?

(Souvik) Sam, can you read? Jorge just explained to you why science doesn't follow the Trabant model. He emphasized that in his last line too. And I've showed that to you with several examples in previous posts. Just because you cannot, or pretend not to follow and insist on saying 'science follows the Trabant model' doesn't make it so.
 
The conclusion that science is organized along the lines of the Tabant model is obvious if we look at the facts: Government spends huge amounts on the education system, where science is given a high profile. Government controls a huge military budget, where - again - science has a high profile. Most scientists are employed either directly or indirectly by the government. If it looks like a Trabant, if it sounds like a Trabant and if it feels like a Trabant, then the obvious conclusion is that it is a Trabant.

This conclusion is obvious. The question raised by this is why. Why are there so few scientists who admit that science as it's currently structured, follows the Trabant model? Narrow-mindedness? Naivity? Self-interest? Politics?
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 10:29:07 PM9/23/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> The conclusion that science is organized along the lines of the Tabant
> model is obvious if we look at the facts: Government spends huge amounts on
> the education system, where science is given a high profile. Government
> controls a huge military budget, where - again - science has a high profile.
> Most scientists are employed either directly or indirectly by the
> government. If it looks like a Trabant, if it sounds like a Trabant and if
> it feels like a Trabant, then the obvious conclusion is that it is a
> Trabant.

Thank you. You have pointed out yourself how superficial the reasoning
behind your conclusion is.

Looks like a blah and feels like a bleeh, isn't evidence. On the other
hand, Jorge and myself have provided you numerous pieces of evidence as
to why anarchy is celebrated in science, so much so that progress in
science is marked by radical revolutions. No other human endeavour
celebrates heresy and intelligent contempt for authority as much as
science.

As for scientists in high positions -- it is merely a result of the
fact that they invent the most useful technology and intellectual
property. It is unfortunate though that given our society's high
dependence on technology, there is so few of us who actually understand
to some degree how things work.

I'm sure if you did science yourself or explored nature independently,
you'd understand these things more clearly.

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 24, 2005, 12:04:49 AM9/24/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/24/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
>  The conclusion that science is organized along the lines of the Tabant
> model is obvious if we look at the facts: Government spends huge amounts on
> the education system, where science is given a high profile. Government
> controls a huge military budget, where - again - science has a high profile.
> Most scientists are employed either directly or indirectly by the
> government. If it looks like a Trabant, if it sounds like a Trabant and if
> it feels like a Trabant, then the obvious conclusion is that it is a
> Trabant.

Thank you. You have pointed out yourself how superficial the reasoning behind your conclusion is.

Looks like a blah and feels like a bleeh, isn't evidence. On the other hand, Jorge and myself have provided you numerous pieces of evidence as to why anarchy is celebrated in science, so much so that progress in science is marked by radical revolutions. No other human endeavour celebrates heresy and intelligent contempt for authority as much as science.
Superficial? Isn't evidence? I've pointed at the facts. Are you denying the facts, i.e. that government spends huge amounts on the education system, where science is given a high profile, that government controls a huge military budget, where - again - science has a high profile and that most scientists are employed either directly or indirectly by the government?
 
Just like the Trabant was manufactured under government control, science follows a similar model of government control, i.e. the Trabant model. Describing science in terms of anarchy and radical revolutions is therefore inappropriate and politically misleading.

Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 24, 2005, 2:25:58 AM9/24/05
to Epistemology
No, I'm pointing to the fact that 'looks like, feels like' is about all
you have to your analogy between the scientific enterprise and the
Trabant industry, as you've yourself indicated. It lacks any
understanding of how or why science is done. Such 'looks like, feels
like' analogies are called superficial.

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 12:35:55 AM9/25/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/24/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, I'm pointing to the fact that 'looks like, feels like' is about all you have to your analogy between the scientific enterprise and the Trabant industry, as you've yourself indicated. It lacks any understanding of how or why science is done. Such 'looks like, feels like' analogies are called superficial.
The facts are hard to deny. In both cases, there's a large amount of government control, specifically regarding funding. Government spends huge amounts on the education system and controls a huge military budget, while most scientists are employed either directly or indirectly by the government. This government control applies both to the way the car industry was organized in East-Germany and to the way science is currently organized. The similarities are so striking that the observation that science follows the Trabant-model is not only warrented, but that anyone who studies knowledge, its nature, presuppositions, foundations, extent and validity should take interest. Does all this government control have only superficial impact on science and knowledge in general? Or, is it part of one specific political agenda? Is all this government control the best way to go? Those are the epistemological questions before us! 
 
Sam

goozlefotz

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 12:39:27 AM9/25/05
to Epistemology

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> This conclusion is obvious. The question raised by this is why. Why are
> there so few scientists who admit that science as it's currently structured,
> follows the Trabant model? Narrow-mindedness? Naivity? Self-interest?
> Politics?
> Sam

I submit that few scientists have heard the word "Trabant", so why
should they (we) have an opinion on it?

Souvik

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 12:54:25 AM9/25/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> Does all this government control have only superficial
> impact on science and knowledge in general? Or, is it part of one specific
> political agenda? Is all this government control the best way to go? Those
> are the epistemological questions before us!

It is impossible to make useful comment on these questions without
doing science yourself, or at least understanding the internal
principles of science.

Souvik

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 1:00:42 AM9/25/05
to Epistemology
Ha ha!!
They are little cars that you'll find in German industrial museums.
They are cute actually. Dunno what Sam has against them.

Jorge Noreña

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 1:54:40 AM9/25/05
to Epistemology
Like I said before, it is quite hard to control science, it is a
universal discipline to which anyone in the world with the proper
education can contribute, scientists are not all funded by the same
government, and in many cases money is a secondary interest for
scientists. Furthermore, which government would care if, for example,
the Higgs mechanism were proven to be wrong, or that CPT were violated,
or that a theory of baryogenesis involving leptogenesis were chosen
instead of one involving only electroweak phase transitions? I simply
can't find an answer. So I don't see why there is 'government control'
in science if governments are not interested in having such a control.
If they did have such a control, I think scientists would rebel and
continue disdaining politics in favor of scientifical truth, such as in
the middle ages when many scientists risked their lives and reputations
to continue with science. In short, I still don't see why science
follows "a Trabant model".

Also, if science ever followed the industrial model of today's
successful industries (or any industrial model in fact,) in which offer
and demand, cometition for markets, and making consumers happy are the
main laws... Well, I believe it would stop being science. Science
cannot follow such a model since this would restrict its freedom, the
freedom needed for creativity. Academy and industry are quite different
things; as I said before, making science is not like making cars, you
cannot build a line of production for ideas, these pop up unexpectedly
and often from the strangest places.

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 8:35:23 PM9/25/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
It's an epistemological model of an inferior approach. We look into such things because of its epistemological relevance.
 
Sam

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 9:43:43 PM9/25/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/25/05, Jorge Noreña <nod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Like I said before, it is quite hard to control science, ...
 
Yes, it does seem unbelievable, yet it happens all around us, all over the world - governments support science financially, making science part of the Trabant model.

...it is a universal discipline to which anyone in the world with the proper education can contribute, ...
 
Sure, but not everybody does get funding. Those who collaborate with the Trabant model itself are favored by the system. Funding goes to those who pledge that they will seek to describe reality in terms of one single, coherent set of universal and absolute laws as a result of on-going application Occam's Razor, in other words, along the lines of the Trabant model. This way, scientists will support the Trabant model itself and that few if any scientists will speak out about this inferior way of organizing things. This is effectively the current pledge for scientists and it's time we start updating this pledge.

...scientists are not all funded by the same government, ...
 
Indeed, governments at different levels and in different places collude to fit science within the Trabant model.

...and in many cases money is a secondary interest for scientists.
 
Scientists may act as if they have little interest in the financial aspects, but they still want funding. Indeed, one of the very problems is that so few scientists question the way science and its funding is organized.

Furthermore, which government would care if, for example, the Higgs mechanism were proven to be wrong, or that CPT were violated, or that a theory of baryogenesis involving leptogenesis were chosen instead of one involving only electroweak phase transitions? I simply can't find an answer. So I don't see why there is 'government control' in science if governments are not interested in having such a control.
 
Government funds science and in the process imposes the Trabant model upon science. This model is subsequently imposed by military might and sustained by indoctrinating children from an impressionable age at school with this doctrine.

If they did have such a control, I think scientists would rebel and continue disdaining politics in favor of scientifical truth, such as in the middle ages when many scientists risked their lives and reputations to continue with science. In short, I still don't see why science follows "a Trabant model".
 
Apparently, few scientists want to bite the hand that feeds them. Also, being indoctrinated themselves by the education system to such an extent, it's hard for scientists to remain objective on the question whether the Trabant model was the best model for science.

Also, if science ever followed the industrial model of today's
successful industries (or any industrial model in fact,) in which offer and demand, cometition for markets, and making consumers happy are the main laws... Well, I believe it would stop being science.
 
That's the question before us. Is science merely a product of the Trabant model? What will happen if things were organized along better lines? Just like the Trabant itself disappeared from the German roads after the Trabant model of manufacturing and controlling the car industry was abandoned, science itself might await a similar fate. But while the Trabant disappeared, sales of cars flourished and the East-German roads were populated by many types of great cars. There's no question in my mind that people will continue to be involved in research and development of new products, wonder how they could make improvements. Also, there's no question in my mind that they will achieve more and better results.

Science cannot follow such a model since this would restrict its freedom, the freedom needed for creativity. Academy and industry are quite different things; as I said before, making science is not like making cars, you cannot build a line of production for ideas, these pop up unexpectedly and often from the strangest places.
Indeed, that is the problem, the Trabant model restricts freedom, creativity and innovation. You cannot force children into a classroom and expect them to be nore creative, innovative and independent thinkers as a result of such indoctrination. You cannot buy people and demand them to make discoveries on command. The command and control approach is an inferior approach. That's why the Trabant model is inappropriate. Yet, few scientists seem to object against the huge amounts of government control over their activities and against the way science is organized along the lines of the Trabant model. Glad to hear that you do recognize the problems. Now, what can we do to improve the situation? 
 
Sam

goozlefotz

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 10:17:50 PM9/25/05
to Epistemology
I know, Sam. I was commenting on your comment about scientists not
being concerned about that model.

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 10:47:19 PM9/25/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Indeed, few scientists seem to be bothered that science is organized along the lines of the Trabant model. It's amazing that scientists who strive to ban political influence, personal bias and wishful thinking from their observations, suddenly abandon all rationality and objectivity when it concerns the way science itself is structured.
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Sep 25, 2005, 11:35:09 PM9/25/05
to Epistemology

Not to say that there's something *terribly* wrong with the way the
science enterprise is structured (in the US or the world), but what is
your alternative?

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 2:24:36 AM9/26/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/26/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Indeed, few scientists seem to be bothered that science is organized along
> the lines of the Trabant model. It's amazing that scientists who strive to
> ban political influence, personal bias and wishful thinking from their
> observations, suddenly abandon all rationality and objectivity when it
> concerns the way science itself is structured.
>  Sam

Not to say that there's something *terribly* wrong with the way the science enterprise is structured (in the US or the world), but what is your alternative?
My proposal is structural separation. That's a method that has proven to work where unhealthy monopolies abuse their dominant position.
 
Sam

zinnic

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 10:07:58 AM9/26/05
to Epistemology

My proposal is that science be reconstructed. The method? As
instructed by the efficacy of the constructive deconstruction used for
other structures! ZZZZZ....

Jorge Noreña

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 10:21:26 AM9/26/05
to Epistemology
Sam, you keep speaking of science in terms best fit for industry and
economy. But, as I said twice before, science is not an industry, you
cannot apply industrial and economical models to science, and you
cannot even compare science with an industrial model (like you did when
comparing science with the "Trabant model." Science, philosophy,
art, literature, etc, are not industries; a model that works in
industry, economics, law, monopoly control, etc, cannot be imposed on
them simply because they escape such models, they are beyond such
models. In fact, I personally think that doing so is a monstrosity
(which is sadly quite common today.) Science does have several problems
(including political and epistemological problems,) I simply think that
the one you are pointing at is not one of them.

goozlefotz

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 12:00:42 PM9/26/05
to Epistemology

It is your assertion that science is "organized" in that manner. No
one else here agrees with you. Since you have never done science, and
several of the rest of us have, what gives you the right to claim to
know more aboout it than we do?

Souvik

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 5:54:53 PM9/26/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> My proposal is structural separation. That's a method that has proven to
> work where unhealthy monopolies abuse their dominant position.
> Sam

It would be a wonderful idea.

Sam Carana

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 7:07:56 PM9/26/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 9/27/05, Jorge Noreña <nod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam, you keep speaking of science in terms best fit for industry and economy. But, as I said twice before, science is not an industry, you cannot apply industrial and economical models to science, and you cannot even compare science with an industrial model (like you did when comparing science with the "Trabant model." Science, philosophy, art, literature, etc, are not industries; a model that works in industry, economics, law, monopoly control, etc, cannot be imposed on them simply because they escape such models, they are beyond such models. In fact, I personally think that doing so is a monstrosity
(which is sadly quite common today.) Science does have several problems (including political and epistemological problems,) I simply think that the one you are pointing at is not one of them.
Science was not an industry? Yet, selected people are given qualifications to work as scientist. Science does respond to economic pressure - scientists need money, don't they? Science as it's currently structured, fits into the monopoly model, whether you seek to close your eyes for that or not. Science is funded largely by an organization that operates on a monopoly basis: government. Government controls huge budgets for education and the military, where mosts scientists work. Government controls many private institutions, such as schools and colleges, through accreditation, and many private suppliers of military technology. Those facts are hard to deny, Jorge.
 
Sam

zinnic

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 7:27:17 PM9/26/05
to Epistemology

??????? ...Zinnic

Sam

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 8:36:37 PM10/3/05
to Epistemology
On Sep 27, goozlefotz wrote:
>It is your assertion that science is "organized" in that manner. No
>one else here agrees with you. Since you have never done science, and
>several of the rest of us have, what gives you the right to claim to
>know more aboout it than we do?

My assertion? I'm just giving the facts. Science is funded largely by
government. Most scientists are employed in education or are funded
through the military budget. Government controls the education system
to a large extent and runs the military on a monopoly basis. That's
part of how society is currently organized. What made you think that
this wasn't the case? And what made you think that others here also
deny these undeniable facts? Since you've never done epistemology, what
gave you the illusion that you knew anything about it?

The question is whether science will change once society is structured
differently. Some believed the Trabant was the perfect car and that no
other cars needed to be sold. Would "science" stand any chance if
funding patterns changed? Would there still be "science", or would its
fate be similar to the Trabant?

Sam

einseele

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 2:53:25 PM10/4/05
to Epistemology
Sam, I don´t think for a single minute science can be controlled by
any formal organization, as any other form of knowledge, passion or
art.
And may be hearing you, I myself feel like the world is ruled by the
Trabant Model, but in the end I "know" this is not true. True can´t be
stopped or controlled
There is no conspiracy, that should be too optimistic, I prefer to
think human reality is more chaotic
regards

goozlefotz

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 6:47:17 PM10/4/05
to Epistemology
All things being equal, I'm glad I spent the time doing science instead
of epistomology.
Where would we be if there was no science: Back in the middle ages.
Where would we be if there was no epistomology: Exactly where we are
now.

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 9:12:41 PM10/4/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
I never said there was a conspiracy, einseele, it's done quite openly, funding for science comes predominantly from government budgets for education and the military. Whether government also controls truth, art, passion and "human reality" is another story.
 
The question I raised is whether it's healthy for science to be funded by one single source. It looks like the Trabant model and thus raises the question whether bias is built into this model. After all, some things do get funding and other things don't. Does the way funding takes place favor any specific views? Does that influence the way science is given at school?
 
Regards,
Sam

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 9:12:41 PM10/4/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 10/5/05, einseele <Eins...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 9:38:12 PM10/4/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Interesting to speculate on that, goozlefotz! If there was no "science" as we know it today, i.e. with funding dominated by government, what would society look like. There are of course many different scenarios. For reasons of simplicity ( i.e. the scientists' pet), I'll divide them into three categories:
 
1. Inferior: In one such scenario, control was exercized over society by one single organization - called the Church - ensuring that all ideas being contemplated were compatible with its doctrine. The dark ages, as you will agree. Similar scenarios result from control by a single person, i.e. dictatorship.
 
2. Today: In some respects, the above scenario is actually quite close to the situation we have today, in which a single organization - called government - dominates control over the funding of science and over what is taught at school. For some reason, you seem to deny these undeniable facts. Does this bias result from your political view, goozlefotz? 
 
3. Superior: And then, there are scenarios that are much superior, because they do not put control over science into the hands of a single organization. Instead, there would be multiple organizations each competing with each other for excellence in all areas. Such competition ensures that none of them can get away with using obscure or misleading rhetoric. Fierce competition itself will unmask those who are out to use deceptive ways of indoctrination, specifically those who pretended there was a need for an overall arbitor (such as a Pope or a President) to assess who deserved funding.
 
You must be so glad to be able to spend some time doing epistomology after all, goozlefotz!
 
Sam

Souvik

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 4:32:25 AM10/5/05
to Epistemology
> of simplicity (i.e. the scientists' pet), I'll divide them into three

> categories:
> 1. Inferior: In one such scenario, control was exercized over society by
> one single organization - called the Church - ensuring that all ideas being
> contemplated were compatible with its doctrine. The dark ages, as you will
> agree. Similar scenarios result from control by a single person, i.e.
> dictatorship.
> 2. Today: In some respects, the above scenario is actually quite close to
> the situation we have today, in which a single organization - called
> government - dominates control over the funding of science and over what is
> taught at school. For some reason, you seem to deny these undeniable facts.
> Does this bias result from your political view, goozlefotz?
> 3. Superior: And then, there are scenarios that are much superior, because
> they do not put control over science into the hands of a single
> organization. Instead, there would be multiple organizations each competing
> with each other for excellence in all areas. Such competition ensures that
> none of them can get away with using obscure or misleading rhetoric. Fierce
> competition itself will unmask those who are out to use deceptive ways of
> indoctrination, specifically those who pretended there was a need for an
> overall arbitor (such as a Pope or a President) to assess who deserved
> funding.
>
> You must be so glad to be able to spend some time doing epistomology after
> all, goozlefotz!
> Sam

Most well paid scientists form the core of non-govt industries.
Pharmacy, biotechnology, telecommunications, information technology,
mining, plastics, automobile.. almost anything you name have scientists
at their core group along with company executives. And as they all
compete against each other, the presently accepted scientific truths
like classical, quantum and relativistic mechanics have been
battletested in every other which way.

It seems to me that you have no real grasp of what science is, how it
is done, who do it, or why it works. But have imbibed some
'post-modern' gibberish from people who also lack the same. You also do
not understand the meaning of the word 'government' and think that the
head of a government is somehow analogous to the head of a religious
organisation.

The problem with epistemologists (like yourself) and most other
'philosophers' is that your understanding of most things are so
superficial (oh, it feels like a Trabant, must be a Trabant!), that
they aren't even wrong!

zinnic

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 2:44:03 PM10/5/05
to Epistemology

I wonder how Sam reconciles her claim in quote 1 (post #67,this
thread), with her transparent implication that there is a conspiracy in
quote 2 (post # 70). I added the upper case for emphases!

Quote 1:
"I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY, einseele, it's done quite


openly,
funding for science comes predominantly from government budgets for

education and the military. Whether government also controls TRUTH,
art,
passion and "human reality" is another story?"

Quote 2:
"...there are scenarios that are much superior, because they do not


put control over science into the hands of a single organization.
Instead, there would be multiple organizations each competing with each
other for excellence in all areas. Such competition ensures that none

of them can get away with USING OBSCURE OR MISLEADING RHETORIC. Fierce
competition itself will UNMASK those who are out to use DECEPTIVE ways
of indoctrination, specifically those who PRETENDED there was a need
for an overall arbitor (such as a Pope or a PRESIDENT) to assess WHO
DESERVED funding."

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 2:14:00 AM10/6/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 10/6/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

I wonder how Sam  reconciles her claim in quote 1 (post #67,this thread), with her transparent implication that there is a conspiracy in quote 2 (post # 70). I added the upper case for emphases!

Quote 1:
"I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY, einseele, it's done quite openly, funding for science comes predominantly from government budgets for education and the military. Whether government also controls TRUTH, art, passion and "human reality" is another story?"

Quote 2:
"...there are scenarios that are much superior, because they do not put control over science into the hands of a single organization. Instead, there would be multiple organizations each competing with each other for excellence in all areas. Such competition ensures that none of them can get away with USING OBSCURE OR MISLEADING RHETORIC. Fierce competition itself will UNMASK those who are out to use DECEPTIVE ways of indoctrination, specifically those who PRETENDED there was a need for an overall arbitor (such as a Pope or a PRESIDENT) to assess WHO DESERVED funding."
 
Always glad to help you out and clear things up, zinnic. Do you see any inconsistency in the fact that some people claim that there should be an overall arbitor regarding the government's military budget on the one hand and the fact that they openly advocate such views on the other hand, i.e. without conspiracy?
 
BTW, why do you address me as female?
 
Sam

goozlefotz

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 12:48:30 PM10/6/05
to Epistemology

The "overall arbitor" you speak of is supposed to be congress, which is
elected by us. However, there is a concept called the "iron triangle"
according to which there is a circle-jerk between congress, military
contractors and the military. Military contractors put jobs in the
congressional districts where the congressman votes for the funding and
the military gives the contracts to those who will build them their
toys. States which do not play the game, such as Oregon, end up with
no military bases and no contracts.

goozlefotz

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 12:50:59 PM10/6/05
to Epistemology
I worked on a contract job at Rockwell, which built the B-2. There
just happened to be subcontracts in the districts of every congressman
in a position to influence the funding.

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 9:22:37 PM10/6/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 10/5/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Most well paid scientists form the core of non-govt industries.
Pharmacy, biotechnology, telecommunications, information technology, mining, plastics, automobile.. almost anything you name have scientists at their core group along with company executives. And as they all compete against each other, the presently accepted scientific truths like classical, quantum and relativistic mechanics have been battletested in every other which way.

It seems to me that you have no real grasp of what science is, how it is done, who do it, or why it works. But have imbibed some 'post-modern' gibberish from people who also lack the same. You also do not understand the meaning of the word 'government' and think that the head of a government is somehow analogous to the head of a religious organisation.

The problem with epistemologists (like yourself) and most other 'philosophers' is that your understanding of most things are so superficial (oh, it feels like a Trabant, must be a Trabant!), that they aren't even wrong!
 

Souvik, didn't you argue earlier that most scientists work to make weapons for the military? You said:

"Scientists get money because they can make bombs, food, transport etc. Weapons, mostly."

http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/5c21e58a3d8184a2

Why are you now seeking to deny the undeniable fact that mosts scientists are either directly or indirectly on the government payroll, getting funded through educational or military budgets, i.e. under government control?

Let's just take a look at that first profession you mention, souvik, pharmacy. Only after a long study is one allowed to enter such a profession. Only selected students are allowed into such studies in the first place. In other words, the education system exercizes strict control over who can enter this profession. Even after graduating, one cannot start easily. By the time one finally has a pharmacy shop, one is so burdened by debts that one must play along to pay the bills. Add the inflated cost of taking over an existing pharmacy shop and there's little room for real competition - instead, pharmacy operates under a cartel that keeps out new entrants from its closed shop and that exploits its captive market with fixed prices, rather than competitive services.

The huge regulatory burden of testing and compliance adds further cost to pharmaceutical products and makes life hard for smaller innovative companies. Pharmacists don't object against such high prices, as long as they are the only ones allowed to sell these products. Prices are largely fixed and pharmacists simply add their percentage-based mark-up. Pharmacy, in the way it is currently structured, is the result of educational control, closed shops and the regulatory regime of pharmaceutical products. Clearly, the whole thing is set up under strict government control with little real competition. It smells like a cartel set up purely to let pharmacists exploit an exclusive monopoly.

Many other areas similarly suffer from such government control. In other words, the Trabant model. Instead, more competition would result in lower prices and better services.

Clearly, you seem to dislike epistemology and post-modernism, which seems to be based on some short-sighted inability to read the respective texts. Moreover, you also seem to have a problem with the truth. Why deny the undeniable fact that there's a huge amount of government control in the areas where scientists are employed?

Sam

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 10:01:02 PM10/6/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Dwight D. Eisenhower said the above in a speech in 1960 or 1961

This military-industrial complex controls a huge military budget that gets approved with in a yes or no vote by a politicians who cannot humanly go through all the details. Add to this the possibility to classify things under "military secrets" in order to avoid closer scrutiny by the media. Add the possibility of this huge apparatus to bury details in its bureaucracy. The way it's set up makes it prone to abuse, waste, cronyism and favoratism.
 
Due to the fact that so many scientists get funded, either directly or indirectly, through this military budget, science itself becomes the playball of greed, politics and pet-projects. The calls by universities for greater independence do not help, they make that what happens in universities simply adds another layer of activities where scientists cannot be scrutinized and be held accountible. 
 
In the process, science gets a bad name. The cliche way scientists are presented in the media is as white-coated fools who are playing with dangerous weapons that could cause destruction at massive scale.
 
Therefore, I propose a Pledge for Scientists. I also propose the military to be split up into numerous parts, so that each of them competes for security services provided to and paid for directly by customers. This way, customers can choose directly what security services they want, without putting this huge political bureaucracy in the middle to patronizingly decide for people what kind of security was best for them.
 
Sam
 

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 10:04:07 PM10/6/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 10/7/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I worked on a contract job at Rockwell, which built the B-2.  There
just happened to be subcontracts in the districts of every congressman in a position to influence the funding.
And I guess each congressman was convinced they were doing a genuinely good job, representing the people who voted for them. We need to look at ways to fundamentally change the system. As I said, let's split up the military.
 
Sam

goozlefotz

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 1:33:38 PM10/7/05
to Epistemology
I agree with the above.

>
> Due to the fact that so many scientists get funded, either directly or
> indirectly, through this military budget, science itself becomes the
> playball of greed, politics and pet-projects. The calls by universities for
> greater independence do not help, they make that what happens in
> universities simply adds another layer of activities where scientists cannot
> be scrutinized and be held accountible.
> In the process, science gets a bad name. The cliche way scientists are
> presented in the media is as white-coated fools who are playing with
> dangerous weapons that could cause destruction at massive scale.
> Therefore, I propose a Pledge for Scientists. I also propose the military
> to be split up into numerous parts, so that each of them competes for
> security services provided to and paid for directly by customers. This way,
> customers can choose directly what security services they want, without
> putting this huge political bureaucracy in the middle to patronizingly
> decide for people what kind of security was best for them.
> Sam
>
I think you have an over-simplified solution.

zinnic

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 5:14:16 PM10/7/05
to Epistemology

That "some people claim" something and " openly advocate" the same
thing is not inconsistent.
Now explain how the words you used in the second of the posts I quoted
do not strongly imply that a 'conspiracy' exists! Or do you agree
that it was the poor choice of words on your part, that led to this
misunderstanding?

> BTW, why do you address me as female?

I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?

Souvik

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 7:15:48 PM10/7/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> I also propose the military
> to be split up into numerous parts, so that each of them competes for
> security services provided to and paid for directly by customers. This way,
> customers can choose directly what security services they want, without
> putting this huge political bureaucracy in the middle to patronizingly
> decide for people what kind of security was best for them.

Have you considered what it'd do to national integration? Have you
considered how easily fragmented such a country would be (if we can
call it that) with high risks of civil unrest without a central
government and force? Such a country would be all to easy to invade,
divide (by playing one military faction against the other) and conquer.
Which is precisely why the world equilibrates at nations with well
defined consolidated militaries!

This has probably been your dumbest suggestion yet!

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 8:19:08 PM10/7/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Some people advocate monopolies, yes..? Some of them may do so because they short-mindedly believe to personally beneft from that, probably because they feed on a monopoly themselves. To really understand their line of reasoning, you'd have to ask them, because I believe they are wrong. Anyway, they may use all kinds of means to advance their cause, even resort to the use of obscure and misleading rhetoric, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a conspiracy behind this. Each of them may well act on their own initiative, which seems likely if it's a shot-sighted perception of self-interest that drives them. The idea that this implied that they had secret meetings to plan all this, that is your conclusion. In fact, I have said repeatedly that there is no such conspiracy, but that it takes place quite openly. Competition will ensure that providers of services will have less opportunity to deceive customers. When there's more competition, customers can and will demand that suppliers make their offers on clear terms. What is there about this that you fail to understand? Are you perhaps seeking to deliberately twist my words, in the short-sighted belief that this would advance your standing in this group? Or, is there some political motivation behind this?

>  BTW, why do you address me as female?

I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?

Because in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not personalities. It may be typical for some who loose the plot to degenerate into personal attacks, but that only indicated that such a person had nothing else to contribute to the discussion, other than twisting people's words and personally attacking them for the sake of it.
 
Sam

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 8:54:34 PM10/7/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Good to see that we do agree about the problem. It's a good democratic habit to picture multiple solutions next to each other and discuss each of them on their merits. The one thing that shouldn't happen is that things are pushed through in a dictatorial manner. Instead, we should acknowledge the problem and discuss various ways to tackle the problem.
 
I see the Pledge for Scientists as merely a step in the right direction, since it may help scientists speak out more openly. But more fundamentally, we should look at the way science is intertwined with the way the military is currently structured. My proposal is to split up the military, so that security services are offered on a more competitive basis, with providers of security services negotiating more directly with their customers as to the services their customers want. If others see other alternatives, then at least let put them on the table and let's discuss things.
 
BTW, here's another thing to contemplate in regard to a Pledge for Scientists. To what extent should openness be a motto of scientists? When should scientists comply with their employer's demands for secrecy, and when should they speak out? Are scientists in a special position, given that they may work on projects that could result in yet unforseen dangers to society?  
 
Personally, I think that scientists have a duty to speak out. It may be difficult to speak out for scientists who are closely involved in a specific case, as they may face heavy litigation, loss of career prospects, etc. But this is the more reason for scientists as a group to jointly speak out, against a specific political choice being made without proper discussion, under the pretence that there was scientific backing for that particular choice when in fact there isn't. The way the military is currently structured is such a choice. Scientists shouldn't act as if it wasn't.
 
Sam

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 9:16:23 PM10/7/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com

National integration? What about scientific integrity? Never before in history has there been a better time to restructure the military in the US. There's no immediate threat of an invasion, yet the military budget is huge. If we split up the military into, say, seven different organizations, each of these organizations would on their own be capable to protect people against possible invasions. There's little risk that any foreign country could raise sufficient funding to buy the services of even one of such seven organizations, and even if such offers were made, none of the organizations would be so stupid to consider that. Civil unrest? That's why these organizations should negotiate more directly with their customers. Who would want to pay their security service for instigating "civil unrest"? That's not in line with how people would want such an organization to act.
 
In short, I see no substance behind your claims and I can only conclude that you made these claims from the short-sighted perspective of your own political bias.
 

This has probably been your dumbest suggestion yet!
 
 
Time and again, such remarks show character. I suspect that you are driven by political motives, but if so you should have the integrity to say that this is the case, rather than to put yourself forward as a self-appointed spokesman for scientists. It's people like you who give science a bad name.

Sam

Souvik

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 12:27:37 AM10/8/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> National integration? What about scientific integrity? Never before in
> history has there been a better time to restructure the military in the US.
> There's no immediate threat of an invasion, yet the military budget is huge.
> If we split up the military into, say, seven different organizations, each
> of these organizations would on their own be capable to protect people
> against possible invasions. There's little risk that any foreign country
> could raise sufficient funding to buy the services of even one of such seven
> organizations, and even if such offers were made, none of the organizations
> would be so stupid to consider that. Civil unrest? That's why these
> organizations should negotiate more directly with their customers. Who would
> want to pay their security service for instigating "civil unrest"? That's
> not in line with how people would want such an organization to act.
> In short, I see no substance behind your claims and I can only conclude
> that you made these claims from the short-sighted perspective of your own
> political bias.

It's not a big deal for a foreign government to buy. Or even alliances
of intelligences. There's also the greater risks of information leak in
such a scenario. And lets say one such organisation does fail to
provide the security necessary -- and there is an invasion. Who's
responsibility is it then to plug the hole? Certainly, the competing
organisations would rather not -- they'd rather show the people that
the other guys were a bad choice. Monetary interests rather than
national interests would drive them to take their time in plugging the
hole if they do.

By civil unrest, I mean, one organisation with sufficient military
control over a region might coup the region's government and begin
militancy against other such organisations in an effort to gain power.

> > This has probably been your dumbest suggestion yet!
> >
> Time and again, such remarks show character. I suspect that you are driven
> by political motives, but if so you should have the integrity to say that
> this is the case, rather than to put yourself forward as a self-appointed
> spokesman for scientists. It's people like you who give science a bad name.

This has nothing to do with science. And I'm being as objective
possible about this -- you're just plain fucking dumb. Sure, you'll
interpret it as me having a hidden political agenda -- but I have none,
seriously. You're just a nut. Who thinks citizenship is akin to
customer-ship.

Good luck convincing people.

-Souvik

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 2:50:30 AM10/8/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 10/8/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
> National integration? What about scientific integrity? Never before in
> history has there been a better time to restructure the military in the US.
> There's no immediate threat of an invasion, yet the military budget is huge.
> If we split up the military into, say, seven different organizations, each
> of these organizations would on their own be capable to protect people
> against possible invasions. There's little risk that any foreign country
> could raise sufficient funding to buy the services of even one of such seven
> organizations, and even if such offers were made, none of the organizations
> would be so stupid to consider that. Civil unrest? That's why these
> organizations should negotiate more directly with their customers. Who would
> want to pay their security service for instigating "civil unrest"? That's
> not in line with how people would want such an organization to act.
>  In short, I see no substance behind your claims and I can only conclude
> that you made these claims from the short-sighted perspective of your own
> political bias.

It's not a big deal for a foreign government to buy. Or even alliances of intelligences.
 
 
A foreign take-over is an unlikely scenario. It's like a foreign government buying up Microsoft and forcing all Microsoft staff to suddenly sell strawberries instead of software, with the unlikely agenda of subsequently jumping into the gap and capturing the US software market with their own inferior products. Would existing Microsoft customers play along with such an unlikely scheme? Most likely, they would instantly switch to another company for their software. It may be a worry in your mind, but it's sure isn't an argument that makes sense in regard to better security services.  
 

There's also the greater risks of information leak in such a scenario.
 
 
Information leak? What information is the government hiding from irts citizens?
 

And lets say one such organisation does fail to provide the security necessary -- and there is an invasion. Who's responsibility is it then to plug the hole? Certainly, the competing organisations would rather not -- they'd rather show the people that the other guys were a bad choice. Monetary interests rather than national interests would drive them to take their time in plugging the hole if they do.
 
 
An Invasion? Again, if one such organization is prone to fail in regard to the security services customers want, then those customers will switch to another organization. That is the best guarantee against inferior services.
 

By civil unrest, I mean, one organisation with sufficient military control over a region might coup the region's government and begin militancy against other such organisations in an effort to gain power.
 
 
Are you kidding? That's the very situation we're in now. If that worries you, then the more reason for you to support my proposal to split up the military.
 

> > This has probably been your dumbest suggestion yet!
> >
>   Time and again, such remarks show character. I suspect that you are driven
> by political motives, but if so you should have the integrity to say that
> this is the case, rather than to put yourself forward as a self-appointed
> spokesman for scientists. It's people like you who give science a bad name.

This has nothing to do with science. And I'm being as objective
possible about this -- you're just plain fucking dumb. Sure, you'll interpret it as me having a hidden political agenda -- but I have none, seriously. You're just a nut. Who thinks citizenship is akin to customer-ship.

It has everything to do with science. Scientists work hand in hand with government, typically supporting its every move and getting a nice paycheck in the process (talking about monetary interests), which makes it even harder if not impossible for other organizations to offer security services in competition with the military. It's time that we recognize the political view behind this for what it is. And it's time for scientists to speak out when they're being used as a mouthpiece for this kind of politics. It's time for scientists to respect the importance of this issue, rather than to show the kind of disrespect that you keep up not just towards me, but by implication to all members of this group and the public in general. You condemn yourself with your own words and give scientists a bad name in the process.
 
Sam
Message has been deleted

Souvik

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 3:31:58 AM10/8/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> An Invasion? Again, if one such organization is prone to fail in regard to
> the security services customers want, then those customers will switch to
> another organization. That is the best guarantee against inferior services.

And while the country's being looted and ransacked,its people are
wisely deciding their next mercenary military organisation (none of
which are answerable to the people, as they are non-government and
purely on contract)! You don't understand the word 'invasion', do you?

Those things do happen when there is not enough military deterence.

Military powers and structures at a national level cannot be changed
overnight like your antivirus software, you numbnut.

> By civil unrest, I mean, one organisation with sufficient military control
> > over a region might coup the region's government and begin militancy against
> > other such organisations in an effort to gain power.

> Are you kidding? That's the very situation we're in now. If that worries
> you, then the more reason for you to support my proposal to split up the
> military.

So, give me an example of civil unrest and governments being couped.

> It has everything to do with science. Scientists work hand in hand with
> government, typically supporting its every move and getting a nice paycheck
> in the process (talking about monetary interests), which makes it even
> harder if not impossible for other organizations to offer security services
> in competition with the military. It's time that we recognize the political
> view behind this for what it is. And it's time for scientists to speak out
> when they're being used as a mouthpiece for this kind of politics. It's time
> for scientists to respect the importance of this issue, rather than to show
> the kind of disrespect that you keep up not just towards me, but by
> implication to all members of this group and the public in general. You
> condemn yourself with your own words and give scientists a bad name in the
> process.

Scientists get equal if not more money from private industries.
What you are proposing is not politically revolutionary. Nor do I see
it causing a decrease in science funding (there are plenty of private
industries with science funds comparable to a nation's). What I see is
that you are not prepared to follow through with your own thoughts. You
think up a concept and keep pushing it against all odds and believing
in it without attacking it from all corners yourself first.

Such shallow people earn my disrespect immediately.

Souvik

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 3:39:26 AM10/8/05
to Epistemology
And hey, I just think *you* are a nut. You find in it the implication
that I think everyone on this group is a nut. That just proves you're a
nut.
- QED

goozlefotz

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 10:15:20 AM10/8/05
to Epistemology
If one violates the secrecy oath, one loses one's job and goes to jail.
Not a very good incentive for "speaking out".

goozlefotz

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 10:47:36 AM10/8/05
to Epistemology
You must be a masochist to continue to try to have conversations with
Sam. It will never come to anything.

zinnic

unread,
Oct 8, 2005, 12:42:16 PM10/8/05
to Epistemology

OK. So you agree that the "government' and 'public schooling' system
are not dedicated to "indocrinating" present and future citizens with
the intention of making them incapable of "independent thinking".
I am glad we have 'cleared' that up. It was one of your contentions
that I found hard to accept!

> Competition will ensure that providers of services will have less
> opportunity to deceive customers. When there's more competition, customers
> can and will demand that suppliers make their offers on clear terms. What is
> there about this that you fail to understand?

What's not to understand? This is perfectly clear to everyone who
supports a mixed economy. However, even minimally educated citizens
recognize that rampant competition, in the absence of some societal
regulation, leads to anarchy! What represents an appropriate degree
and quality of 'government' regulation is really at the core of our
disagreement.

>Are you perhaps seeking to deliberately twist my words, in the short-sighted >belief that this would advance your standing in this group? Or, is there some >political motivation behind this?

Naughty! Naughty! As you state below "in serious discussion, issues are
discussed, not personalities".

> > BTW, why do you address me as female?
> >
> > I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?
> >
> > Because in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not personalities. It
> may be typical for some who loose the plot to degenerate into personal
> attacks, but that only indicated that such a person had nothing else to
> contribute to the discussion, other than twisting people's words and
> personally attacking them for the sake of it.

I agree, but only a misogynist would feel that my referring to you as
female is a 'personal attack'. If you are male, say so. Otherwise, what
is your point Samantha?

I am sure you agree that it is reasonable to expect some explanation
when a statement is questioned, or some justification is requested. I
would have more respect for your 'epistemology, if only you would be
more forthcoming in your responses (N.B. this is a critiscm, not a
personal attack). For example,I (and others) have repeatedly questioned
your claim that-- splitting the "military monopoly" in order to open
it to competition would greatly improve the protection of the USA
against 'foreign' entities that wish us harm.

If your proposal is to "split" the active arm of the military, I have
absolutely no idea how you envisage it be accomplished. Presumably you
have given it some thought and have some ideas as to what first steps
would be necessary for market place competition to operate in this
sphere. I requsted previously, and request again, that you either
establish some semblance of practicality for your proposal, or admit
that it raises serious problems for which you have no answer.

However, in a recent post you qoute Eisenhower's prescient warning to
the country of the inherent dangers of the Military -Industrial
complex. If it is this complex you are intent on "splitting", then why
did you not not say so long ago. There would have been little argument
against this intent, but I am sure there would have been a great deal
of useful discussion as to the means.
So let us quit squabbling and simply address the motes in my eye and
the beams in yours :-)...Zinnic

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 2:58:36 AM10/9/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 10/9/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If one violates the secrecy oath, one loses one's job and goes to jail. Not a very good incentive for "speaking out".
 
Firstly, that's another reason to have a Pledge For Scientists. Employers must become aware in advance that scientists cannot be expected to keep something secret that violated the Pledge for Scientists. If all scientists were known to abide by a certain pledge, then employers will not be able to force them to sign secrecy oaths in violation with such a pledge.

 
Secondly, there are whistleblowers provisions that protect scientists who consceinsciously object against certain orders and who speak out against certain practices.
 
Finally, there are civil rights that apply to anyone.
 
Sam
 

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 3:54:43 AM10/9/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 10/9/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

OK. So you agree that the  "government' and 'public schooling' system are not dedicated to "indocrinating" present and future citizens with the intention of making them incapable of "independent thinking". I am glad we have 'cleared' that up. It was one of your contentions that I found hard to accept!
 
If you do want to contribute something to the discussion, then just stop twisting my words, zinnic. I merely said that such indoctrination doesn't constitute a conspiracy. Instead, it's done quite openly. The whole conspiracy thing was dreamed up by you, presumably with the intention to picture me as a lunatic. Do I really have to remind you what you said yourself? Just try and keep more integrity when posting, zinnic!

> Competition will ensure that providers of services will have
> less opportunity to deceive customers. When there's more
> competition, customers can and will demand that suppliers > make their offers on clear terms. What is there about this
> that you fail to understand?

What's not to understand? This is perfectly clear to everyone who supports a mixed economy. However, even minimally educated citizens recognize that rampant competition, in the absence of some societal regulation, leads to anarchy! What represents an appropriate degree and quality of 'government' regulation is really at the core of our disagreement.
 
What our disagreement was is hard to figure out if the only thing you appear to be posting is a string of insults and personal attacks. I have clarified my proposal, which is to have more competition in security services.

>Are you perhaps seeking to deliberately twist my words, in the short-sighted >belief that this would advance your standing in this group? Or, is there some >political motivation behind this?

Naughty! Naughty! As you state below "in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not personalities".
 
I'm just encouraging you to come up with a bit of substance, rather than these constant personal attacks.

> > BTW, why do you address me as female?
> >
> > I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?
> >
> > Because in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not personalities. It
> may be typical for some who loose the plot to degenerate into personal
> attacks, but that only indicated that such a person had nothing else to
> contribute to the discussion, other than twisting people's words and
> personally attacking them for the sake of it.

I agree, but only a misogynist would feel that my referring to you as female is a 'personal attack'. If you are male, say so. Otherwise, what is your point Samantha?

I am sure you agree that it is reasonable to expect some explanation when a statement is questioned, or some justification is requested. I would have more  respect for your 'epistemology, if only you would be more forthcoming in your responses  ( N.B. this is a critiscm, not a personal attack).
 
Let's get one thing clear;  You haven't come up with any "criticism" yet. You have made numerous personal attacks on the basis of mere presumptions of what I said, in some cases even deliberate twisting of my words. If you have questions, feel encouraged to ask them, but stop diverting into pseudo-intellectual wordplay that effectively constitutes yet another personal attack.

For example,I (and others) have repeatedly questioned
your claim that-- splitting the   "military monopoly" in order to open it to competition would greatly improve the protection of the USA against 'foreign' entities that wish us harm.
 
Sure, we can have a debate on the question whether splitting up the military would improve the protection of the USA against 'foreign' entities that wish to harm us. But before we engage into such a debate, we should give some thought to the question we are to debate. What are 'foreign' entities? What constitues harm? What about civil war, or civil "unrest"? My proposal was to split up the military. Given your record here, you must understand that I'm a bit cautious that you again seek to twist my words, put words into my mouth, etc. Before going into a long debate, let's make sure that what we're debating, is in fact what we want to debate, so we don't end up with a huge dispute about something neither of us never even said in the first place.

If your proposal is to "split" the active arm of the military, I have
absolutely no idea how you envisage it be accomplished. Presumably you have given it some thought and have some ideas as to what first steps would be necessary for market place competition to operate in this sphere. I requsted previously, and request  again, that you either establish some semblance of practicality for your  proposal, or admit that it raises serious problems for which you have no answer.
 
As said, the proposal is to split up the military into multiple pieces, say seven organizations, each of them competing in all areas for customers. This kind of reform should be introduced gradually, e.g. by first restructuring the military into, say, seven different organizations on paper only. Then, tax deductions could be granted to those who pay for services from one of these organizations directly.

However, in a recent post you qoute Eisenhower's prescient warning to the country of the  inherent dangers of the Military -Industrial complex. If it is this complex you are intent on "splitting", then why did you not not say so long ago. There would have been  little argument against this intent, but I am sure there would have been a great deal of useful discussion as to the means.
 
Scientists should be aware of their responsibility in this area and speak out. If scientists let themselves be used for a specific political cause while pretending to be objective, then science as a whole becomes something it shouldn't be.

So let us quit squabbling and simply address the motes in my eye and the beams in yours  :-)...Zinnic
I welcome your intention to engage in more serious discussion. I sincerely hope you will keep that focus. As yet, I haven't seen much of your views, so I look forward to discuss things in more detail. :)
 
Sam

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 4:00:07 AM10/9/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 10/8/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
The only thing you're proving with messages like this is that you willingly violate the terms of this group. It shows character. Is insincerity an integral part of your "science"? Is it typical in your view for scientists to promise one thing and then do the opposite? Don't blame me for bringing this up, you did it all by yourself.
 
Sam

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 4:04:42 AM10/9/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
On 10/8/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
>   An Invasion? Again, if one such organization is prone to fail in regard to
> the security services customers want, then those customers will switch to
> another organization. That is the best guarantee against inferior services.

And while the country's being looted and ransacked, and its people are wisely deciding their next mercenary military organisation (none of which are answerable to the people, as they are non-government and purely on contract). You don't understand the word 'invasion', do you?

Military powers and structures at a national level cannot be changed overnight like your antivirus software, you numbnut.
 
 
Your added insult is yet another indication of your inability to have a serious discussion about serious matters. No, I didn't say that you implied that all groupmembers were nuts, just that you keep showing disrespect to all readers by continuing to resort to personal attacks and twisting of words, rather than addressing the issue.  Misrepresenting what I said doesn't show much integrity either. I clearly said that customers should decide the security services they want.  My proposal is for gradual reform of the existing military, rather than instantly replacing them by mercenaries. Yes, reform of the military can take some time, so the more reason there is to start early and proceed with care and caution. These are issues that should be well discussed, planned and executed.
 

 
> By civil unrest, I mean, one organisation with sufficient military control
> > over a region might coup the region's government and begin militancy against
> > other such organisations in an effort to gain power.
>
>   Are you kidding? That's the very situation we're in now. If that worries
> you, then the more reason for you to support my proposal to split up the
> military.

So, give me an example of civil unrest and governments being couped.
 
 
The situation we have now is that there is a single organisation with sufficient military control to prohibit other organizations to offer security services in competition. If that's your concern and if you associate that with civil unrest, then the more reason to support my proposal for structural separation.
 
 

 
> It has everything to do with science. Scientists work hand in hand with
> government, typically supporting its every move and getting a nice paycheck
> in the process (talking about monetary interests), which makes it even
> harder if not impossible for other organizations to offer security services
> in competition with the military. It's time that we recognize the political
> view behind this for what it is. And it's time for scientists to speak out
> when they're being used as a mouthpiece for this kind of politics. It's time
> for scientists to respect the importance of this issue, rather than to show
> the kind of disrespect that you keep up not just towards me, but by
> implication to all members of this group and the public in general. You
> condemn yourself with your own words and give scientists a bad name in the
> process.

Scientists get equal if not more money from private industries.
 
Yet, many private organizations work indirectly for the government. Why are you seeking to deny the undeniable fact that most scientists work either directly or indirectly for the government?
 

 
What you are proposing is not politically revolutionary.
 
 
No, it's just applying the conventional ideas of economic reform to security services. It's indeed a shame that so few scientists have even contemplated these thoughts.

 
Nor do I see it causing a decrease in science funding (there are plenty of private industries with science funds comparable to a nation's).
 
The combined government budgets for education, the military and security is huge. That's where most scientists ultimately get their funding from. It's time scientists start wondering to what extent this creates bias.
 

What I see is that you are not prepared to follow through with your own thoughts. You think up a concept and keep pushing it against all odds and believing in it without attacking it from all corners yourself first.
 

What kind of shallow nonsense is this? People should decide what security services they want. If they have doubts, then they should indeed question their current service provider and consider switching to a better one.
 
Sam
 

goozlefotz

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 12:07:54 PM10/9/05
to Epistemology
Firstly, I was a whistleblower once. So much for my career! I spent
the last ten years before I retired doing contract jobs. Lucky for me
I had military benefits, as contract jobs have no health ins or etc.

Secondly, you are a bigger fool than I realized if you believe what you
wrote.

zinnic

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 1:09:03 PM10/9/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> On 10/9/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK. So you agree that the "government' and 'public schooling' system are
> > not dedicated to "indocrinating" present and future citizens with the
> > intention of making them incapable of "independent thinking". I am glad we
> > have 'cleared' that up. It was one of your contentions that I found hard to
> > accept!
>
> If you do want to contribute something to the discussion, then just stop
> twisting my words, zinnic. I merely said that such indoctrination doesn't
> constitute a conspiracy. Instead, it's done quite openly. The whole
> conspiracy thing was dreamed up by you, presumably with the intention to
> picture me as a lunatic. Do I really have to remind you what you said
> yourself? Just try and keep more integrity when posting, zinnic!

Madam, I beg you not continue to impugn my integrity! Are you perhaps


seeking to deliberately twist my words, in the short-sighted belief

that this would advance your standing in this group? Is there some
political motivation behind this?
Oh! dear! (I am so sorry. That was the old Zinnic). I really do not
know where these words come from! It's just that I get so frustrated
at my failure to communicate with you. They just spew out.


.> > What's not to understand? This is perfectly clear to everyone who


supports
> > a mixed economy. However, even minimally educated citizens recognize that
> > rampant competition, in the absence of some societal regulation, leads to
> > anarchy! What represents an appropriate degree and quality of 'government'
> > regulation is really at the core of our disagreement.
>
> What our disagreement was is hard to figure out if the only thing you
> appear to be posting is a string of insults and personal attacks. I have
> clarified my proposal, which is to have more competition in security
> services.

Yes I agree. I also find it hard to see where our disagreements arise.
I suspect it must be when I encourage you to come up with a bit of
substance.
But that is all in the past. Let us make a fresh start

.> > > BTW, why do you address me as female?


> > > >
> > > > I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?
> > > >
> > > > Because in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not
> > personalities. It
> > > may be typical for some who loose the plot to degenerate into personal
> > > attacks, but that only indicated that such a person had nothing else to
> > > contribute to the discussion, other than twisting people's words and
> > > personally attacking them for the sake of it.
> >
> > I agree, but only a misogynist would feel that my referring to you as
> > female is a 'personal attack'. If you are male, say so. Otherwise, what is
> > your point Samantha?
> >
> > I am sure you agree that it is reasonable to expect some explanation when
> > a statement is questioned, or some justification is requested. I would have
> > more respect for your 'epistemology, if only you would be more forthcoming

> > in your responses (N.B. this is a critiscm, not a personal attack).


>
> Let's get one thing clear; You haven't come up with any "criticism" yet.
> You have made numerous personal attacks on the basis of mere presumptions of
> what I said, in some cases even deliberate twisting of my words. If you have
> questions, feel encouraged to ask them, but stop diverting into
> pseudo-intellectual wordplay that effectively constitutes yet another
> personal attack.

Sorry! Looks like I am too presumptious. My excuse is that I presumed
that my claims, that you are not forthcoming with answers and that your
proposals lack practicallity, were critiscms rather than personal
attacks. But from now on I will abide by whatever you decide is, or is
not, a personal attack.

> > For example,I (and others) have repeatedly questioned
> > your claim that-- splitting the "military monopoly" in order to open it to
> > competition would greatly improve the protection of the USA against
> > 'foreign' entities that wish us harm.
>
> Sure, we can have a debate on the question whether splitting up the
> military would improve the protection of the USA against 'foreign' entities
> that wish to harm us. But before we engage into such a debate, we should
> give some thought to the question we are to debate. What are 'foreign'
> entities? What constitues harm? What about civil war, or civil "unrest"? My
> proposal was to split up the military. Given your record here, you must
> understand that I'm a bit cautious that you again seek to twist my words,
> put words into my mouth, etc. Before going into a long debate, let's make
> sure that what we're debating, is in fact what we want to debate, so we
> don't end up with a huge dispute about something neither of us never even
> said in the first place.
>

Sure, I agree that you must define our terms, otherwise this
discussion could wander outside the bounds of your strict epistemology.
Before we start, should we not agree on what you think constitutes a
debate? To avoid any of my unwitting personal attacks in the future, I
suggest we adhere strictly to TWO rules-
How about ---(i)you propose and (ii)I agree?. No more, no less.
If this meets with your approval, let the games begin!

I agree! Brilliant! Seven mini militia, each equipped appropriately
with weapons that each believes will best discourage foreign
encrouchment on the freedom of the whole US of A.
A modest proposal, er ... suggestion. Each mini-militia should make TV
presentations in which they first pledge their integrity and then
describe their national defence plans whilst detailing their own
strengths versus the weaknesses of the competing militias. Of course it
must be made illegal for foreigners to watch these presentations. They
should be open to the American public only.
In addition, a group of leading epistemologist could devise a survival
type reality TV program. The seven militias would be encouraged to
'strut their stuff' in a series of such programs. The overall
winner of the series would be selected by the votes of the viewing
public. What think you?

I agree that this raises the problem of how the vote could be recorded
without the malign influence of foreign interests. My suggestion (not
proposal) to protect against fraudulent mail-in votes by foreign
nationals, is that the public record on their 1040 tax returns as to
which militia they vote be awarded the Federal taxes relating to
national defence and homeland security.

> >.So let us quit squabbling and simply address the motes in my eye and the
> >beams in yours :-)...Zinnic


>I welcome your intention to engage in more serious discussion. I sincerely
>hope you will keep that focus. As yet, I haven't seen much of your views, so
>I look forward to discuss things in more detail. :)
Sam

Forgive me Mother, I have sinned for which I am heartedly sorry. But I
have made a start above and I am so happy to now participate in a
serious discussion on the first steps needed to split the military.
However dangers still lie ahead. For example, there may be unintended
consequences such as the rise of six mini military-industrial
complexes. We must plan some safe guard against this, but all in due
time, as the saying goes!
Much remains to be accomplished. We must put our trust in the strong
arm of epistemologically correct private competition. We must recruit
a host of patriots to support us in our endeavours to establish your
champions of free enterprise-viz- the Magnificent Seven Militias. The
past is the past and the future lies ahead of us. (Provided that you
agree of course!).
Zinnic

Souvik

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 1:40:13 PM10/9/05
to Epistemology
Sam Carana wrote:
> On 10/9/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK. So you agree that the "government' and 'public schooling' system are
> > not dedicated to "indocrinating" present and future citizens with the
> > intention of making them incapable of "independent thinking". I am glad we
> > have 'cleared' that up. It was one of your contentions that I found hard to
> > accept!
>
> If you do want to contribute something to the discussion, then just stop
> twisting my words, zinnic. I merely said that such indoctrination doesn't
> constitute a conspiracy. Instead, it's done quite openly. The whole
> conspiracy thing was dreamed up by you, presumably with the intention to
> picture me as a lunatic.

Zinnic means your 'conspiracy theory' when he says conspiracy. It is a
view:

"... with particular reference to the mass media, this view assumes
that a small and powerful, and often hidden, élite are able to use the
mass media to condition and persuade passive audiences into conforming
to the powerful élite's wishes. It depends very much on the notion of
all-powerful media and easily duped audiences. ... "

It is not necessarily secretive.

Sam Carana

unread,
Oct 9, 2005, 10:24:23 PM10/9/05
to episte...@googlegroups.com
OK, let's have a debate on the question whether the military should be split up. Let's see what the arguments are for and against. For each argument, let's explore its validity and weigh them against possible counter-arguments. Then, we can each sum up the main arguments as we each see it.   
 
Right now, there are at least two arguments for a split-up: Economics and our rights. In economics, it's commonly agreed that increased competition results in more innovation, efficiency and less waste, lower prices and better-quality services. A split-up is also more in line with our rights, as it allows people to more directly choose the security services they want. In this way, it also increases accountability.
 
By contrast, what are the arguments against? Personal attacks? Insults? To have a serious debate, you'll have to come up with valid arguments against a split-up. You'll need to articulate such arguments, because in the absence of any arguments against or any serious rebuttal of the arguments for, the score will remain two to zero. We have discussed a few lines of thought over the past few posts, to see if any argument with some substance, strength and validity could emerge from that, but as yet, I haven't seen any argument against the split-up that even sticks or makes sense.
 
Sam
 
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages