Why is this group dying?.
zinnic
but I can hold my breath only for a limited time. Anyone want to argue
that does not demonstrate that this group is moribund? Or is that the
level of interest that you guys prefer?
What is the reason for the lack of posters? IMO, the moderators who
post here are overly sensitive and, when their opinions are validly
criticsised, take umbrage and censor the critics. If moderators want to
exchange pleasantries then they should E-mail each other rather than
opening a group discussion.
An animated discussion, within the bounds of decency, is a valid debate
even though either of the the participents are ridiculed. If the
ridicule is invalid it is easily countered, but no way should it be
countered by special pleading to moderators resulting in censor of
posts.. then do not protect each other from valid critiscm, no matter
how harsh. This is a test discussion
Sam Carana
zinnic
Sam Carana wrote:
> I wasn't aware that you were a moderator of this group, zinnic; are you?
>
> As far as I'm concerned, I've seen people here claiming to be scientists and
> to even represent scientists, while acting in blatant violation of the terms
> set not by this group, but by Google (in other words, terms that
> applying across all groups).
>
> While I rarely take offense personally, this did prove the very
> epistemological point I was making.
> In conclusion, politely and humbly, I rest my case.
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
>
Zinnic
Sam Carana
zinnic
Sam Carana wrote:
> I wasn't aware that you were a moderator of this group, zinnic; are you?
>
> As far as I'm concerned, I've seen people here claiming to be scientists and
> to even represent scientists, while acting in blatant violation of the terms
> set not by this group, but by Google (in other words, terms that
> applying across all groups).
>
> While I rarely take offense personally, this did prove the very
> epistemological point I was making.
> In conclusion, politely and humbly, I rest my case.
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
>
>
>
humbly, I rest my case.
Zinnic
Sam Carana
of things by supporting the argument that scientists, due to their
close links with government, are biased, to the extent that they will
seek to silence and even sabotage a group that discusses this important
epistemological issue.
As an example, take global warming. As an issue, it's too important to
be ignored by scientists. But what do scientists propose? To what
extent are scientists ducking their responsibility by saying that it's
not up to them but to government to make decisions? Even worse, will
scientists, who typically receive financial support from government,
speak out against decisions by government or will they be reluctant to
bite the hand that feeds them?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
zinnic
Sam Carana wrote:
> The contrary. This group plays an important role in the greater scheme
> of things by supporting the argument that scientists, due to their
> close links with government, are biased, to the extent that they will
> seek to silence and even sabotage a group that discusses this important
> epistemological issue.
>
> As an example, take global warming. As an issue, it's too important to
> be ignored by scientists. But what do scientists propose? To what
> extent are scientists ducking their responsibility by saying that it's
> not up to them but to government to make decisions? Even worse, will
> scientists, who typically receive financial support from government,
> speak out against decisions by government or will they be reluctant to
> bite the hand that feeds them?
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
Three Bronx cheers for the 'non-scientist' Epistemologists who collect
and report the data that evidences Global warming. Less generation of
'hot air' criticizing scientists would be a step in the right
direction!
Cheers (three!)
Zinnic
Sam Carana
being (mis)used to advance the position of one side or the other in an
argument. Remember how many scientists appeared willing to assist the
tobacco industry in its claims that sigarettes were not harmful? Many
scientists did so willingly and even commercially, while many others
also did assist passively, i.e. without objecting against the fact that
their studies were quotes by the tobacco industry. Now that courts have
decided that sigarettes are harmful, what has happened with all these
scientists? Are they still allowed to call themselves scientists? Were
they wrong, either in their conduct or in the way they allowed their
studies to be used? Should they start litigation against the tobacco
industry for defamation?
Look at the discussions about global warming today. The High Court is
deciding on a claim that greenhouse gases are harmful and should
therefore be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as if
they were poisons. Those who don't like that idea are scrambling to
find scientific support for their position. What should scientists do?
To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for the way
their findings are being used?
Another interesting question is whether science, in the way it's
currently organized, is prone to be abused. Can science be organized in
better ways? That's definitively something that epistemologists should
discuss. Scientists who seek to sabotage such discussions, in the
misguided belief that science shouldn't be discussed, are expressing a
view that is - under their own terms - non-scientific. That kind of
conduct by scientists is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad
as well as for politics, for that matter.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Jan Braeken
!
Sam Carana is the Master of this forum.
I might add here that the same responsibility, liability and litigation
applies for non-scientific people and their verbal or non verbal statements
like artists, politicians, philosophers, etc., who sometimes represent truth
too.
Cheers friend !
XXX Jan Braeken
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Sam Carana
Verzonden: zaterdag 8 juli 2006 8:33
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 2900] Re: Why is this group dying?.
All epistemologists should be interested in the ways "knowledge" is
being (mis)used to advance the position of one side or the other in an
argument. Remember how many scientists appeared willing to assist the
tobacco industry in its claims that cigarettes were not harmful? Many
scientists did so willingly and even commercially, while many others
also did assist passively, i.e. without objecting against the fact that
their studies were quotes by the tobacco industry. Now that courts have
decided that cigarettes are harmful, what has happened with all these
Sam Carana
Cheers!
zinnic
> All epistemologists should be interested in the ways "knowledge" is
> being (mis)used to advance the position of one side or the other in an
> argument.
A trivial observation given that Epistemology is investigation and
study of the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.
>Remember how many scientists appeared willing to assist the
> tobacco industry in its claims that sigarettes were not harmful? Many
> scientists did so willingly and even commercially, while many others
> also did assist passively, i.e. without objecting against the fact that
> their studies were quotes by the tobacco industry.
Do you align your 'Brand' of Epistemology with the legal position that
non-action may be criminal and deserving of retribution. Even in the
legal system this remains arguable. Not in Sam' s Epistemology?
> Now that courts have decided that sigarettes are harmful, what has happened with
> all these scientists? Are they still allowed to call themselves scientists? Were
> they wrong, either in their conduct or in the way they allowed their
> studies to be used? Should they start litigation against the tobacco
> industry for defamation?
Address the same questions to all professions in which some
practioners supported the tobacco industry and the meaninglessness of
such questions becomes apparent.
A scientist's claim of insufficient evidence is no more dishonest than
the same claim made by a lawyer on behalf of a defendent. No one in
right mind would demand disbarment of a lawyer on the grounds that a
jury rejects this defense and finds the defendent guilty on a
preponderence of the evidence provided by the prosecution. The court
decision in the tobacco case was based on evidence demonstrated by
scientists, not by epistemologists!
Sam, it would be more informative and productive for you to abandon
your non-sequitur and personal crusade against 'devilish' scientists,
and directly address the 'political' problems you believe are
responsible for your concerns . Scientists are no more the 'keepers and
arbiters' of morality than are Epistemologists and other practioners
of their chosen professions.
> Look at the discussions about global warming today. The High Court is
> deciding on a claim that greenhouse gases are harmful and should
> therefore be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as if
> they were poisons. Those who don't like that idea are scrambling to
> find scientific support for their position. What should scientists do?
> To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for the way
> their findings are being used?
To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for
'Civilisation's' use/misuse of knowledge provided by scientific
methodology?. Do you credit Epistemologists (Shouldavists,
Couldavists, Wouldavists?) with the benefits (improved lifestyle and
survival) and blame scientists for the non-benefits (horrors of warfare
and degradation of environment)?
> Another interesting question is whether science, in the way it's
> currently organized, is prone to be abused. Can science be organized in
> better ways? That's definitively something that epistemologists should
> discuss. Scientists who seek to sabotage such discussions, in the
> misguided belief that science shouldn't be discussed, are expressing a
> view that is - under their own terms - non-scientific. That kind of
> conduct by scientists is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad
> as well as for politics, for that matter.
Yes, science is prone to be abused. Yes, it could be better organised.
The lack of foundation for your repeated claim that scientists
sabotage discussion of the appropriate societal role and aim of their
methodology "is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad as well
as for politics, for that matter" (sic).
I strongly disagree with your Scientist blaming game.Your repeated
claim to be an Epistemologist invites questioning of your views.
Argumentation and civil presentation of opposing views is the very
heart of epistemology. No personal abuse is intended.
Zinnic.
P.S. I find the current rapid appearence of posts on this group so
refreshing and motivating compared to the earlier overly-moderated
policy. Do you agree?
Perhaps there is life in the old mule yet!
Jan Braeken
'I did not get rich on the back of one, two, tens, hundreds, thousands,
millions or billions of people.'
It is no criticism on any of you guys here that discussed other topics. But
this phrase suddenly came to my mind.
Cheers.
Jan Braeken
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens zinnic
Verzonden: woensdag 12 juli 2006 22:45
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 2963] Re: Why is this group dying?
Sam Carana
> Sam Carana wrote:
> > All epistemologists should be interested in the ways "knowledge" is
> > being (mis)used to advance the position of one side or the other in an
> > argument.
>
> A trivial observation given that Epistemology is investigation and
> study of the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.
Yet, you seem to attack me for bringing this up...
> >Remember how many scientists appeared willing to assist the
> > tobacco industry in its claims that sigarettes were not harmful? Many
> > scientists did so willingly and even commercially, while many others
> > also did assist passively, i.e. without objecting against the fact that
> > their studies were quotes by the tobacco industry.
>
> Do you align your 'Brand' of Epistemology with the legal position that
> non-action may be criminal and deserving of retribution. Even in the
> legal system this remains arguable. Not in Sam' s Epistemology?
...and your attitude isn't helpful. Non-action can definitely be
criminal in the current legal system, e.g. under the "good-samaritan
law" anyone - even scientists - can be prosecuted, there's no argument
about this. More generally, prosecution for criminal negligence is
quite common. It's absurd to suggest that scientists working on weapons
of mass murder (WMM) were not taking action and weren't knowingly or
willingly doing so. In the case of a scientist's testimony in court, a
"negative" statement can be just as important as a "positive"
statement, e.g. the testimony that there was no evidende of something,
or that there was an absence of accurate models can have immense
consequences.
> > Now that courts have decided that sigarettes are harmful, what has happened with
> > all these scientists? Are they still allowed to call themselves scientists? Were
> > they wrong, either in their conduct or in the way they allowed their
> > studies to be used? Should they start litigation against the tobacco
> > industry for defamation?
>
> Address the same questions to all professions in which some
> practioners supported the tobacco industry and the meaninglessness of
> such questions becomes apparent.
> A scientist's claim of insufficient evidence is no more dishonest than
> the same claim made by a lawyer on behalf of a defendent. No one in
> right mind would demand disbarment of a lawyer on the grounds that a
> jury rejects this defense and finds the defendent guilty on a
> preponderence of the evidence provided by the prosecution. The court
> decision in the tobacco case was based on evidence demonstrated by
> scientists, not by epistemologists!
>
> Sam, it would be more informative and productive for you to abandon
> your non-sequitur and personal crusade against 'devilish' scientists,
> and directly address the 'political' problems you believe are
> responsible for your concerns. Scientists are no more the 'keepers and
> arbiters' of morality than are Epistemologists and other practioners
> of their chosen professions.
Once more, there's no argument that contributions by scientists can be
important in assisting one side or the other in disputes. The
epistemogical question is whether the fact that scientists are
predominantly paid by government taints their views. What adds to this
concern is that so few scientists seem to be worried about this kind of
bias, even worse, scientists seem prone to go and attack someone who
asks this question.
> > Look at the discussions about global warming today. The High Court is
> > deciding on a claim that greenhouse gases are harmful and should
> > therefore be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as if
> > they were poisons. Those who don't like that idea are scrambling to
> > find scientific support for their position. What should scientists do?
> > To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for the way
> > their findings are being used?
>
> To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for
> 'Civilisation's' use/misuse of knowledge provided by scientific
> methodology?. Do you credit Epistemologists (Shouldavists,
> Couldavists, Wouldavists?) with the benefits (improved lifestyle and
> survival) and blame scientists for the non-benefits (horrors of warfare
> and degradation of environment)?
Last year, a Washington court said that a 2001 report by the National
Research Council
suggested that the effect of greenhouse gases on climate was unclear
and that climate-change models might not be accurate. Earlier this
year, a group of prominent scientists protested in response, including
some of the scientists who had earlier contributed to the National
Research Council report, arguing that the court had "significantly
misrepresented" their findings. The scientists said that the physics of
the greenhouse effect were firmly established and that they were
virtually certain that human activities had increased those greenhouse
gases to levels not seen before in "all of human experience."
While I applaud the above protest by scientists, it unfortunately is
rare that scientists accept the responsibility that comes with their
claim to have knowledge and understanding of an issue. The question is
to what extent such a claim comes with the responsibility to set the
record straight, if their statements appear prone to
mis-interpretation. To what extent are statements by scientists prone
to misinterpretation, due to their inclination towards objectivity and
specialisation? Is this objectivity genuine in the first place, if
scientists take no efforts to avoid suggestions of bias due to the fact
that they're predominantly paid by government? Those are the
epistemological questions before us.
> > Another interesting question is whether science, in the way it's
> > currently organized, is prone to be abused. Can science be organized in
> > better ways? That's definitively something that epistemologists should
> > discuss. Scientists who seek to sabotage such discussions, in the
> > misguided belief that science shouldn't be discussed, are expressing a
> > view that is - under their own terms - non-scientific. That kind of
> > conduct by scientists is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad
> > as well as for politics, for that matter.
>
> Yes, science is prone to be abused. Yes, it could be better organised.
> The lack of foundation for your repeated claim that scientists
> sabotage discussion of the appropriate societal role and aim of their
> methodology "is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad as well
> as for politics, for that matter" (sic).
>
> I strongly disagree with your Scientist blaming game.Your repeated
> claim to be an Epistemologist invites questioning of your views.
> Argumentation and civil presentation of opposing views is the very
> heart of epistemology. No personal abuse is intended.
> Zinnic.
My concerns follow from the way science is currently organized, from
facts and figures that are publicaly available to all. The fact that
you (and others) keep questioning these facts only adds to these
concerns.
> P.S. I find the current rapid appearence of posts on this group so
> refreshing and motivating compared to the earlier overly-moderated
> policy. Do you agree?
> Perhaps there is life in the old mule yet!
Over the years, this group has had an average of more than four
messages daily. I don't see any signs that this was changing. I
disagree with your continued criticism towards people who post here and
towards moderators of this group. The fact that I have seen no posts
from you with substance makes me feel that moderation of your posts -
if any - has been appropriate. You may feel motivated to take a more
positive attitude, but this still has to show up in your posts.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
> Can anybody here on this forum comment please on the phrase
>
> 'I did not get rich on the back of one, two, tens, hundreds, thousands,
> millions or billions of people.'
>
> It is no criticism on any of you guys here that discussed other topics. But
> this phrase suddenly came to my mind.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Jan Braeken
Good point, Jan, anyone who gets paid for something should realize that
this comes with responsibilities, whether it's millions of dollars or
smaller amounts. Scientists should accept liability and responsibility
for the statements they make, as well as for their refusal to speak
out. There should be no privileges for any person or groups of persons
in this regard, whether it's scientists, lawyers, doctors or
politicians. In case of politicians, I believe they shouldn't be paid
at all, actually, politicians who claim to feel strongly about
something, yet refuse to speak out unless they get paid handsomely, are
suspicious in my view.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Jan Braeken
Hello Nic,
My comments below.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens zinnic
Verzonden: woensdag 12 juli 2006 22:45
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 2963] Re: Why is this group dying ?
Sam Carana wrote :
All epistemologists should be interested in the ways "knowledge" is being (mis)used to advance the position of one side or the other in an
argument.'
Nic :
'A trivial observation given that Epistemology is investigation and study of the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.'
Jan :
Sorry Nic, but if the opinion of Sam here were trivial - which I do not believe -, your comment also was if I follow logic. But that’s ok. I am also trivial. Even the Devil can mistake himself for God, and even God can mistake himself for the Devil. But can both mistake themselves for The Double ?
-
Sam wrote :
Remember how many scientists appeared willing to assist the tobacco industry in its claims that cigarettes were not harmful ? Many scientists did so willingly and even commercially, while many others also did assist passively, i.e. without objecting against the fact that
their studies were quotes by the tobacco industry.
Nic :
'Do you align your "Brand" of Epistemology with the legal position that non-action may be criminal and deserving retribution. Even in the
legal system this remains arguable. Not in Sam' s Epistemology ?'
Jan :
I agree with Sam here. There are as many Brands of Epistemology as there are people on this planet I believe. That does not make one of them less valid or true. It would be arrogant to say that only one's own is better or true, since doubt is the basis of all of them. Non-action against fraud, deceit or irresponsibility is as criminal as assisting to it. Neglect has always been the silent mass murderer in human history. This will not change until we denounce it, and point out the people who participate in it. If judges and lawyers participate in it, they are guilty as hell. No judge and no lawyer is above the law, above responsibility and above neglect, even though many of them might like to be, and even though many of them assist in blocking any change in the law that might make themselves liable for their abuse of power and other mistakes which Sam rightly brought to our attention.
-
Sam wrote :
Now that courts have decided that cigarettes are harmful, what has happened with all these scientists ? Are they still allowed to call themselves scientists ? Were they wrong, either in their conduct or in the way they allowed their studies to be used ? Should they start litigation against the tobacco industry for defamation ?
Nic :
‘Address the same questions to all professions in which some practitioners supported the tobacco industry and the meaninglessness of
such questions becomes apparent. A scientist’s claim of insufficient evidence is no more dishonest than the same claim made by a lawyer on behalf of a defendant. No one in right mind would demand disbarment of a lawyer on the grounds that a jury rejects his defence and finds the defendant guilty on a preponderance of the evidence provided by the prosecution. The court decision in the tobacco case was based on evidence demonstrated by scientists, not by epistemologists !’
Jan :
Sorry Nic, but these so called ‘meaningless questions’ of Sam get all the more meaningful to me now after your comment here. Which ‘professions’ and ‘supporting practitioners’ are above responsibility and neglect ? Can you name me one ? That would be as if we can calculate the importance of professions and practitioners, and put them on a scale of importance ranging from 0 to 10 : scale 1 till 7 are important but also responsible, but 8 till 10 are too important to be responsible. That would be lunacy. Are we not all connected ? Does our omnidimensional connection not make us all responsible for each other ? That is my conviction. It is only because we separate each other from one another and from ourselves, that responsibility is thrown out of the window and everything become possible, including genocide. If the law does not punish neglect, that law has to be changed. Laws have never been for ever, are not for ever today, and will never be for ever in the future. The same applies to judges and lawyers. They are not eternal. If judges and lawyers do not denounce and punish neglect and lack of responsibility, they should simply be replaced. The ‘right mind’ you name here could also be ‘the wrong mind’ if I see how many court cases against criminals go wrong because of the weakness of laws and judges against the strength of lies and lying criminal lawyers. Disbarment is too little a punishment for lawyers who assist in freeing guilty murderers, rapists and paedophiles, and who do nothing to change our modern legal circus of today in which criminals are both director, clown and loudly laughing public. More and more guilty criminals laugh themselves to death today when they walk out of courtrooms as free men. These courtrooms start to look like pubs where the bartender, a judge, gives free drinks to only one type of customer, criminals, and makes all the other customers, society, pay double for these free drinks. Ludicrous. Do not talk to me about courts. They are as fraudulent, as irresponsible and as guilty as everybody else.
-
Nic :
‘Sam, it would be more informative and productive for you to abandon your non-sequitur and personal crusade against 'devilish' scientists, and directly address the 'political' problems you believe are responsible for your concerns. Scientists are no more the 'keepers and arbiters' of morality than are Epistemologists and other practitioners of their chosen professions.’
Jan :
Sorry again Nic, but I disagree again. Why do you keep reducing responsibility to one or two professions or types of practitioners ? Are all the others Holy Saints ? The Double ? I do not understand that. Why do you keep defending scientists so much, when you know that thousands and thousands of them collectively developed the atomic bomb in the ‘Manhattan Project’, and when you know that black rain covered not only the tens of thousands of burned human bodies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also comes out of my eyes when I reflect on this deepest and darkest tragedy in human history ? You might want to read about the still too little known ‘amount’ of scientist taking part in this horror on this site : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp45at.html . Not only 12 American Universities took part in the preparations for this Manhattan Project. Also many scientist of other nationalities were strongly involved in the development of the first uranium and the first plutonium bomb. At that time in 1941, only the installations alone of this Cruel Project cost the American taxpayer 2 billion dollars. So also all the taxpayers contributed to this horror, even though most of them probably didn’t know, didn’t want to and would strongly deny any involvement after the bombs dropped. It is always like that in human history : when a tragedy happens, suddenly nobody is responsible. Crazy. But who chose Roosevelt for president at that time, who instigated the first research for this Project, and who chose president Truman after, who immediately had the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima, instead of warning Japan first as many scientists had suggested ? Who ? Right. That same taxpayer. You see how intense we are all connected Nic, and how many different yet unknown ways of connection there are in our society and our world today, that make us all extremely, extraordinary responsible for each other ? You see how responsible really we all are for each other, and how sharp our eyes, our ears and our minds have to be to detect the smallest sign of irresponsible behaviour and action ? Very few people seem to realise that because they simply don’t know our connection.
I am convinced that every single person that denies his connection to the world and his global responsibility in it is guilty by neglect of every single thing that goes wrong in this world. I repeat : neglect is the mass murderer of human history, and it is no different today. Epistemologists are no exception to that rule.
-
Sam wrote :
Look at the discussions about global warming today. The High Court is deciding on a claim that greenhouse gases are harmful and should
therefore be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as if they were poisons. Those who don't like that idea are scrambling to find scientific support for their position. What should scientists do ?
To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for the way their findings are being used ?
Nic :
‘To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for “Civilisation's” use/misuse of knowledge provided by scientific methodology ? Do you credit Epistemologists (Shouldavists, Couldavists, Wouldavists ?) with the benefits (improved lifestyle and survival) and blame scientists for the non-benefits (horrors of warfare and degradation of environment) ?
Jan :
Extend here is not the question, not even acceptance. Whether scientists accept anything or not, and to what extent whatsoever : they are responsible. But only the ones with a mind, a view and senses that are only a little bigger than their own wallet can know that. That is what they call ‘a broad view’. Blaming them we don’t even have to do. Their wallet will do that for us in the future.
-
Sam wrote :
Another interesting question is whether science, in the way it's currently organized, is prone to be abused. Can science be organized in
better ways ? That's definitively something that epistemologists should discuss. Scientists who seek to sabotage such discussions, in the
misguided belief that science shouldn't be discussed, are expressing a view that is - under their own terms - non-scientific. That kind of
conduct by scientists is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad as well as for politics, for that matter.
Nic :
Yes, science is prone to be abused. Yes, it could be better organised.
The lack of foundation for your repeated claim that scientists sabotage discussion of the appropriate societal role and aim of their
methodology "is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad as well as for politics, for that matter" (sic).
Jan :
Yes, interpretation is prone to be abused. Yes, it could be better organised.
Nic, my apologies, but your lack of close reading of Sam’s statements makes only you claim something, i.e. that he claims “scientists sabotage discussion of the appropriate societal role and aim of their methodology…” (sic J). Sam claims nothing of the kind here. He just says that ‘Scientists who seek to sabotage …, are expressing a view …’ (sic). So scientists are not sabotaging anything yet here – they only possibly seek to, and hence only express a view – but they could, and that is what Sam tries to say here in my view. Personally I did not see any scientist yet on this forum who is trying to sabotage this discussion. But if anyone wants to try, be my guest. I would love to see that happen. Great practice for me as a member of the Epistemo-Squad, to put him back into his own mind jail J.
-
Nic :
I strongly disagree with your Scientist blaming game. Your repeated claim to be an Epistemologist invites questioning of your views.
Argumentation and civil presentation of opposing views is the very heart of epistemology. No personal abuse is intended.
Zinnic.
Jan :
Sam is neither blaming nor claiming anything here. Check your interpretation Nic ! I for one have never read here that he claims to be an Epistemologist (maybe he is, but I don’t know), but even if he is, I wonder why you put this completely obsolete phrase ‘… invites questioning of your views’ here. Of course we question any view here. You do not have to be an epistemologist for that !
Nic :
P.S. I find the current rapid appearance of posts on this group so refreshing and motivating compared to the earlier overly-moderated
policy. Do you agree ?
Perhaps there is life in the old mule yet !
Jan :
This group has never been dying. It has only just started to live !
Nic :
Three Bronx cheers for the 'non-scientist' Epistemologists who collects and reports the data that evidences Global warming. Less generation of 'hot air' criticizing scientists would be a step in the right direction !
Cheers (three!)
Zinnic
Jan :
Oh, Nic, wait till I start to criticize scientists ! You have seen nothing yet ! The air will get so infinitely hot here that you may burn yourself ! Get protection at once ! :-)
INFINITE CHEERS ! J
Jan Braeken
Jan Braeken
XXX Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Sam Carana
Verzonden: donderdag 13 juli 2006 5:50
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 2966] Re: The epistemology of money
zinnic
> zinnic wrote:
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> > > All epistemologists should be interested in the ways "knowledge" is
> > > being (mis)used to advance the position of one side or the other in an
> > > argument.
> >
> > A trivial observation given that Epistemology is investigation and
> > study of the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.
>
> Yet, you seem to attack me for bringing this up...
There you go again. You define any and all critiscm of your views as a
personal attack!
> > >Remember how many scientists appeared willing to assist the
> > > tobacco industry in its claims that sigarettes were not harmful? Many
> > > scientists did so willingly and even commercially, while many others
> > > also did assist passively, i.e. without objecting against the fact that
> > > their studies were quotes by the tobacco industry.
> >
> > Do you align your 'Brand' of Epistemology with the legal position that
> > non-action may be criminal and deserving of retribution. Even in the
> > legal system this remains arguable. Not in Sam' s Epistemology?
>
> ...and your attitude isn't helpful. Non-action can definitely be
> criminal in the current legal system, e.g. under the "good-samaritan
> law" anyone - even scientists - can be prosecuted, there's no argument
> about this. More generally, prosecution for criminal negligence is
> quite common. It's absurd to suggest that scientists working on weapons
> of mass murder (WMM) were not taking action and weren't knowingly or
> willingly doing so.
I am not trying to be helpful to your position. I am trying to convince
you to moderate your "attack" on scientists as a group.
Of course there is prosecution under the "Good-Samaritan law and
conditions defined as "criminal negligence". My point is that the
'criminality' of inaction is arguable depending on circumstance. For
example, inaction due to fear of injury or other serious consequences,
though not noble, may be a legitimate defence. You seem to expect a
more 'noble' standard from the scientists than from the many other
groups involved in the development and implementation of weapons of
mass destruction. Your use of the word murder in this context (WMM) is
interesting. Are scientist inventers of weapons more murdurous than
the non-scientists that use them?
> "negative" statement can be just as important as a "positive"
> statement, e.g. the testimony that there was no evidende of something,
> or that there was an absence of accurate models can have immense
> consequences.
Trivial! This is true in all manner of investigations (including
scientific decisions). What is your point?
> > > Now that courts have decided that sigarettes are harmful, what has happened with
> > > all these scientists? Are they still allowed to call themselves scientists? Were
> > > they wrong, either in their conduct or in the way they allowed their
> > > studies to be used? Should they start litigation against the tobacco
> > > industry for defamation?
Snip
> > A scientist's claim of insufficient evidence is no more dishonest than
> > the same claim made by a lawyer on behalf of a defendent. No one in
> > right mind would demand disbarment of a lawyer on the grounds that a
> > jury rejects this defense and finds the defendent guilty on a
> > preponderence of the evidence provided by the prosecution. The court
> > decision in the tobacco case was based on evidence demonstrated by
> > scientists, not by epistemologists!
Snip
>> Scientists are no more the 'keepers and
> > arbiters' of morality than are Epistemologists and other practioners
> > of their chosen professions.
>
>
> Once more, there's no argument that contributions by scientists can be
> important in assisting one side or the other in disputes. The
> epistemogical question is whether the fact that scientists are
> predominantly paid by government taints their views. What adds to this
> concern is that so few scientists seem to be worried about this kind of
> bias, even worse, scientists seem prone to go and attack someone who
> asks this question.
It is a poliical and sociological question. All employees are effected
to greater or lesser extents by their employers. This applies
throughout government, politics, business, education, research
organisations etc. IMO scientists are more successful than most other
groups in minimising the bias introduced.
To the same extent as for other professionals.
>To what extent are statements by scientists prone
> to misinterpretation, due to their inclination towards objectivity and
> specialisation?
Huh? Misinterpretation by non-scientists is not the fault of
scientists. Your above text exemplifies that scientists continually
object to such misinterpretations and also to the
views/misinterpretations of fellow scientists.
>Is this objectivity genuine in the first place, if scientists take no efforts to avoid >suggestions of bias due to the fact that they're predominantly paid by government? >Those are the epistemological questions before us.
The objectivity of scientists as a group is genuine but not perfect.
Scientists exhibit the same failings as other humans but are
disciplined in their professional activity by the imperitive to
objectively retest and confirm their observations and data. If they
fail to do this they leave themselves open to serious critiscm and loss
of repute from their peers.
Scientists are paid by their eemployers. Philosophers (Epistemologists)
are paid by their employers. The objectivity of both may be effected
by this circumstance. Why do you pick on scientists? I believe you do
so because you have the unrealistic concept that "science" is a purely
intellectual pursuit presently prostituted in the service of
commercial and political interests. The 'salvation' of science and the
civilised world cannot be instituted by "epistemology" gurus who claim
to be unencumbered by practical considerations.
>> > Another interesting question is whether science, in the way it's
> > > currently organized, is prone to be abused. Can science be organized in
> > > better ways? That's definitively something that epistemologists should
> > > discuss. Scientists who seek to sabotage such discussions, in the
> > > misguided belief that science shouldn't be discussed, are expressing a
> > > view that is - under their own terms - non-scientific. That kind of
> > > conduct by scientists is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad
> > > as well as for politics, for that matter.
> >
> > Yes, science is prone to be abused. Yes, it could be better organised.
> > The lack of foundation for your repeated claim that scientists
> > sabotage discussion of the appropriate societal role and aim of their
> > methodology "is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad as well
> > as for politics, for that matter" (sic).
> >
> > I strongly disagree with your Scientist blaming game.Your repeated
> > claim to be an Epistemologist invites questioning of your views.
> > Argumentation and civil presentation of opposing views is the very
> > heart of epistemology. No personal abuse is intended.
> > Zinnic.
>
>
> My concerns follow from the way science is currently organized, from
> facts and figures that are publicaly available to all. The fact that
> you (and others) keep questioning these facts only adds to these
> concerns.
I do not question all facts. I question opinions that masquerade as
facts.It is a fact that specific conclusions and general paradigms are
continually modified in science on the bases of additional data. What
seems to be a 'fact' may be discarded and replaced by a 'new' fact that
better fits our concept of 'knowledge'. I am not particularly
concerned that my disagreement with your views adds to your concerns. I
see nothing epistemological in your personal aversion to critiscm.
> > P.S. I find the current rapid appearence of posts on this group so
> > refreshing and motivating compared to the earlier overly-moderated
> > policy. Do you agree?
> > Perhaps there is life in the old mule yet!
>
>
> Over the years, this group has had an average of more than four
> messages daily. I don't see any signs that this was changing. I
> disagree with your continued criticism towards people who post here and
> towards moderators of this group.The fact that I have seen no posts
> from you with substance makes me feel that moderation of your posts -
> if any - has been appropriate. You may feel motivated to take a more
> positive attitude, but this still has to show up in your posts.
You continually criticise my views. If I was immature I would claim you
have a negative attitude. Some might even claim that you should have a
more positive attitude towards those of your fellow humans
(scientists) who are significantly motivated by a desire to advance
understanding of the human environment rather than those
(entrepreneurs) whose primary motivation accumulation of personal
wealth.
Let me stress again. This response is not a personal attack. It is
simply critiscm and disagreement with your posted views. I believe you
are mistaken and there is no doubt that you believe I am mistaken.
Whether or not you like it, is not an epistemological question!
Zinnc.
zinnic
Sam Carana wrote:
> Scientists should accept liability and responsibility
> for the statements they make, as well as for their refusal to speak
> out. There should be no privileges for any person or groups of persons
> in this regard, whether it's scientists, lawyers, doctors or
> politicians. In case of politicians, I believe they shouldn't be paid
> at all, actually, politicians who claim to feel strongly about
> something, yet refuse to speak out unless they get paid handsomely, are
> suspicious in my view.
>
At last, at last you agree with me. This is the view I have been
advancing. Now explain again why you single out scientists and insist
they be held to a higher standard than the others.
Zinnic
zinnic
Jan Braeken wrote:
> Can anybody here on this forum comment please on the phrase
>
> 'I did not get rich on the back of one, two, tens, hundreds, thousands,
> millions or billions of people.'
>
> It is no criticism on any of you guys here that discussed other topics. But
> this phrase suddenly came to my mind.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Jan Braeken
>
Zinnic
zinnic
> Hello Nic,
> Sam Carana wrote :
> All epistemologists should be interested in the ways "knowledge" is being
> (mis)used to advance the position of one side or the other in an
> argument.'
> Zinnic wrote :
> 'A trivial observation given that Epistemology is investigation and study of
> the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.'
>
> Jan wrote:
> Sorry Nic, but if the opinion of Sam here were trivial - which I do not
> believe -, your comment also was if I follow logic. But that's ok. I am also
> trivial. Even the Devil can mistake himself for God, and even God can
> mistake himself for the Devil. But can both mistake themselves for The
> Double ?
IMO trivialities contribute little to answering questions. Explain the
contribution made by your above comment.
> Sam wrote :
> Remember how many scientists appeared willing to assist the tobacco industry
> in its claims that cigarettes were not harmful ? Many scientists did so
> willingly and even commercially, while many others also did assist
> passively, i.e. without objecting against the fact that
> their studies were quotes by the tobacco industry.
> Zinnic wrote:
> 'Do you align your "Brand" of Epistemology with the legal position that
> non-action may be criminal and deserving retribution. Even in the
> legal system this remains arguable. Not in Sam' s Epistemology ?'
>
>
> Jan wrote:
> I agree with Sam here. There are as many Brands of Epistemology as there are
> people on this planet I believe. That does not make one of them less valid
> or true. It would be arrogant to say that only one's own is better or true,
> since doubt is the basis of all of them. Non-action against fraud, deceit or
> irresponsibility is as criminal as assisting to it.
I, and many others, do not agree with your unsupported claim of the
criminal equivalency of action and non-action. That is your personal
philosophical invention.
>Neglect has always been the silent mass murderer in human history. This will not change >until we denounce it, and point out the people who participate in it. If judges and
> lawyers participate in it, they are guilty as hell. No judge and no lawyer
> is above the law, above responsibility and above neglect, even though many
> of them might like to be, and even though many of them assist in blocking
> any change in the law that might make themselves liable for their abuse of
> power and other mistakes which Sam rightly brought to our attention.
>
>
I agree with most of the above. Two points. (i) Explain what you mean
by silent neglect. Would you include failure to wage a pre-emptive war
to avoid a genocidal holocaust? Where would you draw the line? (ii)You
must not have been attending to history and social lessons if it was
Sam who brought the obvious to your (not our) attention.
>
>
> Sam wrote :
> Now that courts have decided that cigarettes are harmful, what has happened
> with all these scientists ? Are they still allowed to call themselves
> scientists ? Were they wrong, either in their conduct or in the way they
> allowed their studies to be used ? Should they start litigation against the
> tobacco industry for defamation ?
> Zinnic wrote:
> 'Address the same questions to all professions in which some practitioners
> supported the tobacco industry and the meaninglessness of
> such questions becomes apparent. A scientist's claim of insufficient
> evidence is no more dishonest than the same claim made by a lawyer on behalf
> of a defendant. No one in right mind would demand disbarment of a lawyer on
> the grounds that a jury rejects his defence and finds the defendant guilty
> on a preponderance of the evidence provided by the prosecution. The court
> decision in the tobacco case was based on evidence demonstrated by
> scientists, not by epistemologists !'
My point to Sam was that scientists as a group bear no more no less
responsiblity than do other groups or inviduals. I was simply pointing
out to Sam that to single out scientists for the 'blame game' is not
productive.
I accept that 'imperfections' in our society need to be recognised and
corrected. Who does not? The real problem is to arrive at a consensus
that allows a rational and incremental modification of society for the
better. It seems to me that this objective is poorly served by
overstated and near-hysterical condemnation of all facets of an
imperfect system. It is a question of setting priorities and accepting
compromises that improve the common lot, but fall well short of the
Utopian dream in which the system ensures justice for all. Hmmmm...is
your concept of justice identical to mine?
> -
>
>Zinnic:
> 'Sam, it would be more informative and productive for you to abandon your
> non-sequitur and personal crusade against 'devilish' scientists, and
> directly address the 'political' problems you believe are responsible for
> your concerns. Scientists are no more the 'keepers and arbiters' of morality
> than are Epistemologists and other practitioners of their chosen
> professions.'
It is interesting that you omit mention of the scientists that
participated in the development of the weapons and systems that made
possible the fire storms resulting from bombing of Dresden and Hamburg.
I presume you are aware that the number of victims burned alive by
incendiary weaponry was greater than the number consigned to the fire
by nuclear weaponry. Also let us not forget the vastly greater number
of victims consigned to the fires of the Holocaust.
Your contention that we as humans individuals are equally responsible
and criminal through our neglect (or whatever ) for all the murder and
mayhem of the world, is an admission that I am correct in claiming
that scientists should not be singled out as the major culprits.
> Sam wrote :
> Look at the discussions about global warming today. The High Court is
> deciding on a claim that greenhouse gases are harmful and should
> therefore be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as if they
> were poisons. Those who don't like that idea are scrambling to find
> scientific support for their position. What should scientists do ?
> To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for the way their
> findings are being used ?
> Zinnic wrote:
> 'To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for "Civilisation's"
> use/misuse of knowledge provided by scientific methodology ? Do you credit
> Epistemologists (Shouldavists, Couldavists, Wouldavists ?) with the benefits
> (improved lifestyle and survival) and blame scientists for the non-benefits
> (horrors of warfare and degradation of environment) ?
> Jan :
> Extend here is not the question, not even acceptance. Whether scientists
> accept anything or not, and to what extent whatsoever : they are
> responsible. But only the ones with a mind, a view and senses that are only
> a little bigger than their own wallet can know that. That is what they call
> 'a broad view'. Blaming them we don't even have to do. Their wallet will do
> that for us in the future.
As you have agreed (above), they are just as responsible as everyone
else. My personal experience is the wallets of scientists are much
'thinner' than those of politicians, administrators, business managers
and executives who call the shots.
> Sam wrote :
> Another interesting question is whether science, in the way it's currently
> organized, is prone to be abused. Can science be organized in
> better ways ? That's definitively something that epistemologists should
> discuss. Scientists who seek to sabotage such discussions, in the
> misguided belief that science shouldn't be discussed, are expressing a view
> that is - under their own terms - non-scientific. That kind of
> conduct by scientists is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad as
> well as for politics, for that matter.
> Zinnic:
> Yes, science is prone to be abused. Yes, it could be better organised.
> The lack of foundation for your repeated claim that scientists sabotage
> discussion of the appropriate societal role and aim of their
> methodology "is bad for science, bad for epistemology, and bad as well as
> for politics, for that matter" (sic).
> Jan :
> Nic, my apologies, but your lack of close reading of Sam's statements makes
> only you claim something, i.e. that he claims "scientists sabotage
> discussion of the appropriate societal role and aim of their methodology."
> (sic :-)). Sam claims nothing of the kind here. He just says that
> 'Scientists who seek to sabotage ., are expressing a view .' (sic). So
> scientists are not sabotaging anything yet here - they only possibly seek
> to, and hence only express a view - but they could, and that is what Sam
> tries to say here in my view. Personally I did not see any scientist yet on
> this forum who is trying to sabotage this discussion. But if anyone wants to
> try, be my guest. I would love to see that happen. Great practice for me as
> a member of the Epistemo-Squad, to put him back into his own mind jail :-).
Perhaps you should allow Sam to deny that he does claim that
scientists (in expressing their view ) are sabotaging a free and open
discussion of their disreputable role in society.
>Zinnic:
> I strongly disagree with your Scientist blaming game. Your repeated claim to
> be an Epistemologist invites questioning of your views.
> Argumentation and civil presentation of opposing views is the very heart of
> epistemology. No personal abuse is intended.
> Jan :
> Sam is neither blaming nor claiming anything here. Check your interpretation
> Nic ! I for one have never read here that he claims to be an Epistemologist
> (maybe he is, but I don't know), but even if he is, I wonder why you put
> this completely obsolete phrase '. invites questioning of your views' here.
> Of course we question any view here. You do not have to be an epistemologist
> for that !
Sam BLAMES scientists and CLAIMS to speak for Epistemology. Ask him!
"Of course we question any view here. You do not have to be an
epistemologist
for that !" Careful! Not Sam's views! Try it sometime.
Zinnic
Jan Braeken
scientists, judges and lawyers we talked about did ?
And what if they did ?
Should we not be out on the streets right now, protesting in masses ?
Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens zinnic
Verzonden: donderdag 13 juli 2006 16:18
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 2973] Re: The epistemology of money
Jan Braeken
Hello Nic,
With mounting interest I follow your debate with Sam.
My comments below.
Oorspronkelijk bericht
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens zinnic
Verzonden: donderdag 13 juli 2006 16:08
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 2971] Re: Why is this group dying?.
Sam Carana wrote:
All epistemologists should be interested in the ways "knowledge" is
being (mis)used to advance the position of one side or the other in an argument.
Zinnic:
A trivial observation given that Epistemology is investigation and
study of the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.
Sam:
Yet, you seem to attack me for bringing this up...
Zinnic:
There you go again. You define any and all criticism of your views as a personal attack !
Jan:
The word 'attack' of Sam here can be interpreted in different ways. It could be as well 'personal', 'challenging the opinion of me', 'challenging the epistemologist in me', as 'disagreeing with my opinion on scientists', etc, etc, depending on his (and your, and mine) emotional charges, factors or reasons, on environmental ones, spiritual, economical, practical, spatial, temporary, etc, etc, and/or on all of them at once. For instance, if Sam were to write this ‘… you seem to attack me for bringing this up …’ while thinking about all the people that suffered from the consequences of scientist’s neglect for and aid to environmental destruction, it could not be called ‘personal’ any more I think, yes ? And indeed if Sam would very recently have been physically attacked on the street by a discontented scientist because of his criticism to him, your comments here would very rightly have become extremely personal to him, no ? We cannot possibly know in what state of mind Sam wrote this. So interpreting this ‘attack’ as solely and as absolute as 'personal' seems not only morally and ethically, but also epistemologically wrong to me. Moreover, if I compare your phrase ‘You define …’ as a whole, or your last two phrases ‘There you ..’ + ‘You define…’ as a whole, to the first part of your second phrase ‘You define any and all …’, the absoluteness and the extremism of that whole becomes even more clear IMO. For in this first part, your words 'any' and 'all' criticism of Sam's views could certainly not represent the truth, which is mostly much more diverse. If Sam would be to perceive ‘any’ and ‘all criticism’ to him as a personal attack, his frustration would have become infinite, and he would not live for very long, no ? :-) Sorry Nic, but you simply do not know and cannot possibly know 'any' and 'all' of this different criticism to ‘any’ and ‘all’ of Sam's different statements – I will not even speak of yours or mine here –, formulated by ‘any’ and ‘all’ other human beings on this planet. This generalisation would imply your omniscience of every single human being on this planet who (1) criticised Sam on any of his views, and Sam’s perception of it - even the way he perceived that -, (2) criticises him now, and (3) will criticise him in the future. This would be like playing God, Nic, and God does not exist.
-
Nic :
Do you align your 'Brand' of Epistemology with the legal position that non-action may be criminal and deserving of retribution. Even in the legal system this remains arguable. Not in Sam’ s Epistemology ?
Sam :
... and your attitude isn't helpful. Non-action can definitely be criminal in the current legal system, e.g. under the "good-Samaritan law" anyone - even scientists - can be prosecuted, there's no argument about this. More generally, prosecution for criminal negligence is quite common. It's absurd to suggest that scientists working on weapons of mass murder (WMM) were not taking action and weren't knowingly or willingly doing so.
Nic :
I am not trying to be helpful to your position. I am trying to convince you to moderate your "attack" on scientists as a group.
Of course there is prosecution under the "Good-Samaritan law” and conditions defined as "criminal negligence". My point is that the
'criminality' of inaction is arguable depending on circumstance. For example, inaction due to fear of injury or other serious consequences,
though not noble, may be a legitimate defence. You seem to expect a more 'noble' standard from the scientists than from the many other
groups involved in the development and implementation of weapons of mass destruction. Your use of the word murder in this context (WMM) is interesting. Are scientist inventers of weapons more murderous than the non-scientists that use them ?
Jan : I agree with you Nic. Moderation is best. And indeed circumstances are very important. But nonetheless, scientist are not less responsible for WMD than ‘other groups’ are. They are as murderous, or can be as murderous as non-scientists that use their inventions to commit murder. In responsibility about anything I believe, everybody is equal.
-
Sam wrote :
… "negative" statement can be just as important as a "positive" statement, e.g. the testimony that there was no evidence of something, or that there was an absence of accurate models can have immense consequences.
Nic :
Trivial ! This is true in all manners of investigations (including scientific decisions). What is your point ?
Jan :
Sorry, but I see nothing trivial in this but a possibly trivial interpretation, if somebody could do that. In my limited knowledge of our legal and judicial system, the positive statements outweigh the negative ones by about 100 to 1. Most of our court cases are about finding hard material evidence and defending or proving materially it exists, not about finding no evidence and proving nothing exists. Legally, we have developed an idolatry of ‘the cold hard facts’, where in reality much more is going on in our brains – especially criminal brains – than thinking about this stupid, simplistic God of ‘cold hard facts’. I call this both judicial, legal, logical, ethical and even spiritual, absolute belief of ours in ‘the cold hard facts’ superstition. Working with victims of trafficking of human beings in my previous job as a social worker, and listening extremely carefully to their story and their comments on their lawyers and court cases (and analysing them to the bone), I can assure you that cold hard facts are as subject to positive or negative interpretation as anything, and that the consequences of wrong interpretation were devastating and even deadly. How careful do we have to be with cold hard facts ! Any intelligent, eloquent lawyer with a good knowledge of philosophy and epistemology can turn any cold hard fact into a mockery. Any criminal with far less intelligence and far less eloquence and knowledge can invent so many deceptive excuses for these cold hard facts, that judges, prosecutors and lawyers have to turn themselves inside out twenty times over and over again to prove these excuses bare no ground, and that the cold hard facts speak for themselves. Because these facts never seem to do that. How inventive our brains are to change reality into a fantasy, and how sharp our eyes, our ears and our feelings have to be to see, to hear, to feel and to detect that !
So if we talk about subjects as hot and as immaterial as ‘responsibility’ and ‘neglect’, how difficult it will be for us to prove they even exist? But if we could not prove by cold hard facts that they do not exist, would that automatically mean they don’t ? Which consequences would that have for our society and our world ? Everybody can be irresponsible en neglect everything, without being punished ? Everybody can kill and neglect they did, refute any responsibility for that, and get away with that under a thunderous applause by the neglecting and irresponsible ‘everybody else’ ? That would be our worst nightmare Nic. That is why Sam is so right here to stress the importance of responsibility, accountability en liability without end, and that is why I will help him to stress that without end until it is taken serious by everybody.
Of course all this can be subject to dual interpretation, but negative immaterial evidence is mostly harder to find than the positive material one I think. Suppose e.g. that we have to find evidence for the fact that somebody neglected a red sign at a crossroad, and caused a deadly accident. Neglect would be absence of attention here. It will be much easier for lawyers to prove there was indeed attention of the driver here when they have the wreck of the car analysed by specialists, the climatic conditions (like the presence of fog e.g.) at the time of the accident, the state of the light (on or off, brightness, distance to the light, etc.), than when they were to analyse the state of mind of this killer driver at that time. Yet it is that same state of mind, e.g. distraction, that would probably have caused this terrible accident, but we can never prove that state of mind materially.
Let me finish this small part here by saying that I am not at all sure of what I write. It is not by far an absolute truth Nic, and I would very much like to read further comments of yours. I find this very, very interesting.
-
Sam wrote :
Now that courts have decided that cigarettes are harmful, what has happened with all these scientists? Are they still allowed to call themselves scientists ? Were they wrong, either in their conduct or in the way they allowed their studies to be used ? Should they start litigation against the tobacco industry for defamation ?
Nic :
Snip
A scientist's claim of insufficient evidence is no more dishonest than the same claim made by a lawyer on behalf of a defendant. No one in right mind would demand disbarment of a lawyer on the grounds that a jury rejects this defence and finds the defendant guilty on a preponderance of the evidence provided by the prosecution. The court decision in the tobacco case was based on evidence demonstrated by scientists, not by epistemologists !
Jan :
There is a clear difference between a scientist and a lawyer, even in court cases. All the more reason to suspect both scientist, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and their critics to lie ! A function in society does not free anyone in that function from the truth, and certainly not from epistemological investigations into that truth. I would be very surprised one day that judges allowed epistemologists to demonstrate evidence, but that surprise of mine would be exploding with joy. It is high time that epistemologists get the big, spacious place in courts they already deserve for decades – they never even got one millimetre –, for they would reveal more about the truth than ten billion prosecutors, lawyers and judges ever could !
-
Sam wrote :
Scientists are no more the 'keepers and arbiters' of morality than are Epistemologists and other practitioners of their chosen professions.
Once more, there's no argument that contributions by scientists can be important in assisting one side or the other in disputes. The epistemological question is whether the fact that scientists are predominantly paid by government taints their views. What adds to this concern is that so few scientists seem to be worried about this kind of bias, even worse, scientists seem prone to go and attack someone who asks this question.
Nic :
It is a political and sociological question. All employees are effected to greater or lesser extents by their employers. This applies
throughout government, politics, business, education, research organisations etc. IMO scientists are more successful than most other
groups in minimising the bias introduced.
Jan :
Can you give me an example of this ? I do not believe scientists always are more successful in that at all. I agree though in certain areas and at a certain give moment if I compare them with religions, but since everything changes, their success in these areas as well as these moments all to often changed into their opposite. Look at the ‘scientific’ electric shock therapy for the mentally ill, introduced by neuroscientists and psychiatrists in 1930. No sane therapist today would apply that any more for most of the mental disorders we know. Were these historic scientists at that time responsible for the horror they caused in patients with these shocks, Nic ? I think they were. Arrogance is as much present and as real in scientists as in any other non-scientific practitioners. So lack of responsibility too.
-
Sam wrote :
To what extent should scientists accept responsibility for the way their findings are being used ?
Nic :
To the same extent as for other professionals.
Jan :
Yes ! Thank you Nic.
-
Sam wrote :
To what extent are statements by scientists prone to misinterpretation, due to their inclination towards objectivity and specialisation ?
Nic :
Huh ? Misinterpretation by non-scientists is not the fault of scientists. Your above text exemplifies that scientists continually
object to such misinterpretations and also to the views/misinterpretations of fellow scientists.
Jan :
Not too fast Nic, not too fast. This may be more important than you think. Proneness to misinterpretation is a very important issue indeed, especially when inclination towards or even claims of objectivity and specialisation are concerned. Suppose e.g. that a renowned scientist claims he knows better on what spot a dam in the Amazon river should be build because he knows better what the ecological consequences for that are than the group of native inhabitants that live around that place. Our inclination to objectivity and specialisation would certainly make us favour the opinion of that scientist, and other scientist would even more certainly do that (providing they do not have yet another opinion or place, as ‘objective’ and as ‘specialised’ as the first one). Also our so called ‘objectivity’ and ‘specialisation’ are new Gods of Truth that are worshipped more than most people seem to realise. These Idols of science say more about science itself and our appreciation of it than the truth of the matter : they are Idols, and they need to be exposed. There is no such thing as objectivity. Every single thing is subjective, for every single thing is interpreted by people. Whatever instrument we use, whatever attempt we make to exclude the human factor, it is always people who have to read results, interpret data, and communicate them in different ways, while interpreting them again. So this illusion of objectivity is such a big and deceptive God that I would call the millions of people that worship him a new religion : the Objectivity-Religion.
Specialisation is no different in this regard. Every specialist lacks the broader view if he does not work together with many other kinds of specialisms. Hence when he locks himself up in the ivory tower of his own specialism - also this still happens more than most people think -, he will make such terrible mistakes in his practice that sometimes tens of thousands of people are effected (the case of the dam is exemplary in this regard). Of course today we have an new inclination in science – multidisciplinarity –, and a new one in society – multiculturalism. But IMHO these new inclinations will still need decades to develop and harmonize, until they will be fully implemented in the view of all specialist sciences, and even more decades before all governments and societies all over the world have accepted them. Until that moment we are stuck with Idols of specialists and the Idol of objectivity, and much harm will still be done to billions. For causes like specialist action or specialist opinions maybe small, effects often are global, none the least because of the vastness of their symbolic value as Idols, just like their fundaments of objectivity and specialisation are. Forgetting that inclinations exist on a vast scale would not only mean that one believes nobody can be influenced. It would also mean that ones inclination to irreality and irrationality is a fact.
At last, dubious inclinations not only involve a big epistemological part, but also a big ethical one, amongst many others. Clarity of description, humbleness, inclination to criticism, inclination to doubt and broadness of view have always been antidotes against making big mistakes, including inclining ones.
-
Sam :
Is this objectivity genuine in the first place, if scientists take no efforts to avoid suggestions of bias due to the fact that they're predominantly paid by government ? Those are the epistemological questions before us.
Nic :
The objectivity of scientists as a group is genuine but not perfect. Scientists exhibit the same failings as other humans but are disciplined in their professional activity by the imperative to objectively retest and confirm their observations and data. If they fail to do this they leave themselves open to serious criticism and loss of reputation from their peers.
Jan :
Nobody is perfect. But nobody will ever become perfect either by criticism of solely their peers, or by the loss of their reputation. We can only help each other improve and broaden our different views by expanding them step by step and year after year, until in the end we hopefully get a glimpse of the broadest view of them all : infinity.
-
Nic :
Scientists are paid by their employers. Philosophers (Epistemologists) are paid by their employers. The objectivity of both may be effected
by this circumstance. Why do you pick on scientists ? I believe you do so because you have the unrealistic concept that "science" is a purely intellectual pursuit presently prostituted in the service of commercial and political interests. The 'salvation' of science and the
civilised world cannot be instituted by "epistemology" gurus who claim to be unencumbered by practical considerations.
Jan :
I believe Sam has neither an unencumbered intellectual, conceptual or unrealistic view on science, nor an unencumbered life. Anybody who is honest with himself would acknowledge the same about himself. I doubt though that gurus could do that. So Sam is certainly not a guru, let be an epistemological one. I know of no followers that worship Sam. So Nic, it is your statement here that seems very unrealistic to me. Practical considerations may indeed be a difficult hurdle to take, or many high hurdles to cross, to reach the truth : that does not make them less suspect to deceit either, and makes them even more subject to litigation.
-
Sam wrote :
My concerns follow from the way science is currently organized, from facts and figures that are publicly available to all. The fact that
you (and others) keep questioning these facts only adds to these concerns.
Nic :
I do not question all facts. I question opinions that masquerade as facts. It is a fact that specific conclusions and general paradigms are
continually modified in science on the bases of additional data. What seems to be a 'fact' may be discarded and replaced by a 'new' fact that better fits our concept of 'knowledge'. I am not particularly concerned that my disagreement with your views adds to your concerns. I see nothing epistemological in your personal aversion to criticism.
Jan :
Sorry again Nic, you may be right about the continuous modification of specific scientific conclusions and general paradigms, but I think you overestimate the speed by which this is done on a national, international or global scale. If only a small group of scientists modifies anything fundamentally, even only in their own, very small specialist field, you can be sure that an incredible battle will start with many colleagues in that same field around the world. This battle always involves a lot of money that could change hands quickly, possible changes in funding, political battles (when this change has military consequences, which often is the case), etc, etc. Before these small fundamental changes turn into significant new paradigms, all these battles have to be fought to the limit, and that can sometimes take a few hundred years as we saw with the Uncertainty-principle of Heisenberg in quantum physics. Paradigms change slowly, and most people on our planet don’t even know what a paradigm is. I once read that books of great significance to human history mostly take a few decades before they result in a real change in the way we think. The same applies to changes in science I believe. But whatever speed things change, great speed very often masquerades ignorance.
Cheers friend.
Jan Braeken
-
Nic :
P.S. I find the current rapid appearance of posts on this group so refreshing and motivating compared to the earlier overly-moderated policy. Do you agree ?
Perhaps there is life in the old mule yet!
Sam :
Over the years, this group has had an average of more than four messages daily. I don't see any signs that this was changing. I disagree with your continued criticism towards people who post here and towards moderators of this group. The fact that I have seen no posts from you with substance makes me feel that moderation of your posts - if any - has been appropriate. You may feel motivated to take a more positive attitude, but this still has to show up in your posts.
Nic :
You continually criticise my views. If I was immature I would claim you have a negative attitude. Some might even claim that you should have a more positive attitude towards those of your fellow humans (scientists) who are significantly motivated by a desire to advance
understanding of the human environment rather than those (entrepreneurs) whose primary motivation is accumulation of personal wealth.
Let me stress again. This response is not a personal attack. It is simply criticism and disagreement with your posted views. I believe you
are mistaken and there is no doubt that you believe I am mistaken.
Whether or not you like it, is not an epistemological question !
Zinnic.
Jan :
And I still like the fact that liking could become an epistemological question again, because it still is now. Anything is an epistemological question ! J
Cheers !
zinnic
>>> Jan Braeken wrote:
>>> Can anybody here on this forum comment please on the phrase
>>> 'I did not get rich on the back of one, two, tens, hundreds, thousands,
>>> millions or billions of people.'
> >>It is no criticism on any of you guys here that discussed other topics. But
>>> this phrase suddenly came to my mind.
>>> Cheers.
> >>Jan Braeken
>> I cannot offer a comment because I did not get rich, period.
> >Zinnic
>Jan Braeken wrote:
> Ok Nic, neither did I. But do you agree that many of the politicians,
> scientists, judges and lawyers we talked about did ?
> And what if they did ?
> Should we not be out on the streets right now, protesting in masses ?
> Jan
Protesting what?. That some have more than others? Why just protest?
Why not just take what others have earned. To the barricadesI Bring on
the guillontines!
No! We should be in the classrooms, libraries, and workshops honing
our skills for entry into more productive careers. Or we should be in
the work place working our little asses of to optimise efficiency of
production in order to maximise profits accruing to ourselves and the
employers who have provided us with a livelihood. We should be
sacrificng osmall comforts in order to enable and encourage our
children to better themselves through education and their own
initiative.
If such effort holds no attraction for us, we should form communes,
buy a few scrub acres in Texas, the Australian outback or wherever, and
raise goats, tend a vegetable garden and take solace in our poverty
from the marijuana patch. In emergencies we should be parasitic on
the charity and generosity of the motivated working citizens that
represent the bulwark of society.
Zinnic
Jan Braeken
Oorspronkelijk bericht
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens zinnic
Verzonden: donderdag 13 juli 2006 18:43
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 2974] Re: Why is this group dying ? It is not.
Sam Carana wrote :
All epistemologists should be interested in the ways "knowledge" is being
(mis)used to advance the position of one side or the other in an argument.'
Zinnic wrote :
'A trivial observation given that Epistemology is investigation and study of the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.'
Jan wrote:
Sorry Nic, but if the opinion of Sam here were trivial - which I do not believe -, your comment also was if I follow logic. But that's ok. I am also trivial. Even the Devil can mistake himself for God, and even God can mistake himself for the Devil. But can both mistake themselves for The Double ?
Zinnic :
IMO trivialities contribute little to answering questions. Explain the contribution made by your above comment.
Jan :
A = Epistemology as a general definition
B = Applied epistemology to a specific topic
C = My epistemology
A ≠ B ≠ C
A = Your general interpretation of epistemology ≠ universal
B = Application of A by Sam on the topic of ‘…(mis)use of knowledge to advance the position of one side or the other in
an argument’ ≠ universal.
C = New epistemology = A + B + X + Y + Z = omnidimensional ≠ universal
C > epistemology > B > A
A = reduction
B = reduction
C = reduction + addition
A + B + C = Learning
-
Sam :
Remember how many scientists appeared willing to assist the tobacco industry in it’s claims that cigarettes were not harmful ? Many scientists did so willingly and even commercially, while many others also did assist passively, i.e. without objecting against the fact that their studies were quotes by the tobacco industry.
Zinnic :
'Do you align your "Brand" of Epistemology with the legal position that non-action may be criminal and deserving retribution. Even in the legal system this remains arguable. Not in Sam' s Epistemology ?'
Jan:
I agree with Sam here. There are as many Brands of Epistemology as there are people on this planet I believe. That does not make one of them less valid or true. It would be arrogant to say that only one's own is better or true, since doubt is the basis of all of them. Non-action against fraud, deceit or irresponsibility is as criminal as assisting to it.
Zinnic :
I, and many others, do not agree with your unsupported claim of the criminal equivalency of action and non-action. That is your personal
philosophical invention.
Jan :
Maybe that is a good invention of me at the right time, which will possibly gain support here to the benefit of many historical and present victims of non-action. If e.g. the responsibility of all non-acting German people who neglected what was happening at Auschwitz at that time were to be proved on paper in a long list of names and spread in the media today, and if they were to be connected to all non-acting European and American people at that time who did not act either (with substantial proof) in an even longer list of names, the world would be a different place immediately. Since nobody did prove that on paper yet, maybe it is time someone did. Bringing this up here could be a first step to wake somebody up that can or wants to attempt to do that. Success is not guaranteed, but failure would at least be proof that someone starts to develop a much broader view on the responsibility for the Holocaust. Because we need that view.
-
Jan :
Neglect has always been the silent mass murderer in human history. This will not change >until we denounce it, and point out the people who participate in it. If judges and lawyers participate in it, they are guilty as hell. No judge and no lawyer is above the law, above responsibility and above neglect, even though many of them might like to be, and even though many of them assist in blocking any change in the law that might make themselves liable for their abuse of power and other mistakes which Sam rightly brought to our attention.
Zinnic :
I agree with most of the above. Two points.
(1) Explain what you mean by silent neglect. Would you include failure to wage a pre-emptive war to avoid a genocidal holocaust ? Where would you draw the line ?
(2) You must not have been attending to history and social lessons if it was Sam who brought the obvious to your (not our) attention.
Jan :
(1) Silent neglect is closing your eyes for criminal acts and the vast, omnidimensional, destructive reality of people. What the holocaust is concerned : it is a good example for that. I may not know enough about it’s historical causes, but if I read the political philosopher Hannah Arendt’s study ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’, the pre-emptive war you proposed already happened before the Holocaust. It was World War One. This pre-emptive war did not prevent the holocaust, it caused it said Hannah Arendt. I think many historians will agree with her. It certainly seems logical to me. I do not believe in pre-emptive wars, since war never solves war but causes a spiral of wars that never stops. Look at Israel at this very moment (it just started the next a war against Lebanon), and you know what I mean. So the line between war and peace I would call ‘communication without end’.
(2) I attend to history and social lessons every second of the day I hope. But then I am no expert on history or social lessons. Are you? To me anyway nothing is obvious when anyone tells me it is, and I also hope to you too when I tell you. You have no monopoly on the obvious Nic, and neither do I. Please explain what is so obvious to you here, and please prove that with more than one argument. To me things are so complex and change so quickly that ‘the obvious’ is mostly an understatement.
-
Jan wrote:
Sorry Nic, but these so called 'meaningless questions' of Sam get all the more meaningful to me now after your comment here. Which 'professions' and 'supporting practitioners' are above responsibility and neglect ? Can you name me one ? That would be as if we can calculate the importance of professions and practitioners, and put them on a scale of importance ranging from 0 to 10 : scale 1 till 7 are important but also responsible, but 8 till 10 are too important to be responsible. That would be lunacy. Are we not all connected ? Does our omnidimensional connection not make us all responsible for each other ? That is my conviction. It is only because we separate each
other from one another and from ourselves, that responsibility is thrown out of the window and everything become possible, including genocide. If the law does not punish neglect, that law has to be changed. Laws have never been for ever, are not for ever today, and will never be for ever in the future.
The same applies to judges and lawyers. They are not eternal. If judges and lawyers do not denounce and punish neglect and lack of responsibility, they should simply be replaced. The 'right mind' you name here could also be 'the wrong mind' if I see how many court cases against criminals go wrong because of the weakness of laws and judges against the strength of lies and lying criminal lawyers. Disbarment is too little a punishment for lawyers who assist in freeing guilty murderers, rapists and paedophiles, and who do nothing to change our modern legal circus of today in which criminals are both director, clown and loudly laughing public. More and more guilty
criminals laugh themselves to death today when they walk out of courtrooms as free men. These courtrooms start to look like pubs where the bartender, a judge, gives free drinks to only one type of customer, criminals, and makes all the other customers, society, pay double for these free drinks. Ludicrous. Do not talk to me about courts. They are as fraudulent, as irresponsible and as guilty as everybody else.
Zinnic :
My point to Sam was that scientists as a group bear no more no less responsibility than do other groups or individuals. I was simply pointing out to Sam that to single out scientists for the 'blame game' is not productive.
Jan :
I agree with that completely.
-
Zinnic :
I accept that 'imperfections' in our society need to be recognised and corrected. Who does not ?
Jan :
Can you give me a few examples of these so called ‘imperfections’ please Nic, because sorry, they seem rather vague and rather unimportant to me as you put them this way. I fear though that many, many people are just not interested in even the worst, monstrous ‘imperfections’ in our society, and even want them to stay hidden and uncorrected, let be recognise and correct the small or habitual ones. You and me have seen enough I think what imperfections can do if we do not correct them, but most of our fellow citizens didn’t see that yet because they did not want to and still don’t want to. We know in our human history that masses keep closing their eyes for their own mistakes or imperfections until a disaster strikes. Only then they want to consider recognising and correcting them. That is, when they became a matter of life and death.
-
Zinnic :
The real problem is to arrive at a consensus that allows a rational and incremental modification of society for the better.
Jan.
If most of the citizens in our society do not even want to see their mistakes and those of others, that both cause major problems in society – the mass murderer of neglect ; their common destructive behaviour towards nature is a good example –, consensus on solutions for those problems is as impossible because for these citizens ‘there are no mistakes, so also no problems that concern us’. Incremental growth of extremism in societies is the result, as we see all over the world today, and incremental modification is impossible.
-
Zinnic :
It seems to me that this objective is poorly served by overstated and near-hysterical condemnation of all facets of an imperfect system. It is a question of setting priorities and accepting compromises that improve the common lot, but fall well short of the Utopian dream in which the system ensures justice for all. Hmmm ... is your concept of justice identical to mine ?
Jan :
Okay Nic, I might have overrun myself a little here in my statements. But given the state of my Belgian society, and the state of our world of today, is that so abnormal ? Is your environment you live in so stable that you always are so balanced al the time as you seem to be here J ? I do not mean to compromise you in any negative way with this. It seems quite normal to me that with our statements, we react according to the environment we live in. And the more we become aware of this unstable, indeed very unstable environment, and the wider this environment becomes as we broaden our vision to that, to finally reach our present world and beyond, the more our statements will reflect that.
But did I really overstate and condemn ‘all’ facets of our ‘totally’ imperfect system ? I don’t think so. Of course there are many more facets to our system that I did not address yet, and of course our system is not totally imperfect or bad. All the more reason to continue adding the unaddressed facets here, and to add the perfect – or let us better say ‘good’ – ones too. Be my guest Nic !
Priorities we have to set indeed, but which one can we call ‘the’ priority ? That is a major question for me. Some might say that addressing unemployment is priority number one, others say it is security (against terrorists), again others point to religion, economy, the environment, etc. IMO everything is a priority because everything connects, and because one priority is a reduction of all priorities as a whole. We can not reduce the problems of a big system like a society to one or two (even three or four) priorities. Nothing and nobody is more important since everything is connected and nothing can be reduced. Everybody has to be added in stead of being reduced (to nothing). This additive connection may hold the key to all our problems, and to a fundamental change of our system. A new epistemology for that I would call the ‘Epistemology of Addition’.
-
Jan :
Sorry again Nic, but I disagree again. Why do you keep reducing responsibility to one or two professions or types of practitioners ? Are all the others Holy Saints ? The Double ? I do not understand that. Why do you keep defending scientists so much, when you know that thousands and thousands of them collectively developed the atomic bomb in the 'Manhattan Project', and when you know that black rain covered not only the tens of thousands of burned human bodies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also comes out of my eyes when I reflect on this deepest and darkest tragedy in human history ? You might want to read about the still too little known 'amount' of scientists taking part in this horror on this site : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp45at.html . Not only 12 American Universities took part in the preparations for this Manhattan Project. Also many scientist of other nationalities were strongly involved in the development of the first uranium and the first plutonium bomb. At that time in 1941, only the installations alone of this Cruel Project cost the American taxpayer 2 billion dollars. So also all the taxpayers contributed to this horror, even though most of them probably didn't know, didn't want to and would strongly deny any involvement after the bombs dropped. It is always like that in human history : when a tragedy happens, suddenly nobody is responsible. Crazy. But who chose Roosevelt for president at that time, who instigated the first research for this Project, and who chose president Truman after, who immediately had the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima, instead of warning Japan first as many scientists had suggested ? Who ? Right. That same taxpayer. You see how intense we are all connected Nic, and how many different yet unknown ways of connection there are in our society and our world today, that make us all extremely, extraordinary responsible for each other ? You see how responsible really we all are for each other, and how sharp our eyes, our ears and our minds have to be to detect the smallest sign of irresponsible behaviour and action ? Very few people seem to realise that because they simply don't know our connection.
I am convinced that every single person that denies his connection to the world and his global responsibility in it is guilty by neglect of every single thing that goes wrong in this world. I repeat : neglect is the mass murderer of human history, and it is no different today. Epistemologists are no exception to that rule.
Zinnic :
It is interesting that you omit mention of the scientists that participated in the development of the weapons and systems that made
possible the fire storms resulting from bombing of Dresden and Hamburg.
Jan :
Indeed Nic. But I omitted much more than that. Yes I omitted these scientists, but there were many, many more. Well, I can not name them all. They were millions, all over the world, and the list of overt and covert world war II activities they participated in must be so long and so unknown that I cannot even attempt here to put one together. That would cost me ten’s of years of research. Interesting though, such a project. Maybe I have to embark upon it.
-
Zinnic :
I presume you are aware that the number of victims burned alive by incendiary weaponry was greater than the number consigned to the fire by nuclear weaponry. Also let us not forget the vastly greater number of victims consigned to the fires of the Holocaust.
Jan :
Yes, I am aware of that. Good point Nic. The destruction of World War II was indeed as large and as monstrous, and we are often tempted to think that One Big Bomb could have prevented (and could still prevent today) millions of smaller ones for a long, long time after. But look at what even Two Big Nuclear Bombs on Japan brought us after 50 years Nic. Did they prevent the thousands of smaller bombs of terrorists after that, which are still being followed by more bombs exploding now in Irak, Afghanistan, Europe, India, Indonesia, etc, etc, every day, again and again ? Bombs have already long proven to be no solution at all, and we continue to use them as if we still believe they will stop everything at once. Only stupid people keep making the same mistakes, but we do nothing to stop them. Neglect.
-
Zinnic :
Your contention that we as humans individuals are equally responsible and criminal through our neglect (or whatever) for all the murder and mayhem of the world, is an admission that I am correct in claiming that scientists should not be singled out as the major culprits.
Jan :
True. But we should not neglect them either, for they are equal to all the other culprits.
-
Jan :
Extend here is not the question, not even acceptance. Whether scientists accept anything or not, and to what extent whatsoever : they are responsible. But only the ones with a mind, a view and senses that are only a little bigger than their own wallet can know that. That is what they call 'a broad view'. Blaming them we don't even have to do. Their wallet will do that for us in the future.
Nic :
As you have agreed (above), they are just as responsible as everyone else. My personal experience is the wallets of scientists are much
'thinner' than those of politicians, administrators, business managers and executives who call the shots.
Jan :
J Good point. And my wallet is even thinner than the ones of scientists J.
But that’s ok. I’m still alive !
I agree Nic. Okay, I am prepared to make an exception here J. The thicker one’s own wallet, the more responsible one is.
-
Nic :
Perhaps you should allow Sam to deny that he does claim that scientists (in expressing their view) are sabotaging a free and open
discussion of their disreputable role in society.
Jan :
Ok ! Sam, you are now officially allowed to deny your claims J !
I understand Nic. Thanks.
-
Nic :
Sam BLAMES scientists and CLAIMS to speak for Epistemology. Ask him !
Jan :
Do you Sam ?
-
Nic :
"Of course we question any view here. You do not have to be an epistemologist for that !" Careful ! Not Sam’s views ! Try it sometime.
Zinnic
Jan :
Thank you Nic for your very intelligent comments here.
Cheers !
Jan Braeken
Sam Carana
>> Scientists should accept liability and responsibility for
>> the statements they make, as well as for their refusal to speak
>> out. There should be no privileges for any person or groups of
>> persons in this regard, whether it's scientists, lawyers, doctors or
>> politicians. In case of politicians, I believe they shouldn't be paid
>> at all, actually, politicians who claim to feel strongly about
>> something, yet refuse to speak out unless they get paid
>> handsomely, are suspicious in my view.
>
>At last, at last you agree with me. This is the view I have been
>advancing. Now explain again why you single out scientists and insist
>they be held to a higher standard than the others.
Am I arbitarily singling out scientists? If the position of scientists
is different from other professionals, then that's a position of their
own making. There are three issues here scientists we could look into.
Firstly, there's the double-edged sword of objectivity. Scientists aim
to avoid personal bias. However, the flipside is ducking of
responsibility. If companies construct a bridge, they will make sure
and go to great lengths to show and guarantee that it will be a sound
contruction. If the bridge nevertheless falls down, they will accept
responsibility - they will have taken out sufficient insurance to cover
such an eventuality. Scientists are different, in that they use their
claimed "objectivity", as if they did not get involved personally. If
things go wrong, scientists will point at a shortage of funding for
research, abnormalities and special circumstances, they will blame
nature or an Act of God, anything except themselves and rather than
taking personal responsibility for their involvement. This is something
that's typical for scientists, I know of no other group in society that
is so habitual in ducking responsibility. This wouldn't be so
important, if scientists were some irrelevant group that didn't affect
other people's lives anyway. The epistemological question is whether
it's morally acceptable for scientists to deny responsibility, when
they're knowingly and willingly involved in so many things.
The issue hinted at is of course that, at the same time, scientists are
instrumental in the development of weapons of mass murder of a
military-industrial complex operating as a cartel to keep the world at
ransom. In line with their doctrine of "objectivity", scientists
typically refuse to speak out on this and on their own involvement,
which is made worse due to the secrecy that surrounds everything
related to the military. Even worse, people like zinnic seek to silence
people who ask questions about this. All this makes it even more
imperative for epistemologists to look into this.
Again, if scientists were unable to comprehend such issues, they could
be granted the excuse of ignorance. But the reality is that scientists
are among the most-educated people who are also instrumental in shaping
the education system. Indeed, a third issue is that scientists are
instrumental in imposing the above doctrine through the education
system. Those three issues make that the position of scientists is
different from other groups and it's a difference that's largely of
their own making, it's a huge scheme of collusion, not some
non-existring conspiracy that existed only in my imagination.
Scientists do seek the privilige of indemnity, under the cloak of
objectivity, yet on the other hand they seek to control the education
system in a very specific way, aiming to deliberately indoctrinate
young people when they are at an impressionable age and held captive in
classrooms. Indeed, scientists seek to indoctrinate society with that
idea that it was a good thing that scientists demand the rest of
society to pay the bills for their lifestyle and their instrumental
involvement in making the weaponry that holds the world at large
hostage to their doctrine.
zinnic wrote:
>It is a poliical and sociological question. All employees are effected
>to greater or lesser extents by their employers. This applies
>throughout government, politics, business, education, research
>organisations etc. IMO scientists are more successful than most
>other groups in minimising the bias introduced.
As said, few groups get so predominantly paid by government. Any
business that exploits a monopoly will face anti-trust and cartel laws
that force them to break up such a monopoly. Why are scientists so keen
to seek an exemption from this for themselves? Here's a hint.
Scientists seek to impose the doctrine that there was absolute,
universal and perpetual knowledge that they somehow had exclusive
access to, just like high priests claim to have exclusive access to the
will of the gods. Scientists act as if they were objective and were not
responsible for these Acts of God. This is the doctrine they seek to
impose on society, against the obvious diversity that is inherent in
reality.
zinnic wrote:
> My point to Sam was that scientists as a group bear no more no less
> responsiblity than do other groups or inviduals. I was simply pointing
> out to Sam that to single out scientists for the 'blame game' is not
> productive.
Not productive? Not productive to what? To your values? Why should
science NOT be discussed in an epistemology group? Do I "single out"
scientists, or do I propose that NO GROUP OR PERSON SHOULD RECEIVE
PRIVILEGE?
zinnic wrote:
> I accept that 'imperfections' in our society need to be recognised and
> corrected. Who does not? The real problem is to arrive at a consensus
> that allows a rational and incremental modification of society for the
> better. It seems to me that this objective is poorly served by
> overstated and near-hysterical condemnation of all facets of an
> imperfect system. It is a question of setting priorities and accepting
> compromises that improve the common lot, but fall well short of the
> Utopian dream in which the system ensures justice for all. Hmmmm...is
> your concept of justice identical to mine?
I've gone to great length to spell out the reform I propose, such as
the splitting up of the military. By contrast, zinnic seems to have
nothing to contribute and seems only out to silence me. That wouldn't
be a problem if it was done by means of a fair discussion. The problem
is that Zinnic falsely seeks to portray my questions about science as
an "attack" on scientists, in an apparent effort to make it look as if
I was committing violence against scientists. As you can see above,
zinnic also uses words such as "near-hysterical" in an effort to
belittle my views. THAT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK THAT IS IN GROSS VIOLATION
WITH THE TERMS THAT ZINNIC AGREED TO WHEN JOINING THIS AND OTHER
GROUPS. There's a pattern that shows character, which should give
cause for moderators to act. You may wonder why zinnic does seek to
silence someone who wants to discuss science. Indeed, why does zinnic
make it look as if it was inappropriate to discuss science in an
epistemology group that - after all - by definition discusses science
and knowledge. Why does zinnic do this? Sabotage? Malice? Does he get
paid to do this? You tell me! I'll just remain patient and repeat the
things I've said over and over again, just to avoid the suggestion that
I wasn't responding to zinnic's false allegations.
> >Zinnic to Jan:
> Your contention that we as humans individuals are equally responsible
> and criminal through our neglect (or whatever ) for all the murder and
> mayhem of the world, is an admission that I am correct in claiming
> that scientists should not be singled out as the major culprits.
As said numerous times, if scientists are instrumental in developing
weapons of mass murder, then scientists put themselves in that
position. They are not singled out arbitarily. If scientists put
themselves in a position that's different from other groups, then
that's a position of their own making and they should be held
accountible for the consequences.
> As you have agreed (above), they are just as responsible as everyone
> else. My personal experience is the wallets of scientists are much
> 'thinner' than those of politicians, administrators, business managers
> and executives who call the shots.
Scientists typically receive the highest salaries and they received
sufficient education to be able to speak out if they believe there's
something wrong with the conduct of whoever "calls the shots". Why are
scientists so complacent? Why don't they speak out, if they knew things
were wrong? Apart from their high salaries, scientists consume huge
amounts of public money to basically do as they please under the cloak
of research. But instead of using at least some of the money to look
into the issues that I brought up here, they prefer to lock themselves
up in the ivory towers of universities and behind the gated walls of
the military-industrial complex, seeking to stay out of reach from
scrutiny and liability that every other person has to carry and will
expect to carry. If you have doubts, just follow the money trail!
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Jan Braeken
Money has absolutely no value.
On the contrary, it takes value away, and destroys value and validation. It destroys life.
Jan Braeken
More below.
Oorspronkelijk bericht
Van:
episte...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens zinnic
Verzonden: vrijdag 14 juli 2006 1:38
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 2977] Re: The epistemology of money
Jan Braeken wrote:
Can anybody here on this forum comment please on the phrase
'I did not get rich on the back of one, two, tens, hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of people.'
It is no criticism on any of you guys here that discussed other topics. But this phrase suddenly came to my mind.
Cheers.
Jan Braeken
Zinnic:
I cannot offer a comment because I did not get rich, period.
Jan:
Ok Nic, neither did I. But do you agree that many of the politicians, scientists, judges and lawyers we talked about did ? And what if they did ?
Should we not be out on the streets right now, protesting in masses ?
Jan
Zinnic:
Protesting what ? That some have more than others ? Why just protest ? Why not just take what others have earned. To the barricades I Bring on the guillotines !
Jan:
Protesting that they earn money on the backs of other people Nic. That’s what earning money is all about, no ? Who can deny that ? the ones that have billions ? I don’t think so.
-
Zinnic:
No ! We should be in the classrooms, libraries, and workshops, honing our skills for entry into more productive careers.
Jan:
I wonder Nic how unhealthy it is for the millions of students and would-be students today to sit in classrooms all day doing nothing but brainwork – a mental extreme that is not balanced with physically balanced activity at all, but only in some cases by physical extremes like sports –, and getting into even more extremes by working two or three shifts in some factory with too little sleep, in order to pay those studies and pay rent too. This is a world society of extremes Nic, not a moderate and balanced money paradise as you seem to present it, and it is killing people both in the short and long run because health is all about moderate balance. Nobody with a moderate balanced life today has balanced finances. Nobody. Almost everybody lives a life of extremes of one kind or another, and they all need pills, doctors and hospitals to fix up their bodies on a daily or yearly basis average, bodies that cannot cope with these extremes. That’s why our pharmaceutical industry is ‘working’ so well, Yeah, and that’s why they too get incredibly rich, sometimes literally ‘on the backs of people’, but certainly on the back’s of their health. You see how circular our health-and-work problem is ? The more we work above our natural limit, the more pills, doctors and hospitals we need, and the more work and money we create for them.
You could say ‘that’s great’. Yeah ! More work ! But our bodies will not agree with you. They will react again and again with more and more extremes : more fatigue, more stress, and more pain. So more and more pills we need to keep on functioning – the use of psychotropic medicines e.g. is exploding today –, more and more doctor visits, more and more operations in hospitals. Who will pay for that ? We don’t. The cost to our health insurances just rises and rises, our social benefit systems are cracking under that health cost weight, until that cost too will spiral out of control. Our so called ‘wonderful work’ anyway is already spiralling out of control now, together with our health problems. We are turning ourselves into machines rapidly today, by replacing worn-out bodyparts, and that replacement is all to happy done by our hospitals. They earn money with that. Our hospitals are no longer human, but just financial body factories. Nothing counts but the money. For the causes of that body part replacement we wish to remain blind. Those causes are too much work, too much stress, too little rest, bad food, etc., etc, (no reduction), and a sick world system we created to organise our world, called MONEY.
We made and still make ourselves believe individually and collectively that money was and is the only way to progress our civilisation and ourselves, and that ‘wonderful work’ is the wonderful universal way to ‘earn’ that money, but we only keep on living in that dream like this. The only thing we ‘earn’ from work and money is illness it seems. And it’s killing us Nic. That wonderful work is not so wonderful after all, isn’t it ? How much stress do you personally have ? Is it increasing or decreasing ? And sorry for this question (medical privacy and secrecy is the next Idol), but how many pills do you take daily to cope with your increasing work load ? I take not even one pill, and I do not go to doctors and hospitals. But I am not so important in this story. The 17.000 children a day that die in Africa right know are. They did not ‘work’ one day in their life like we did, yes ? That is why they had to die, no ? You se what the results are of worshiping our beautiful, wonderful, merciful God of Work.
But money and work together are not only slowly killing us. Also every single animal has to go. Everybody knows why so many animal and plant species disappear at a deadly rate : money. And everybody knows that animal traffickers indeed work extraordinary hard. Double shifts ! Triple shifts. Hell they can make so much money with their fantastic WORK that they would work a billion shifts if they could !
So Nic, money and work are not universal at all as you can see with our 17.000 African children, and certainly not a universal truth as most people like to believe. Money is a killer and work is a killer. Money has no value at all, has never had that, and will never have it. It is people that have value, and nature, and that value is taken away from us both by money and useless work. And we are the ones that do that. We ourselves take our own value away by doing useless work and earning useless money. That is my conviction now.
How hard are people who ‘work’ in a war studying and working to earn their money? They are ‘working’ very hard indeed killing people Nic, to earn their money. Should we worship them for killing because they pay tribute to our God of Work ? And why do they do that, killing people ? Because ‘work’ has become such a GOD Nic. This was never the case in the past. ‘Work’ has only recently become such an Idol. Today we can do literally anything to carefully and painstakingly show and prove to others we are ‘working’. Including slaughtering people. In an average war – if we can call any war ‘average’ –, there are tens of thousand of people working extremely hard indeed, and they are working extremely hard killing people. I cannot repeat that enough. ‘That’s alright, because it is work ?’ I call that the greatest act of lunacy we have ever invented. Ha, indeed we extremely carefully, and painstakingly thorough, have to prove to everybody else we are working, because if we don’t people leave us on the streets to die. You see how big an Idol work has become, how big a connection it has with death, and how small and insignificant a human life became in comparison ? Is that also all right ? That is also insane Nic. I do not even want to think about how many people already have been sacrificed to this great big God of Work of ours on our streets in big cities throughout the world. That is the ‘work’ of our great big God of Work of ours, which we so daily and abundantly worship and praise every second of the day, to the limit of our capacities and beyond. To me, that is not only incredibly stupid , it is also criminal. It is we who assist to this worship that kill to. It is we who neglect that, that are guilty too.
We should just get rid of money all together. Everything should become free of charge, globally. That way nobody would have to die any more if they had no work and no money. Our so called ‘merit system’ is not universal and no universal truth either. Our merit system is no God either. And ‘survival of the fittest’ is a very bad joke invented by people like Darwin who also did not seem to know moderate balance. This Darwin character was the most extreme guy we have ever seen on our planet. That is why he came up with such an extreme idea, and that’s why many people today still suffer from that idea because other extremists still want to put that in practice in our economy. Lunatics, these extremists.
-
Nic :
Or we should be in the work place working our little asses of to optimise efficiency of production in order to maximise profits accruing to ourselves and the employers who have provided us with a livelihood. We should be sacrificing small comforts in order to enable and encourage our children to better themselves through education and their own initiative.
Jan
Are you a slave Nic, that encourages your children to become a slave too ?
-
Nic
If such effort holds no attraction for us, we should form communes, buy a few scrub acres in Texas, the Australian outback or wherever, and raise goats, tend a vegetable garden and take solace in our poverty from the marihuana patch. In emergencies we should be parasitic on the charity and generosity of the motivated working citizens that represent the bulwark of society.
Jan
I personally do not know any ‘motivated’ working and representing citizens of our society Nic. They all complain to me how many problems – serious problems, believe me – they have at work. And sorry, but ‘the bulwark of society’ is just a little more than working citizens. That is a reduction. It is too easy to separate different groups of people in ‘working’, ‘non working’, ‘bulk’, trivial, ‘parasites’, ‘preying on others’, etc., and forthwith instigate a war between these groups, because most of us are a mixture of those groups. Some who work very hard also prey very hard on others benefits. Some who do not work officially, in reality work very hard indeed. Some we call parasites form the are dying from exhaustion somewhere in a forgotten cellar of an almost broken down house, or in a shack in a slum somewhere right now, where they form the ‘bulk’ of the slum. Some prey on governments funding and social benefits, but help the very poor people all day long. Ah, nothing is absolute but our opinions if we call them that way. The ‘bulk’ of our opinions remain reductions, big ones or small, and that is why the big ones must believe in ‘centers’ and ‘peripheries’, ‘bulks’ and ‘trivialities’, and groups against groups to exist, in opposite to the whole that includes everybody and everything. And that is why ‘money’ as well as ‘work’ is just another reduction, whatever people say. For this global mistake, addition may well be the only complementary correction and completion to form the whole.
Cheers Nic.
Jan Braeken
Jan Braeken
Your posts are of great argumentative value to this group.
Thank you !
Jan Braeken
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Sam Carana
Verzonden: vrijdag 14 juli 2006 9:08
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 2982] Why is this group dying ? It is not.
zinnic
> Sam Carana wrote:
> >> Scientists should accept liability and responsibility for
> >> the statements they make, as well as for their refusal to speak
> >> out. There should be no privileges for any person or groups of
> >> persons in this regard, whether it's scientists, lawyers, doctors or
> >> politicians. In case of politicians, I believe they shouldn't be paid
> >> at all, actually, politicians who claim to feel strongly about
> >> something, yet refuse to speak out unless they get paid
> >> handsomely, are suspicious in my view.
> >
> >Zinnic:
> >At last, at last you agree with me. This is the view I have been
> >advancing. Now explain again why you single out scientists and insist
> >they be held to a higher standard than the others.
>
> Am I arbitarily singling out scientists? If the position of scientists
> is different from other professionals, then that's a position of their
> own making.
Your conditional "If; then" statement is of no logical or
epistemological significance. It is a disguised assertion. Your opinion
of the position of scientists is just that, and is of your making.
>There are three issues here scientists we could look into.
> Firstly, there's the double-edged sword of objectivity. Scientists aim
> to avoid personal bias. However, the flipside is ducking of
> responsibility. If companies construct a bridge, they will make sure
> and go to great lengths to show and guarantee that it will be a sound
> contruction. If the bridge nevertheless falls down, they will accept
> responsibility - they will have taken out sufficient insurance to cover
> such an eventuality.
A poor analogy! You know that a bridge construction company would not
take responsibility for damage due to misuse or stresses beyond
contractual specifications. If you were to undermine the foundations of
your house would you claim that the builder was responsible for its
collapse? If your house were to be built to legal specifications, would
you blame the builder if it was destroyed by a catastrophic earthquake
or scattered to the four winds by a monstrous tornado?
>Scientists are different, in that they use their
> claimed "objectivity", as if they did not get involved personally. If
> things go wrong, scientists will point at a shortage of funding for
> research, abnormalities and special circumstances, they will blame
> nature or an Act of God, anything except themselves and rather than
> taking personal responsibility for their involvement. This is something
> that's typical for scientists, I know of no other group in society that
> is so habitual in ducking responsibility. This wouldn't be so
> important, if scientists were some irrelevant group that didn't affect
> other people's lives anyway. The epistemological question is whether
> it's morally acceptable for scientists to deny responsibility, when
> they're knowingly and willingly involved in so many things.
Your above assertions represent criticisms (verbal attack?) on
scientists as a group. IMO some of your criticism is valid but the same
can be directed at many other groups that affect other people's
lives. To single out scientists as being more reprehensible than other
groups demonstrates your strong judgemental bias and dodges the real
issue of the shared responsibility of all who accept and use scientific
discoveries that contribute to the present state of modern society.
> The issue hinted at is of course that, at the same time, scientists are
> instrumental in the development of weapons of mass murder of a
> military-industrial complex operating as a cartel to keep the world at
> ransom.
Weapons of mass murder? Your politics is showing when you use murdur to
describe the loss of life in warfare.. Nobel invented modern
explosives. Do you hold him responsible as a scientist for the second
world war fire storms created by allied bombing of Dresden and Hamburg.
Bombings that resulted in more deaths than in Nagaski or Hiroshima
nuclear attacks. Do you claim that being burned alive is more
acceptable when it is accomplished by conventional rather than nuclear
weaponry? Surely to be consistent epistemologically you are obligated
to excoriate any and all inventers of any and all weapons. Including
that evil individual that discovered that a closed fist was more
damaging than a slap with the open hand.
>In line with their doctrine of "objectivity", scientists
> typically refuse to speak out on this and on their own involvement,
> which is made worse due to the secrecy that surrounds everything
> related to the military. Even worse, people like zinnic seek to silence
> people who ask questions about this. All this makes it even more
> imperative for epistemologists to look into this.
By any stretch of imagination is questioning a questioner equivalent to
an attempt to "silence" the questioner? The same 'illogic'
leads to the conclusion that your accusation is an attempt to silence
all questions regarding the validity of your views.
> Again, if scientists were unable to comprehend such issues, they could
> be granted the excuse of ignorance. But the reality is that scientists
> are among the most-educated people who are also instrumental in shaping
> the education system. Indeed, a third issue is that scientists are
> instrumental in imposing the above doctrine through the education
> system. Those three issues make that the position of scientists is
> different from other groups and it's a difference that's largely of
> their own making, it's a huge scheme of collusion, not some
> non-existring conspiracy that existed only in my imagination.
> Scientists do seek the privilige of indemnity, under the cloak of
> objectivity, yet on the other hand they seek to control the education
> system in a very specific way, aiming to deliberately indoctrinate
> young people when they are at an impressionable age and held captive in
> classrooms. Indeed, scientists seek to indoctrinate society with that
> idea that it was a good thing that scientists demand the rest of
> society to pay the bills for their lifestyle and their instrumental
> involvement in making the weaponry that holds the world at large
> hostage to their doctrine.
In the above you claim that scientists as a group are guilty
of collusion (with each other or the state?).
of seeking "indemnity for their actions "(presumably evil).
of seeking to control education in order to indocrinate young people.
of "indoctrinating society to pay their bills to support their
lifestyle" ( pay their salary?)
of "holding the world at large hostage to their doctrine" (presumably
all of the preceding)
As a scientist, I find it hard to accept that I fit your
characterization. It would be helpful if you would explain exactly what
you mean when you refer to "scientists" Do you include all life
scientists, agriculturists, archeologists, astronomists, cosmologists,
geologists, mathematicians, paleontologists, seismologists etc? A far
greater number of scientists are involved in these areas than in the
development of weapons of mass destruction.
Do you include engineers, machinists, technologists and technical
assistants involved in the implementation of scientific advances? Are
all worthy of your condemnation or do you reserve your finger pointing,
blame game for those individuals responsible for the theory and
practical development of weapons of mass destruction? If so, you are
guilty of egregious scape-goating. Our society implemented the use of
WMD. Whilst you remain a member of our society and accept its
advantages, you cannot absolve yourself of the guilt you assign to
others by protesting that past actions should've, could've,
would've been 'better' in your judgment.
This does not deny your right to criticize the structure of our society
nor my right to contend that incremental changes should be favored
rather than the draconian measures you 'seem' to advocate. Measures
such as your demand that all individuals that enter the field of
science field should be obligated to sign an affidavit that in none of
their actions will they willingly do harm (as judged by Samsonian
epistemology!). Scientists are targeted first in Sam's politics. Who
are next in his pogram (not a mistype).
> zinnic wrote:
> >It is a poliical and sociological question. All employees are effected
> >to greater or lesser extents by their employers. This applies
> >throughout government, politics, business, education, research
> >organisations etc. IMO scientists are more successful than most
> >other groups in minimising the bias introduced.
>
> As said, few groups get so predominantly paid by government. Any
> business that exploits a monopoly will face anti-trust and cartel laws
> that force them to break up such a monopoly. Why are scientists so keen
> to seek an exemption from this for themselves? Here's a hint.
> Scientists seek to impose the doctrine that there was absolute,
> universal and perpetual knowledge that they somehow had exclusive
> access to, just like high priests claim to have exclusive access to the
> will of the gods. Scientists act as if they were objective and were not
> responsible for these Acts of God. This is the doctrine they seek to
> impose on society, against the obvious diversity that is inherent in
> reality.
A questionable assertion. In questioning you assertion, I am not
attempting to silence you but inviting you to document your assertion.
Is the predominant employer of scientists actually the government or do
you include in your assessment any and all business and agency
employers with which the government contracts to finance part or all
scientific research and development? Some may believe that this is
crucial in judging the validity of your assertion.
If you are able to document that direct employment of government
scientists exceeds that of administrators and staff of non-scientific
government agencies then I have no choice, even as a wicked scientist,
but to accept that as a fact. I wait with bated breath! Please do not
make me suffocate!
> zinnic wrote:
> > My point to Sam was that scientists as a group bear no more no less
> > responsiblity than do other groups or inviduals. I was simply pointing
> > out to Sam that to single out scientists for the 'blame game' is not
> > productive.
> Not productive? Not productive to what? To your values? Why should
> science NOT be discussed in an epistemology group? Do I "single out"
> scientists, or do I propose that NO GROUP OR PERSON SHOULD RECEIVE
> PRIVILEGE?
It would be more productive to this discussion if you were able to cite
any post in which I claim that "science NOT be discussed in an
epistemology group" If and when you provide a definitive example I
will humbly apologize.
Yes, you do single out scientists as a group that demands privilege.You
are incorrect in your claim that they demand societal privileges. IMO
scientists have a legitimate claim to privilege as educators and
advisors in that they are honest purveyors of what is more likely to be
true (until corrected on the basis of new evidence), rather than your
'epistemological' claims as to what 'should' be true.
How more personal can Sam get than his egocentric claims that Zinnic
(i)"seems to have nothing to contribute and seems only out to silence
me"
(ii)"falsely seeks to portray my questions about science as an attack
on scientists in an apparent effort to make it look like I was
committing violence against scientists".
(iii)" seek[s] to silence someone who wants to discuss science "
(iv) "make it look as if it was inappropriate to discuss science in
an epistemology group".
My answer is that Sam twists, turns and invents accusations. He does
not, as he hypocritically claims here, want to discuss science but
rather to accuse practitioners of science as a "group guilty of
collusion, indoctrination, demanding of special privilege in order to
advance their personal "lifestyle" and of holding the world hostage
to their doctrine (see above). It is these accusations (attacks?) that
I strongly contest. That I 'dare' to disagree motivates Sam's
'attack" on my integrity. (Now, like Sam, I am appealing to an
audience).
> > >Zinnic to Jan:
> > Your contention that we as humans individuals are equally responsible
> > and criminal through our neglect (or whatever ) for all the murder and
> > mayhem of the world, is an admission that I am correct in claiming
> > that scientists should not be singled out as the major culprits.
>
> As said numerous times, if scientists are instrumental in developing
> weapons of mass murder, then scientists put themselves in that
> position. They are not singled out arbitarily. If scientists put
> themselves in a position that's different from other groups, then
> that's a position of their own making and they should be held
> accountible for the consequences.
You repeat yourself. Enough of your "If; then" pseudo assertions.
I could counter with the equally imbecile 'If not; then not. However,
I abandoned the" tis; tis'nt" form of argumentation when I left
the school playground many years ago.
You translate weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into weapons of mass
murder on the basis of your political bias. Your politics pervades and
pollutes your perception of epistemological philosophy.
> > As you have agreed (above), they are just as responsible as everyone
> > else. My personal experience is the wallets of scientists are much
> > 'thinner' than those of politicians, administrators, business managers
> > and executives who call the shots.
>
> Scientists typically receive the highest salaries and they received
> sufficient education to be able to speak out if they believe there's
> something wrong with the conduct of whoever "calls the shots". Why are
> scientists so complacent? Why don't they speak out, if they knew things
> were wrong? Apart from their high salaries, scientists consume huge
> amounts of public money to basically do as they please under the cloak
> of research. But instead of using at least some of the money to look
> into the issues that I brought up here, they prefer to lock themselves
> up in the ivory towers of universities and behind the gated walls of
> the military-industrial complex, seeking to stay out of reach from
> scrutiny and liability that every other person has to carry and will
> expect to carry. If you have doubts, just follow the money trail!
The highest salaries on average compared to whom? Other professionals?
Physicians, lawyers, politicians, real estate agents, executives and
managers in large businesses, owners of small businesses, sports
coaches and athletes, entertainment specialists?. Scientists possessing
the highest scientific qualifications probably do not command as high
an income as do those who excel in these areas. The number of
scientists who benefit from their discoveries/ inventions is
considerarably less than the number of entrepreneurs and investors that
profit from their efforts.
I admit that I cannot document this assertion. If you document your
assertion that "scientists typically recieve the highest salaries" then
as a 'good' scientist (an oxymoron?) I will accept your assertion
until new documentation proves otherwise.
You object to scientists doing as they please? Are you suggesting that
scientists should do as Sam pleases? To use public monies appropriated
for specific projects in order to "look into areas that you have
brought up here"? Scientists should misappropriate research funds?
Shame on you Sam.
Welcome to Sam's world. He KNOWS what should, could, would be done if
he was in charge.
Zinnic
Ps. If anyone sees anything that is offensive or can be interpreted as
personal abuse of Sam, please inform my ignorant innocence and report
my sin to Google.!
Souvik
*outcome of their experiments*, not society, responsibility, or
anything else.
You have many other similar basic flaws in your understanding of what
science is, how it's done, and why it's valued the way it is. Like you
don't understand what the principle of Occam's Razor is, or why it is
applied to scientific explanations. I also highly doubt you understand
what a scientific explanation consists of, much less the
inter-relationships between various layers of explanation that exist in
the body of scientific knowledge today.
On a different matter, Sam, you have a tendency to jump from keyword to
keyword, extrapolating their associations and stringing them out in
paragraphs that give them an illusion of coherence. Sometimes it's like
this: Scientists -> science -> objective study of nature -> objectivity
-> aloofness -> irresponsibility -> bad. Therefore scientists = bad.
Another of your favourites: Scientists -> science -> technical
knowledge -> inaccessible to non-experts -> dogma -> religion -> evil.
Sam Carana
> > Am I arbitarily singling out scientists? If the position of scientists
> > is different from other professionals, then that's a position of their
> > own making.
>
> epistemological significance. It is a disguised assertion. Your opinion
> of the position of scientists is just that, and is of your making.
Sam: Scientists collude in a huge scheme to protect their position of
privilege, prodding government bureaucrats to funnel ever more
taxpayers' money into funding their lifestyle and outlawing outsiders
from entering their guild. Did I create this situation? No! It's a fact
and while scientists will be keen to study anything else, they
stubbornly refuse to even look at their own situation, to the extent
that some will even attack and sabotage people who do ask questions
about this. Did I make this up? I wish that was the case, but the
unfortunate truth is that it's based on facts. Anyone who wishes to do
so, can check the facts and figures that are publicly available.
> > Sam:
> >There are three issues here scientists we could look into.
> > Firstly, there's the double-edged sword of objectivity. Scientists aim
> > to avoid personal bias. However, the flipside is ducking of
> > responsibility. If companies construct a bridge, they will make sure
> > and go to great lengths to show and guarantee that it will be a sound
> > contruction. If the bridge nevertheless falls down, they will accept
> > responsibility - they will have taken out sufficient insurance to cover
> > such an eventuality.
>
> Zinnic:
> A poor analogy! You know that a bridge construction company would not
> take responsibility for damage due to misuse or stresses beyond
> contractual specifications. If you were to undermine the foundations of
> your house would you claim that the builder was responsible for its
> collapse? If your house were to be built to legal specifications, would
> you blame the builder if it was destroyed by a catastrophic earthquake
> or scattered to the four winds by a monstrous tornado?
Sam: Poor logic! You seem to be suggesting that a company could duck
their vicarious responsibility towards the public if they built a
bridge on the basis of inferior (yet contractually sufficient)
specifications of the manager of, say, a shopping mall. You seem to be
suggesting that scientists weren't willingly and knowingly working to
develop weapons of mass murder (and getting paid handsomely from
taxpayers' money in the process), as if the victims of those weapons of
mass murder were victims of an act of god. But in the real world,
construction comopanies do get sued for constructing inferior bridges
and victims do sue tobacco companies. Sure, scientists may claim to
stay within the legal specifications they have carved out for
themselves, such as nice indemnities and other privileges. Sure, the
position of scientists is protected by law, I'm not denying that, this
privilege of scientists is the very problem.
> > Sam: Scientists are different, in that they use their
> > claimed "objectivity", as if they did not get involved personally. If
> > things go wrong, scientists will point at a shortage of funding for
> > research, abnormalities and special circumstances, they will blame
> > nature or an Act of God, anything except themselves and rather than
> > taking personal responsibility for their involvement. This is something
> > that's typical for scientists, I know of no other group in society that
> > is so habitual in ducking responsibility. This wouldn't be so
> > important, if scientists were some irrelevant group that didn't affect
> > other people's lives anyway. The epistemological question is whether
> > it's morally acceptable for scientists to deny responsibility, when
> > they're knowingly and willingly involved in so many things.
>
> Zinnic:
> Your above assertions represent criticisms (verbal attack?) on
> scientists as a group. IMO some of your criticism is valid but the same
> can be directed at many other groups that affect other people's
> lives. To single out scientists as being more reprehensible than other
> groups demonstrates your strong judgemental bias and dodges the real
> issue of the shared responsibility of all who accept and use scientific
> discoveries that contribute to the present state of modern society.
Sam: Again (and again and again), do I "single out" scientists? What I
propose is that NO GROUP OR PERSON SHOULD RECEIVE PRIVILEGE. That
doesn't let scientists off the hook, though, there are many good
reasons to look into the position of scientists, which deserves
attention here for the sheer reason that this is a group discussing
epistemological issues, implying that it's most appropriate to discuss
the position of scientists here. Furthermore, scientists' links with
the military-industrial complex and their dominant position in the
education system make a review of their position important, if not
urgent with a high priority. But why should we NOT have a closer look
into the position of scientists? Scientists are keen to study anything
else, but they stubbornly refuse to even look at their own situation,
to the extent that some will even attack and sabotage people who do ask
questions about this. It's significant that, despite high education
levels of scientists, they seem very reluctant to look into their
situation of privilege, whereas elsewhere in society the recognition
that monopolies are bad is growing. That raises questions, such as
whether scientists' control over the education system comes with a
conflict of interest that they inappropriately exploit to silence
anyone who questions this situation. Sure, science has contributed to
progress, but that's just another reason to look into the situation, to
see how we can improve things, so that we can get even better progress.
> > Sam:
> > The issue hinted at is of course that, at the same time, scientists are
> > instrumental in the development of weapons of mass murder of a
> > military-industrial complex operating as a cartel to keep the world at
> > ransom.
>
> Zinnic:
> Weapons of mass murder? Your politics is showing when you use murdur to
> describe the loss of life in warfare.. Nobel invented modern
> explosives. Do you hold him responsible as a scientist for the second
> world war fire storms created by allied bombing of Dresden and Hamburg.
> Bombings that resulted in more deaths than in Nagaski or Hiroshima
> nuclear attacks. Do you claim that being burned alive is more
> acceptable when it is accomplished by conventional rather than nuclear
> weaponry? Surely to be consistent epistemologically you are obligated
> to excoriate any and all inventers of any and all weapons. Including
> that evil individual that discovered that a closed fist was more
> damaging than a slap with the open hand.
Sam: As said, I propose is that NO GROUP OR PERSON SHOULD RECEIVE
PRIVILEGE. You come up with examples of war incidents. Currently, in a
situation of war, the President may promise indemnity or clemency to
certain scientists who work on weaponry. However, we are not at war, at
least not officially and a situation that continues for many years
cannot be portrayed as an emergency that required special provisions.
Similarly, there are situations of emergency that justify calls to
shield workers against the risk of litigation, if that constituted a
barrier to necessary action. However, none of that should apply to the
daily work of most scientists. There simply is no justification to
continue with the current privilege for scientists. And yes, training
people in martial arts comes with responsibilities and liabilities,
even if your method merely involved open hand (karate) techniques, as
compared to trainig people in using guns.
> > Sam: In line with their doctrine of "objectivity", scientists
> > typically refuse to speak out on this and on their own involvement,
> > which is made worse due to the secrecy that surrounds everything
> > related to the military. Even worse, people like zinnic seek to silence
> > people who ask questions about this. All this makes it even more
> > imperative for epistemologists to look into this.
>
> Zinnic:
> By any stretch of imagination is questioning a questioner equivalent to
> an attempt to "silence" the questioner? The same 'illogic'
> leads to the conclusion that your accusation is an attempt to silence
> all questions regarding the validity of your views.
Sam: No, ill logic doesn't lead to the conclusion. Double negative
doesn't make positive. The point is that I'm not seeking privilege for
myself and I'm not defending any privileged position for myself.
Questioning the questioner doesn't constitute an answer, nor does it
take away the original question why scientists should enjoy special
privileges. The contrary, it raises even more questions. You do take a
lot of effort to seek arguments against my view, whereas you seem very
reluctant to listen to my strong arguments. It simply confirms
deliberate intent to sweep things under the carpet. Is your attitude
representative for scientists in general? It seems that there are at
least some scientists who go to the extent of attacking someone who
asks questions about their privilege, rather than making any effort to
justify the situation. I can only conclude that's it's typical, because
there simply is no justification for this privilege.
> > Sam:
> > Again, if scientists were unable to comprehend such issues, they could
> > be granted the excuse of ignorance. But the reality is that scientists
> > are among the most-educated people who are also instrumental in shaping
> > the education system. Indeed, a third issue is that scientists are
> > instrumental in imposing the above doctrine through the education
> > system. Those three issues make that the position of scientists is
> > different from other groups and it's a difference that's largely of
> > their own making, it's a huge scheme of collusion, not some
> > non-existring conspiracy that existed only in my imagination.
> > Scientists do seek the privilige of indemnity, under the cloak of
> > objectivity, yet on the other hand they seek to control the education
> > system in a very specific way, aiming to deliberately indoctrinate
> > young people when they are at an impressionable age and held captive in
> > classrooms. Indeed, scientists seek to indoctrinate society with that
> > idea that it was a good thing that scientists demand the rest of
> > society to pay the bills for their lifestyle and their instrumental
> > involvement in making the weaponry that holds the world at large
> > hostage to their doctrine.
>
>
> Zinnic:
Sam: As said, I propose is that NO GROUP OR PERSON SHOULD RECEIVE
PRIVILEGE. Why shouldn't the privilege of scientists be questioned in
what is after all an epistemology group? Again and again, you follow
the strategy of attacking the messenger, rather than to focus on the
question, which in itself raises even more questions.
> > Sam:
> > As said, few groups get so predominantly paid by government. Any
> > business that exploits a monopoly will face anti-trust and cartel laws
> > that force them to break up such a monopoly. Why are scientists so keen
> > to seek an exemption from this for themselves? Here's a hint.
> > Scientists seek to impose the doctrine that there was absolute,
> > universal and perpetual knowledge that they somehow had exclusive
> > access to, just like high priests claim to have exclusive access to the
> > will of the gods. Scientists act as if they were objective and were not
> > responsible for these Acts of God. This is the doctrine they seek to
> > impose on society, against the obvious diversity that is inherent in
> > reality.
>
>Zinnic:
> A questionable assertion. In questioning you assertion, I am not
> attempting to silence you but inviting you to document your assertion.
> Is the predominant employer of scientists actually the government or do
> you include in your assessment any and all business and agency
> employers with which the government contracts to finance part or all
> scientific research and development? Some may believe that this is
> crucial in judging the validity of your assertion.
> If you are able to document that direct employment of government
> scientists exceeds that of administrators and staff of non-scientific
> government agencies then I have no choice, even as a wicked scientist,
> but to accept that as a fact. I wait with bated breath! Please do not
> make me suffocate!
Sam: If scientists weren't having such a high profile in the
development of weapons of mass murder and if scientists weren't having
such a high profile in the education system, then the position of
scientists would still be an appropriate topic of discussion in an
epistemology group like this one. But if you cannot take a hint, then
feel free to come up with facts and figures showing the opposite.
Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath as I'm confident that most
scientists work in education and for the military, and that they're
predominantly funded by government, either directly or indirectly.
> > zinnic wrote:
> > > My point to Sam was that scientists as a group bear no more no less
> > > responsiblity than do other groups or inviduals. I was simply pointing
> > > out to Sam that to single out scientists for the 'blame game' is not
> > > productive.
>
> > Sam:
> > Not productive? Not productive to what? To your values? Why should
> > science NOT be discussed in an epistemology group? Do I "single out"
> > scientists, or do I propose that NO GROUP OR PERSON SHOULD RECEIVE
> > PRIVILEGE?
>
> Zinnic:
> It would be more productive to this discussion if you were able to cite
> any post in which I claim that "science NOT be discussed in an
> epistemology group" If and when you provide a definitive example I
> will humbly apologize.
> Yes, you do single out scientists as a group that demands privilege.You
> are incorrect in your claim that they demand societal privileges. IMO
> scientists have a legitimate claim to privilege as educators and
> advisors in that they are honest purveyors of what is more likely to be
> true (until corrected on the basis of new evidence), rather than your
> 'epistemological' claims as to what 'should' be true.
Sam: You're simply providing your own evidence against you. If you were
so confident that scientists should enjoy privilege, then you wouldn't
be so reluctant to back that up with argument and justification. Every
paragraph you add in which you keep attacking me for asking the
question just adds argument to the suggestion that scientists'
privilege is untenable and only sustained by unfair means. If what
scientists claimed was true was indeed superior to my views, then why
should scientists have legal protection and privilege to impose their
views? I don't get funding from government, scientists do! I don't need
to justify my opinion towards the public, yet I do. How can you suggest
that taxpayers should fund the lifestyle of scientists without being
allowed to ask questions? You just keep adding arguments against your
own case.
> > zinnic wrote:
> How more personal can Sam get than his egocentric claims that Zinnic
> (i)"seems to have nothing to contribute and seems only out to silence
> me"
> (ii)"falsely seeks to portray my questions about science as an attack
> on scientists in an apparent effort to make it look like I was
> committing violence against scientists".
> (iii)" seek[s] to silence someone who wants to discuss science "
> (iv) "make it look as if it was inappropriate to discuss science in
> an epistemology group".
Sam: Yes, it's a sad conclusion and unfortunately you have not managed
to change my mind on this. If anyone else does sees some subtance or
valuable contribution in your posts then I look forward to hear more,
but my point was not to condemn you personally but to prompt you to
come up with arguments. Sadly, you don't seem to have any and you
confirm my impression that some scientists rather question the
messenger than face the question.
However, my intent is not to "attack" you or scientists in general. I
question the privilege of scientists. I don't deny that many scientists
made great contributions. The question is whether scientists as a group
should exploit an unhealthy privilege. To some extent,. that's a
rhetorical question. Of course they should not, just like no other
group or person should. The underlying question is not an attack
against you personally nor scientists in general, but a discussion how
to improve the situation.
I wished it wasn't the case, but the unfortunate truth is that all your
efforts seem aimed at silencing someone who asks questions about the
privilege for scientists. Surprise me, zinnic, and do something else
for a change. Again, this is nothing personal either, but part of my
argument. As I said repeatedly, scientists will typically walk away
from such questions, while some scientists will go to the extent of
seeking to silence the messenger of such questions. The fact that you
prove this point doesn't make this a personal discussion. You'll have
to do more to arouse personal attention to yourself, zinnic, more than
confirming what I keep saying. Again, surprise me for a change, perhaps
then I could add a personal touch to me posts.
> My answer is that Sam twists, turns and invents accusations. He does
> not, as he hypocritically claims here, want to discuss science but
> rather to accuse practitioners of science as a "group guilty of
> collusion, indoctrination, demanding of special privilege in order to
> advance their personal "lifestyle" and of holding the world hostage
> to their doctrine (see above). It is these accusations (attacks?) that
> I strongly contest. That I 'dare' to disagree motivates Sam's
> 'attack" on my integrity. (Now, like Sam, I am appealing to an
> audience).
Sam: Even if I were twisting your words and attacking you and do
whatever other things you may accuse me of, why don't you focus on the
question? Why do you keep accusing me of all kinds of things, without
focusing on the question? It just proves the suggestion that you keep
following the strategy of attacking the personality of the messenger
rather than to face the question that the messenger brought along.
> > > >Zinnic to Jan:
> > > Your contention that we as humans individuals are equally responsible
> > > and criminal through our neglect (or whatever ) for all the murder and
> > > mayhem of the world, is an admission that I am correct in claiming
> > > that scientists should not be singled out as the major culprits.
> >
> > As said numerous times, if scientists are instrumental in developing
> > weapons of mass murder, then scientists put themselves in that
> > position. They are not singled out arbitarily. If scientists put
> > themselves in a position that's different from other groups, then
> > that's a position of their own making and they should be held
> > accountible for the consequences.
>
> You repeat yourself. Enough of your "If; then" pseudo assertions.
> I could counter with the equally imbecile 'If not; then not. However,
> I abandoned the" tis; tis'nt" form of argumentation when I left
> the school playground many years ago.
> You translate weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into weapons of mass
> murder on the basis of your political bias. Your politics pervades and
> pollutes your perception of epistemological philosophy.
Sam: Yes, and you could continue to question my right to ask questions,
but I'm not the one who creates weapons of mass murder, I'm not the one
who should answer for using huge amounts of public funding without
making an effort to justify the situation, I'm not the one exploiting
privilege while ducking responsibility and accountibility. You can seek
to turn the question on me as much as you want, but all you do is
strengthen the suggestion that you cannot justify your case and instead
follow the deliberate strategy of seeking to silence the messenger.
Sam: Ridiculous! The amount of funding going into education and the
military-industrial complex is huge, while accountibility is lacking
and while scientists are instrumental in controlling this monstrosity
and seeking further indemnities and privileges for themselves, while
some go to the extent of silencing anyone who asks questions about
this, with silly demands like insisting on further documentation of
these huge amounts of funding.
> You object to scientists doing as they please? Are you suggesting that
> scientists should do as Sam pleases? To use public monies appropriated
> for specific projects in order to "look into areas that you have
> brought up here"? Scientists should misappropriate research funds?
> Shame on you Sam.
> Welcome to Sam's world. He KNOWS what should, could, would be done if
> he was in charge.
> Zinnic
>
> Ps. If anyone sees anything that is offensive or can be interpreted as
> personal abuse of Sam, please inform my ignorant innocence and report
> my sin to Google.!
Sam's world? There's yet another attempt to personalise a general
discussion about science and the position of scientists. I don't seek
to prescribe what scientists should do. Instead I advocate that people
have more say in how their money is spent and abolishing the privilege
for scientists is a good step in that direction. People can rightfully
demand more accountibility, not because Sam said so, but because people
have a right to that.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
The objectivity scientists seek to achieve is with respect to the
*outcome of their experiments*, not society, responsibility, or
anything else.
You have many other similar basic flaws in your understanding of what
science is, how it's done, and why it's valued the way it is.
Like you
don't understand what the principle of Occam's Razor is, or why it is
applied to scientific explanations.
I also highly doubt you understand
what a scientific explanation consists of, much less the
inter-relationships between various layers of explanation that exist in
the body of scientific knowledge today.
On a different matter, Sam, you have a tendency to jump from keyword to
keyword, extrapolating their associations and stringing them out in
paragraphs that give them an illusion of coherence. Sometimes it's like
this: Scientists -> science -> objective study of nature -> objectivity
-> aloofness -> irresponsibility -> bad. Therefore scientists = bad.
Another of your favourites: Scientists -> science -> technical
knowledge -> inaccessible to non-experts -> dogma -> religion -> evil.
Cheers!
Omar Gmail
Sam, you seem to be living in your own little world. You are so biased that you’ll be able to turn around any type of logic or common sense backed arguments presented to you. You indeed do it in a nice way: as soon as one questions the validity of your arguments you accuse him of attacking you and wanting to silence you down. You criticize Souvik as an epistemologist but your lunatic arguments enter in full contradiction with whatever epistemology implies in terms of objective argumentation and thorough analysis of a question. I don’t have the patience of Souvik to go through your light arguments and answer you point by point, all I can say is that your balabla is getting really tiring and that you are not serving the cause of this forum by imposing completely subjective arguments; not in the least entering the debate even on the basis of just supposing you might be wrong, with the people who do you the favor to answer your posts. Your poor contribution to this forum is all the more saddening that your best argument is to shelter yourself under the coward accusation of your interlocutors trying to silence you. What type of any enriching exchange can we get under these conditions? Through the nature of your arguments and most of all your replies I can only deduct you are an immature little chap self eluded into thinking you are of a great epistemologist when the facts (you know those disturbing things that you dislike so much) show you are actually a parasite (check the definition and see how well this word applies to you before shrieking sacrilege).
Sam Carana
Omar Gmail wrote:
> Sam, you seem to be living in your own little world. You are so biased that
> you'll be able to turn around any type of logic or common sense backed
> arguments presented to you. You indeed do it in a nice way: as soon as one
> questions the validity of your arguments you accuse him of attacking you and
> wanting to silence you down. You criticize Souvik as an epistemologist but
> your lunatic arguments enter in full contradiction with whatever
> epistemology implies in terms of objective argumentation and thorough
> analysis of a question. I don't have the patience of Souvik to go through
> your light arguments and answer you point by point, all I can say is that
> your balabla is getting really tiring and that you are not serving the cause
> of this forum by imposing completely subjective arguments; not in the least
> entering the debate even on the basis of just supposing you might be wrong,
> with the people who do you the favor to answer your posts. Your poor
> contribution to this forum is all the more saddening that your best argument
> is to shelter yourself under the coward accusation of your interlocutors
> trying to silence you. What type of any enriching exchange can we get under
> these conditions? Through the nature of your arguments and most of all your
> replies I can only deduct you are an immature little chap self eluded into
> thinking you are of a great epistemologist when the facts (you know those
> disturbing things that you dislike so much) show you are actually a parasite
> (check the definition and see how well this word applies to you before
> shrieking sacrilege).
Well, let's have a look at what those facts show, shall we? Do or don't
scientists predominantly work in education and on military projects?
Does or doesn't this mean that their funding comes predominantly from
one source, directly or indirectly, i.e. government? While it is common
in other sectors of society to reject monopolies, isn't it a fact that
scientists refuse to even question their own position in this regard?
Please provide links to studies that show the opposite, if you know of
any!
Isn't it curious that, while being so instrumental in the development
of weapons and influential in education, scientists duck responsibility
for the impact of their work, unlike other groups in society? How do
scientists manage to avoid responsibility and accountibility? Don't you
agree that scientists have constructed a huge scheme of peer review
that points at "forces of nature" and "acts of god", rather than at the
individual scientist?
Isn't it suspicious that scientists who endorse this scheme are given
preferntial treatment within this scheme, that deliberately selects
research methods that create a perception that there were universal and
absolute laws? Isn't it curious that scientists, who are well-educated,
act as if their noses are bleeding if anyone could ask questions about
all this, while some will even attack the messenger of such questions,
as evidenced in the past few messages posted here. Facts or fiction?
Why take so much trouble to attack me, Morgan, if you could instead
spend your efforts on answering these questions?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Jan Braeken
Hello Sam, Souvik, Zinnic and Omar,
I am desperately trying to understand deeply and completely your opposite positions on, in and about liability, even though they seem very clear to me. I still find it very hard to grasp the true meaning of 'liability', just like it is with the meaning of all the topics presented here. Is it because all these topics are so difficult and important a subject indeed ? Now I think so even more. Maybe we have to keep in mind the truly extreme difficulty of this subject of liability here at hand, not to draw conclusions too quickly or stop discussions. Let me try another way here to understand all of you.
Suppose I put the ideas of Sam into practice in a thought experiment. Let's takes this serious.
Let's say we want to issue law suits against all scientists of the world, because they are liable right now. We can laugh at this, but let us not stop this thought experiment because we cannot stop laughing, or because it seems or is truly crazy. Let us continue it until it is completely finished. Let us keep up this generalisation here : all the scientist, because singling out the ones that do not work in the military-industrial complex would take a very difficult selection-procedure. Selecting only the criteria we would have to take into consideration alone, to distinguish both of them, would take us a global debate of a few years already I believe. So no exceptions.
How many scientists are there ? Since I do not know, let's just pick a number : 100 Million. An awesome laws suit, the biggest ever in human history. Can we organise that in one place, say The Hague ? Impossible it seems. That would mean a population migration on an unprecedented scale. Can we do it in small groups in courts throughout the world ? Discussions who would want to join a group or not would take too long I believe, so let us do this individually. Since we have to apply international law here - our law suits are on a global scale - we need a central point on our planet to start from. Let's still take The Hague for that for comfort. But there we need to establish contact with all the courts around the world. A huge operation indeed ; daily, global communication by faxes, mails and telephones for which somebody has to pay. Who I don't know.
Because we need names in law suits, first we would have to compound a very long list, and we would have to start looking for every single scientist in the world. If we were to work with say 1000 investigators, roughly one for each country (how many countries are there in our world ?). I am not sure who would like to do this, but anyone would be very reluctant to pick the wrong guy, and discussions would be huge, so this would take us at least five years I believe.
Who would be affected by a possible conviction of these scientists for murder ? All the families of these scientists, yes ? Men, women and children. But wouldn't they be liable also, because they supported their husbands, wives, mothers and fathers ? I thinks so. But let us not make things too difficult here, because 100 million people would be enough already. Let us leave them out of direct liability. The indirect liability is a separate issue, and that issue becomes hugely important now, but let’s leave that out here.
Yet we also need witnesses in a court case. Let us name family members as witness. We have to interrogate witnesses, yes ? How long would it take us to find all these witnesses – many scientists are divorced –, and how many of them would not want to speak because they do not want to get involved ?
We need lawyers too. 100 Million. Who would be able to pay for a lawyer ? Not all scientists I think. Here in Belgium we have the 'Pro Deo-system' - we can get a lawyer for free under certain conditions -, but is that the case in every country ? I don't know.
Let's look at all the countries now. In which countries court cases would be possible ? Not in Lebanon at the moment, not in Israel, Palestine or Irak, and not in Afghanistan - all these countries are at war, and they are not the only ones -, and not in all the failed states. So there we have problem number one.
The second problem is : if 100 million scientists are liable, the sheer number of that forces us to ask the question : who else is ? Politicians ? Five star generals in the military ? CEO’s of multinationals ? Top police officers ? Judges and prosecutors themselves ?
What criteria do we handle for liability ? Since that discussion would take us another ten years, let us keep it simple : everybody is liable. But if that is the case, who can issue a law suit against her- or himself ? Is that possible in our justice system ? Is it possible that a judge issues a law suit against her/himself ? It should be possible I believe, but I don’t think it is.
So the possibility of law suits we have to abandon.
Which other way we have to put the idea of liability in practice ? Global media ? Changing International Law ? Promoting global conscience ? Very difficult indeed. It just makes the importance of the subject of liability grow even more.
These are some thoughts gentlemen that came to my mind in this discussion.
I would very much like to hear your reactions.
Cheers !
Jan Braeken
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com] Namens Sam Carana
Verzonden: donderdag 20 juli 2006 8:46
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3049] Re: Why is this group dying ? It is not.
> > Sam:
> > Am I arbitrarily singling out scientists? If the position of scientists
> > is different from other professionals, then that's a position of their
> > own making.
>
> Zinnic: Your conditional "If; then" statement is of no logical or
> epistemological significance. It is a disguised assertion. Your opinion
> of the position of scientists is just that, and is of your making.
Sam: Scientists collude in a huge scheme to protect their position of
privilege, prodding government bureaucrats to funnel ever more
taxpayers' money into funding their lifestyle and outlawing outsiders
from entering their guild. Did I create this situation? No! It's a fact
and while scientists will be keen to study anything else, they
stubbornly refuse to even look at their own situation, to the extent
that some will even attack and sabotage people who do ask questions
about this. Did I make this up? I wish that was the case, but the
unfortunate truth is that it's based on facts. Anyone who wishes to do
so, can check the facts and figures that are publicly available.
> > Sam:
> >There are three issues here scientists we could look into.
> > Firstly, there's the double-edged sword of objectivity. Scientists aim
> > to avoid personal bias. However, the flipside is ducking of
> > responsibility. If companies construct a bridge, they will make sure
> > and go to great lengths to show and guarantee that it will be a sound
> > construction. If the bridge nevertheless falls down, they will accept
> > responsibility - they will have taken out sufficient insurance to cover
> > such an eventuality.
>
> Zinnic:
> A poor analogy! You know that a bridge construction company would not
> take responsibility for damage due to misuse or stresses beyond
> contractual specifications. If you were to undermine the foundations of
> your house would you claim that the builder was responsible for its
> collapse? If your house were to be built to legal specifications, would
> you blame the builder if it was destroyed by a catastrophic earthquake
> or scattered to the four winds by a monstrous tornado?
Sam: Poor logic! You seem to be suggesting that a company could duck
their vicarious responsibility towards the public if they built a
bridge on the basis of inferior (yet contractually sufficient)
specifications of the manager of, say, a shopping mall. You seem to be
suggesting that scientists weren't willingly and knowingly working to
develop weapons of mass murder (and getting paid handsomely from
taxpayers' money in the process), as if the victims of those weapons of
mass murder were victims of an act of god. But in the real world,
construction companies do get sued for constructing inferior bridges
> Weapons of mass murder? Your politics is showing when you use murder to
> describe the loss of life in warfare.. Nobel invented modern
> explosives. Do you hold him responsible as a scientist for the second
> world war fire storms created by allied bombing of Dresden and Hamburg.
> Bombings that resulted in more deaths than in Nagasaki or Hiroshima
> nuclear attacks. Do you claim that being burned alive is more
> acceptable when it is accomplished by conventional rather than nuclear
> weaponry? Surely to be consistent epistemologically you are obligated
> to excoriate any and all inventers of any and all weapons. Including
> that evil individual that discovered that a closed fist was more
> damaging than a slap with the open hand.
Sam: As said, I propose is that NO GROUP OR PERSON SHOULD RECEIVE
PRIVILEGE. You come up with examples of war incidents. Currently, in a
situation of war, the President may promise indemnity or clemency to
certain scientists who work on weaponry. However, we are not at war, at
least not officially and a situation that continues for many years
cannot be portrayed as an emergency that required special provisions.
Similarly, there are situations of emergency that justify calls to
shield workers against the risk of litigation, if that constituted a
barrier to necessary action. However, none of that should apply to the
daily work of most scientists. There simply is no justification to
continue with the current privilege for scientists. And yes, training
people in martial arts comes with responsibilities and liabilities,
even if your method merely involved open hand (karate) techniques, as
compared to training people in using guns.
> > non-existing conspiracy that existed only in my imagination.
> > Scientists do seek the privilege of indemnity, under the cloak of
> > objectivity, yet on the other hand they seek to control the education
> > system in a very specific way, aiming to deliberately indoctrinate
> > young people when they are at an impressionable age and held captive in
> > classrooms. Indeed, scientists seek to indoctrinate society with that
> > idea that it was a good thing that scientists demand the rest of
> > society to pay the bills for their lifestyle and their instrumental
> > involvement in making the weaponry that holds the world at large
> > hostage to their doctrine.
>
>
> Zinnic:
> In the above you claim that scientists as a group are guilty
> of collusion (with each other or the state?).
> of seeking "indemnity for their actions "(presumably evil).
> of seeking to control education in order to indoctrinate young people.
> > > responsibility than do other groups or individuals. I was simply pointing
to change my mind on this. If anyone else does see some substance or
> > position. They are not singled out arbitrarily. If scientists put
> > themselves in a position that's different from other groups, then
> > that's a position of their own making and they should be held
> > accountable for the consequences.
> assertion that "scientists typically receive the highest salaries" then
Omar Gmail
I gave up answering Sam. I think this dude needs to grow up or he has some other serious problems. I hate giving up but in certain desperate cases such as Sam’s it is the best thing to do. He just comes up with ideas he doesn’t even care to analyze and confront in constructive debates. He has zero auto criticism and doesn’t follow any argumentation principles. Further, at the slightest contradiction, he has this tendency of posing as a potential victim… makes me throw up.
Better keep cool nerves and dedicate energy on more constructive subjects than that of alimenting masturbation prone parasites.
Punkt schluss.
lang=NL>
Souvik
> > *outcome of their experiments*, not society, responsibility, or
> > anything else.
>
>
>
> Let me rephrase that for you. Scientists seek objectivity in their research,
> testing and the drawing of conclusions. Scientists seek to be indemnified
> of responsibility for the impact of their work on society, on the
> environment, etc. Indeed, that's what scientists do and that's the problem.
You don't have to rephrase anything for me.
Your interpretation of my sentence reflects your inadequate skills of
English comprehension. To heathy normal English speaking folk, I think
I've been clear enough.
Souvik
> scientists predominantly work in education and on military projects?
> Does or doesn't this mean that their funding comes predominantly from
> one source, directly or indirectly, i.e. government? While it is common
> in other sectors of society to reject monopolies, isn't it a fact that
> scientists refuse to even question their own position in this regard?
> Please provide links to studies that show the opposite, if you know of
> any!
Military projects require technical/engineering input for the most
part, not much scientific input. Scientists who teach in universities
simultaneously conduct research in predominantly non-military fields.
Like, many medicine professors practice their trade by the side, or
look into biology research. In my own trade of high-energy physics,
Professors teach and involve themselves in experiments such as the LHC,
or in theoretical pursuits like quantum gravity etc. They are mostly
funded by the NSF, not DARPA. DARPA predominantly funds engineering
feats. Projects like the LHC though, get funded by several nations
(mostly Europe and the USA) and corporations (like IBM etc).
Science is highly competitive business, very far from any monopoly. It
is carried out by groups working in seperate nations, funded by
*different governments*, and hence your argument for a vicious
govt<->science circle is unfounded. The career of a group maybe dashed
by a single fraudlent result (as discovered by peer review, or by an
irreproducible experiment). A celebrated example of such mechanism in
science can be found in the recent case of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk
> Isn't it curious that, while being so instrumental in the development
> of weapons and influential in education, scientists duck responsibility
> for the impact of their work, unlike other groups in society? How do
> scientists manage to avoid responsibility and accountibility? Don't you
> agree that scientists have constructed a huge scheme of peer review
> that points at "forces of nature" and "acts of god", rather than at the
> individual scientist?
You're making shit up here.
Souvik
> Sam, you seem to be living in your own little world. You are so biased that
> you'll be able to turn around any type of logic or common sense backed
> arguments presented to you. You indeed do it in a nice way: as soon as one
> questions the validity of your arguments you accuse him of attacking you and
> wanting to silence you down. You criticize Souvik as an epistemologist but
> your lunatic arguments enter in full contradiction with whatever
> epistemology implies in terms of objective argumentation and thorough
> analysis of a question. I don't have the patience of Souvik to go through
> your light arguments and answer you point by point, all I can say is that
> your balabla is getting really tiring and that you are not serving the cause
> of this forum by imposing completely subjective arguments; not in the least
> entering the debate even on the basis of just supposing you might be wrong,
> with the people who do you the favor to answer your posts. Your poor
> contribution to this forum is all the more saddening that your best argument
> is to shelter yourself under the coward accusation of your interlocutors
> trying to silence you. What type of any enriching exchange can we get under
> these conditions? Through the nature of your arguments and most of all your
> replies I can only deduct you are an immature little chap self eluded into
> thinking you are of a great epistemologist when the facts (you know those
> disturbing things that you dislike so much) show you are actually a parasite
> (check the definition and see how well this word applies to you before
> shrieking sacrilege).
Pretty accurate description, I think.
Sam Carana
> > Well, let's have a look at what those facts show, shall we? Do or don't
> > scientists predominantly work in education and on military projects?
> > Does or doesn't this mean that their funding comes predominantly from
> > one source, directly or indirectly, i.e. government? While it is common
> > in other sectors of society to reject monopolies, isn't it a fact that
> > scientists refuse to even question their own position in this regard?
> > Please provide links to studies that show the opposite, if you know of
> > any!
>
> Military projects require technical/engineering input for the most
> part, not much scientific input.
> Scientists who teach in universities
> simultaneously conduct research in predominantly non-military fields.
> Like, many medicine professors practice their trade by the side, or
> look into biology research. In my own trade of high-energy physics,
> Professors teach and involve themselves in experiments such as the LHC,
> or in theoretical pursuits like quantum gravity etc. They are mostly
> funded by the NSF, not DARPA. DARPA predominantly funds engineering
> feats. Projects like the LHC though, get funded by several nations
> (mostly Europe and the USA) and corporations (like IBM etc).
Sam: Yes, military projects require a lot of technical/engineering
input. Many people with technical and engineering background AND many
people with scientific degrees end up working on such projects within
the military-industrial complex that includes NASA, Homeland Security,
RSA and other agencies, as well as numerous suppliers of equipment and
services (like IBM, Lockheed, etc). The joint budgets of these agencies
and their suppliers is huge. My guess is that of all US scientific and
engineering graduates, about half find work in education, while a large
part of the other half end up working for the military-industrial
complex. Here's a page that supports that:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/nsf01332/sib01332.htm
Of the $130 billion Federal R&D budget, more than half is spent on
Defense. A substantial amount of money goes to Universities and
Colleges. Have a look at these graphs from the American Association for
the Advancement of Science:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/resper05.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/histde07.pdf
Of the nondefense part, a substantial part is spent on Space projects,
see:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/histda07.pdf
Note that there is an increasing reliance on 'commercial off the shelf'
technology in new defense systems, as mentioned in comments on such
stats at:
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/0000/millennial_trends_in_science_employment
There is a dramatic increase in funding for health and bio-medical
research projects since 9/11, partly caused by fear for anthrax and
biological weapons.
Apart from taking part in R&D, educational institutions are
instrumental in preaching the doctrine that scientists should be
indemnified and that government should operate on a monopoly basis,
without these dogmas ever to be questioned.
>
> Souvik:
> Science is highly competitive business, very far from any monopoly. It
> is carried out by groups working in seperate nations, funded by
> *different governments*, and hence your argument for a vicious
> govt<->science circle is unfounded.
Sam: Science is predominantly funded by government, in other words, a
monopoly pulls the strings. Governments around the world operate like a
cartel, indemnifying the scientists that are so instrumental in
developing the weapons that hold the world at large at ransom.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
not suggesting that there should be one huge lawcase against all
scientists for their work on military projects. I am merely suggesting
that scientists should not be given privileges that allow them to
escape liability on matters like that. There are many areas where
people will feel that harm is inflicted upon them, not just by the
military, but also by global warming, environmental damage, etc. By
lifting the privileges for scientists, they will become liable just
like other people for whatever harm they are part of. Instead of one
huge lawcase, it is more likely and preferable that numerous small
cases will emerge, not just against scientists, but against all who can
be blamed.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
> to find all these witnesses - many scientists are divorced -, and how many
Souvik
> monopoly pulls the strings. Governments around the world operate like a
> cartel, indemnifying the scientists that are so instrumental in
> developing the weapons that hold the world at large at ransom.
You're wrong.
Sam Carana
einseele
preconcept
There is no such a thing like:
Scientist ARE...
Muslims, Jews, Budist, whatever ARE...
Women ARE...
French ARE...
After the ARE part there is only a wrong statement.
War triggers when some under minded idiot believes there is something
ok there
Include also the word AM, which mirrors same stupidity
Jan Braeken
Everybody should know this !
XX Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens einseele
Verzonden: vrijdag 21 juli 2006 13:19
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3062] Re: Why is this group dying ? It is not.
Souvik
That governments operate in collusion to indemnify scientists.
Sam Carana
I agree, Carlos, no person or group should receive privilege.
Government should not select scientists and hand over money to them on
the basis that scientists' lifestyle somehow deserved to get funded,
especially when that money is taken from non-scientists who
consequently have to scale down their lifestyle.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
Let's analyse that further, Souvik, what is it that you do question?
That governments all fund science? That scientists are rarely held
liable? That science is organized by governments in the way it is? Once
more, let's split this down into smaller parts, to zoom in on what
exactly you appear to be questioning.
So, what exactly do you question?
- that science is predominantly funded by government
- that defense spending dominates the federal government's R&D budget
- that government operates as a monopoly
- that each government operates on the same monopoly basis
- that governments around the world operate similarly, like a cartel
- that accountibility in science is in many respects restricted to peer
review
- that such peer review rarely question the above-described situation
- that it is common in other sectors of society to reject monopolies
- that scientists predominantly work in education and on military
projects;
- that scientists are instrumental in developing weapons
- that scientists are rarely held liable for their work, even if this
work involves the development of weapons of mass murder
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Souvik
stated the weakest link in your argument with one sentence: "That
governments operate in collusion to indemnify scientists."
None of your 'splittings' address it. Methinks you're just stalling
here, but more seriously, you're a very incompetent thinker who thinks
and argues like this just for the sake of argument.
Sam Carana
> What's wrong with you, you idiot, can't you read? I quite clearly
> stated the weakest link in your argument with one sentence: "That
> governments operate in collusion to indemnify scientists."
> Unless you're a complete retard, it's a crisp, indivisible statement.
> None of your 'splittings' address it. Methinks you're just stalling
> here, but more seriously, you're a very incompetent thinker who thinks
> and argues like this just for the sake of argument.
I'm still unsure whether Souvik disputes the fact that:
1. governments around the world operate like a cartel, colluding to
sustain this situation,
or:
2. governments indemnify scientists.
Or perhaps Souvik disputes a combination of the two above facts.
Anyway, I'll comment on each of these two facts, given Souvik's
unwillingness to provide more clarity as to what exactly his point was.
That governments around the world operate like a cartel is obvious if
one looks at the fact that in each territory on earth a single
government is in control. Each such government operates on a monopoly
basis. Governments jointly collude to sustain this situation, seeking
to remove possible challenges to that monopoly position. One government
may differ slightly from another, but no government has yet seriously
contemplated competition in areas like military forces.
The similarities between governments are many, not just in the way
military forces are organized, but also in the way science is organized
and in the links between science and the military-industrial complex.
Governments typically take money from people and business by means of
tax and use this to fund scientists, the military, etc.
Science and the military are organized differently than most other
sectors of society. Science and the military are both organized along
the same lines of the monopoly model in each part of the world, i.e. in
each country security services and science are to a large extent
shaped, organized and funded by government. Science is described as a
collection of "discoveries", as if there were universal and absolute
laws of nature that were somehow "discovered" by scientists. This is
only one of the ways scientists are indemnified if things turn out to
go wrong and people get harmed. Scientists habitually hide behind a
cloak of objectivity, seeking indemnity for whatever they work on and
ducking responsibility in many ways.
Universities further claim academic and research independence from
government, in other words regarding the way they decide to spend
money, while professors seek tenure (i.e. they cannot be sacked) and
advocate peer review instead of allocation of money on the basis of
political principles, on the basis of commercial realities and in
compliance with standards that are common elsewhere in society. Within
this framework, the individual scientist bears little or no
responsibility for their work. Universities (as well as other
instituitions within the education system) further indoctrinate
students with the idea that scientists were objective, enforcing this
notion of indemnity and rejecting any notion of liability or
accountibility for whatever they were working on.
This framework is subsequently extended into a
scientific-military-industrial complex where many scientists work and
which is the dominant target for spending of the federal government's
R&D budget. This complex further adds contractual non-disclosure
provisions, official secrecy, armed guards and further tools to prevent
litigation against those who inflict harm within this complex.
Government actively colludes in this scheme, which has resulted in a
monstrosity that indeed holds the world at alrge at ransom, demanding
ever more funding from the people it takes hostage and holds captive.
In the US, indemnity is further extended in that the military cannot be
held accountible before the International Court (in the Hague).
As said, I advocate that the military in the US be split up as a matter
of high urgency, so that there will be competition in security
services. This would take both security services and education out of
the dark ages and bring ity up to scratch regarding values that are
common in other parts of society.
What I advocate is not a fact, it is a political view and one is free
to have a different view. However, I have revealed the facts that my
view is based on, e.g. the way governments typically organize science
and their military forces, that science and their military forces are
largely funded by a single source (i.e. government), while in other
parts of society suppliers are expected to operate with respect for
fair trading principles, responsible and accountible where appropriate
and accepting liability where applicable.
In an epistemological group that looks into knowledge and science, it's
no suprise that anything that sets science apart from other activities
is looked into very closely. You may not like that, but that's what
epistemology does. As a scientist, Souvik may prefer to get into detail
about a certain scientific analysis and he may be brilliant in his
field. However, by failing to grasp the epistemological importance of
issues like this, moreover by showing continued disrespect for the
epistemological approach, Souvik shows that he makes a lousy
epistemologist and this group has little to lose if he leaves. By
repeatedly going into offensive name-calling, he sadly shows to be
unfit to be part of this group.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Omar Gmail
clear that he has no real motivation for improving. He is just jacking off
on our backs... so only indifference will get us rid of him.
-----Original Message-----
From: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Sam Carana
silence questions about the way science is organized, to the extent
that scientists will even collude to sweep such questions under the
carpet and drive someone who asks such questions out of a group like
this one.
Perhaps it's their lack of grasp of epistemological issues that makes
them fail to realize that all this isn't just in the imagination of the
messenger of such questions. Questions about the way science is
organized are called up by the very way science is organized, and it
makes great sense for epistemologists to look into this.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
Indeed, the outcome is that scientists predominantly keep getting
funded in the way they are, with government bureaucrats deciding where
the money goes, which is largely into defense projects and into
teaching (read: preaching) that this was the way things should be
organized. Yet, few (if any) scientists seem to have to objectivity to
question whether this was the best method to fund research and whether
this was the best outcome for scientists.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
zinnic wrote:
> Sam Carana wrote:
>
> > Scientists should accept liability and responsibility
> > for the statements they make, as well as for their refusal to speak
> > out. There should be no privileges for any person or groups of persons
> > in this regard, whether it's scientists, lawyers, doctors or
> > politicians. In case of politicians, I believe they shouldn't be paid
> > at all, actually, politicians who claim to feel strongly about
> > something, yet refuse to speak out unless they get paid handsomely, are
> > suspicious in my view.
> >
>
> advancing. Now explain again why you single out scientists and insist
> they be held to a higher standard than the others.
As I said, zinnic, there should be no privileges for any person or
groups of persons
in this regard, whether it's scientists or non-scientists. That's my
view, zinnic, I don't claim that to be a fact, that's a view you can
agree or disagree with, and if you choose for the latter, then please
come up with arguments.
I don't demand scientists to be held to other standards than others, I
just notice that the position scientists are in happens to be
different, based on a number of facts. As far as I can see, these facts
are facts and - whatever your or my views - we have to accept them if
we are to have a meaningfull conversation. If you dispute any of the
facts, please come up with studies that show details to the contrary.
>From my view (that scientists shouldn't be privileged), the facts (that
the position of scientists is different from others) are curious, they
raise questions, they call for study into the question whether the way
science is currently organized was indeed the best way to go. Such a
study is especially relevant for epistemologists who look into things
like science and knowledge.
That the position of scientists differs, is due to a number of facts,
including that:
1.- science is predominantly funded by government
2.- many scientists work on the development of weapons
3.- scientists also have a key position in education
4.- scientists have received sufficient education to understand their
responsibilities
5.- unlike artists who create things, scientists claim to discover
things
These are five facts that I didn't merely imagine. They are facts that
make that the situation that scientists are currently in is different
from other people. This relates to funding privileges, assumed status
as expressed in titles, accrediation, etc. We can study this situation,
we can study whether there are alternative scenarios that perhaps work
better, both for scientists and society at large.
However, another sad fact is that:
6. scientists endorse and enforce this situation by willingly and
knowingly accepting this situation without questioning the implications
and without showing any effort to study alternative scenarios, to the
extent that some scientists will seek to silence someone who brings up
such an issue. From an epistemological perspective, that raises even
more questions, since epistemology does want to study science, whereas
scientists themselves seem inclined to object against that.
I'm still not sure which of these six facts you have problems with,
zinnic, but regarding the sixth fact, the past few post in this group
(as well as your own attitude) speak for themselves. As said, if you
still have problems with any of these facts, let me know and please
provide details on why you reached other conclusions. But if you do
agree with the view that no group or person should be privileged and if
you agree with my conclusion that, based on these six facts, the
situation of scientists is different and needs to be studied more
closely, then for once come out of the closet, step of that fence, and
admit there is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL issue here that is well worth getting
the attention it currently doesn't get.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Jan Braeken
questions. I am sure many of them doubt their organisational role in the
world, their work, and their existence too. We should not reduce them all to
the same personal qualities, feelings and opinions. That would not be right
according to the extremely varying, complex reality we live in. I can draw a
comparison with the word 'qualia' that I mentioned in my previous post. You
can check that word on the extremely interesting site
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ . A truly epistemological word in
my view, from which all of us could still learn a lot.
Cheers friend.
Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Sam Carana
Verzonden: woensdag 26 juli 2006 3:42
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3088] Re: Why is this group dying ? It is not.
zinnic
> zinnic wrote:
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> >
> > > Scientists should accept liability and responsibility
> > > for the statements they make, as well as for their refusal to speak
> > > out. There should be no privileges for any person or groups of persons
> > > in this regard, whether it's scientists, lawyers, doctors or
> > > politicians. In case of politicians, I believe they shouldn't be paid
> > > at all, actually, politicians who claim to feel strongly about
> > > something, yet refuse to speak out unless they get paid handsomely, are
> > > suspicious in my view.
> > >
> >
> > At last, at last you agree with me. This is the view I have been
> > advancing. Now explain again why you single out scientists and insist
> > they be held to a higher standard than the others.
> > Zinnic
>
> As I said, zinnic, there should be no privileges for any person or
> groups of persons
> in this regard, whether it's scientists or non-scientists. That's my
> view, zinnic, I don't claim that to be a fact, that's a view you can
> agree or disagree with, and if you choose for the latter, then please
> come up with arguments.
This a bald statement with which one may agree or disagree depending
on what you mean by privilege. If you mean unjust reward at the
expense of others, I agree with the statement. If you mean reward
earned by self-sacrifice, effort and talent directed to the
'advancement' of others, I disagree.
> I don't demand scientists to be held to other standards than others, I
> just notice that the position scientists are in happens to be
> different, based on a number of facts. As far as I can see, these facts
> are facts and - whatever your or my views - we have to accept them if
> we are to have a meaningfull conversation. If you dispute any of the
> facts, please come up with studies that show details to the contrary.
It is indisputable that, no matter who you include in your definition
of scientists, that group will be in a different position than any and
all other groups you exclude. For a meaningful conversation it seems to
me that we must establish what you mean by "scientists".
> >From my view (that scientists shouldn't be privileged), the facts (that
> the position of scientists is different from others) are curious, they
> raise questions, they call for study into the question whether the way
> science is currently organized was indeed the best way to go. Such a
> study is especially relevant for epistemologists who look into things
> like science and knowledge.
I agree that an objective study is appropriate and I believe that
similar discussion of non-science organizations is in order.
> That the position of scientists differs, is due to a number of facts,
> including that:
> 1.- science is predominantly funded by government
> 2.- many scientists work on the development of weapons
> 3.- scientists also have a key position in education
> 4.- scientists have received sufficient education to understand their
> responsibilities
> 5.- unlike artists who create things, scientists claim to discover
> things
>
> These are five facts that I didn't merely imagine. They are facts that
> make that the situation that scientists are currently in is different
> from other people. This relates to funding privileges, assumed status
> as expressed in titles, accrediation, etc. We can study this situation,
> we can study whether there are alternative scenarios that perhaps work
> better, both for scientists and society at large.
You use the five "facts" enumerated above to define the 'position'
of the group you label as "scientists" Surely you recognize the
circularity. What of individuals not funded by government, not working
on development of weapon, not involved in education and who differ with
you as to their responsibilities and creativity. It is inarguable that
many are practicing scientists. What then is their position?
It would help this discussion if you agree to re-direct your objections
to the position of "bad-citizen' scientists rather to
"scientists" in general.
> However, another sad fact is that:
> 6. scientists endorse and enforce this situation by willingly and
> knowingly accepting this situation without questioning the implications
> and without showing any effort to study alternative scenarios, to the
> extent that some scientists will seek to silence someone who brings up
> such an issue. From an epistemological perspective, that raises even
> more questions, since epistemology does want to study science, whereas
> scientists themselves seem inclined to object against that.
Another generality. I am unable to agree that the sins of omission you
ascribe to scientists are more venal than those of the many other
groups that enabled and directly participated in the undoubted misuse
of scientific creations and their applications.
> I'm still not sure which of these six facts you have problems with,
> zinnic, but regarding the sixth fact, the past few post in this group
> (as well as your own attitude) speak for themselves. As said, if you
> still have problems with any of these facts, let me know and please
> provide details on why you reached other conclusions. But if you do
> agree with the view that no group or person should be privileged and if
> you agree with my conclusion that, based on these six facts, the
> situation of scientists is different and needs to be studied more
> closely, then for once come out of the closet, step of that fence, and
> admit there is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL issue here that is well worth getting
> the attention it currently doesn't get.
I have no problem with facts. It a fact that you and I often disagree
as to what constitutes a fact
For example, some of the the five examples of 'fact' you list may
be queried legitimately.
"1.- science is predominantly funded by government".
Probably true, provided all indirect funding is included.
"2.- many scientists work on the development of weapons"
True.
"3.- scientists also have a key position in education".
Depends on what you mean by "key". Non-scientific Educationalists
lay claim to this position.
"4.- scientists have received sufficient education to understand
their
responsibilities"
Depends on what you define as their responsibilities.
"5-unlike artists who create things, scientists claim to discover
things".
Depends on your arguable view that scientists do not regard themselves
as being creative.
Your number 6 'fact' is inarguably not a fact. It is an unsupported
personal opinion.
This post is not meant to silence your opinions. I simply do not accept
that the grounds for the claims you make against "scientists' are
epistemologically sound. I do not deny that the moral position of
scientists is a valid epistemological subject. I do, however, object
to the use of opinion and inference masquerading as EPISTEMOLOGY.
Cheers! Zinnic
Sam Carana
R&D is around $130 billion. We can disagree on some figures and add or
subtract a bit, but the general picture remains the same in that this
is a huge amount of money that shapes and defines scientific activity
in many ways, while spending in defense dominates this picture. We can
argue whether or not the size of world military spending exceeds $1
trillion, but whatever measurements one uses, it is dominated by US
military spending. These huge amounts of money and crucial resources
are allocated by means of decisions taken within the government
bureaucracy and a military-industrial complex that feeds on this
bureaucracy. Scientists in many ways fit into this cartel, colluding
with the singular way science is shaped and presented in the education
system.
I'm not saying that other countries have superior ways of funding
science. I'm saying that, if we're going to look for better ways to
shape science and security services, we might as well start with the
situation in the US. There are currently no threats of military
invasions into the US, so this is a perfect time to reorganize things.
So, the question is whether things could and should be organized
differently. A situation where people have to pay the bills, but are
not directly involved in taking the decisions, should be treated as
suspicious in many ways, especially in a place like the US with a
history that favors the rights of people and rejects monopolies and
cartels. The huge amounts of funding that are channeled through this
military-industrial complex give rise to concerns about abuse of
privilege, conflicts of interest, favoratism and unfair protection of
entrenched positions. Adding to such concerns is the lack of studies
into structurally different approaches, which point at an apparent
refusal of scientists to speak out.
Views that this topic was somehow inappropriate in an epistemology
group are at odds with the weight of the facts that make such concerns
and questions obvious. Nevertheless, if such views come from
scientists, then this only add to concerns that scientists are inclined
to sweep such questions under the carpet or seek to silence those who
happen to bring up such questions.
All this wasn't worth so much discussion if it was about the sex-life
of the blue-mantled beetle or something like that. But we are talking
about billions of dollars and decisions that determine the shape of
weapons of the future and the security and safety of billions of
people. Since in so many ways the survival of humanity at large is at
stake, there is much urgency in questioning an approach that puts
itself in so many ways above such questioning.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
zinnic
> The facts speak for themselves. The US government federal spending in
> R&D is around $130 billion. We can disagree on some figures and add or
> subtract a bit, but the general picture remains the same in that this
> is a huge amount of money that shapes and defines scientific activity
> in many ways, while spending in defense dominates this picture. We can
> argue whether or not the size of world military spending exceeds $1
> trillion, but whatever measurements one uses, it is dominated by US
> military spending. These huge amounts of money and crucial resources
> are allocated by means of decisions taken within the government
> bureaucracy and a military-industrial complex that feeds on this
> bureaucracy. Scientists in many ways fit into this cartel, colluding
> with the singular way science is shaped and presented in the education
> system.
OK Sam, let us get specific and take one step at a time. First "the
singular way science is shaped and presented in education".
Every thing else being equal, what incremental step would you take to
change science teaching in schools? I am aware that you disapprove of
the current educational system, but do you believe that there is a
better way of presenting science without a total re-organisation of
general education into home schooling, charter and private schools and
/or a universal voucher and tax rebate system?
IMO the ideal science teaching would be to approach each child as an
individual with different needs. Some benefit from a strictly hands-on
practical approach to science, others from a more theoretical approach.
Since the ideal is unattainable, the bottom line is that scientists and
educationalists should seriously study how best to increase the
interest and motivation of all students in learning the fundamental
principles of science.
I recognise that you will think this is too small a step, but it would
be a start. Or do you dismiss this approach as doomed to failure on
the 'epistemological' ground that science teaching is irreversibly
polluted by the involvement of government and colluding scientists?
> I'm not saying that other countries have superior ways of funding
> science. I'm saying that, if we're going to look for better ways to
> shape science and security services, we might as well start with the
> situation in the US. There are currently no threats of military
> invasions into the US, so this is a perfect time to reorganize things.
OK!
> So, the question is whether things could and should be organized
> differently. A situation where people have to pay the bills, but are
> not directly involved in taking the decisions, should be treated as
> suspicious in many ways, especially in a place like the US with a
> history that favors the rights of people and rejects monopolies and
> cartels. The huge amounts of funding that are channeled through this
> military-industrial complex give rise to concerns about abuse of
> privilege, conflicts of interest, favoratism and unfair protection of
> entrenched positions. Adding to such concerns is the lack of studies
> into structurally different approaches, which point at an apparent
> refusal of scientists to speak out.
I too am concerned and would like to see changes that will minimise
these concerns.. I am also concerned that draconian changes would do
more harm than good. Changes can be made through the electoral system.
How other than through the electoral system do you suggest that
"scientists" speak out?.
> Views that this topic was somehow inappropriate in an epistemology
> group are at odds with the weight of the facts that make such concerns
> and questions obvious. Nevertheless, if such views come from
> scientists, then this only add to concerns that scientists are inclined
> to sweep such questions under the carpet or seek to silence those who
> happen to bring up such questions.
Ok. You you have presented the problem and imperfection inherent in the
current state of science in the USA. You have not been silenced. It is
an appropriate topic for discussion in the Epistemology group. Proposed
'solutions' to this serious problem also are appropriate topics for
discussion in this group.
Let us start with specific proposals for changes that will benefit the
teaching of science in the current school system. Who knows, maybe we
will see some input from experienced science teachers. I am sure they
have something of relevance to contribute.
<snip>
Regards...Zinnic
Sam Carana
> OK Sam, let us get specific and take one step at a time. First "the
> singular way science is shaped and presented in education".
> Every thing else being equal, what incremental step would you take to
> change science teaching in schools?
If reform is to be implemented in steps, I'd suggest to first look at
ways to reform the military, before education or other areas. As said,
I advocate to split up the military in a number of structurally
separated parts which are to compete for customers in all areas without
collusion. In many ways, this split up will necessitate reform in areas
like education, since research work and degrees at a certain institute
will no longer be so strongly linked with a specific area within a
single military-industrial complex. Competition in security services
will facilitate a shift away from bureaucratic decisions toward merit,
which will in turn improve the quality of education.
> I am aware that you disapprove of
> the current educational system, but do you believe that there is a
> better way of presenting science without a total re-organisation of
> general education into home schooling, charter and private schools and
> /or a universal voucher and tax rebate system?
Briefly, I don't think there's a better way, but I don't think that
that sentence fully captures the reform I propose. As an example, I
advocate that large public schools be split up into multiple smaller
ones. It's better to split a large public school up into structurally
separate corporations so that they can compete for customers, but
government may well continue owning such schools. In fact, I advocate
to maintain government ownership, at least initially, as this will make
it easier to implement such reform. Also, initially government itself
will remain the main customer of such corporations. Progressively, tax
deductions and vouchers will enable such corporations to offer
education more directly to a greater variety of customers, notably
families. Government as a customer will thus gradually decrease in
importance, as other customers (including companies, non-profit
organizations, families and individuals) proportionally grow and
families decide more directly what education they want for their
children.
There is plenty of research into some aspects of such reform, e.g. into
vouchers which have been proposed way back by Milton Friedman and which
have been implemented at many places. But in my broader picture,
there's a lack of studies into fundamental change, or at least of
studies that are publicly available.
> IMO the ideal science teaching would be to approach each child as an
> individual with different needs. Some benefit from a strictly hands-on
> practical approach to science, others from a more theoretical approach.
I'm convinced that the reform I propose will best cater towards those
ideals.
> Since the ideal is unattainable, the bottom line is that scientists and
> educationalists should seriously study how best to increase the
> interest and motivation of all students in learning the fundamental
> principles of science.
No, there's no bottom line here, there are many ways things can be
changed and such reform should be studied on its merits.
> I recognise that you will think this is too small a step, but it would
> be a start. Or do you dismiss this approach as doomed to failure on
> the 'epistemological' ground that science teaching is irreversibly
> polluted by the involvement of government and colluding scientists?
Whether there were fundamental principles of science and, if so, what
they were, all that is part of that study and shouldn't be seen as an
a-priori truth or an excuse to implement education in a singular way,
as is currently done at public schools.
> I too am concerned and would like to see changes that will minimise
> these concerns.. I am also concerned that draconian changes would do
> more harm than good. Changes can be made through the electoral system.
> How other than through the electoral system do you suggest that
> "scientists" speak out?.
Scientists can speak out in many ways, just like other people. At the
least, each scientist could express some form of protest where
decisions are claimed to be based on studies, while the respective
scientist knows well that there is in fact no consensus or that such
studies are lacking. How many studies are there into the way the
military-industrial complex operates? How can so many scientists
collaborate with such a system without even raising a finger regarding
its bureaucratic aspects and whether this was the best way to go?
> Ok. You you have presented the problem and imperfection inherent in the
> current state of science in the USA. You have not been silenced. It is
> an appropriate topic for discussion in the Epistemology group. Proposed
> 'solutions' to this serious problem also are appropriate topics for
> discussion in this group.
As said, I propose to start with splitting up the military.
> Let us start with specific proposals for changes that will benefit the
> teaching of science in the current school system. Who knows, maybe we
> will see some input from experienced science teachers. I am sure they
> have something of relevance to contribute.
I do welcome discussion of further reform, such as within the education
system. Vouchers already are a hot topic and my proposals for tax
deductions also go into the discussion of educational funding. As said,
the way certain degrees currently act as entry tickets into certain
professions is also something that should be looked at. I'm most
interested in any studies of the wider picture, given the way things
are linked, so if anyone knows of such studies, please post links and
details. For those who dislike change, I would also be interested in
seeing any studies that backed up a decision NOT to change anything.
Cheers!
Sam Carana