Remember the Trabant? It was the national automobile of East-Germany. After World War II, the existing factories of car manufacturers were forced to make Trabants. In line with communist ideology, the car had to be cheap and not too extravagant, so it came equipped with a two-stroke engine. Moreover, as a showcase of futuristic design and ingenuity, its light weight allowed it to come with a plastic body! Eventually, the engine was replaced with a four-stroke
1.1 VW Polo, but it remained the epitome of what's wrong with socialism: poor performance; simplistic design that has contempt for any style, beauty, quality or class; fabricated with wasteful, inflexible, inefficient and polluting production methods; not responding to customer demand; etc, etc. Production finally stopped after over three million Trabants had been produced. Demand collapsed when Germany's reunification finally allowed people to buy other cars.
Science, in the way it is controlled by government, has many similarities with the Trabant. Government directly controls what students are taught under the subject "science" in public schools. Government, through its control over funding, decides what kind of scientific research and education gets financial support. Government controls a huge military budget, deciding which scientific research and development projects get priority. Most scientists will end up working either in education or on military projects, either directly or indirectly under this government control.
Between World War II and Germany's reunification, people who worked in the car industry in East Germany had no choice but to work on the Trabant project. Not walking in line with the communist doctrine not only meant risking one's job, political dissidents were deported all the way to Siberia.
In the US, freedom of speech and religion are supposed to be rights that are cherished. Yet, few scientists seem to have the courage to speak out against the fact that science seems to follow the Trabant model. Instead, in an effort to impress those who control funding for science, scientists glorify the Trabant model, rushing to attack someone who points at the facts. Moreover, in an epistemology forum, where one would expect these kind of issues to be discussed, those who call themselves scientists appear to resort to personal attacks, offensive language and brutal twisting of the truth, all to prevent someone to speak out on these matters.
But the truth is that science is knowingly and deliberately structured in the same mould as the Trabant. The most important epistemological question therefore is whether this was the best model. Just like we cherish things like competition between manufacturers and suppliers of cars, and choice for people who are considering buying a car, shouldn't we cherish those same values in regard to science?
Sam
This post is (as usual for the author) blatent politics. Why she is not
'moderated' is beyond me?
Yes, the government decides what should be taught in government-funded
schools, and the government decides what research should be done using
government funds. However, the government does not decide what is
taught in non-government-funded private school science classes and does
not decide what research is done at non-government-funded private labs.
In general, whoever is providing the funding decides what is done with
the funding. This applies to pretty much any field of endeavor. Would
you hire a contractor to work on your house and then let him decide
what to do with your money?
> In the US, freedom of speech and religion are supposed to be rights that are
> cherished. Yet, few scientists seem to have the courage to speak out against
> the fact that science seems to follow the Trabant model. Instead, in an
> effort to impress those who control funding for science, scientists glorify
> the Trabant model, rushing to attack someone who points at the facts.
I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the scenarios you describe here.
Could you point at some specific incidents of scientists rushing to
attack someone who points at the facts?
> But the truth is that science is knowingly and deliberately structured in
> the same mould as the Trabant. The most important epistemological question
> therefore is whether this was the best model. Just like we cherish things
> like competition between manufacturers and suppliers of cars, and choice for
> people who are considering buying a car, shouldn't we cherish those same
> values in regard to science?
>
> Sam
OK, I posited above that the *topics* of research are generally
dictated by those who provide the funding. However, it seems to me
that epistomology would be more interested in the *methods* of
research, no matter what topics they are applied to. Are you saying
the government (or other fund source) dictates the methods scientists
should use to do research in addition to dictating the topics to be
researched?
-- Ken
Sam Carana wrote:
<snip>
Science, in the way it is controlled by government, has many similarities with the Trabant. Government directly controls what students are taught under the subject "science" in public schools. Government, through its control over funding, decides what kind of scientific research and education gets financial support. Government controls a huge military budget, deciding which scientific research and development projects get priority. Most scientists will end up working either in education or on military projects, either directly or indirectly under this government control.
Yes, the government decides what should be taught in government-funded schools, and the government decides what research should be done using government funds. However, the government does not decide what is taught in non-government-funded private school science classes and does
not decide what research is done at non-government-funded private labs.
(continued) .. In general, whoever is providing the funding decides what is done with the funding. This applies to pretty much any field of endeavor. Would you hire a contractor to work on your house and then let him decide what to do with your money?
In the US, freedom of speech and religion are supposed to be rights that are cherished. Yet, few scientists seem to have the courage to speak out against the fact that science seems to follow the Trabant model. Instead, in an effort to impress those who control funding for science, scientists glorify the Trabant model, rushing to attack someone who points at the facts.
I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the scenarios you describe here. Could you point at some specific incidents of scientists rushing to attack someone who points at the facts?
But the truth is that science is knowingly and deliberately structured in the same mould as the Trabant. The most important epistemological question therefore is whether this was the best model. Just like we cherish things like competition between manufacturers and suppliers of cars, and choice for people who are considering buying a car, shouldn't we cherish those same values in regard to science?
OK, I posited above that the *topics* of research are generally
dictated by those who provide the funding. However, it seems to me that epistomology would be more interested in the *methods* of research, no matter what topics they are applied to. Are you saying the government (or other fund source) dictates the methods scientists should use to do research in addition to dictating the topics to be researched?
Why don't you propose a model of the world without using the Occam's razor as a guiding principle? And I will add variable after variable to your theory which do not influence the outcome measurably -- and they'll all be perfectly alright theories according to you.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
-Souvik
Occam's Razor simply states: "one should not increase, beyond what is
necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".
It has *nothing* to do with car manufacturing or supplying and is as
useless as toilet paper would be in digging tunnels. It is entirely an
attitude in philosophy popularly endorsed.
> So, the question is: Should suppliers of cars and suppliers of security
> services be treated differently? That's partly a political question, but
> it's also an epistemological question, and it arguably is the most important
> epistemological issue.
> What's amazing is that some many people deny the importance of this matter.
> They like to put on a blindfold in regard to this issue, moreover, they come
> to a forum like this with the deliberate intention to attack someone who
> brings up this issue. The vigor of their attacks and the strong feelings
> raised by this issue are in itself a good indication that this is an
> important issue.
> It doesn't take much courage or ingenuity to support the Trabant model.
> It's already there and there's lots of applause and financial support from
> the supporters of the Trabant model for scientists who collaborate and walk
> in line. It takes more imagination to envisage better ways to deal with
> things. For those who lack such imagination, it may suffice to mention that
> the Trabant is no longer in production. Time to catch up with reality!
> Sam
Sadly the situation is thus: People who are can understand science
happen to be smart and independent thinkers to a large degree. They
understand what we know about nature and the degree of certainty with
which we know it. Then there are people who do not understand any
science, and are usually people who will read a thing or two in
pop-science books and are not very smart independent thinkers. *They
think the whole enterprise of science is a racket simply because they
cannot understand it.* Inspite of the obvious power over nature science
provides us through technology, they will continue to contend its
validity with useless ramblings (occassionally sprinkled with
soundbites (like 'duality'!) from science media). They are very funny
people.
-Souvik
Sadly the situation is thus: People who are can understand science happen to be smart and independent thinkers to a large degree. They understand what we know about nature and the degree of certainty with which we know it. Then there are people who do not understand any science, and are usually people who will read a thing or two in pop-science books and are not very smart independent thinkers. *They think the whole enterprise of science is a racket simply because they cannot understand it.* Inspite of the obvious power over nature science provides us through technology, they will continue to contend its validity with useless ramblings (occassionally sprinkled with soundbites (like 'duality'!) from science media). They are very funny people.
-Souvik
Sam Carana wrote:
> Apparently, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the
> Trabant as a car didn't work. The car did work, in the sense that it had an
> engine and it moved. It just didn't work as well as most other cars.
So show me an alternative to mainstream science and physics that does work. Everyone is *looking* for alternatives -- that IS the whole business of science and that is how it progresses. Radical change.
However, the reason primary education in the physical sciences is so narrow and unaccepting of alternatives is because of the following:
The basics of the physical sciences that deal with ordinary scale phenomena have been exhaustively explored. Almost every alternative theory worth pursuing *has* been pursued. So, unless one is training to be a hardcore physicist/philosopher, but only an engineer fit enough to use scientific results and not professionally discover them, one is
asked to stay on the treaded path. Otherwise, the person might end up wasting a large portion of his life re-inventing the wheel or just getting it all wrong.
Similarly, I'm not saying that science doesn't work, I'm saying that science currently follows the Trabant-model with all its shortcomings. The Trabant as a car only existed due to government coercion - people in East Germany simply weren't allowed to buy other cars. Those who questioned the Trabant-model were treated with the very hostility and contempt that you are expressing. In East Germany, they called people who questioned the Trabant-model dissidents and imprisoned them. The demagogues who ran the Trabant scheme accused people who questioned the Trabant-model of being stupid, traitors, etc, in exactly the way you still seek to defame me. But the more you personally attack me, the more you expose the typical methods and shortcomings of the Trabant-model. If you're saying that the education system fails a lot of people, then the more reason for reform.
You see, there is a definite right and wrong in the physical sciences, unlike the humanities.
A person who says it takes 100 seconds for a mass to fall through 1 metre on the surface of the earth is simply wrong (proved experimentally). It doesn't matter if 9 out of 10 people in a populace think so -- they're all provably wrong and hence fail. The only reform would be to teach things better with more clarity.
However, a person who says Hamlet had an Oedipus complex could be right or wrong and if 9 out of 10 people in a populace think so -- then, well, it could be so and there is reason for reform if the education system fails 9 of them. T
Your defamation began when you feigned profundity by claiming epistemologists discovered duality in string theory that does away with singularities, or some equally potent nonsense sprinkled with soundbites. In my experience, it is common among crackpots to do so. The trend has continued with your claiming that Occam's Razor was used to make the Trabant -- which makes absolutely no sense at all if one looks up the definition of the Occam's Razor.
Just like the Trabant had its shortcomings, the education system needs reform. We should abandon the lesser model and instead embrace a plurality of alternatives, while encouraging reform not merely in education, but in many other areas as well.
Making a car involves more degrees of freedom than making a physical theory. The very fundamental physical theories are the most highly constrained. There are just about 50 to 60 alternatives for the ultimate theory today.
That is nothing compared to the tens of thousands pf alternatives we had to deal with about 15 years ago. They were systematically tested and weeded out by what has become very streamlined procedures. Today you can propose a theory and its test and get an experimental confirmation or negation within two weeks.
-Souvik
No, I do not think you're exposing any conspiracy scheme. Like most
post-modernists, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking
about most of the time. It's irritating and unproductive, that's all.
If you still think you're not feigning the profundity, you might want
to elaborate what you think are the epistemological issues with string
theory and what the 'duality' you are talking about is.
-Souvik
No, I do not think you're exposing any conspiracy scheme. Like most post-modernists, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about most of the time. It's irritating and unproductive, that's all.
If you still think you're not feigning the profundity, you might want to elaborate what you think are the epistemological issues with string theory and what the 'duality' you are talking about is.
Just elaborate on your comment about epistemologists pointing out a
'duality' in string theory that got rid of 'singularities' we were
stuck with. We'll take it from there.
(souvik:) No, I do not think you're exposing any conspiracy scheme. Like most post-modernists, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about most of the time. It's irritating and unproductive, that's all.
What you just blathered is not an answer to my question and therefore
should be an independent thread. Stop dodging. (And if you must, please
provide a reference to my saying that a large fraction of the budget is
on defence and that govt controls education. However, that belongs to a
seperate thread.)
Just elaborate on your comment about epistemologists pointing out a
'duality' in string theory that got rid of 'singularities' we were
stuck with.
-Souvik
What you just blathered is not an answer to my question and therefore should be an independent thread. Stop dodging. (And if you must, please provide a reference to my saying that a large fraction of the budget is on defence and that govt controls education. However, that belongs to a seperate thread.)
Just elaborate on your comment about epistemologists pointing out a 'duality' in string theory that got rid of 'singularities' we were stuck with.
-Souvik
>From post 10:
> Deep in your heart you must know that I am right and that - if I
> expose this scheme - you as a scientist might lose your current privileges.
You seem to think that science as an enterprise is a racket meant to
make a few 'scientists' rich. Especially with the tremendous flow of
funds into defence etc. You suppose that the whole enterprise of
science is a self-perpetrating conspiracy, much like organised
religions. You keep talking about 'the scheme' you are exposing.
Before you can deconstruct anything, you must know it inside out. If
you want to deconstruct Islam, you must be a Mussalman and experience
the Quoran. If you want to deconstruct Modern Art, you must be an
artist or at least have a profound understanding of it. If you want to
deconstruct Science to any effect, you must understand and do science
before you can step out of it and analyse its epistemological validity.
Sadly, in your case, I think you do not understand even basic science
like classical mechanics. You feign the occassional profundity by
splattering 'string theory' or 'Occam's Razor' completely out of
context (see below for reference). When followed up, your understanding
turns out to be entirely vacuous.
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/da3f7f12cdfc6fed
> Where in this thread did I introduce string theory?
In post 10:
> You must be felling the
> heat, not feeling at ease with the epistemological aspects of string theory
> and Occam's Razor.
Honestly, I think you are academically challenged in the vigorous
sciences and have since been embittered against it. You think that what
you can't understand (relatively simple things like algebraic
equations) are just out there to intimidate people. Just because you do
not understand science, doesn't mean that there aren't smarter people
than you who do understand science and can create stuff with it you've
never seen before!
As for convincing people on this forum, I have seen nothing said
against my arguments (save from you), but I've seen Zinnic (who you
personally emailed and failed to convince! Hahaha!!) and Goozlefotz
assert your intellectual incompetence.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/53c71796d9699a0c?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/45a3970f1e2aa194?hl=en&
As for my contemptuous tone -- your feigning of profundity with
scientific jargon earns you my utter contempt. If you still think you
understand anything about string theory (or science) you will explain
what you meant by 'duality' and 'singularity' in the post linked below
instead of dodging it.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/f09f6527e202d316?hl=en&
-Souvik
I am a physics student in Latin America, we receive little support from
our government and the military simply buy their weapons to other
countries, and still we try to learn and make theoretical physics. So I
believe that scientist are not so tied to money, I think that what
drives most scientists I've met is simple and overwhelming curiosity,
the desire to understand. It surely is quite difficult to control
people with such "strange" interests. What I'm trying to say is: there
is freedom in science, even if the government controls the funding,
there will always be people with ideas that run parallel to the most
accepted, and these ideas are not rejected unless it is proven by
experiment that they must be rejected, and even then they still linger
as a possibility en the backs of some minds. I can think of no other
discipline besides art and science in which new and different and new
ideas receive a warm welcome, and are even encouraged.
On the other hand... about education, I cannot give a sincere opinion,
I assist classes almost every day, but I sincerely believe they are
useless. I think it was Gauss who once said that classes are useless
because the intelligent students can learn by themselves and the
not-so-intelligent are not worth the effort.
I agree whole-heartedly with the view you express in your second post.
I no longer respond directly to Sam Carena's posts because the
experience became so frustrating. In my own defence, I refer you to two
threads-search under zinnic for " A pledge for epistemologists" July 9,
and "Why so little epistemology in an Epistemology forum?" July 25.
I will be interested in your views after you have experienced some
'intellectual' exchanges with Sam!
I enjoyed your first post in general, but disagree strongly with your
apparent view that a formal education is of little benefit to any
members of modern society. If this is the case, I am interested in
hearing more (provided your claim is not that public schools are simply
vehicles used by a cynical 'Government' to brain wash the masses).
Best regards...Zinnic
I think we need a hair splitting here. Physical theories are Occam's
Razored in the sense you cannot postulate more (fields or whatever)
than you need to. The smallest possible set of postulates to explain
the widest possible range of phenomena constitute the grandest
theories.
However, in the enterprise of doing science or discovering principles,
one needs to walk up and down a tree of possibilities and keep as many
of them open at a time.
While it is true that modern physics has a certain level of
sophistication, it is still razed down to the simplest possible set of
axioms to explain a mind-boggling array of phenomena. Also, the gritty
problem solving you are talking about often serves as an exercise in
getting used to conceptually simple, but abstract mathematics. It takes
so long, for example, to accept a Grassmanian field (for describing
fermions) -- but if you actually look into it, Grassman numbers are as
closed and legitimate as real numbers.
> I can think of no other
> discipline besides art and science in which new and different and new
> ideas receive a warm welcome, and are even encouraged.
I've tried my hand at a few arts myself but the role of arbitrary
tradition and authority in the arts is several times more pronounced
(and irritating) than in the sciences. For example: A Titian will sell
for millions just because it is a Titian. Its price will drop if found
to be by another artist.
Direction in art comes from contemporary fancy. Therefore, a lot of art
is fad.
-Souvik
(Ken Kelly wrote:) "Could you point at some specific incidents of scientists rushing to attack someone who points at the facts?"
(Sam:) I'll use the post below by Souvik to illustrate this, Ken!
On 9/18/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Souvik) You seem to think that science as an enterprise is a racket meant to make a few 'scientists' rich. Especially with the tremendous flow of funds into defence etc. You suppose that the whole enterprise of science is a self-perpetrating conspiracy, much like organised religions.
(Sam) Note how Souvik uses words like "racket" and "conspiracy", to make it look as if I said there was some secret illegal agreement between scientists who were conceiling their unlawful activities.
The truth is of course that I never used the word "conspiracy", but that I said the very opposite. It's no secret at all that the military has a huge budget. It's no secret at all that government controls public school. And it's not illegal at all. That's the very problem! This situation is imposed upon us with the full force of the law.
Souvik knows this very well, but sees political advantage in twisting my words. This choice of wording is meant to make it look as if I saw things that weren't there, as if I said that scientists and the army were engaged in secret and illegal acts. The next step would be to accuse me of seeing things that weren't there. It's the same strategy used earlier by zinnic. In discussions about school vouchers, they both tried to label me as an extremist, even though school vouchers have been introduced in many places by majority vote and under the full weight of our democratic system. There's a fundamental dishonesty in the way they are advocating some very political views. Yet another dishonesty lies of course in the fact that they are advocating their political views under the pretence of objective science.
(Souvik) Sadly, in your case, I think you do not understand even basic science like classical mechanics. You feign the occassional profundity by splattering 'string theory' or 'Occam's Razor' completely out of context (see below for reference). When followed up, your understanding turns out to be entirely vacuous.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/da3f7f12cdfc6fed
> Where in this thread did I introduce string theory?
(Souvik) In post 10:
You must be felling the heat, not feeling at ease with the epistemological aspects of string theory and Occam's Razor.
(Souvik) Honestly, I think you are academically challenged in the vigorous sciences and have since been embittered against it. You think that what you can't understand (relatively simple things like algebraic equations) are just out there to intimidate people. Just because you do not understand science, doesn't mean that there aren't smarter people than you who do understand science and can create stuff with it you've never seen before!
(Sam) Yet another example of a direct insult and personal attack, grossly violating the terms of any group at Google, let alone a group where epistemology is supposed to be the theme.
(Souvik) As for convincing people on this forum, I have seen nothing said against my arguments (save from you), but I've seen Zinnic (who you personally emailed and failed to convince! Hahaha!!) and Goozlefotz assert your intellectual incompetence.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/53c71796d9699a0c?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/45a3970f1e2aa194?hl=en&
(Sam) Yet another effort to discredit me, by adding yet another untruth. I am not aware of any personal correspondence between zinnic and me. By refusing to clarify things, zinnic lends his name to such an untruth. The truth is, of course, that I don't need to email people individually to convince them of anything. Anyone can simply check out these threads for themselves.
(Souvik) As for my contemptuous tone -- your feigning of profundity with scientific jargon earns you my utter contempt.
(Sam) Note this choice of words. Is Souvik trying to look literate here, as if this increased one's epistemological standing?
(Souvik) If you still think you understand anything about string theory (or science) you will explain what you meant by 'duality' and 'singularity' in the post linked below instead of dodging it.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/f09f6527e202d316?hl=en&
(Sam) Yes, that's of course the thread where such discussion belongs. Anyone can check the vulgar behavior of souvik in this thread, where souvik, goozlfotz and zinnic take turns to ridicule and attack anyone who posted in that thread. Ironically, souvik accused me a few messages earlier of dodging his question about string theory here, while mentioning in the subsequent sentence that some discussions belongs to seperate threads.
The picture that emerges from this is a pattern of abuse by persons pretending to be scientists, seeking to sabotage interesting epoistemological discussions here by following a clear pattern. The moment someone comes up with an interesting epistemological question, they launch vulgar attacks, presumably in the hope that this will discourage any serious discussion of the topic and silence anyone who seeks to seriously discuss epistemological issues.
What they achieve, of course, is the direct opposite. They do not succeed in silencing my views. They prove my very point. Scientists cannot be expected to admit the fact that science follows the Trabant model, with government control leading us down one specific road. It's up to epistemologists to poinmt out there is a problem with science in the way it's currently structured and controlled by government to follow one specific path.
There is growing urgency for us to act. The problem is that people may not become aware of the fact that it is a dead-end-street until we hit our head against the wall. In this respect, the situation is much like the East German society where people all drove around in Trabants as if this was the only way to go. It's time we recognize the truth and ditch the Trabant model of science. Such a move cannot take place in isolation - instead, reform needs to be introduced across the board.
Sam
How many times have you said 'Epistemologists will quickly reveal your
scheme!'?
The word 'scheme' carries the same connotations as 'racket'.
> The truth is of course that I never used the word "conspiracy", but that I
> said the very opposite. It's no secret at all that the military has a huge
> budget. It's no secret at all that government controls public school. And
> it's not illegal at all. That's the very problem! This situation is imposed
> upon us with the full force of the law.
For a reason.
You might convince yourself of that by considering that every country,
irrespective of cultural or political tendencies have ended up pouring
huge amounts of their budget into science and technology.
> > (Sam) Here's another example. Anyone can check and see that it was Souvik
> who so inappropriate introduced string theory in this thread.
Introducing string theory in that thread was in response to its
previous post. However, your splattering of out of context jargon like
'duality' and 'singularity' that epistemologists apparently figured out
was and still has remained unexplained. I think that is sufficient
evidence that you are incapable as an epistemologist or any brand of
thinker and feign profundity with jargon you do not understand.
Unless you explain what you meant in that line, it stays that way.
> (Sam) Yes, that's of course the thread where such discussion belongs. Anyone
> can check the vulgar behavior of souvik in this thread, where souvik,
> goozlfotz and zinnic take turns to ridicule and attack anyone who posted in
> that thread. Ironically, souvik accused me a few messages earlier of dodging
> his question about string theory here, while mentioning in the subsequent
> sentence that some discussions belongs to seperate threads.
Its not anyone, just you. And that is because you're NOT being
profound, productive, exposing or anything beyond being dodgy, feinting
and irritating. I'm sure you see that in yourself by now. Especially
with your capacity for dodging a straightforward request for
elaboration on your string theory expertise. You splattered 'duality'
'singularity' -- now what does that mean?
This is a demonstration of Sam (and maybe most armchair
epistemologist)'s superficial understanding of most things scientific.
Even philosophy professors can hardly ever solve a problem in quantum
mechanics, but they'll keep talking about its epistemological and
social (oh yeah.. they do!) implications anyway.
-Souvik
How many times have you said 'Epistemologists will quickly reveal your scheme!'? The word 'scheme' carries the same connotations as 'racket'.
The truth is of course that I never used the word "conspiracy", but that I said the very opposite. It's no secret at all that the military has a huge budget. It's no secret at all that government controls public school. And it's not illegal at all. That's the very problem! This situation is imposed upon us with the full force of the law.
For a reason. You might convince yourself of that by considering that every country, irrespective of cultural or political tendencies have ended up pouring huge amounts of their budget into science and technology.
> > (Sam) Here's another example. Anyone can check and see that it was Souvik
> who so inappropriate introduced string theory in this thread.
Introducing string theory in that thread was in response to its
previous post. However, your splattering of out of context jargon like 'duality' and 'singularity' that epistemologists apparently figured out was and still has remained unexplained. I think that is sufficient evidence that you are incapable as an epistemologist or any brand of thinker and feign profundity with jargon you do not understand.
Unless you explain what you meant in that line, it stays that way.
> (Sam) Yes, that's of course the thread where such discussion belongs. Anyone
> can check the vulgar behavior of souvik in this thread, where souvik,
> goozlfotz and zinnic take turns to ridicule and attack anyone who posted in
> that thread. Ironically, souvik accused me a few messages earlier of dodging
> his question about string theory here, while mentioning in the subsequent
> sentence that some discussions belongs to seperate threads.
Its not anyone, just you. And that is because you're NOT being
profound, productive, exposing or anything beyond being dodgy, feinting
and irritating. I'm sure you see that in yourself by now.
Especially with your capacity for dodging a straightforward request for elaboration on your string theory expertise. You splattered 'duality' 'singularity' -- now what does that mean?
This is a demonstration of Sam (and maybe most armchair
epistemologist)'s superficial understanding of most things scientific. Even philosophy professors can hardly ever solve a problem in quantum mechanics, but they'll keep talking about its epistemological and social (oh yeah.. they do!) implications anyway.
You hurt my feelings! I have also insulted Sam. I admit that my
efforts were to no avail, but at least I tried.
Hush! Keep quiet about not believing in the government's "obvious"
policy to use public schools to stifle the independent thinking and
creativity of the people.
This is heresy for 'she who shall not be named'. Watch for your rear! I
sense a speeding car bearing down on you. You will know it is her. She
is driving a Trabant!
You were asked a simple question -- to elaborate on what you yourself
meant by your comment on the role played by epistemologists in string
theory. The fact that you still can't answer that, in this thread, or
any other (there I just made one for you, happy?) is a good
demonstration of how superficial your understanding of things are. No
matter what whine about "Oh, I know but I won't tell!"
That is a statement of fact that stands till you answer the question.
You could interpret that as an insult. If you can't back your
statements, you get insulted. Fair, I'd say.
As for the contempt I have for philosophers in general, I'd probably be
in good company. It has been demonstrated time and time again that
academic philosophers have little or no understanding of science, let
alone its implications. In fact, there was a paper written in an
'esteemed' philosophy journal called the "Social Text" by a physicist
who used mind-numbing jargon to prove how a theory of quantum gravity
negated science. It got published with 3 reviewers who raved about the
depth of the article. Physicists were laughing their heads off
meanwhile, and in a few months Sokal confessed to the utter incoherence
of his own article. It was a test to see if those philosophy folks
could tell incoherent jargon from sense, and they couldn't! The Social
Text responded to this saying they didn't think they were important
enough for scientists to pay attention to them, and it was wrong for
scientists to put them through a shameful test like that. One of the
philosophers who reviewed the article, still believes there was
something deep and dark Sokal was uncovering.
The fact that you are intimidated by algebraic equations leads me to
conclude that you probably don't know any physics even at the level of
101-102.
Making unbacked assertions about my expertise in string theory is as
good as my asserting that you wear pink underwear. When I supposed your
ignorance of string theory, I backed it with the vacuity of your
comment. It stays that way till you explain it.
-Souvik
(Sam wrote:)
"As said, the concern is that teachers fool people into thinking that
science was too complicated for mere mortals to understand, with the
aim of
subsequently violating the trust bestowed upon them in order to
indoctrinate
children with specific political views. The concern is that, after
grabbing
control over the curriculum on the premise of greater competence,
teachers
proceed to indoctrinate children with the monopoly-model of one
coherent
"nature" that responded to a single set of absolute and universal laws
- in
other words, the Trabant model!"
Teachers do not fool people into thinking that science is too
complicated... rather people who believe that science is too
complicated have fooled themselves into thinking that way.
Also:
(The following expresses a very personal view of science, it is not
based on any references, except maybe indirectly.)
Physics presupposes that there is one objective nature to be studied,
that this nature can be understood by human rationality; this is the
starting point of physics, and to understand nature by rational means
is the basic goal of physics. To physicists there is one truth to be
discovered, and several ideas are constantly tested with experiment in
an effort to find such a truth. If physics ever deviates from this
fundamental supposition, then it will fall in the unstable grounds of
mere speculation, loosing its power to understand and predict, loosing
sight of its goal, and becoming something else. These are not political
ideas such as the search for beauty in poetry is not a political idea;
these are merely the basic presuppositions and goals of physics, merely
the starting point of a discipline. As to whether or not this
presupposition is valid, is a question that will remain unanswered
because no answer can be given; but in defense of physics let me remind
you that a great part of technology, including the computers we use to
post in this forum, is a direct sub product of physics, and even beyond
that, at each turn physics has fundamentally modified our way of
thought, our way of viewing the universe.
(If this post is published twice: I apologize, I had some trouble
posting it.)
As for the contempt I have for philosophers in general, I'd probably be in good company. It has been demonstrated time and time again that academic philosophers have little or no understanding of science, let alone its implications. In fact, there was a paper written in an 'esteemed' philosophy journal called the "Social Text" by a physicist who used mind-numbing jargon to prove how a theory of quantum gravity
negated science. It got published with 3 reviewers who raved about the depth of the article. Physicists were laughing their heads off meanwhile, and in a few months Sokal confessed to the utter incoherence of his own article. It was a test to see if those philosophy folks could tell incoherent jargon from sense, and they couldn't!
I think we need a hair splitting here. Physical theories are Occam's Razored in the sense you cannot postulate more (fields or whatever) than you need to. The smallest possible set of postulates to explain the widest possible range of phenomena constitute the grandest theories.
However, in the enterprise of doing science or discovering principles, one needs to walk up and down a tree of possibilities and keep as many of them open at a time.
As I said in a previous post... I don't see why science follows a
Trabant model. Science is not controlled by the government (at least not by a single government), it does not exclude parallel ideas, actually it encourages them, and science students are constantly exposed to unlearning wrong models of nature, so in a way they learn to unlearn, they learn to accept alternatives to previous ideas. Science should never follow a Trabant model, and it does not follow such a model. On the other hand, I agree that it is harmful to impose a single model of nature, but scientists don't do this, they teach and study several parallel models.
(Sam wrote:)
"As said, the concern is that teachers fool people into thinking that science was too complicated for mere mortals to understand, with the aim of subsequently violating the trust bestowed upon them in order to indoctrinate children with specific political views. The concern is that, after grabbing control over the curriculum on the premise of greater competence, teachers proceed to indoctrinate children with the monopoly-model of one coherent "nature" that responded to a single set of absolute and universal laws - in other words, the Trabant model!"
(Jorge) Teachers do not fool people into thinking that science is too complicated... rather people who believe that science is too complicated have fooled themselves into thinking that way.
(Jorge) Also:
(The following expresses a very personal view of science, it is not based on any references, except maybe indirectly.)
Physics presupposes that there is one objective nature to be studied, that this nature can be understood by human rationality; this is the starting point of physics, and to understand nature by rational means is the basic goal of physics. To physicists there is one truth to be discovered, and several ideas are constantly tested with experiment in an effort to find such a truth. If physics ever deviates from this fundamental supposition, then it will fall in the unstable grounds of mere speculation, loosing its power to understand and predict, loosing sight of its goal, and becoming something else.
(Jorge) These are not political ideas such as the search for beauty in poetry is not a political idea; these are merely the basic presuppositions and goals of physics, merely the starting point of a discipline.
(Jorge) As to whether or not this presupposition is valid, is a question that will remain unanswered because no answer can be given;
(Jorge) ... but in defense of physics let me remind you that a great part of technology, including the computers we use to post in this forum, is a direct sub product of physics, and even beyond that, at each turn physics has fundamentally modified our way of thought, our way of viewing the universe.
Which is why I made the distinction between a scientific theory, and
the process of making a scientific theory.
Sam Carana wrote:
> It seems that you are using two different principles here: Occam's Razor on
> the one hand and keeping "as many of them open at a time" on the other hand.
> They seem directly opposing principles.
Which is why I made the distinction between a scientific theory, and the process of making a scientific theory.
Scientists do in fact wonder if there may be other ways to understand
the world with -- like astrology, or dowsing, or maybe revelation, or
even voodoo. In fact, Newton himself dabbled in his contemporary
witchcraft. But as it turns out, there is no other model known to man
that works as well as science when it comes to gaining objective
knowledge about the world that can be put to good use.
If you know a better way, which can actually produce technology not
seen before, do let us know. Otherwise, I see no point in your vacuous
criticism of the epistemological validity of science.
There are often, at one time, many candidate theories running parallel.
However, each individual theory is razed to a minimum set of
assumptions and external parameters.
Get it?
Sam Carana wrote:
> model. Scientists may claim to be keen to investigate just about anything
> EXCEPT their own situation, i.e. the Trabant model of science. The moment
> someone wonders whether this was indeed the best model for science, all
> doors suddenly close and there suddenly is no such thing as keeping
> possibilities open, etc.
> Fortunately, there are some people who are interested in questions like
> this. For those who haven't heard about it, it's called epistemology.
Scientists do in fact wonder if there may be other ways to understand the world with -- like astrology, or dowsing, or maybe revelation, or even voodoo. In fact, Newton himself dabbled in his contemporary witchcraft.
But as it turns out, there is no other model known to man that works as well as science when it comes to gaining objective knowledge about the world that can be put to good use.
If you know a better way, which can actually produce technology not seen before, do let us know. Otherwise, I see no point in your vacuous criticism of the epistemological validity of science.
In the chaos of creativity of which science makes extensive use there
is no method. Some use Occam's razor to choose theories, others follow
other paths. In the end experiment shows who was on the right path, and
that does not mean that his path will be the right one in future
searches.
See below for Souvik's answer and above for my own...
>So, the idea that there is one "nature" that follows a single
>coherent set of laws, that is idea is glorified by you as a dogma is it.
>Even when tests tell you that this did not actually correspond with reality,
>you would still hang on the the dogma, rather than accept reality as it is?
>Is that what you're saying, Jorge?
No... That is not what I'm saying. I never said that physics
presupposes a nature that follows a single coherent set of laws (though
that is in the present the opinion of many scientists and me.) I simply
said that physics presupposes an objective reality... Those are quite
different statements.
>Yet, it looks very much like the dictator who says there's no need
>for voting, because there are no other good candidates out there anyways. If
>it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, then...there's concern that it IS a
>duck. If there's concern, then there's reason to look into that. That's what
>epistemology does.
I never said there are no alternatives to science, maybe there are, I
do not know, no one knows. I personally like science. I simply said,
and I repeat, that there is nothing political about presupposing a
single objective reality.
>That's an epistemological question and I'm answering it.
Even epistemologists of a very high order never dare to state that they
have answered such a question, any answer to any question can only be
partial and incomplete, even the answers that science gives are
incomplete (that's why scientists constantly reform science).
Furthermore, your answer attacks science in a social and political way,
but not in its validity as the correct view of nature, which is the way
in which I stated the question, as can be interpreted from its context.
>(Sam) Sure, people have made remarkable things. Dictators like to claim
>credit over people's work, but I say let's give credit where it belongs,
>with the people. People establish things, people get rewarded for their
>work, as it should be. Science, however, typically seeks funding by
>government. So, are you saying that the people who made the honest
>accomplishments should be taxed and that the money should be used by
>scientists who cannot get a decent job? What is it that you're saying,
>Jorge?
You are forgetting that many "decent jobs" are directly related to
technology and therefore to science, you forget also that most of USA's
and Europe's income comes from sub products of science and that
scientists and science only recieve a small percentage of this,
furthermore the superiority of dominant countries is due to science,
the commodity of modern life is due to science, and many of our present
problems such as famine, energy shortage, and others, can be
potentially solved by science. Also, if you are interested in anything
of an intellectual order you must admit that science has given mankind
an entirely new view of the universe, it has enriched mankind as a
whole, it has been essential for the development of our civilization,
and it is, in short, an essential part of our culture. And as far as I
know, being a scientist is a decent and in many cases not well-paid job
(where I live it pays a lot more to be in commerce, engineering, law,
and other such jobs, and still there are scientists.) Scientists are
often people who are talented in many useful skills like the use of
computers, modeling, use of technology in general, etc, so it is hard
to believe that scientists could not get a decent job, I would rather
believe they chose to become scientists.
I repeat once more: I do not see why science follows a Trabant model of
nature (the reasons I give can be read above).
(Jorge) In the chaos of creativity of which science makes extensive use there is no method. Some use Occam's razor to choose theories, others follow other paths. In the end experiment shows who was on the right path, and that does not mean that his path will be the right one in future searches.
(Jorge) I simply said that physics presupposes an objective reality... <snip> ...your answer attacks science in a social and political way, but not in its validity as the correct view of nature, which is the way in which I stated the question, as can be interpreted from its context.
Sam, can you read? Jorge just explained to you why science doesn't
follow the Trabant model. He emphasized that in his last line too. And
I've showed that to you with several examples in previous posts. Just
because you cannot, or pretend not to follow and insist on saying
'science follows the Trabant model' doesn't make it so.
Also, if you had any decent understanding of science, you'd know that
experimentation doesn't show better paths. Experiments just produce
results and we guess at theories to fit them.
Jorge, I hope you realise by now that Sam's main issue is her language
comprehension faculties. And her concern lies mainly in sounding
concerned about the epistemological validity of science. Which I
suspect she never really engaged in, even as a healthy curious child --
as is obvious from her profound misunderstanding of how science is
done, or what it contributes. Sam is an excellent example of 'a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing' -- she has a little knowledge of
post-modern philosophy that tries to deconstruct science, but like
their authors, has absolutely no working knowledge of science or
anything scientific.
-Souvik
Sam Carana wrote:
> (Sam) If experimentation should show what are better paths, then why hang
> on to the dogma that science should be organized along the lines of the
> Trabant model?
(Souvik) Sam, can you read? Jorge just explained to you why science doesn't follow the Trabant model. He emphasized that in his last line too. And I've showed that to you with several examples in previous posts. Just because you cannot, or pretend not to follow and insist on saying 'science follows the Trabant model' doesn't make it so.
Thank you. You have pointed out yourself how superficial the reasoning
behind your conclusion is.
Looks like a blah and feels like a bleeh, isn't evidence. On the other
hand, Jorge and myself have provided you numerous pieces of evidence as
to why anarchy is celebrated in science, so much so that progress in
science is marked by radical revolutions. No other human endeavour
celebrates heresy and intelligent contempt for authority as much as
science.
As for scientists in high positions -- it is merely a result of the
fact that they invent the most useful technology and intellectual
property. It is unfortunate though that given our society's high
dependence on technology, there is so few of us who actually understand
to some degree how things work.
I'm sure if you did science yourself or explored nature independently,
you'd understand these things more clearly.
Sam Carana wrote:
> The conclusion that science is organized along the lines of the Tabant
> model is obvious if we look at the facts: Government spends huge amounts on
> the education system, where science is given a high profile. Government
> controls a huge military budget, where - again - science has a high profile.
> Most scientists are employed either directly or indirectly by the
> government. If it looks like a Trabant, if it sounds like a Trabant and if
> it feels like a Trabant, then the obvious conclusion is that it is a
> Trabant.
Thank you. You have pointed out yourself how superficial the reasoning behind your conclusion is.
Looks like a blah and feels like a bleeh, isn't evidence. On the other hand, Jorge and myself have provided you numerous pieces of evidence as to why anarchy is celebrated in science, so much so that progress in science is marked by radical revolutions. No other human endeavour celebrates heresy and intelligent contempt for authority as much as science.
No, I'm pointing to the fact that 'looks like, feels like' is about all you have to your analogy between the scientific enterprise and the Trabant industry, as you've yourself indicated. It lacks any understanding of how or why science is done. Such 'looks like, feels like' analogies are called superficial.
I submit that few scientists have heard the word "Trabant", so why
should they (we) have an opinion on it?
It is impossible to make useful comment on these questions without
doing science yourself, or at least understanding the internal
principles of science.
Also, if science ever followed the industrial model of today's
successful industries (or any industrial model in fact,) in which offer
and demand, cometition for markets, and making consumers happy are the
main laws... Well, I believe it would stop being science. Science
cannot follow such a model since this would restrict its freedom, the
freedom needed for creativity. Academy and industry are quite different
things; as I said before, making science is not like making cars, you
cannot build a line of production for ideas, these pop up unexpectedly
and often from the strangest places.
Like I said before, it is quite hard to control science, ...
...it is a universal discipline to which anyone in the world with the proper education can contribute, ...
...scientists are not all funded by the same government, ...
...and in many cases money is a secondary interest for scientists.
Furthermore, which government would care if, for example, the Higgs mechanism were proven to be wrong, or that CPT were violated, or that a theory of baryogenesis involving leptogenesis were chosen instead of one involving only electroweak phase transitions? I simply can't find an answer. So I don't see why there is 'government control' in science if governments are not interested in having such a control.
If they did have such a control, I think scientists would rebel and continue disdaining politics in favor of scientifical truth, such as in the middle ages when many scientists risked their lives and reputations to continue with science. In short, I still don't see why science follows "a Trabant model".
Also, if science ever followed the industrial model of today's
successful industries (or any industrial model in fact,) in which offer and demand, cometition for markets, and making consumers happy are the main laws... Well, I believe it would stop being science.
Science cannot follow such a model since this would restrict its freedom, the freedom needed for creativity. Academy and industry are quite different things; as I said before, making science is not like making cars, you cannot build a line of production for ideas, these pop up unexpectedly and often from the strangest places.
Not to say that there's something *terribly* wrong with the way the
science enterprise is structured (in the US or the world), but what is
your alternative?
> Indeed, few scientists seem to be bothered that science is organized along
> the lines of the Trabant model. It's amazing that scientists who strive to
> ban political influence, personal bias and wishful thinking from their
> observations, suddenly abandon all rationality and objectivity when it
> concerns the way science itself is structured.
> Sam
Not to say that there's something *terribly* wrong with the way the science enterprise is structured (in the US or the world), but what is your alternative?
My proposal is that science be reconstructed. The method? As
instructed by the efficacy of the constructive deconstruction used for
other structures! ZZZZZ....
It is your assertion that science is "organized" in that manner. No
one else here agrees with you. Since you have never done science, and
several of the rest of us have, what gives you the right to claim to
know more aboout it than we do?
It would be a wonderful idea.
Sam, you keep speaking of science in terms best fit for industry and economy. But, as I said twice before, science is not an industry, you cannot apply industrial and economical models to science, and you cannot even compare science with an industrial model (like you did when comparing science with the "Trabant model." Science, philosophy, art, literature, etc, are not industries; a model that works in industry, economics, law, monopoly control, etc, cannot be imposed on them simply because they escape such models, they are beyond such models. In fact, I personally think that doing so is a monstrosity
(which is sadly quite common today.) Science does have several problems (including political and epistemological problems,) I simply think that the one you are pointing at is not one of them.
??????? ...Zinnic
My assertion? I'm just giving the facts. Science is funded largely by
government. Most scientists are employed in education or are funded
through the military budget. Government controls the education system
to a large extent and runs the military on a monopoly basis. That's
part of how society is currently organized. What made you think that
this wasn't the case? And what made you think that others here also
deny these undeniable facts? Since you've never done epistemology, what
gave you the illusion that you knew anything about it?
The question is whether science will change once society is structured
differently. Some believed the Trabant was the perfect car and that no
other cars needed to be sold. Would "science" stand any chance if
funding patterns changed? Would there still be "science", or would its
fate be similar to the Trabant?
Sam
Most well paid scientists form the core of non-govt industries.
Pharmacy, biotechnology, telecommunications, information technology,
mining, plastics, automobile.. almost anything you name have scientists
at their core group along with company executives. And as they all
compete against each other, the presently accepted scientific truths
like classical, quantum and relativistic mechanics have been
battletested in every other which way.
It seems to me that you have no real grasp of what science is, how it
is done, who do it, or why it works. But have imbibed some
'post-modern' gibberish from people who also lack the same. You also do
not understand the meaning of the word 'government' and think that the
head of a government is somehow analogous to the head of a religious
organisation.
The problem with epistemologists (like yourself) and most other
'philosophers' is that your understanding of most things are so
superficial (oh, it feels like a Trabant, must be a Trabant!), that
they aren't even wrong!
I wonder how Sam reconciles her claim in quote 1 (post #67,this
thread), with her transparent implication that there is a conspiracy in
quote 2 (post # 70). I added the upper case for emphases!
Quote 1:
"I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY, einseele, it's done quite
openly,
funding for science comes predominantly from government budgets for
education and the military. Whether government also controls TRUTH,
art,
passion and "human reality" is another story?"
Quote 2:
"...there are scenarios that are much superior, because they do not
put control over science into the hands of a single organization.
Instead, there would be multiple organizations each competing with each
other for excellence in all areas. Such competition ensures that none
of them can get away with USING OBSCURE OR MISLEADING RHETORIC. Fierce
competition itself will UNMASK those who are out to use DECEPTIVE ways
of indoctrination, specifically those who PRETENDED there was a need
for an overall arbitor (such as a Pope or a PRESIDENT) to assess WHO
DESERVED funding."
I wonder how Sam reconciles her claim in quote 1 (post #67,this thread), with her transparent implication that there is a conspiracy in quote 2 (post # 70). I added the upper case for emphases!
Quote 1:
"I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY, einseele, it's done quite openly, funding for science comes predominantly from government budgets for education and the military. Whether government also controls TRUTH, art, passion and "human reality" is another story?"
Quote 2:
"...there are scenarios that are much superior, because they do not put control over science into the hands of a single organization. Instead, there would be multiple organizations each competing with each other for excellence in all areas. Such competition ensures that none of them can get away with USING OBSCURE OR MISLEADING RHETORIC. Fierce competition itself will UNMASK those who are out to use DECEPTIVE ways of indoctrination, specifically those who PRETENDED there was a need for an overall arbitor (such as a Pope or a PRESIDENT) to assess WHO DESERVED funding."
The "overall arbitor" you speak of is supposed to be congress, which is
elected by us. However, there is a concept called the "iron triangle"
according to which there is a circle-jerk between congress, military
contractors and the military. Military contractors put jobs in the
congressional districts where the congressman votes for the funding and
the military gives the contracts to those who will build them their
toys. States which do not play the game, such as Oregon, end up with
no military bases and no contracts.
Most well paid scientists form the core of non-govt industries.
Pharmacy, biotechnology, telecommunications, information technology, mining, plastics, automobile.. almost anything you name have scientists at their core group along with company executives. And as they all compete against each other, the presently accepted scientific truths like classical, quantum and relativistic mechanics have been battletested in every other which way.
It seems to me that you have no real grasp of what science is, how it is done, who do it, or why it works. But have imbibed some 'post-modern' gibberish from people who also lack the same. You also do not understand the meaning of the word 'government' and think that the head of a government is somehow analogous to the head of a religious organisation.
The problem with epistemologists (like yourself) and most other 'philosophers' is that your understanding of most things are so superficial (oh, it feels like a Trabant, must be a Trabant!), that they aren't even wrong!
Souvik, didn't you argue earlier that most scientists work to make weapons for the military? You said:
"Scientists get money because they can make bombs, food, transport etc. Weapons, mostly."
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/5c21e58a3d8184a2
The huge regulatory burden of testing and compliance adds further cost to pharmaceutical products and makes life hard for smaller innovative companies. Pharmacists don't object against such high prices, as long as they are the only ones allowed to sell these products. Prices are largely fixed and pharmacists simply add their percentage-based mark-up. Pharmacy, in the way it is currently structured, is the result of educational control, closed shops and the regulatory regime of pharmaceutical products. Clearly, the whole thing is set up under strict government control with little real competition. It smells like a cartel set up purely to let pharmacists exploit an exclusive monopoly.
Many other areas similarly suffer from such government control. In other words, the Trabant model. Instead, more competition would result in lower prices and better services.
Clearly, you seem to dislike epistemology and post-modernism, which seems to be based on some short-sighted inability to read the respective texts. Moreover, you also seem to have a problem with the truth. Why deny the undeniable fact that there's a huge amount of government control in the areas where scientists are employed?
Sam
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Dwight D. Eisenhower said the above in a speech in 1960 or 1961
I worked on a contract job at Rockwell, which built the B-2. There
just happened to be subcontracts in the districts of every congressman in a position to influence the funding.
That "some people claim" something and " openly advocate" the same
thing is not inconsistent.
Now explain how the words you used in the second of the posts I quoted
do not strongly imply that a 'conspiracy' exists! Or do you agree
that it was the poor choice of words on your part, that led to this
misunderstanding?
> BTW, why do you address me as female?
I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?
Have you considered what it'd do to national integration? Have you
considered how easily fragmented such a country would be (if we can
call it that) with high risks of civil unrest without a central
government and force? Such a country would be all to easy to invade,
divide (by playing one military faction against the other) and conquer.
Which is precisely why the world equilibrates at nations with well
defined consolidated militaries!
This has probably been your dumbest suggestion yet!
> BTW, why do you address me as female?
I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?
This has probably been your dumbest suggestion yet!
Sam Carana wrote:
> National integration? What about scientific integrity? Never before in
> history has there been a better time to restructure the military in the US.
> There's no immediate threat of an invasion, yet the military budget is huge.
> If we split up the military into, say, seven different organizations, each
> of these organizations would on their own be capable to protect people
> against possible invasions. There's little risk that any foreign country
> could raise sufficient funding to buy the services of even one of such seven
> organizations, and even if such offers were made, none of the organizations
> would be so stupid to consider that. Civil unrest? That's why these
> organizations should negotiate more directly with their customers. Who would
> want to pay their security service for instigating "civil unrest"? That's
> not in line with how people would want such an organization to act.
> In short, I see no substance behind your claims and I can only conclude
> that you made these claims from the short-sighted perspective of your own
> political bias.
It's not a big deal for a foreign government to buy. Or even alliances of intelligences.
There's also the greater risks of information leak in such a scenario.
And lets say one such organisation does fail to provide the security necessary -- and there is an invasion. Who's responsibility is it then to plug the hole? Certainly, the competing organisations would rather not -- they'd rather show the people that the other guys were a bad choice. Monetary interests rather than national interests would drive them to take their time in plugging the hole if they do.
By civil unrest, I mean, one organisation with sufficient military control over a region might coup the region's government and begin militancy against other such organisations in an effort to gain power.
> > This has probably been your dumbest suggestion yet!
> >
> Time and again, such remarks show character. I suspect that you are driven
> by political motives, but if so you should have the integrity to say that
> this is the case, rather than to put yourself forward as a self-appointed
> spokesman for scientists. It's people like you who give science a bad name.
This has nothing to do with science. And I'm being as objective
possible about this -- you're just plain fucking dumb. Sure, you'll interpret it as me having a hidden political agenda -- but I have none, seriously. You're just a nut. Who thinks citizenship is akin to customer-ship.
And while the country's being looted and ransacked,its people are
wisely deciding their next mercenary military organisation (none of
which are answerable to the people, as they are non-government and
purely on contract)! You don't understand the word 'invasion', do you?
Those things do happen when there is not enough military deterence.
Military powers and structures at a national level cannot be changed
overnight like your antivirus software, you numbnut.
> By civil unrest, I mean, one organisation with sufficient military control
> > over a region might coup the region's government and begin militancy against
> > other such organisations in an effort to gain power.
> Are you kidding? That's the very situation we're in now. If that worries
> you, then the more reason for you to support my proposal to split up the
> military.
So, give me an example of civil unrest and governments being couped.
> It has everything to do with science. Scientists work hand in hand with
> government, typically supporting its every move and getting a nice paycheck
> in the process (talking about monetary interests), which makes it even
> harder if not impossible for other organizations to offer security services
> in competition with the military. It's time that we recognize the political
> view behind this for what it is. And it's time for scientists to speak out
> when they're being used as a mouthpiece for this kind of politics. It's time
> for scientists to respect the importance of this issue, rather than to show
> the kind of disrespect that you keep up not just towards me, but by
> implication to all members of this group and the public in general. You
> condemn yourself with your own words and give scientists a bad name in the
> process.
Scientists get equal if not more money from private industries.
What you are proposing is not politically revolutionary. Nor do I see
it causing a decrease in science funding (there are plenty of private
industries with science funds comparable to a nation's). What I see is
that you are not prepared to follow through with your own thoughts. You
think up a concept and keep pushing it against all odds and believing
in it without attacking it from all corners yourself first.
Such shallow people earn my disrespect immediately.
OK. So you agree that the "government' and 'public schooling' system
are not dedicated to "indocrinating" present and future citizens with
the intention of making them incapable of "independent thinking".
I am glad we have 'cleared' that up. It was one of your contentions
that I found hard to accept!
> Competition will ensure that providers of services will have less
> opportunity to deceive customers. When there's more competition, customers
> can and will demand that suppliers make their offers on clear terms. What is
> there about this that you fail to understand?
What's not to understand? This is perfectly clear to everyone who
supports a mixed economy. However, even minimally educated citizens
recognize that rampant competition, in the absence of some societal
regulation, leads to anarchy! What represents an appropriate degree
and quality of 'government' regulation is really at the core of our
disagreement.
>Are you perhaps seeking to deliberately twist my words, in the short-sighted >belief that this would advance your standing in this group? Or, is there some >political motivation behind this?
Naughty! Naughty! As you state below "in serious discussion, issues are
discussed, not personalities".
> > BTW, why do you address me as female?
> >
> > I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?
> >
> > Because in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not personalities. It
> may be typical for some who loose the plot to degenerate into personal
> attacks, but that only indicated that such a person had nothing else to
> contribute to the discussion, other than twisting people's words and
> personally attacking them for the sake of it.
I agree, but only a misogynist would feel that my referring to you as
female is a 'personal attack'. If you are male, say so. Otherwise, what
is your point Samantha?
I am sure you agree that it is reasonable to expect some explanation
when a statement is questioned, or some justification is requested. I
would have more respect for your 'epistemology, if only you would be
more forthcoming in your responses (N.B. this is a critiscm, not a
personal attack). For example,I (and others) have repeatedly questioned
your claim that-- splitting the "military monopoly" in order to open
it to competition would greatly improve the protection of the USA
against 'foreign' entities that wish us harm.
If your proposal is to "split" the active arm of the military, I have
absolutely no idea how you envisage it be accomplished. Presumably you
have given it some thought and have some ideas as to what first steps
would be necessary for market place competition to operate in this
sphere. I requsted previously, and request again, that you either
establish some semblance of practicality for your proposal, or admit
that it raises serious problems for which you have no answer.
However, in a recent post you qoute Eisenhower's prescient warning to
the country of the inherent dangers of the Military -Industrial
complex. If it is this complex you are intent on "splitting", then why
did you not not say so long ago. There would have been little argument
against this intent, but I am sure there would have been a great deal
of useful discussion as to the means.
So let us quit squabbling and simply address the motes in my eye and
the beams in yours :-)...Zinnic
If one violates the secrecy oath, one loses one's job and goes to jail. Not a very good incentive for "speaking out".
OK. So you agree that the "government' and 'public schooling' system are not dedicated to "indocrinating" present and future citizens with the intention of making them incapable of "independent thinking". I am glad we have 'cleared' that up. It was one of your contentions that I found hard to accept!
> Competition will ensure that providers of services will have
> less opportunity to deceive customers. When there's more
> competition, customers can and will demand that suppliers > make their offers on clear terms. What is there about this
> that you fail to understand?
What's not to understand? This is perfectly clear to everyone who supports a mixed economy. However, even minimally educated citizens recognize that rampant competition, in the absence of some societal regulation, leads to anarchy! What represents an appropriate degree and quality of 'government' regulation is really at the core of our disagreement.
>Are you perhaps seeking to deliberately twist my words, in the short-sighted >belief that this would advance your standing in this group? Or, is there some >political motivation behind this?
Naughty! Naughty! As you state below "in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not personalities".
> > BTW, why do you address me as female?
> >
> > I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?
> >
> > Because in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not personalities. It
> may be typical for some who loose the plot to degenerate into personal
> attacks, but that only indicated that such a person had nothing else to
> contribute to the discussion, other than twisting people's words and
> personally attacking them for the sake of it.
I agree, but only a misogynist would feel that my referring to you as female is a 'personal attack'. If you are male, say so. Otherwise, what is your point Samantha?
I am sure you agree that it is reasonable to expect some explanation when a statement is questioned, or some justification is requested. I would have more respect for your 'epistemology, if only you would be more forthcoming in your responses ( N.B. this is a critiscm, not a personal attack).
For example,I (and others) have repeatedly questioned
your claim that-- splitting the "military monopoly" in order to open it to competition would greatly improve the protection of the USA against 'foreign' entities that wish us harm.
If your proposal is to "split" the active arm of the military, I have
absolutely no idea how you envisage it be accomplished. Presumably you have given it some thought and have some ideas as to what first steps would be necessary for market place competition to operate in this sphere. I requsted previously, and request again, that you either establish some semblance of practicality for your proposal, or admit that it raises serious problems for which you have no answer.
However, in a recent post you qoute Eisenhower's prescient warning to the country of the inherent dangers of the Military -Industrial complex. If it is this complex you are intent on "splitting", then why did you not not say so long ago. There would have been little argument against this intent, but I am sure there would have been a great deal of useful discussion as to the means.
So let us quit squabbling and simply address the motes in my eye and the beams in yours :-)...Zinnic
Sam Carana wrote:
> An Invasion? Again, if one such organization is prone to fail in regard to
> the security services customers want, then those customers will switch to
> another organization. That is the best guarantee against inferior services.
And while the country's being looted and ransacked, and its people are wisely deciding their next mercenary military organisation (none of which are answerable to the people, as they are non-government and purely on contract). You don't understand the word 'invasion', do you?
Military powers and structures at a national level cannot be changed overnight like your antivirus software, you numbnut.
> By civil unrest, I mean, one organisation with sufficient military control
> > over a region might coup the region's government and begin militancy against
> > other such organisations in an effort to gain power.
>
> Are you kidding? That's the very situation we're in now. If that worries
> you, then the more reason for you to support my proposal to split up the
> military.
So, give me an example of civil unrest and governments being couped.
> It has everything to do with science. Scientists work hand in hand with
> government, typically supporting its every move and getting a nice paycheck
> in the process (talking about monetary interests), which makes it even
> harder if not impossible for other organizations to offer security services
> in competition with the military. It's time that we recognize the political
> view behind this for what it is. And it's time for scientists to speak out
> when they're being used as a mouthpiece for this kind of politics. It's time
> for scientists to respect the importance of this issue, rather than to show
> the kind of disrespect that you keep up not just towards me, but by
> implication to all members of this group and the public in general. You
> condemn yourself with your own words and give scientists a bad name in the
> process.
Scientists get equal if not more money from private industries.
What you are proposing is not politically revolutionary.
Nor do I see it causing a decrease in science funding (there are plenty of private industries with science funds comparable to a nation's).
What I see is that you are not prepared to follow through with your own thoughts. You think up a concept and keep pushing it against all odds and believing in it without attacking it from all corners yourself first.
Madam, I beg you not continue to impugn my integrity! Are you perhaps
seeking to deliberately twist my words, in the short-sighted belief
that this would advance your standing in this group? Is there some
political motivation behind this?
Oh! dear! (I am so sorry. That was the old Zinnic). I really do not
know where these words come from! It's just that I get so frustrated
at my failure to communicate with you. They just spew out.
.> > What's not to understand? This is perfectly clear to everyone who
supports
> > a mixed economy. However, even minimally educated citizens recognize that
> > rampant competition, in the absence of some societal regulation, leads to
> > anarchy! What represents an appropriate degree and quality of 'government'
> > regulation is really at the core of our disagreement.
>
> What our disagreement was is hard to figure out if the only thing you
> appear to be posting is a string of insults and personal attacks. I have
> clarified my proposal, which is to have more competition in security
> services.
Yes I agree. I also find it hard to see where our disagreements arise.
I suspect it must be when I encourage you to come up with a bit of
substance.
But that is all in the past. Let us make a fresh start
.> > > BTW, why do you address me as female?
> > > >
> > > > I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?
> > > >
> > > > Because in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not
> > personalities. It
> > > may be typical for some who loose the plot to degenerate into personal
> > > attacks, but that only indicated that such a person had nothing else to
> > > contribute to the discussion, other than twisting people's words and
> > > personally attacking them for the sake of it.
> >
> > I agree, but only a misogynist would feel that my referring to you as
> > female is a 'personal attack'. If you are male, say so. Otherwise, what is
> > your point Samantha?
> >
> > I am sure you agree that it is reasonable to expect some explanation when
> > a statement is questioned, or some justification is requested. I would have
> > more respect for your 'epistemology, if only you would be more forthcoming
> > in your responses (N.B. this is a critiscm, not a personal attack).
>
> Let's get one thing clear; You haven't come up with any "criticism" yet.
> You have made numerous personal attacks on the basis of mere presumptions of
> what I said, in some cases even deliberate twisting of my words. If you have
> questions, feel encouraged to ask them, but stop diverting into
> pseudo-intellectual wordplay that effectively constitutes yet another
> personal attack.
Sorry! Looks like I am too presumptious. My excuse is that I presumed
that my claims, that you are not forthcoming with answers and that your
proposals lack practicallity, were critiscms rather than personal
attacks. But from now on I will abide by whatever you decide is, or is
not, a personal attack.
> > For example,I (and others) have repeatedly questioned
> > your claim that-- splitting the "military monopoly" in order to open it to
> > competition would greatly improve the protection of the USA against
> > 'foreign' entities that wish us harm.
>
> Sure, we can have a debate on the question whether splitting up the
> military would improve the protection of the USA against 'foreign' entities
> that wish to harm us. But before we engage into such a debate, we should
> give some thought to the question we are to debate. What are 'foreign'
> entities? What constitues harm? What about civil war, or civil "unrest"? My
> proposal was to split up the military. Given your record here, you must
> understand that I'm a bit cautious that you again seek to twist my words,
> put words into my mouth, etc. Before going into a long debate, let's make
> sure that what we're debating, is in fact what we want to debate, so we
> don't end up with a huge dispute about something neither of us never even
> said in the first place.
>
Sure, I agree that you must define our terms, otherwise this
discussion could wander outside the bounds of your strict epistemology.
Before we start, should we not agree on what you think constitutes a
debate? To avoid any of my unwitting personal attacks in the future, I
suggest we adhere strictly to TWO rules-
How about ---(i)you propose and (ii)I agree?. No more, no less.
If this meets with your approval, let the games begin!
I agree! Brilliant! Seven mini militia, each equipped appropriately
with weapons that each believes will best discourage foreign
encrouchment on the freedom of the whole US of A.
A modest proposal, er ... suggestion. Each mini-militia should make TV
presentations in which they first pledge their integrity and then
describe their national defence plans whilst detailing their own
strengths versus the weaknesses of the competing militias. Of course it
must be made illegal for foreigners to watch these presentations. They
should be open to the American public only.
In addition, a group of leading epistemologist could devise a survival
type reality TV program. The seven militias would be encouraged to
'strut their stuff' in a series of such programs. The overall
winner of the series would be selected by the votes of the viewing
public. What think you?
I agree that this raises the problem of how the vote could be recorded
without the malign influence of foreign interests. My suggestion (not
proposal) to protect against fraudulent mail-in votes by foreign
nationals, is that the public record on their 1040 tax returns as to
which militia they vote be awarded the Federal taxes relating to
national defence and homeland security.
> >.So let us quit squabbling and simply address the motes in my eye and the
> >beams in yours :-)...Zinnic
>I welcome your intention to engage in more serious discussion. I sincerely
>hope you will keep that focus. As yet, I haven't seen much of your views, so
>I look forward to discuss things in more detail. :)
Sam
Forgive me Mother, I have sinned for which I am heartedly sorry. But I
have made a start above and I am so happy to now participate in a
serious discussion on the first steps needed to split the military.
However dangers still lie ahead. For example, there may be unintended
consequences such as the rise of six mini military-industrial
complexes. We must plan some safe guard against this, but all in due
time, as the saying goes!
Much remains to be accomplished. We must put our trust in the strong
arm of epistemologically correct private competition. We must recruit
a host of patriots to support us in our endeavours to establish your
champions of free enterprise-viz- the Magnificent Seven Militias. The
past is the past and the future lies ahead of us. (Provided that you
agree of course!).
Zinnic
Zinnic means your 'conspiracy theory' when he says conspiracy. It is a
view:
"... with particular reference to the mass media, this view assumes
that a small and powerful, and often hidden, élite are able to use the
mass media to condition and persuade passive audiences into conforming
to the powerful élite's wishes. It depends very much on the notion of
all-powerful media and easily duped audiences. ... "
It is not necessarily secretive.