Ark - where are you headed?

[Search]

I try to read Arc's article 'Definition of 'Science'' on Poish today. It wasn't so hard to read as I thought. I understand almost everything. Polish language is very similar to Ukrainian and Russian. So I'd need a little more practise and I would be able to read on Polish.

I was always unhappy with the fact that so many ‘minds’ are wasted on nothing, researching the weapons, new ‘murder vehicles’, etc. If all of these minds rather than inventing weapons, explore the areas of science that could help humanity. For example, If all of these who are the ‘government’, do not hamper such projects of invention the alternative sources of energy, (although there are a lot of such projects but oil tycoons simply do not ’allow’ them to exist) a lot of thing would have changed…

Thanks Arc.

 

[Nević Nenad]

I am not sure, however, what would be the optimal form for that. A series of notes? Like blog entries? Perhaps.

I think that would be perfect, when and if you have the time for it. It could be as interactive as you decide, and kind of like your own fireside chat :)

In the end what I'm asking is, "do you have the time to explain your work non-mathematically?". For us "challenged" this way?

Time does not exist. So, surely, I do not have time. On the other hand there are clocks and they seem to run forward rather than backward. I do have many clocks around me (even, someone would say, too many). So I can use these clocks to schedule time periods for describing some of my work in English and without math. I am not sure, however, what would be the optimal form for that. A series of notes? Like blog entries? Perhaps. I like it better than writing a large piece. Something to think about. Thanks.

Some small pieces when the urge hits you would be absolutely awesome. Here or a blog entry maybe if you find there are not formatting options enough for you here (like you want to show math in an aesthetically cleaner form than possible here).

Yeah, that would be so great whenever you find the time, Ark. :) You can do relatively short entries in installments -- elaborating from previous posts or covering new, related topics, etc. Perhaps even carrying them on SOTT after they're published?

Just to add a vote from me, another "mathematically challenged" person :D That would be great!

 

[shijing]

Ark, if/when you have time, could you post a brief evaluation of Julian Barbour's work mentioned in this thread? Nothing long or complicated (unless that's what you prefer -- I'm sure people would like to read that too!). To the extent that I understand the concepts, they seem to fit fairly well with what the C's have said about time, probability, and maybe gravity -- but those concepts are predicated on his math, and I'm completely helpless in being able to evaluate that. Barbour also mentions Lee Smolin and Paul Davies favorably, so if there is anything to his work, they might be worth reading too. But if you think he's on the wrong track, I don't want to put more time into it or direct other people to something that's ultimately a dead end.

 

[Bobo08]

How do you try and entice the curiosity, or open the mind, of someone who doesn't believe or accept anything that is not 'proven' by scientific peer review?
Someone who doesn't believe there was ever a global flood - because there is no 'hard proof'?
Someone who believes flouride is good for your teeth, that wars are beneficial because they 'create jobs' and an environment where scientific discoveries progress in leaps and bounds....

It breaks my heart that I can't pull the blinkers away for one second.

Hi Soluna,

You don't try to entice the curiosity or open the mind of someone who doesn't want to. Period. This is the one mistake that most of us made when we first discovered Laura's work and this forum. Everything just makes so much sense to us and we want so much to impart this to others, especially those close to us. In the end, it just doesn't work. It will even alienate and push them away from what you want to draw them to. Remember that the first and foremost right of any being is free will and that includes the right to remain in ignorance.

 

[SoCurious]

and none of these inventions has failed to work because, as we now know, Clerk Maxwell's views were in many ways inadequate.

The inventions work even though Maxwell wasn't wholly right?

Before we call science evil could we not classify areas of science. Say into scientific research and scientific application. Scientific research when used to understand and grow in knowledge is different to the application of such knowledge for unethical applications. We know that knowledge is good, it is unfortunate that the general ethical and moral standards of those who apply the knowledge hasn't kept pace with the growth of knowledge. Even the most STO oriented scientist's work can be perverted.

I don't think it is the pursuit of knowledge that is wrong and in this respect science cannot be called evil. Is not the application of scientific discovery more of an engineering discipline?

These evils of our time are all due in part to scientific technique, and therefore ultimately to science.

If this were completely true, wouldn't an ethical society be constrained to stop scientific endeavour?

It is not the pursuit of knowledge we need to put an end to but rather the antisocial use we make of such knowledge. As long as we have a society based on profit and power and not on true democracy and respect for each other, I would put the blame on society and not science as it is our entire social paradigm that creates the conditions whereby science is perverted towards to achievement of unethical goals.

 

[Denis]

We know that knowledge is good, it is unfortunate that the general ethical and moral standards of those who apply the knowledge hasn't kept pace with the growth of knowledge. Even the most STO oriented scientist's work can be perverted.

Hi Richard.

I just want to add my perspective and understanding of knowledge. I don't think that knowledge is good or bad in & of itself, I'd say knowledge is power and as I heard somewhere: with great power comes great responsibility. If you use/apply knowledge irresponsibly bad things happen, not necessarily to YOU but undoubtedly to those around you. Umm, I am trying to say that what we do with knowledge defines our level of being, OSIT.

It is not the pursuit of knowledge we need to put an end to but rather the antisocial use we make of such knowledge. As long as we have a society based on profit and power and not on true democracy and respect for each other, I would put the blame on society and not science as it is our entire social paradigm that creates the conditions whereby science is perverted towards to achievement of unethical goals.

I'd say we're all responsible (some of us more, and some of us less) for the mess we have today. It's our ignorance that got us here in the 1st place. As long as we have pathological individuals on positions of authority, we'll have the same list of problems (if not more) as we have today.
Education is the key to solving problems, so I obviously need to learn a lot more than I know now.

 

[SoCurious]

I just want to add my perspective and understanding of knowledge. I don't think that knowledge is good or bad in & of itself, I'd say knowledge is power and as I heard somewhere: with great power comes great responsibility.

Nicely said Denis :)

I'm of the opinion that we try to apportion blame to specific targets far too often. The circumstances that give rise to events are never isolated but are rather the consequence of multiple influences. Science itself is not wholly to blame as the institution of science is very much a reflection of the world it inhabits. Everything affects everything.

If we were to say science is evil it would follow that scientists are therefore evil. This would mean that Ark is evil and this is something I am not prepared countenance. So if Ark is not evil then we can't say that science is either.

We live an STS existence, for sure, but I also believe we have great potential for STO. If we can overcome the conditioning of centuries STO would flower. As we've sunk so deeply into STS it will take a major, really enormous, event to turns things around. Before that happens, and we're know it's imminent, we should be living our lives responsibly, and as each of us possesses great power we need to exercise great responsibility.

As Laura has pointed out, anger can be a good thing in its proper context. Justifiable anger is extremely potent. Perhaps we should be channeling anger constructively and responsibly?

 

[anart]

I'm of the opinion that we try to apportion blame to specific targets far too often.

It seems that you have a tendency to fall into 'black and white' thinking at times. It really isn't a matter of 'blame', it is a matter of objective observation. There is a middle ground here where a valid observation about the path that science has taken is not only possible, but required, and this observation can be made without having it define science itself, at its core.

 

[Laura]

Richard, when Ark's book comes out, you can read there a more in-depth treatment of this topic and his distinction between science and Science. There is Science, the established mainstream "consensus" that is dominated by pathology in literally every field. The dominating element is devoted to, and determined to impose, a totally material view of the Universe and all within it; "Natural Selection" is its god, and random accident is its dogma. The reasons for this are that most pathological types are informed by fragments of a soul pool and, for them, god is "out there" somewhere. But, because of their extreme narcissism (a conflict between their own godlikeness and no apparent inner/self-reflective element), this "god" must be a random, accidental, process that has no real authority over them or their behaviors. This leaves them free to do and be as they like with no consequences.

And then, there is science, a cognitive style that seeks Truth. Obviously, most scientists are inculcated into Science, and do not actually practice science. But there are a few who do, most of them dissidents.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

 

[ark]

Two quotes from today's Polish blog entry about the needs of curiosity and of intellectual freedom in Science:

2007 report of the European Research Council “What Makes Scientists Creative?”

"Humans are curious by nature and have been seeking knowledge about the universe, our natural environment, our past and future since ancient times. Scientists exhibit a heightened level of curiosity. They go further and deeper into basic questions showing a passion for knowledge for its own sake.
Curiosity is the driving force of basic, or pure, science. The desire to go beyond the established frontiers of knowledge, to explore the boundaries of discipline and to resolve unanswered questions, is motivated essentially by human inquisitiveness."

Bertrand Russell, in "Religion and Science":

"Those to whom intellectual freedom is personally important may be a minority in the community, but among them are the men of most importance to the future. We have seen the importance of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin in the history of mankind, and it is not to be supposed that the future will produce no more such men. If they are prevented from doing their work and having their due effect, the human race will stagnate, and a new Dark Age will succeed, as the earlier Dark Age succeeded the brilliant period of antiquity. New truth is often uncomfortable, especially to the holders of power; nevertheless, amid the long record of cruelty and bigotry, it is the most important achievement of our intelligent but wayward species."

 

[SoCurious]

It seems that you have a tendency to fall into 'black and white' thinking at times.

Indeed I do :) I will often see something and resort to arguing from the opposite end to show that both points are no good on their own. I exercised my mind in this regard a long time ago by writing down all the problems we seem to mutually experience, detailing the prevalent viewpoints and trying to find a third way that made better sense. Since then I seem to be inundated with a million ideas in response to a single viewpoint, which makes it difficult to even talk without going off on too many tangents. I resort to black and white because in my experience it's very easy to find a third way or middle ground after that.

Richard, when Ark's book comes out, you can read there a more in-depth treatment of this topic and his distinction between science and Science. There is Science, the established mainstream "consensus" that is dominated by pathology in literally every field. The dominating element is devoted to, and determined to impose, a totally material view of the Universe and all within it; "Natural Selection" is its god, and random accident is its dogma. The reasons for this are that most pathological types are informed by fragments of a soul pool and, for them, god is "out there" somewhere. But, because of their extreme narcissism (a conflict between their own godlikeness and no apparent inner/self-reflective element), this "god" must be a random, accidental, process that has no real authority over them or their behaviors. This leaves them free to do and be as they like with no consequences.

And then, there is science, a cognitive style that seeks Truth. Obviously, most scientists are inculcated into Science, and do not actually practice science. But there are a few who do, most of them dissidents.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

That's quite simply, beautifully put.

Ark lol excellent quotations. Long live science! (small s )

 

[anart]

It seems that you have a tendency to fall into 'black and white' thinking at times.

Indeed I do :)

Well, it might benefit you to work on that tendency since reality lies in the gray areas. You'll get plenty of opportunities on the forum to work on it, if you're so interested.

 

[SoCurious]

I fall into black and white at times

I live mostly in the grey areas as a result of the exercise I mentioned.

detailing the prevalent viewpoints and trying to find a third way that made better sense. Since then I seem to be inundated with a million ideas in response to a single viewpoint, which makes it difficult to even talk without going off on too many tangents. I resort to black and white because in my experience it's very easy to find a third way or middle ground after that.

Perhaps I should have expanded it...

detailing the prevalent dualistic viewpoints and trying to find a third way that made better sense. Since then I seem to be inundated with a million ideas in response to a single every viewpoint, which makes it difficult to even talk without going off on too many tangents. I resort to black and white because in my experience it's very easy easier to find a third way or middle ground after that. Trying to fit every idea into a response would result in book length responses. However, where time and space and inclination permit I'm happy to explore all the options with whoever else is interested.

 

[anart]

I fall into black and white at times

I live mostly in the grey areas as a result of the exercise I mentioned.

detailing the prevalent viewpoints and trying to find a third way that made better sense. Since then I seem to be inundated with a million ideas in response to a single viewpoint, which makes it difficult to even talk without going off on too many tangents. I resort to black and white because in my experience it's very easy to find a third way or middle ground after that.

Perhaps I should have expanded it...

detailing the prevalent dualistic viewpoints and trying to find a third way that made better sense. Since then I seem to be inundated with a million ideas in response to a single every viewpoint, which makes it difficult to even talk without going off on too many tangents. I resort to black and white because in my experience it's very easy easier to find a third way or middle ground after that. Trying to fit every idea into a response would result in book length responses. However, where time and space and inclination permit I'm happy to explore all the options with whoever else is interested.

When I speak of black and white thinking, I do so in the context of strict 'either/or' thinking. This type of thinking is covered in the Narcissism 'Big 5' books listed in the recommended reading section. If you've not read those, I highly encourage it. It's more about a general reactivity in thinking than it is about sorting things out in your mind, so you may be misunderstanding what I'm pointing out.

Concise clear posts are a reflection of concise, clear thinking, so there is no need to write book length responses. It is important to consider the idea that the truth often does not lie in the 'middle ground'. It often lies at one end or the other, so consistently looking for middle ground might actually lead you away from the truth. fwiw.

 

[Guardian]

I've always thought of Theoretical Physics as a religion for really smart people. ;)