Perhaps all the moralism, and all the self sanctified enlightenment is in its way the biggest fuel for the evils they themselves deride?
What do you suggest should replace science? I feel science should evolve, not throw out the virtues it held in its earliest beginnings. How well is reality as mechanism serving us? Does mainstream science seem willing to view it any other way?
How do you feel about the notion that the answer to all of society’s problems with you is to socially engineer you into complacency? I honestly mean the question. How have the ethics of progress served us? Where is the labour saving utopia? Why aren’t the world’s uses for planetary resources now engineered well enough to eliminate war?
We just have to tackle one problem at a time because humans are selfish and greedy. One problem at a time gives rise to an endless list of one problem. One problem solved by itself gives rise to a new problem, does it not? What if the problem isn’t labour but intention, not knowledge but understanding, and no amount of knowledge or labour will correct it?
Whether people like it or not we are irrational beings. Whether it’s pleasing or not, we all form a metaphysics of what reality is and why it’s that way. Is this unfair to say? What beliefs has science offered us for understanding their knowledge?
I thought they disavow doing that. They do indeed. They just say it’s a mystery, one they may someday solve with more of the same of what they are doing, but nothing in their current theories gives any hint of how that will even be possible. And they are nearing the “unified field theory” if the Higgs boson proves as fruitful as they say, then understanding the rest of the physical world will prove to be a mere technicality.
Beliefs like the simplest answer tends to be the truth? Indeed, Occam’s razor is used by them. Funny thing about that, though, is that principle pre-dates science as it’s being practiced right now. It’s “only philosophy.”
What is Higgs boson? The Higgs boson is the particle that gives all matter its mass. It behaves by itself as a complex fluid of sorts, and particles moving through it pick up a resistance that gives them the ability to pull on other particles. That’s a loose approximation at least.
So, have I offended everyone thoroughly yet?
What would replace science? An advanced form of “computation”, nonlinear, non-heuristic, capable of seeing disparate algorithms as the parts of the complex matrix they are, each dynamic in its own place, and would lead to an ability to anticipate evolution not only of our self but of the physical world in such a way that the greatest good for all beings could be achieved. Sound like nonsense?
While each component is viewed as a closed system, and each thing seen as a machine that has no relationship to the whole, no purpose, well… Where do you feel we will be?
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.