Technology and Nature

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

Clemsy is on to the main issue here. Look at this website:

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

Or this one...

http://www.icr.org/article/177/

These are examples of using science to create "reality" in the postmodern narrative sense.

We are seeing the same trend in arguments against global climate change.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. »

Hey folks.

This got me to thinking part of what is being discussed here is having to do with this idea of what truth is; ( and although subjective in a sense ); how this might have to do with both ( logic and interpretation ).

Here are links to Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth


One quote I thought interesting:

" Many religions consider perfect knowledge of all truth about all things ( omniscience ) to to be an attribute of a divine or supernatural being. "

( This may be where a small part of the disconnect lies. :wink: )


This part of the interpretation of what constitutes a view of what reality ( is ); and it's constructs may provide a whole different avenue than what you are trying to address. ( Just saying. ) :idea:


Cheers
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

The search for truth is largely the search for permanence...certainty. It's no wonder it is nowhere to be found!

For time out of mind, it was true that the sun revolved around the earth and there was little reason to dispute this...but it was not true.

The religions that codified words only made this problem worse. They offered false Truth, and it has been a steady deconstruction of this misguided notion ever since. Putting Truth in to the lap of the gods only kicks the ball down the road.

It seems to me that the only reasonable approach to understanding the intersection of science and technology is to put the subject of the discussion into it's proper context and make the best evaluation that one can at that moment in time. It is when these subjects are taken for granted that we get into trouble time and time again...

We construct. We are world makers. The processes of galaxy formation are most likely not much different from solar system formation, which are not much different from planet formation, which are not much different from ecosystem formation, which are not much different from theory formation. The same is most likely true of deconstruction, only in reverse. That said, it does seem that construction takes much longer than deconstruction does.

Perhaps this is one of the key psychological factors associated with not wanting to let go of what has been built...the need for permanence and certainty.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Evinnra wrote: Ever since the era of postmodernism it is possible to argue just about anything.
Is not science the antithesis of postmodernism?

Science is the search for truth regardless of its quixoticness, whereas post modernism is the denial of truth as a truth?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

Science is the search for truth regardless of its quixoticness, whereas post modernism is the denial of truth as a truth? -Rom
I would say you got that last sentence wrong...it is better said that it is the denial of truth as Truth. The capitalization matters quite a bit.

Are you able to separate your perceptions from reality? If not, what do you know about realty? If so, what do you know about reality?

Do we live in an either/or universe? Or is it perhaps better described as a continuum of experiences without clearly defined absolute differences? Is it both? Neither?
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

At this point I think it's wise to issue a caution about staying on topic! I sense another PM dust up! OMG. please no! :lol:
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Aw, come on now, the postmodernism debate was delightful. :mrgreen:
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Cindy B. wrote:Aw, come on now, the postmodernism debate was delightful. :mrgreen:
Are not all threads connected?
It is the pluralistically minded mod's job to parse these threads. ;)
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

Ah...those were heady days, indeed. :lol:
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. »

jonsjourney wrote:Ah...those were heady days, indeed. :lol:
They sure were Jon and everyone. This post linked was 2009; but there were also older ones that had awesome input.( There is so much great discussion buried within these forums from earlier times before the last technical change over in 2007 that got the post order scrambled. ) I wonder what challenges the new format is going to present with this older material. The newer stuff will not be affected as to the order when it was posted. But I am confused concerning these older ones; it sounds like they may be accessible but in a limited way if I understand the last update. ( :?: ) Clemsy is that right? :?

( I realize this is a technical question that may be better answered in the " Compound " forum so as not to derail the thread.) :wink:
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Not a problem, James. The existing threads will be available as 'read-only' at this point in the plan. Even the older ones.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

IMO, the problem arises (partly) from seeing science as a way of arriving at the truth. It is nothing of the sort. Science is a methodology for establishing facts, with evidence. The difference between scientific fact and subjective truth is that the former can be verified by anybody, even without believing in it. For example, you may want to believe in a geocentric universe, but the earth goes around the sun just the same.

Science does not reveal the nature of "reality": it gives us a workable model of reality which can be used to explain and predict its behaviour. Sometimes the model has to be refined as the paradigm shifts: for example, from Classical to Relativistic to Quantum. But the model remains dependable (the key word) in the paradigm which it is used.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

But the model remains dependable (the key word) in the paradigm which it is used.

Nandu.
Except in the case of natural disasters (otherwise known as "Acts of God").
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

No, Neo. The model is dependable. Only the level of uncertainty is more.

Nowadays, with the improved capability of instrumentation and computation, the level of accuracy in the prediction of weather has improved out of all recognition - I remember, during my childhood, the weather predictions on the radio were a joke ("tomorrow, there is a chance that rain with or without thunder and lightning may or may not occur" was a standard announcement at the beginning of the monsoon!). Nowadays, I find that I can (and often do) plan my activities based on weather predictions available on the internet. In similar vein, we have come to a stage where we can successfully predict the occurrence of storms and typhoons and the path they are likely to move.

In the case of earthquakes, the level of uncertainty is much higher, so the prediction is more dicey. What else is probability other than lack of perfect knowledge?

However, these predictions are much more dependable than those of crackpots based on the Mayan calendar, IMO, which predicts the end of the world before the coming new year. :wink:

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Neoplato wrote:
But the model remains dependable (the key word) in the paradigm which it is used.

Nandu.
Except in the case of natural disasters (otherwise known as "Acts of God").
God as a metaphor for the power of what we call "nature" is simply another name for nature as a separate part of our experience.

Science observes nature, and our ability to observe is getting so much better that we can not only begin to predict disasters, but we know that our own collective actions (most especially through economic and political mega-institutions) can drive the weather and CAUSE disasters.

The fossil fuel economy of the United States and other nations is directly causally linked to both the force and likelihood of a hurricane such as Sandy. :twisted:

Wall Street gave itself a bath in the waters of the Atlantic. They are greedy, stupid and powerful enough to drown themselves by the same means.

Disasters are not always Acts of God, but Acts of People, who are willing to risk their own lives and the lives of everyone on the planet for short term financial gain.

That we allow this to happen makes us complicit in disasters like Sandy.

The causal links are starting to be more and more obvious.

:shock:

Some natural disasters are Acts of People. :!:

We, The People, in order to form a more perfect Union, created corporate persons whose greedy, selfish, short-sighted lies and corrupt propaganda have taken over our law, our life and our liberty.

So sayeth CarmelaBear.

~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene

Locked