Science as a Brief Candle in the Dark

[rousseau]

A few maxims on epistemology, science, and religion:

- we cannot perceive that which we do not know
- so: before the rise of science, the material nature of the universe was largely unknowable
- so: religion/myth predominated
- so: knowledge of the universe, secularism, materialism, is contingent on modern science and similar
- so: all of us are only secular because secularism is now knowable

Science as a Brief Candle in the Dark

 

[ruby sparks]

Yup.

Also, modern civilisation, democracy, wealth and wellbeing. My guess is that if and when the shit ever hits the fan for humans (global catastrophe-wise) superstitions such as religion will dramatically increase again.

Not good (if true) but might at least make many of us feel more grateful for and appreciative of the present, even if it's imperfect. Most of us here live in fortunate times.

 

[untermensche]

We live in an age where science is everywhere.

And the minds of people are still easily deluded by scams like Qanon and Scientology.

And scammers who don't know any science win presidential elections.

 

[rousseau]

We live in an age where science is everywhere.

And the minds of people are still easily deluded by scams like Qanon and Scientology.

And scammers who don't know any science win presidential elections.

Might be part and parcel to the principles listed in the OP.

Science is more common, but 'everywhere' might be a bit of a stretch.

 

[rousseau]

Yup.

Also, modern civilisation, democracy, wealth and wellbeing. My guess is that if and when the shit ever hits the fan for humans (global catastrophe-wise) superstitions such as religion will dramatically increase again.

Not good (if true) but might at least make many of us feel more grateful for and appreciative of the present, even if it's imperfect. Most of us here live in fortunate times.

This is also why I'm a little more sympathetic than most to pre-modern communities, and those unwashed in science.

 

[untermensche]

I don't agree entirely with the OP.

I think the material nature of things was well known.

It was well known what was hard and what was soft and what was sharp and what was dull and how to create something that could kill.

What wasn't known was why this nature is the way it is.

But the nature is entirely apparent.

 

[James Brown]

Philosophers have been positing naturalism since as far back as Thales of Miletus. But the disadvantage was that the ancients only had their own two eyes to measure the universe. They didn't have the tools to discover that the natural world is both far grander and far more fine-grained than at first appearances.

So what do we do when something strange happens that can't be easily understood--like why did someone get sick just three days after talking back to the village leader? With only a superficial understanding of the world, we can either say, "We don't know" which is unsatisfying, or we can say he was cursed by the gods, or some other unfalsifiable doctrine. Unfalsifiable, that is, until we invented microscopes and discovered germs.

 

[steve_bank]

Nothing unreal exists

Vulcan proverb

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Philosophers have been positing naturalism since as far back as Thales of Miletus. But the disadvantage was that the ancients only had their own two eyes to measure the universe. They didn't have the tools to discover that the natural world is both far grander and far more fine-grained than at first appearances.

So what do we do when something strange happens that can't be easily understood--like why did someone get sick just three days after talking back to the village leader? With only a superficial understanding of the world, we can either say, "We don't know" which is unsatisfying, or we can say he was cursed by the gods, or some other unfalsifiable doctrine. Unfalsifiable, that is, until we invented microscopes and discovered germs.

Exactly. Science only became really successful with the age of scientific instruments. The invention of mechanical clocks. The invention of reading glasses. Then telescopes, microscopes, thermometers, and using the tools of alchemists to develop chemistry. This lead to whole new worlds to explore,not hinted of in the Bible and unknown to the Greek philosophers. Now the best minds had something to work with. Progress could be made. Science as an enterprise became organized. Rise of things like steam engines drove physics and the invention of thermodynamics. Scientific instruments allowed science to grow beyond the bounds of armchair theorizing. The experimenters became kings of science.

 

[rousseau]

Philosophers have been positing naturalism since as far back as Thales of Miletus. But the disadvantage was that the ancients only had their own two eyes to measure the universe. They didn't have the tools to discover that the natural world is both far grander and far more fine-grained than at first appearances.

So what do we do when something strange happens that can't be easily understood--like why did someone get sick just three days after talking back to the village leader? With only a superficial understanding of the world, we can either say, "We don't know" which is unsatisfying, or we can say he was cursed by the gods, or some other unfalsifiable doctrine. Unfalsifiable, that is, until we invented microscopes and discovered germs.

Exactly. Science only became really successful with the age of scientific instruments. The invention of mechanical clocks. The invention of reading glasses. Then telescopes, microscopes, thermometers, and using the tools of alchemists to develop chemistry. This lead to whole new worlds to explore,not hinted of in the Bible and unknown to the Greek philosophers. Now the best minds had something to work with. Progress could be made. Science as an enterprise became organized. Rise of things like steam engines drove physics and the invention of thermodynamics. Scientific instruments allowed science to grow beyond the bounds of armchair theorizing. The experimenters became kings of science.

I always find it one of the bigger ironies of the scientific revolution that this 'progress' has led to global warming. So is it progress?

Progress in understanding and short-term comforts, not as much in long-term sustainability or any deliberate control over our future.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yup.

Also, modern civilisation, democracy, wealth and wellbeing. My guess is that if and when the shit ever hits the fan for humans (global catastrophe-wise) superstitions such as religion will dramatically increase again.

Not good (if true) but might at least make many of us feel more grateful for and appreciative of the present, even if it's imperfect. Most of us here live in fortunate times.

This is also why I'm a little more sympathetic than most to pre-modern communities, and those unwashed in science.

I can possibly understand you saying that you are somewhat sympathetic to those, and I can see your later comment about the double-edged nature of 'progress' being a reason for it, but......I don't understand how what I said would be a reason for it?

 

[rousseau]

Yup.

Also, modern civilisation, democracy, wealth and wellbeing. My guess is that if and when the shit ever hits the fan for humans (global catastrophe-wise) superstitions such as religion will dramatically increase again.

Not good (if true) but might at least make many of us feel more grateful for and appreciative of the present, even if it's imperfect. Most of us here live in fortunate times.

This is also why I'm a little more sympathetic than most to pre-modern communities, and those unwashed in science.

I can possibly understand you saying that you are somewhat sympathetic to those, and I can see your later comment about the double-edged nature of 'progress' being a reason for it, but......I don't understand how what I said would be a reason for it?

I was more following your post, but referring to my OP.

 

[ruby sparks]

I can possibly understand you saying that you are somewhat sympathetic to those, and I can see your later comment about the double-edged nature of 'progress' being a reason for it, but......I don't understand how what I said would be a reason for it?

I was more following your post, but referring to my OP.

I see. I think. So...sympathy for them because they lack (or lacked) the light of the candle (fair enough) or because they are/were untainted/unblighted by 'progress' (also fair enough, in some ways)?

 

[bilby]

Philosophers have been positing naturalism since as far back as Thales of Miletus. But the disadvantage was that the ancients only had their own two eyes to measure the universe. They didn't have the tools to discover that the natural world is both far grander and far more fine-grained than at first appearances.

So what do we do when something strange happens that can't be easily understood--like why did someone get sick just three days after talking back to the village leader? With only a superficial understanding of the world, we can either say, "We don't know" which is unsatisfying, or we can say he was cursed by the gods, or some other unfalsifiable doctrine. Unfalsifiable, that is, until we invented microscopes and discovered germs.

Exactly. Science only became really successful with the age of scientific instruments. The invention of mechanical clocks. The invention of reading glasses. Then telescopes, microscopes, thermometers, and using the tools of alchemists to develop chemistry. This lead to whole new worlds to explore,not hinted of in the Bible and unknown to the Greek philosophers. Now the best minds had something to work with. Progress could be made. Science as an enterprise became organized. Rise of things like steam engines drove physics and the invention of thermodynamics. Scientific instruments allowed science to grow beyond the bounds of armchair theorizing. The experimenters became kings of science.

I always find it one of the bigger ironies of the scientific revolution that this 'progress' has led to global warming. So is it progress?

Progress in understanding and short-term comforts, not as much in long-term sustainability or any deliberate control over our future.

People have always looked at technology, and said "this 'progress' has led to <bad thing>", with the subtext that we might be better off to stop 'progressing' and/or to go back to an earlier, less technological, civilization where <bad thing> wasn't happening.

I always find it one of the bigger ironies of the scientific revolution that this 'progress' has led to the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I always find it one of the bigger ironies of the scientific revolution that this 'progress' has led to the industrialized slaughter of the Western Front in WWI

I always find it one of the bigger ironies of the scientific revolution that this 'progress' has led to the loss of jobs for thousands of mill workers

I always find it one of the bigger ironies of the scientific revolution that this 'progress' has led to the concentration of people in plague ridden cities

I always find it one of the bigger ironies of the scientific revolution that this 'progress' has led to the subjugation of the Gaulish people by Rome

I always find it one of the bigger ironies of the scientific revolution that this 'progress' has led to the enclosure of hunting land for fields of grain

I always find it one of the bigger ironies of the scientific revolution that this 'progress' has led to our people becoming 'soft' through living on cooked food. Raw game was good enough for my grandfather...


Every time that our technological advancement has created one of these problems, the solution has entailed more and better technology, not less. The only reason we are even aware of climate change is that we have advanced scientific understanding of the atmosphere and oceans, and the instruments to investigate how these are changing and why. Humans are very bad at avoiding pollution of their environment until that pollution becomes immediate and life threatening. We used to throw raw sewage into the streets; After millions died of plagues, we developed modern sewerage systems. We used to allow the burning of sulphurous coal for domestic heating in big cities; After thousands died from smog, we developed smokeless fuels and moved to using gas and electricity to heat urban homes. We currently pump CO₂ into the atmosphere in vast quantities; After enough people have been killed by severe storms, or rising oceans, we might move to using fission power instead.

Maybe the whole thing will collapse in a big heap. Perhaps we won't act, until it is too late not just for a few percent of us, but for such a large proportion that civilization becomes untenable. But my bet is that it won't get so bad as to cause our extinction. The real question is, just how many of us need to die before we stop doing the routine but deadly thing we are all comfortable with, and start doing the new fangled thing that is far better (but really scary).

Food for thought: The number of people currently dying as a result of coal mining, and from the (non-CO₂) emissions from coal fired power plants, is so large that if we replaced all of those coal plants with nuclear ones, and had a Chernobyl scale disaster every single week, the death toll would be about half what it is right now. Almost nobody believes that - it's so far removed from the popular assumption that coal is basically harmless, and that nuclear power plants are dangerous, that it beggars belief. But it's true, nonetheless.

 

[rousseau]

I can possibly understand you saying that you are somewhat sympathetic to those, and I can see your later comment about the double-edged nature of 'progress' being a reason for it, but......I don't understand how what I said would be a reason for it?

I was more following your post, but referring to my OP.

I see. I think. So...sympathy for them because they lack (or lacked) the light of the candle (fair enough) or because they are/were untainted/unblighted by 'progress' (also fair enough, in some ways)?

Sorry, clarity not on point today. What I was trying to say was that I notice a tendency for people to degrade the 'ignorance' of people in the past and of the religious today, but it's essentially a problem of epistemology. I don't think 'willful ignorance' is actually a thing.

 

[bilby]

I see. I think. So...sympathy for them because they lack (or lacked) the light of the candle (fair enough) or because they are/were untainted/unblighted by 'progress' (also fair enough, in some ways)?

Sorry, clarity not on point today. What I was trying to say was that I notice a tendency for people to degrade the 'ignorance' of people in the past and of the religious today, but it's essentially a problem of epistemology. I don't think 'willful ignorance' is actually a thing.

I think it is; The Romans had some pretty impressive technology, but all of their advancements were lost for over a thousand years, because Christianity dominated people's thinking, and taught that ignorance was laudable - everything a man needs to know is in the Bible, and any advancements that do not invoke God are to be eschewed as witchcraft and devilry. The same thing is happening today in parts of the Islamic world; They have the advantage, though, that their useless population whose only education is in the words of the Quran, can be supplemented by bringing in westerners who actually know things to do the work of keeping civilization running. Where they have something worth selling in exchange for that learning, at any rate. That's why the gulf oil states are doing so much better than Pakistan or Afghanistan.

 

[rousseau]

..snip..

Without dealing with the substance of your post I'll just note that my above post was left deliberately vague.

Historically, we're working on malthusian cycles where technology progresses due to population pressures. For the most part, this is never done with sustainability in mind, but instead usually to react to the current environment to improve immediate survival conditions for profit. During the enlightenment era the rise of science happened in reaction to how shitty everything was. But a side effect of science was that we became so overwhelmingly good at extracting energy from our environment that a kind of energy bonanza happened.

In some sense this was pretty much pre-determined to happen, so I don't think it's a blight on the character of humanity that it did. But on the other hand it just makes me laugh that we talk about the scientific revolution as 'progressive' when it may have catastrophic consequences on our future. In that light, it may not be a negative, and I'm definitely not saying we need to go back to a by-gone era, but I'm not sure 'progress' is the right word.

 

[bilby]

..snip..

Without dealing with the substance of your post I'll just note that my above post was left deliberately vague.

Historically, we're working on malthusian cycles where technology progresses due to population pressures. For the most part, this is never done with sustainability in mind, but instead usually to react to the current environment to improve immediate survival conditions for profit. During the enlightenment era the rise of science happened in reaction to how shitty everything was. But a side effect of science was that we became so overwhelmingly good at extracting energy from our environment that a kind of energy bonanza happened.

In some sense this was pretty much pre-determined to happen, so I don't think it's a blight on the character of humanity that it did. But on the other hand it just makes me laugh that we talk about the scientific revolution as 'progressive' when it may have catastrophic consequences on our future. In that light, it may not be a negative, and I'm definitely not saying we need to go back to a by-gone era, but I'm not sure 'progress' is the right word.

Malthus was wrong, and I think you are too

Population expansion followed technological advance, rather than drove it - as we became able to keep more people alive, humanity expanded to fill the new capability, not because of higher birthrates, but because the technologies reduced death rates.

In the 19th and particularly the 20th century, we became so good at keeping people alive that we were able to support massive population increases; But then something completely novel happened - women stopped having babies, because for the first time in human history, they had the choice to do so, the means to do so safely without denying the natural inclination of humans to fuck a lot, the expectation that having only one or two children would be sufficient to ensure the presence of adult children in her dotage, and the education to be more useful to themselves as humans than as baby-factories.

There is almost no plausible future scenario that would be more catastrophic for humanity than abandonment of technology; If we stop and try to hold in place, everything will go to shit. If we go back, everything will go to shit even faster. If we continue with current progress, then there is a small chance that everything will go to shit, but more likely, it won't.

The most plausible future for humanity is a stable population of 10 billion or so, living wealthy lives of high energy consumption, and high resource turnover*. There are a number of significant hurdles to overcome to get from here to there; but technology will play a very large role in getting us over those hurdles.

The only plausible way for us to fuck this up, is to try to stop technological progress due to a false and shortsighted idea that its minor (but obvious and worrying) problems outweigh its huge (and pervasive, but not obvious), benefits.

Imagine, if you would, talking a medieval merchant - a wealthy and educated man of his times - through a normal day in your life. He would spend the whole day with his jaw dragging the floor in astonishment at the wondrous things that you hardly even notice. Everything you do, eat, wear, live in, etc., is incredibly easy, luxurious, and spectacular, from his perspective. People adapt to the amazing so fast and so thoroughly that they no more notice the beneficial technologies that dominate every aspect of their life than a fish notices how wet everything is.

We evolved with an inherent tendency to be fearful of the novel, and distrusting of change. But the things we fear are rarely the real threats; And the things we take for granted are often far more strange and new than we realize. As long as we continue to (on average) prioritize fact over superstition, and thought and reason over appeals to nature, we will be just fine.



*Note that resources are not (and indeed, cannot be) consumed; With sufficient energy available, we can re-concentrate and recycle any resources we want, with the possible exception of Helium.

 

[whollygoats]

Hmmm....on that note, I tend to follow Joseph Tainter. I recommend his The Collapse of Complex Societies (1988).

 

[rousseau]

..snip..

Without dealing with the substance of your post I'll just note that my above post was left deliberately vague.

Historically, we're working on malthusian cycles where technology progresses due to population pressures. For the most part, this is never done with sustainability in mind, but instead usually to react to the current environment to improve immediate survival conditions for profit. During the enlightenment era the rise of science happened in reaction to how shitty everything was. But a side effect of science was that we became so overwhelmingly good at extracting energy from our environment that a kind of energy bonanza happened.

In some sense this was pretty much pre-determined to happen, so I don't think it's a blight on the character of humanity that it did. But on the other hand it just makes me laugh that we talk about the scientific revolution as 'progressive' when it may have catastrophic consequences on our future. In that light, it may not be a negative, and I'm definitely not saying we need to go back to a by-gone era, but I'm not sure 'progress' is the right word.

Malthus was wrong, and I think you are too

Population expansion followed technological advance, rather than drove it - as we became able to keep more people alive, humanity expanded to fill the new capability, not because of higher birthrates, but because the technologies reduced death rates.[/SIZE]

This was something I was reasonably sure about given past reading but you have me second guessing myself. I suspect it could be a combination of both? Might need to take a closer look.