Is it the Moon?
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Shambling Shaman
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Iv been off line for a bit, so still on catch up, but Scoops you always posted some good stuff. Don't lurk "You forum needs you"
And back on topic...
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
Interesting points dr - thank you for most eruditely illustrating my point which is that science is, at best, an entirely incomplete belief system. You have illustrated concisely that science is incapable of self regulation, careless in its impacts on others and, without an imposed framework within in which it is forced to operate, extremely damaging.
Were it not so, science would not have allowed its products to be used without rigorous research and highly qualified application. Neither were in fact the case. If it was "mis prescribed" then either one accepts that doctors (as scientists) acted poorly or one accepts that medicine is not science.
My view is that any belief system requires three dimensions
Ethical (or religious if you will)
Permissive (or legal if you like)
Capability (or scientific if you prefer) and
These cover
"Should I ?"
A moral or philosophical dimension on whether it is acceptable to even consider certain research. The Nazi "scientific" experiments in concentration camps are an example of where the answer to "should I" is "NO". This is the ethical dimensionof belief.
"May I?"
Whilst it is ethically acceptable to do certain things, who may do them or how they do them must be regulated. The research of the drug industry (in which I worked for many years) has proved itself incapable of deciding for itself where acceptable risks lie in both research and patient care. Therefore a regulatory framework MUST be imposed upon it to ensure that there is no marketing (or indeed prescribing) of dangerous drugs.
"Can I"
A scientific approach concerns itself with logic and capability. Even if something is both both ethically sound and legally permissable it may be logically or practically impossible - this is for science to determine.
Sadly science generally concerns itself with determining what is practically possible and believes it should not be confined by either moral or legal frameworks. The notion of unfettered "pure research" is clearly preposterous to all but scientists. Self proclaimed "scientists" have claimed the scientific merits of horrific vivisection (for such spurious needs as cosmetics onwards), human experimentation (from the "scientific" experiments conducted on serving service personnel to POWs and internees including the onset of hypothermia to cranial trauma inflicted by rpeated blows).
In my view any rounded and considered system of belief must consider moral, regulatory and scientific dimensions. Religion without science is the tooth fairy. Science without regulation is lives destroyed. Science without ethics is weapons of mass destruction.
All should be balanced and tempered by one another. I am equally horrified by the stake burnings of religion as I am by science that deliberately designs weapons to kill as many people as possible. Both are filled with their own righteousness and both need to be restrained from their excesses by a legal framework within which they are forced to operate - whether they wish to, or not, since they have proved themselves unable to operate without such rules and of being stunningly arrogant in their inability to acknowledge their own failings.
Red
Scoops, nice to hear from you, hows things ? have you been checking out the various stoves, quite a few I would suggest transpired from your original input, nice one mate.
I think this debate would be an absolute corker, for an around the fire, at the end of the day, brew in hand, just fed venison, evening, alcohol would run out, fire would would die, cold would set in, frost would form, dawn would break, ....you getting the jist
There be Dragons
Stephen
I think this debate would be an absolute corker, for an around the fire, at the end of the day, brew in hand, just fed venison, evening, alcohol would run out, fire would would die, cold would set in, frost would form, dawn would break, ....you getting the jist
There be Dragons
Stephen
I think this debate would be an absolute corker, for an around the fire, at the end of the day, brew in hand, just fed venison, evening, alcohol would run out, fire would would die, cold would set in, frost would form, dawn would break, ....you getting the jist
Been there a few times
Shambling Shaman
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Shambling Shaman
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
One of your concoctions, anytime mate, as well as the around the fire debate
A little off topic - but had port with blue WKD last week, tastes just like vimto??
Chances are I'm living a sheltered life and every ones been drinking this for years....
Totally agree, i read through the threads but say very little these days:sadwavey:
Surely then the if we can prove something natural is completely useless then creationists would just "pop" out of existence in a babelfish style bubble?
That is tempting for the contrarian in me (as well as Hitchhikers among us) Concerning science many people forget that things are generally considered true until they are shown not to be. Gravity is a great theory as long as everything follows it, if something doesn't then bye bye theory
A good example of this was a Victorian (I think) theory that light travelled through some sort of special substance in the air. Through negative experiments this was shown not to be the case so a new theory was needed. In my opinion the quest for dark matter is kind of similar - maybe we can't find the other 95% of the universe simply because it isn't there?
As far as the moon and natural phenomena go, I truly believe that they affect us in a myriad of odd ways. Things like moods are hard to judge whilst a full moon can affect so many things (visibilty, hormonal cycles, hobbies.....) that it is hard to tell whether it is the moon itself or simply some of these effects which are having the results we've mentioned previously.
To me, the natural world is still more mysterious and greater (in both senses) than our knowledge and achievements. Learning about the weather taught me how many things are connected in one area that any prediction or theorising becomes very difficult.
To add a further question (or throw oil on the fire
) - do people see science as a subject or a method of investigation?
Lets try it - name a single thing that serves absolutlely no purpose in the natural world..............?
To add a further question (or throw oil on the fire
Please allow me to add "option three" - a blindly followed unchallenged belief. I cite the example of "pseudo science" babelled in cosmetic adverts and compare it to the indulgences sold by a corrupt church. The parralels between unchallenged "science" and unchallenged "religion" are frightening. How many think that "science" wil save them from the problems of the modern world - from the energy crisis to over population? How many thought "God" would save them from starvation, war or disease? Same blind unquestioning faith in the "priests" (or "scientists") - self appointed judges of "right" and "wrong"
Red
I call for this thread to be closed. Its gone way of topic, and this isnt the place for it.
british red, get yourself on over to a more appropriate forum like www.richarddawkins. org.uk Im not advertising the site, Im just saying it is appropriate if you want to vent your spleen and intellectual wisdom concerning science and religion. If the mods find that unacceptable then please remove the link.
british red, get yourself on over to a more appropriate forum like www.richarddawkins. org.uk Im not advertising the site, Im just saying it is appropriate if you want to vent your spleen and intellectual wisdom concerning science and religion. If the mods find that unacceptable then please remove the link.
No spleen involved or hackles raised firecrest - surely thats rather the point. Dunc has been championing the cause of pure science for ages and does it amazingly well. Periodically I'll promote an opposing view. A debate can be just that - philosophy or even "debating society" rules - polite point and counter argument - reason and rationale. It doesn't need to degenerate into a slanging match (and didn't here). As was mentioned the other day - threads can and do drift and if it keeps polite why not? Dunc jumped in with a scientific rationale as to why science explains that "the moon" cannot effect mood, I countered with an argument as to how science hasn't got all the answers.
Personally I've rather enjoyed it both for the cut and thrust and trying to keep up with Duncs (always articulate) arguments. If a little "debating society" discussion causes thread drift or offense - sorry for those who don't enjoy it (and indeed to Wayland for thread hijack- although his familairity with Descartes' 17th century foundation of modern philosophy leads me to believe he could probably outwit me in campfire philosophy if not Dunc - although of course in the original Discourse on Method it was "Je pense donc je suis" and only changed to the Latin in the subsequent Principles of Philosophy)
Red
Personally I've rather enjoyed it both for the cut and thrust and trying to keep up with Duncs (always articulate) arguments. If a little "debating society" discussion causes thread drift or offense - sorry for those who don't enjoy it (and indeed to Wayland for thread hijack- although his familairity with Descartes' 17th century foundation of modern philosophy leads me to believe he could probably outwit me in campfire philosophy if not Dunc - although of course in the original Discourse on Method it was "Je pense donc je suis" and only changed to the Latin in the subsequent Principles of Philosophy)
Red
Similar threads
