Balanced Anarchy

[Evil Muppet]

a clip from an excellent documentary originally aired in 1985.

[youtube=425,350]mB8_wPei2ZM[/youtube].

[fatcat]

So he first claims that theres no such thing as actual knowledge, just different invented versions of reality, then he talks about how revolutionary electronic communications could be in sharing that knowledge?

"non scientific views of the world like this, arent necessarily ignorant, in their own way, they explain the world as completely as science does, all that science gives us is what their beliefs give them, certainty, only ours changes all the time, theirs doesn't"

yeah cause we all know those famous Buddhist scholars who sat, meditated, and discovered sub atomic particles, invented electric motors and light bulbs, discovered photo electric emission, discovered photons and the big bang.

No competent scientist ever claims that what they know now is 100% correct and will always be correct. In fact thats the complete opposite of science. Science is a process, it works on working models, it runs on the basis that our understanding is complete.

The fact that this guy acts as if science is a set of beliefs, and that "science says" makes it hard to take anything he said afterwards seriously.

Claiming that the Buddhist non explanatory view of the world is just as valid as a scientific one based on observation and testing is shear bunk.

"we still go on believing that todays version of things is the only right one"

no

"the universe is what you say it is"

 

This guy is a fucking joke. A bunch of vague non-conformist bullshit dressed up as open minded wisdom. And I suppose I'm supposed to be ignorant for being too "rationalist" and not understanding how important what he's saying is.

[Evil Muppet]

Dude, lighten up

[fatcat]

Dude, lighten up

so people talking absolute jarg shouldnt be challenged?

Or maybe the fact he mentioned the word anarchy and said a bunch of other smart sounding stuff I should just swallow his bullshit, even the parts that contradict each other.

[Libertarianssuck]

Dude, lighten up

so people talking absolute jarg shouldnt be challenged?

Or maybe the fact he mentioned the word anarchy and said a bunch of other smart sounding stuff I should just swallow his bullshit, even the parts that contradict each other.

there's no way that accent could be wrong plus it's on youtube

[BobRobertson]

James Burke is an excellent historian, but sadly fails to learn from history.

I can whole heartedly recommend his video series, "Connections", but not his later works which go all bunko over global warming.

As I said, he's very good when talking about what did happen, just not so hot on what "will".

The Connections series are excellent in their illustration of how quickly people have progressed in technology since capitalism took hold. But then he condemns "capitalism".

Likely a public school graduate.

[davann]

So he first claims that theres no such thing as actual knowledge, just different invented versions of reality, then he talks about how revolutionary electronic communications could be in sharing that knowledge?

"non scientific views of the world like this, arent necessarily ignorant, in their own way, they explain the world as completely as science does, all that science gives us is what their beliefs give them, certainty, only ours changes all the time, theirs doesn't"

yeah cause we all know those famous Buddhist scholars who sat, meditated, and discovered sub atomic particles, invented electric motors and light bulbs, discovered photo electric emission, discovered photons and the big bang.

No competent scientist ever claims that what they know now is 100% correct and will always be correct. In fact thats the complete opposite of science. Science is a process, it works on working models, it runs on the basis that our understanding is complete.

The fact that this guy acts as if science is a set of beliefs, and that "science says" makes it hard to take anything he said afterwards seriously.

Claiming that the Buddhist non explanatory view of the world is just as valid as a scientific one based on observation and testing is shear bunk.

"we still go on believing that todays version of things is the only right one"

no

"the universe is what you say it is"

 

This guy is a fucking joke. A bunch of vague non-conformist bullshit dressed up as open minded wisdom. And I suppose I'm supposed to be ignorant for being too "rationalist" and not understanding how important what he's saying is.

Oh oh, sounds like this guy blasphemed the almighty religion of science! Let's burn the heathen.

"The universe is what you say it is" does sound like that Law of Attraction bull shit. It is also another example why religion will never go away. People have this need to know there is a reason, a purpose. That is why the current hot religion, science, has no many devote followers. See above.

[fatcat]

Oh oh, sounds like this guy blasphemed the almighty religion of science! Let's burn the heathen.

"The universe is what you say it is" does sound like that Law of Attraction bull shit. It is also another example why religion will never go away. People have this need to know there is a reason, a purpose. That is why the current hot religion, science, has no many devote followers. See above.

Another fail who can't tell the difference between a highly sophisticated learning heuristic, and a dogmatic set of non sequitir fantasies.

"Science says" - The sun is around 74% Hydrogen, 24% helium, and trace elements of iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, carbon, neon, calcium, and chromium.

Egyptian pantheon says - The sun is horus' left eye.

Which one is correct? DAMN! if only there was a reliable way to distinguish which of these explanations is more valid.

Oh wait, thats what science is.

"Science" doesn't ask any blind obedience to authority. In fact science doesn't ask or say anything because its a method, not a belief set, although im sure idiots will continue to try call Science "another religion". Calling science a religion might appeal to some notion that sitting the fence makes you superior to all these close minded religionists, but religion is such an ill fitting term for the scientific method that essentially you're just crippling your own ability to describe and understand things.

If you think being passionate about the fundamental process behind human progress and understanding of the universe is in any way an ignorant vice, then I feel sorry for you.

If you want to prove to yourself the commonly accepted scientific explanation for what the sun is made of, you can do it yourself. If you want to test whether the sun is really made from hydrogen and helium, you can check the emission spectra yourself, you can test its falsifiability to see if there are any other explanations that might make it look like the sun is made from hydrogen and helium, but is actually something that just looks like hydrogen and helium.

And if you find out there is a flaw in a current explanation, you help better the understanding of how things work. For this reason (intelligent) challenges to current understandings are welcomed in the scientific community, as a way to test the current understanding and to explore alternatives, as apposed to actual religion, where blind obedience to the dogma is considered a virtue (i.e. faith)

It is also another example why religion will never go away. People have this need to know there is a reason, a purpose.

You're actually making a good point here, but fail on the conclusion. The difference is, Religion offers a static set of facts, where requiring an explanation is seen as a vice. Its essentially a superficial alternative to actual science. 99% of "explanations" in religion come down to "god did it", and when that fails "don't question god/its wrong to doubt god".

Religion starts with an opinion, and molds the world around to fit, science starts with the world, and then develops an explanation based on observation, testing and falsifiability.

when was the last time you heard a scientist say "you can't prove theres no such thing as electrons"?

[davann]

Oh oh, sounds like this guy blasphemed the almighty religion of science! Let's burn the heathen.

"The universe is what you say it is" does sound like that Law of Attraction bull shit. It is also another example why religion will never go away. People have this need to know there is a reason, a purpose. That is why the current hot religion, science, has no many devote followers. See above.

Another fail who can't tell the difference between a highly sophisticated learning heuristic, and a dogmatic set of non sequitir fantasies.

Just like any other religion, to put the scriptures into question will get you crucified.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder-joshua/snyder-joshua21.1.html

[fatcat]

Oh oh, sounds like this guy blasphemed the almighty religion of science! Let's burn the heathen.

"The universe is what you say it is" does sound like that Law of Attraction bull shit. It is also another example why religion will never go away. People have this need to know there is a reason, a purpose. That is why the current hot religion, science, has no many devote followers. See above.

Another fail who can't tell the difference between a highly sophisticated learning heuristic, and a dogmatic set of non sequitir fantasies.

Just like any other religion, to put the scriptures into question will get you crucified.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder-joshua/snyder-joshua21.1.html

Scriptures are dogmatic sets of information that never change (except in translation). Science is a method, not an information set. There are no scientific scriptures. Are you deliberately ignoring this distinction?

The scientific method is the ONLY method (and it is a changing group of methods) for discerning reliable facts about reality. Everything in your house that has any sort of technological complexity could not have been made without the scientific method.

What you linked to is completely meaningless trivia, that says nothing about the validity of the scientific method.The fact you think linking to what specific scientists did says anything about science shows you still don't get it. Scientists can be wrong, scientists can have fucked up opinions, scientists can do fucked up things.

Challenging currently accepted knowledge raises skepticism. It should. Einstein struggled to get his ideas accepted for years, and now they're fundamental to what we know about the universe. The reason they got accepted is because they were right, and they explained things other theories couldn't.

Scientists call other scientists hacks all the time. Thats not "crucifiction" and its got nothing to do with what science is.

If a scientist drowns a kitten, does that mean "science" is in favor of drowning kittens?

 There are some scientists who say theres not reliable evidence to support global warming, there are some who say they are. Which ones represent "science"? Which ones are crucifying who?

You're confusing a figment of your imagination "the scientific community", with science.

If you think the scientific method heuristic is the equivalent to the scribblings of delusional goat herders then you're a fucking idiot.

Oh, and please use the fact I called you a fucking idiot as proof THOSE CRAZY SCIENCE RELIGIONISTS CANT HANDLE ANYONE CRITICIZING THEIR RELIGION. Do that while millions of smarter people than you use the scientific method to benefit your life in a million different ways.

Do some fucking reading.

[davann]

Oh oh, sounds like this guy blasphemed the almighty religion of science! Let's burn the heathen.

"The universe is what you say it is" does sound like that Law of Attraction bull shit. It is also another example why religion will never go away. People have this need to know there is a reason, a purpose. That is why the current hot religion, science, has no many devote followers. See above.

Another fail who can't tell the difference between a highly sophisticated learning heuristic, and a dogmatic set of non sequitir fantasies.

Just like any other religion, to put the scriptures into question will get you crucified.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder-joshua/snyder-joshua21.1.html

Scriptures are dogmatic sets of information that never change (except in translation). Science is a method, not an information set. There are no scientific scriptures. Are you deliberately ignoring this distinction?

The scientific method is the ONLY method (and it is a changing group of methods) for discerning reliable facts about reality. Everything in your house that has any sort of technological complexity could not have been made without the scientific method.

What you linked to is completely meaningless trivia, that says nothing about the validity of the scientific method.The fact you think linking to what specific scientists did says anything about science shows you still don't get it. Scientists can be wrong, scientists can have fucked up opinions, scientists can do fucked up things.

Challenging currently accepted knowledge raises skepticism. It should. Einstein struggled to get his ideas accepted for years, and now they're fundamental to what we know about the universe. The reason they got accepted is because they were right, and they explained things other theories couldn't.

Scientists call other scientists hacks all the time. Thats not "crucifiction" and its got nothing to do with what science is.

If a scientist drowns a kitten, does that mean "science" is in favor of drowning kittens?

 There are some scientists who say theres not reliable evidence to support global warming, there are some who say they are. Which ones represent "science"? Which ones are crucifying who?

You're confusing a figment of your imagination "the scientific community", with science.

If you think the scientific method heuristic is the equivalent to the scribblings of delusional goat herders then you're a fucking idiot.

Oh, and please use the fact I called you a fucking idiot as proof THOSE CRAZY SCIENCE RELIGIONISTS CANT HANDLE ANYONE CRITICIZING THEIR RELIGION. Do that while millions of smarter people than you use the scientific method to benefit your life in a million different ways.

Do some fucking reading.

I am not confused nor ignoring the facts. You sure seem to be though. When a set of beliefs in a system or method becomes so entrenched so as not to allow dissent it enters the realm of mysticism. It is compromised and can no longer be trusted.

While the scientific method is great, again it is people that ruin it by using it to bash contrary views in the head. Science has become no better then the Mormons locking away their original texts in the temple available to just a handful out of fear of the whole system being questioned. Ignore the facts and insult the messenger if you will. I do not care. It was merely my hope that you would grasp, as evident by the long sermons as above, that you have lost sight of what science is. It is your religion. Acknowledge that fact and deal with and you may come to a place where science will be a benefit to you.

"Scientists call other scientists hacks all the time. Thats not "crucifiction" and its got nothing to do with what science is."

What the community did to this man was nothing short of professional murder. And it has everything to do with today's "science".  Calling someone a hack is one thing, laying waste to his life's work because it does not follow the current scriptures is another. That is the point.  Blow it off if you want. I am sure it won't bother you just as it did not bother those that blew off Copernicus' persecution. To those that actually value science but to do not worship it these things tend to piss them off.

[rabidfurby]

I am not confused nor ignoring the facts. You sure seem to be though. When a set of beliefs in a system or method becomes so entrenched so as not to allow dissent it enters the realm of mysticism. It is compromised and can no longer be trusted.

While the scientific method is great, again it is people that ruin it by using it to bash contrary views in the head. Science has become no better then the Mormons locking away their original texts in the temple available to just a handful out of fear of the whole system being questioned. Ignore the facts and insult the messenger if you will. I do not care. It was merely my hope that you would grasp, as evident by the long sermons as above, that you have lost sight of what science is. It is your religion. Acknowledge that fact and deal with and you may come to a place where science will be a benefit to you.

"Scientists call other scientists hacks all the time. Thats not "crucifiction" and its got nothing to do with what science is."

What the community did to this man was nothing short of professional murder. And it has everything to do with today's "science".  Calling someone a hack is one thing, laying waste to his life's work because it does not follow the current scriptures is another. That is the point.  Blow it off if you want. I am sure it won't bother you just as it did not bother those that blew off Copernicus' persecution. To those that actually value science but to do not worship it these things tend to piss them off.

Fuck.

There's so much 200 proof, weapons-grade wrong in that post I don't even know where to begin.

The fundamental concept that you're missing is that religion is based on a concrete set of beliefs - X happened Y thousand years ago. These beliefs are essentially unchanging, or only change in a top-down fashion - some guy with a shiny hat says so, like a few years ago when the Pope said "yeah, evolution doesn't contradict the Bible and probably happened". These beliefs are backed up only by faith - in other words, "I believe it because I believe it".

Science, on the other hand, is not a concrete set of facts. Science is a method, a process for figuring out how the world works. First, you make observations about the natural world. Then, you form a hypothesis about the natural laws underlying the phenomenon that you observed. Finally - and this is the crucial part - you use that hypothesis to make a more general prediction about the behavior of the world, and confirm that prediction experimentally.

If you just do the first two steps, there's no fucking point. Pick anything in the world, and you can come up with an unlimited number of theories that could explain it. But those theories have value if and only if they allow you to understand other parts of the world.

I could go on about the other bullshit claims you made (like the idea that scientists lock up their secrets, when everyone I've known with even a modicum of scientific knowledge constantly bemoans the fact that so few people understand scientific thought), but I should probably stop here since it's useless to continue if you don't understand what I wrote above, and I'm guessing you don't.

Although, this Velikovsky bullshit is just too goddamn ridiculous to ignore.

[Venus] coming in close contact with the Earth, the latter's rotation altered, making it appear that The Sun had stood still...

IIRC, one of Carl Sagan's books actually has these calculations, and I don't remember enough of my physics classes to reproduce them, but if you take the mass of the Earth and its rotational speed, you can combine them to get its angular momentum. This is a fucking huge quantity, because the Earth is fucking huge and spinning pretty goddamn fast.

You can then figure out the actual force it would take to stop the Earth's rotation, and the deceleration that would be required over some period of time to make that happen. Since this theoretically happened due to Venus' gravity, you can work out the actual gravitational forces required, and conclude that's it's simply not fucking possible.

Oh, and then this magical Venus-comet-thing would need to find some way to loop around and restart the Earth's rotation 24 hours later, back to the same speed it originally was.

[fatcat]

rabidfury just dropped a sense bomb.

[Frost]

"there is no truth"

Then shut the fuck up.

[Frost]

"non-scientific view of the world like this aren't necessarily ignorant"

ig·no·rant

   1.  Lacking education or knowledge.
   2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
   3. Unaware or uninformed.

Having an internally inconsistent world view is clearly ignorant.