|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/12/2008 5:04:58 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 176
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Science can't do anything besides tell us about how the world is. Technology, on the other hand, can do quite a bit. Now, our technology can't stop the entropy of the sun, or even extend the sun's life. But in general, with a far-enough advanced technology, then yes, technology can probably stop the entropy of the sun. Not by violating the laws of physics, but by adding more fuel to the sun. With advanced enough technology, it's probably possible to throw suns, or planets, into the sun. Throwing Jupiter into the sun would certainly extend its life a little bit. It might destroy the earth in the process, but it can certainly be done, at least conceptually.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. The second law states that the available energy we have is headed toward maximal entropic stasis, where energy is wholly unusable.
So, "No Virginia, science will not save mankind."
Again, we return to that blind optimism that I stated earlier in my post.
quote:
So it appears that you have no interest in discussing you only want to push your views on the rest of us.
Pots still call kettles "black". Ok.
I started this post; so yeah, I am "pushing" my views. And so are you. So what's the problem?
If you're against "pushing viewpoints", then don't read them or post threads or post responses.
quote:
Yea, but what % of the population got killed in each? The world population has grown exponentially since the black plague. Black plague was estimated to have killed 30-60% of the european population at the time. I bet WW1 didnt approach that, though I dont know what the numbers are.
Everlearning gave us these estimates:
quote:
world war I 119,000,000 estimated dead
world war II 48,231,700 estimated dead
Korean war 3,500,000 estimated dead
Vietnam war 2,495,00 estimated dead
Gulf war 100,000 estimated dead
Now lets look at what science has done for us
The flu of 1918 killed up to 100 million people, then in the late 1900's probably around 1 million people died of the flu mostly becaue of vaccines (scientific advances).
In the past century the number or TB infections/deaths has decreased by more than tenfold
Then there is the black plaque 35 million dead in Europe 60 million dead in asia. Had any millions of people dying of plague lately (or anything else for that matter)?
The math and the logic are not difficult to figure out here. In nearly 100 years, 95 million people died from the Bubonic plague in Asia and Europe.
In four years (1914-1918), 119 million died by human warfare.
Therefore, with our helpful friends at the science and technology department, humans were able to best the death toll of the Black Plague in 1/20th the amount of time....with nearly 25 million more deaths to boot!!
Am I the only person in history that has taken issue with science: no.
Think: Jonathan Swift and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
In fact, "Gulliver's Travels" is a social commentary written contra science/scientists.
And Wittgenstein is every bit as much a "genius" as any of those hallowed men of science, including Einstein and Hawking.
The National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institute are now the sacred priesthood that dictates dogma and metaphysics ex cathedra. They have their own seat of "bishops" and their own Teaching Magisterium. Their pronouncements are binding, and any detractors are demonized and ex communicated from the communion of naturalist "saints". They have their own Canon law and their own "fathers".
In other words, these institutions are the resurrected Medieval Church; or rather, they exemplify the kind of "intolerance, bigotry and superstition" that their historians and apologists had claimed was, supposedly, at the center of Medieval learning.
And so consider these words of the rock band, the Clash, from "London's Burning":
"Black or White, turn it on, face the new religion
Everybody's sitting round watching television"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/12/2008 5:12:53 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 507
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
Everlearning gave us these estimates:
quote:
world war I 119,000,000 estimated dead
world war II 48,231,700 estimated dead
Korean war 3,500,000 estimated dead
Vietnam war 2,495,00 estimated dead
Gulf war 100,000 estimated dead
You're not getting what I'm saying. If your comparing numbers dead in two populations where one is orders of magnitude larger than the other, its meaningless. What % of the population died in the world wars etc compared to what the plague killed? The plague might have killed more if there were as many people alive back then as there are today. The world population has grown exponentially.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/12/2008 8:41:17 PM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1661
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
Everlearning gave us these estimates:
quote:
world war I 119,000,000 estimated dead
world war II 48,231,700 estimated dead
Korean war 3,500,000 estimated dead
Vietnam war 2,495,00 estimated dead
Gulf war 100,000 estimated dead
You're not getting what I'm saying. If your comparing numbers dead in two populations where one is orders of magnitude larger than the other, its meaningless. What % of the population died in the world wars etc compared to what the plague killed? The plague might have killed more if there were as many people alive back then as there are today. The world population has grown exponentially.
And he completely missed my point, that being that as science has grown over the years the death toll from wars has decreased which is counte to the point he made early on that science had created weapons that caused even more deaths. On top of that, as you stated, the population has increased signifcantly yet the number of deaths from disease has decreased (even more dramatically when you look at it in the terms of percentages of populations).
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/13/2008 8:21:16 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 253
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
This may seem odd to some but I think it is essentially correct: science has no advantages in the survival of any species. In fact, I think it can be plausibly argued for the reverse: all science hinders the survival of the species.
Think about it. Pro-science advocates want to boldly boast about all of the so-called "technological advances" that have supposedly benefited mankind: medicines, mass communications devices/media, cars, telephones, radio's, ect.
But think about all of the problems that have been concurrent with these "advances": guns, bombs, torture devices, poisons, concentration camps, illicit recreational drugs, prophylactics allowing for consequence free sex that lower incentives to marry and develop loving familial relationships, abortion, pornography, psycho-social manipulation manuals (i.e. "self-help" books), toxic waste dumps, mass elimination of forestry, exploitation of human vanity with HGH and steroids, diet pills and surgery; the "self-image" problems resulting from media bombardments of unrealistic fantasy pictures of celebrities, an "internet" and video game environment that isolates people, global warming, and the toxic psycho-pharmaceuticals that have been developed to cope with this monster that science has created.....just to name a few.
Thanks science....where would we be without you?
I think you are confusing the mis-application of scienctific discovery with the mis-application of the scriptures. There are athiests, and there are mad scientists.
Athiests have a point to consider scientifically, but not religiously. Mad scientists have a point to consider actually, but not really.
Just look at the "life expectancy" values for society for each millenium. I think you will find some modicum of improvement later rather than earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/15/2008 9:28:43 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 176
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just look at the "life expectancy" values for society for each millenium. I think you will find some modicum of improvement later rather than earlier.
But how, dear friends, are we to know what the life expectancy rates of humans are throughout all time (past and future)?
The future is, as yet, completely uncertain. Except that, it is alleged, that the logic of decreased death rates in the wars of the 20th Century is supposed to be an infallible predictor of the results of all future wars....not even remotely a "scientific" claim; rather, it's a historical claim. But it's not even a remotely "provable" claim, no matter what scholastic standard is applied.
As to the past: how can anyone make any certain claims as to what the life expectancy rate was throughtout all human existence, especially human "pre-historic" existence? After all, "history" means "recorded history". But what reliable records do we have that indicate, in "recorded history", what the human life expectancy rates?
The last several posts have grossly overstated what the "data" shows, or even can show, about life-expectancy statistics. I mean, one poster couldn't be sure of what the total population of Europe and Asia was at the time of the Great Plague....but speaks with utter confidence about human life expectancy rates!!
I mean, c'mon.
If you believe in "evolution", then you have to accept my point of view. After all, the sum of all present-day species have survived well before the advent of science. Maybe the absence of many extinct species was/is a direct result of the sciences?!
Could be....nay, absolutely!!
A better "quality" of life does not equal survival. Extending the life-span of individual humans by science would not count as an "evolutionary" survival advantage anyway...it's survival by "intelligent design".
So the crux: has science conferred any "survival advantages"?
I suppose that if you affirm the life expectancy rates of the people mentioned in the book of Genesis, then absolutely "no way". Some lived to be about 1000 years old. And I conjecture that it's because the environment wasn't botched by items developed by science (like pollution and weapons of mass destruction); but instead, the absence of science seems to have been a great benefit to survival. After all, there was a lot of history that developed before modern science.
If you don't affirm the book of Genesis and it's account of human flourishing, then the best one can say is:
"I don't know"
Besides, there's a mixing of ideals in the evaluation of my thesis. On the one hand, the principle of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (i.e. democracy) is assumed in the evaluations. And then you have the supposed statistics that buttress those claims.
In the final analysis, I wasn't as interested in defending my claim as I was in seeing who would defend secular humanism, and why.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/16/2008 7:37:04 PM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1661
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
But how, dear friends, are we to know what the life expectancy rates of humans are throughout all time (past and future)?
We do know the historic trend in life expectancies both before the scientific revolution and after and as science has gained more and more ground the life expectancies have increased.
quote:
The future is, as yet, completely uncertain. Except that, it is alleged, that the logic of decreased death rates in the wars of the 20th Century is supposed to be an infallible predictor of the results of all future wars....not even remotely a "scientific" claim; rather, it's a historical claim. But it's not even a remotely "provable" claim, no matter what scholastic standard is applied.
Whatever the future holds the current FACT is that life expectancies are up and the death toll of wars is less than it was even a century ago.
quote:
The last several posts have grossly overstated what the "data" shows, or even can show, about life-expectancy statistics. I mean, one poster couldn't be sure of what the total population of Europe and Asia was at the time of the Great Plague....but speaks with utter confidence about human life expectancy rates!!
Do you believe for even a second that Asia and Europe were ever more populated than they are now?
quote:
If you believe in "evolution", then you have to accept my point of view. After all, the sum of all present-day species have survived well before the advent of science. Maybe the absence of many extinct species was/is a direct result of the sciences?!
Since the HUMAN population has continually increased then something is working right and science, in the very least, hasn't caused a decline in the human population.
quote:
So the crux: has science conferred any "survival advantages"?
YES.
quote:
In the final analysis, I wasn't as interested in defending my claim as I was in seeing who would defend secular humanism, and why.
So pointing out that your arguement is based on a flawed premise is defending "secular humanism"
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/17/2008 9:21:30 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 253
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
I failed to explain, my point is that evolution is cyclical; i.e., what comes around goes around. Life expectancry fluctuates with the moral terpitude of the society being examined.
"People today are taller than their progenitors" is generally thought to be true, but the next generation may be shorter than this one. THAT is cyclical evolution.
And I KNOW that my generation (for another example) is smarter than both the prior or the next. AND better looking. :) (Did I get away with one?)(or two?)
The point being, evolution is not one way. Why anyone expects species to evolve into other species, which is irreversible, shows a complete lack of understanding about evolution.
The proof of this is that you can take a wolf and selectively breed a selected house dog. But you can also reverse the process also through selective breeding. To suggest that nature does not do this is simply ignorance of what is going on around you.
No matter how many generations of human you use in a selective breeding experiment; and even though you may approach a generation having the appearance of a great ape; you will still not be able to generate a great ape from the experiment.
And no matter how many monkeys you have typing randomly on typewriters, you will still never get a typewriter to admit it came from monkeys.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/17/2008 9:46:42 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 734
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
No matter how many generations of human you use in a selective breeding experiment; and even though you may approach a generation having the appearance of a great ape; you will still not be able to generate a great ape from the experiment.
Actually, this experiment would rapidly succeed, since humans are great apes.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/17/2008 6:35:12 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 253
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
No matter how many generations of human you use in a selective breeding experiment; and even though you may approach a generation having the appearance of a great ape; you will still not be able to generate a great ape from the experiment.
Actually, this experiment would rapidly succeed, since humans are great apes.
And I thought all this time great apes are humans.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. - 4/18/2008 5:02:20 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 328
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. The second law states that the available energy we have is headed toward maximal entropic stasis, where energy is wholly unusable.
So, "No Virginia, science will not save mankind."
Again, we return to that blind optimism that I stated earlier in my post.
This is a common misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second law states, "Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."
Another way of putting it is, "In an isolated system, a process can occur only if it increases the total entropy of the system."
In an isolated system, into which no energy is being poured, the system will tend towards equilibrium. If our solar system were the only thing that existed, you would be correct in assuming that we can't stop the entropy of our sun. However, there are plenty of examples of entropy being reversed by adding energy into a system.
Take a refrigerator, for instance. If your interpretation were correct, it would be impossible for us to cool food, because the heat would spread out evenly. However, by adding additional energy to the system, we make "heat flow from a material at a lower temperature to a material at a higher temperature." we are allowed to 'violate' the second law because refrigerators don't exist in a closed system.
Another example is yourself. You, if left alone, would simply decay. However, by adding additional energy to the system (in the form of food and water), you continue. If, for instance, you eat a banana, you're taking the order from that banana and using it in your own system. You can see this because when you discard the eaten banana in the form of waste, it is in a less ordered state than it was previously in. If either of these (a refrigerator, or you) were closed systems, they would not be possible.
The same is true of the sun. Our solar system, with slight exceptions, is a closed system. This is why the sun will eventually die. However, if we added additional fuel to our solar system by taking it from another solar system, the entropy of our sun would decrease, while the entropy of their system would increase.
So while it's not possible to "stop" the entropy of our sun, it is possible to halt it, or reverse it by adding additional energy to the system. Not forever, because (if the universe is finite) we'll eventually run out of energy to add to the system. But it would be possible to sustain our sun for quite awhile if it were possible to add the energy of other systems to our own. Like I said, "Not by violating the laws of physics, but by adding more fuel to the sun. With advanced enough technology, it's probably possible to throw suns, or planets, into the sun. Throwing Jupiter into the sun would certainly extend its life a little bit. It might destroy the earth in the process, but it can certainly be done, at least conceptually."
We can't do it, but it's conceptually possible. I don't know if humanity will ever reach the level to be able to do this. I suspect that if we do reach such a level, we'll simply leave the system and not waste the effort required to extend the sun's life. I'm not being optimistic, simply evaluating possibility.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
