Universe a projection?

[Pattern-chaser]

You cannot scientifically prove science is bunk...

N.B. I have never said that science is bunk. I don't believe that science is bunk. Science does not need me to praise or condemn it, its record stands for itself. Its achievements are well-known, and a matter of long-standing public record.

But this does not make science the One and Only Supreme Tool for investigating reality. It has a useful scope, outside which it is relatively ineffectual. This is not a criticism, only a simple statement of fact. Within its own bailiwick, science reigns pretty much supreme, but outside that scope, it is less useful than other tools in our armoury, such as philosophy.

[Mercury]

You cannot scientifically prove science is bunk...

N.B. I have never said that science is bunk. I don't believe that science is bunk. Science does not need me to praise or condemn it, its record stands for itself. Its achievements are well-known, and a matter of long-standing public record.

But this does not make science the One and Only Supreme Tool for investigating reality. It has a useful scope, outside which it is relatively ineffectual. This is not a criticism, only a simple statement of fact. Within its own bailiwick, science reigns pretty much supreme, but outside that scope, it is less useful than other tools in our armoury, such as philosophy.

You did say there's no such thing as scientific proof, repeatedly - and I took your criticisms on board to some degree, and you attacked me for describing a qualified concept of proof.

The you can't use science to prove science is bunk, was a comment in relation to discussion of the wavelengths of light and perception of colour - where you appear quite happy to draw upon scientific knowledge to attack the epistemic basis of scientific investigation. Stealing fruit from my orchard to pelt me with!

I'm not willing to accede to your statement that:

"this does not make science the One and Only Supreme Tool for investigating reality."

But I will offer to agree that things do not always need or want a scientific explanation, and suggest that, perhaps - had science been afforded its due, such Non-overlapping magisteria might have been established. As it is, philosophical disregard for the epistemic status of science is absurdly one sided, and if you now accept that to some degree; if you see the issue - I've achieved my aim.

[Pattern-chaser]

As it is, philosophical disregard for the epistemic status of science is absurdly one sided, and if you now accept that to some degree; if you see the issue - I've achieved my aim.

I don't believe there is such "disregard", but only objection to sciencists who misapply science, and seek to use science outside of its useful scope.

[Mercury]

As it is, philosophical disregard for the epistemic status of science is absurdly one sided, and if you now accept that to some degree; if you see the issue - I've achieved my aim.

I don't believe there is such "disregard", but only objection to sciencists who misapply science, and seek to use science outside of its useful scope.

Science is misapplied, but not because it is afforded its due as valid knowledge, but because it's not. Science is applied in pursuit of power and profit by a religious, political and economic ideological architecture that was not reformed in relation to science as truth, but continued unreformed - using science as a tool while disregarding a scientific understanding of reality as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.

That's why we have climate change and nuclear weapons, and don't have magma energy. Even now, at COP27 they think accepting the bare fact of climate change - they can then revert to ideological thinking, address the problem nationally, using financial instruments, and sub-optimal technologies with kickbacks for government contracts, and all the same reasoning that got them into this mess in the first place.

They're wrong. They need to think differently. They need to act on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality; and in those terms the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless heat energy, easily translated into electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel. Massively more than sufficient to meet global energy demand carbon free, magma energy would also provide power for desalination and irrigation, to recycle all waste, to extract carbon from the air - and so support a prosperous sustainable future indefinitely. But they think like you. Science is not an understanding of reality to which we should attend; but is merely a tool - its scope circumscribed by utility in a world described by gods, flags and money!

[Pattern-chaser]

As it is, philosophical disregard for the epistemic status of science is absurdly one sided, and if you now accept that to some degree; if you see the issue - I've achieved my aim.

I don't believe there is such "disregard", but only objection to sciencists who misapply science, and seek to use science outside of its useful scope.

Science is misapplied, not because it is afforded its due as valid knowledge, but because it's not. Science is applied in pursuit of power and profit by a religious, political and economic ideological architecture that was not reformed in relation to science as truth, but continued unreformed - using science as a tool while disregarding a scientific understanding of reality as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.

I'm afraid this is an excellent example of the (proposed) misuse of science. The "conduct of human affairs" is wholly cultural and social, and has little to do with "a scientific understanding of reality". Human affairs are not experienced within 'reality', in the sense of the scientific spacetime universe, but within the context of human culture (which, literally, exists within scientific 'reality', of course; my point is not a literal one). As such, science is clearly and definitely *not* the appropriate tool for use in this particular circumstance.

To advise or recommend the inappropriate use of science only makes it more likely that science will become distrusted, and not applied where it is the most appropriate tool.

[Mercury]

As it is, philosophical disregard for the epistemic status of science is absurdly one sided, and if you now accept that to some degree; if you see the issue - I've achieved my aim.

I don't believe there is such "disregard", but only objection to sciencists who misapply science, and seek to use science outside of its useful scope.

Science is misapplied, not because it is afforded its due as valid knowledge, but because it's not. Science is applied in pursuit of power and profit by a religious, political and economic ideological architecture that was not reformed in relation to science as truth, but continued unreformed - using science as a tool while disregarding a scientific understanding of reality as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.

I'm afraid this is an excellent example of the (proposed) misuse of science. The "conduct of human affairs" is wholly cultural and social, and has little to do with "a scientific understanding of reality". Human affairs are not experienced within 'reality', in the sense of the scientific spacetime universe, but within the context of human culture (which, literally, exists within scientific 'reality', of course; my point is not a literal one). As such, science is clearly and definitely *not* the appropriate tool for use in this particular circumstance.

To advise or recommend the inappropriate use of science only makes it more likely that science will become distrusted, and not applied where it is the most appropriate tool.

The conduct of human affairs is wholly cultural and social; I'm going to use the word 'ideological' - but you are describing the current state of affairs. One in which the world is barrelling toward climate and ecological catastrophe - and 27 meetings of world leaders have failed to adequately address the issue because of their conflicting ideological interests. Measures that are proposed displace blame from producers to consumers, and so impose price rises to reduce demand, while still relying heavily on coal, oil and gas for energy.

Putting ideology aside, and adopting a scientific worldview, the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless quantities of heat energy, easily converted into heavy duty electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel. Massively more that sufficient to meet world energy demand carbon free, magma energy could also supply power to desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation - allowing for conservation of rivers and forests. Waste processing is similarly energy intensive - but given limitless clean energy to spend, landfill would become a gold mine of resources waiting to be processed.

Please explain how the latter is the misuse of science, because it seems to me the very opposite!

[Pattern-chaser]

As it is, philosophical disregard for the epistemic status of science is absurdly one sided, and if you now accept that to some degree; if you see the issue - I've achieved my aim.

I don't believe there is such "disregard", but only objection to sciencists who misapply science, and seek to use science outside of its useful scope.

Science is misapplied, not because it is afforded its due as valid knowledge, but because it's not. Science is applied in pursuit of power and profit by a religious, political and economic ideological architecture that was not reformed in relation to science as truth, but continued unreformed - using science as a tool while disregarding a scientific understanding of reality as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.

I'm afraid this is an excellent example of the (proposed) misuse of science. The "conduct of human affairs" is wholly cultural and social, and has little to do with "a scientific understanding of reality". Human affairs are not experienced within 'reality', in the sense of the scientific spacetime universe, but within the context of human culture (which, literally, exists within scientific 'reality', of course; my point is not a literal one). As such, science is clearly and definitely *not* the appropriate tool for use in this particular circumstance.

To advise or recommend the inappropriate use of science only makes it more likely that science will become distrusted, and not applied where it is the most appropriate tool.

The conduct of human affairs is wholly cultural and social; I'm going to use the word 'ideological' - but you are describing the current state of affairs. One in which the world is barrelling toward climate and ecological catastrophe - and 27 meetings of world leaders have failed to adequately address the issue because of their conflicting ideological interests. Measures that are proposed displace blame from producers to consumers, and so impose price rises to reduce demand, while still relying heavily on coal, oil and gas for energy.

Putting ideology aside, and adopting a scientific worldview, the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless quantities of heat energy, easily converted into heavy duty electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel. Massively more that sufficient to meet world energy demand carbon free, magma energy could also supply power to desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation - allowing for conservation of rivers and forests. Waste processing is similarly energy intensive - but given limitless clean energy to spend, landfill would become a gold mine of resources waiting to be processed.

Please explain how the latter is the misuse of science, because it seems to me the very opposite!

I already did that. The post you were replying to explains exactly that. You mistakenly treat a complex, human, topic as though it could be resolved on a purely factual and scientific basis. It can't. The problem is not that we don't know what to do, it's that we don't want to do it. In trying to apply science to this problem, you manage to miss the real problem, which is about human behaviour, interactions, and other similar cultural issues.

[Mercury]

As it is, philosophical disregard for the epistemic status of science is absurdly one sided, and if you now accept that to some degree; if you see the issue - I've achieved my aim.

I don't believe there is such "disregard", but only objection to sciencists who misapply science, and seek to use science outside of its useful scope.

Science is misapplied, not because it is afforded its due as valid knowledge, but because it's not. Science is applied in pursuit of power and profit by a religious, political and economic ideological architecture that was not reformed in relation to science as truth, but continued unreformed - using science as a tool while disregarding a scientific understanding of reality as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.

I'm afraid this is an excellent example of the (proposed) misuse of science. The "conduct of human affairs" is wholly cultural and social, and has little to do with "a scientific understanding of reality". Human affairs are not experienced within 'reality', in the sense of the scientific spacetime universe, but within the context of human culture (which, literally, exists within scientific 'reality', of course; my point is not a literal one). As such, science is clearly and definitely *not* the appropriate tool for use in this particular circumstance.

To advise or recommend the inappropriate use of science only makes it more likely that science will become distrusted, and not applied where it is the most appropriate tool.

The conduct of human affairs is wholly cultural and social; I'm going to use the word 'ideological' - but you are describing the current state of affairs. One in which the world is barrelling toward climate and ecological catastrophe - and 27 meetings of world leaders have failed to adequately address the issue because of their conflicting ideological interests. Measures that are proposed displace blame from producers to consumers, and so impose price rises to reduce demand, while still relying heavily on coal, oil and gas for energy.

Putting ideology aside, and adopting a scientific worldview, the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless quantities of heat energy, easily converted into heavy duty electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel. Massively more that sufficient to meet world energy demand carbon free, magma energy could also supply power to desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation - allowing for conservation of rivers and forests. Waste processing is similarly energy intensive - but given limitless clean energy to spend, landfill would become a gold mine of resources waiting to be processed.

Please explain how the latter is the misuse of science, because it seems to me the very opposite!

I already did that. The post you were replying to explains exactly that. You mistakenly treat a complex, human, topic as though it could be resolved on a purely factual and scientific basis. It can't. The problem is not that we don't know what to do, it's that we don't want to do it. In trying to apply science to this problem, you manage to miss the real problem, which is about human behaviour, interactions, and other similar cultural issues.

The post I'm replying to doesn't explain anything. It merely makes assertions without any form of explanation or example. I've given you an example, of what would naturally occur if science were recognised as a rule for the conduct of human affairs, rather than used as a tool by ideological entities in pursuit of power and profit. The choice of what technologies to apply would be determined instead, with regard to a scientific understanding of reality.
Technology would be applied on merit, rather than for profit; because scientific truth would have moral authority. If someone did otherwise, people would say 'Hey, that's not scientifically justified.' And that would mean something akin to "that's illegal" - because scientific knowledge, recognised as truth, would own the moral authority to compel one action and disbar another.

I should point out, that's not where 400 years of anti-science philosophy has brought us; that's not who we are, and that's why we have climate change and nuclear weapons, but don't have Magma Energy. Because we make decisions about what technologies to develop and apply (or withhold) based on ideological interests. And these are inconsistent with a scientific understanding of reality, which is to say inconsistent with reality - hence, climate change and ecological devastation.
I do not expect humankind to simply abandon their ideological identities, and adopt a scientific understanding of reality across the board; that's unrealistic. However, with regard to a global existential threat 27 COP's have failed to get to grips with, in this one instance - we might just all agree science is true and act accordingly. i.e.

"Putting ideology aside, and adopting a scientific worldview, the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless quantities of heat energy, easily converted into heavy duty electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel. Massively more that sufficient to meet world energy demand carbon free, magma energy could also supply power to desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation - allowing for conservation of rivers and forests."

[Pattern-chaser]

I've given you an example, of what would naturally occur if science were recognised as a rule for the conduct of human affairs, rather than used as a tool by ideological entities in pursuit of power and profit. The choice of what technologies to apply would be determined instead, with regard to a scientific understanding of reality.

Technology would be applied on merit, rather than for profit; because scientific truth would have moral authority. If someone did otherwise, people would say 'Hey, that's not scientifically justified.' And that would mean something akin to "that's illegal" - because scientific knowledge, recognised as truth, would own the moral authority to compel one action and disbar another.

Mr Spock and Mr Data would no doubt agree wholeheartedly, but real humans might not. The course you recommend denies everything that it is to be human. Not all of those things are praiseworthy, but they are attributes displayed by humans since we descended from the trees onto the savanna.

[Mercury]

I've given you an example, of what would naturally occur if science were recognised as a rule for the conduct of human affairs, rather than used as a tool by ideological entities in pursuit of power and profit. The choice of what technologies to apply would be determined instead, with regard to a scientific understanding of reality.

Technology would be applied on merit, rather than for profit; because scientific truth would have moral authority. If someone did otherwise, people would say 'Hey, that's not scientifically justified.' And that would mean something akin to "that's illegal" - because scientific knowledge, recognised as truth, would own the moral authority to compel one action and disbar another.

Mr Spock and Mr Data would no doubt agree wholeheartedly, but real humans might not. The course you recommend denies everything that it is to be human. Not all of those things are praiseworthy, but they are attributes displayed by humans since we descended from the trees onto the savanna.

Your basic argument here was addressed by Karl Popper in 'Enemies of an Open Society' (1947). He argued that recognising science as truth would require we 'make all our representations conform' to science, from which none could demur because science is true, and that this would be tyrannical. I disagree - because of Hume's is/ought argument, in which he maintains no list of facts adds up to a value.
Consequently, even accepting a scientific understanding of reality, we would not all have the same values and priorities - and so would order that list of facts differently. What we would have is a common truth - a level playing field, with regard to which the merits and morals of one outcome or another could be clearly envisaged. I don't see anything inhuman in that, but - as I said previously, that's not where we are, and not what I'm proposing, except with regard to a pressing existential threat we seem unable to resolve to our benefit, in any other way.