|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 4, 2024 11:59:11 GMT
Was he right, or was he wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 12:20:08 GMT
Ignorance is definitely widespread out there. But it is not just ignorance about science and technology but also everything else as well - history, politics, psychology.
The combustible nature of ignorance combined with power in terms of politics has already been blowing up in our faces in recent years, both here and abroad.
We have not in my view yet quite reached that point in terms of science and technology but are becoming dangerously close to it.
However, science is less vulnerable to ignorance than politics. A politician to be successful need only make a successful appeal to the ignorant. He does not have to be good at his own job, merely good at persuading the ignorant that he will be. As Johnson demonstrated in spades.
But no scientist is ever going to be successful without being intelligent enough to do the job. So unlike politics, science is not at the mercy of the ignorant. The few who know their stuff in their chosen fields pretty much remain on top.
Technology which they lay the groundwork for is however now in the hands of the vast majority of the population. And far too many of them are far too stupid to deal with it. As anyone stuck in a queue at Tesco behind some twat faffing about for an age trying to find vouchers or cards on his or her phone without having a single clue on how to do it, can testify.
But as a species, with the aid of science, some of the more intelligent of our species are working towards the creation of artificial intelligence which is likely to be far smarter than us and able to learn far more quickly. I am not at all sure that this is a particularly smart thing for us to be doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 4, 2024 12:40:17 GMT
We have not in my view yet quite reached that point in terms of science and technology but are becoming dangerously close to it. However, science is less vulnerable to ignorance than politics. Are you sure about that?  Basing an entire transport policy on those is ignorance. Ignorance of the dangers. Ignorance of the lack of infrastructure. Ignorance of the alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 5, 2024 6:26:49 GMT
Society isn't based on science. Technology is based on science to some extent but the decision as to what technology to use is made by politicians who don't understand science. The politicians have scientific advisors but they also don't understand science.
The actual scientists are very rarely heard from - unless people read the scientific journals. We're told what they think by politicians. This is the era of junk science where any nonsense is believed if it is cleverly marketed on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 5, 2024 8:22:35 GMT
Pretty certain that if Sagan said it, it is correct. Man was a bona fide genius - every school child, and every single politician worldwide should be required to watch this, every week, until they understand it. youtu.be/GO5FwsblpT8?si=EvVaj4C-XWpKllsjAll The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 5, 2024 8:28:43 GMT
The idea of marrying politics and science seems to keep surfacing in the popular conversation, like some unwelcome dark object that hovers just under the surface of drain water.
I have noticed a shift in tone in popular science from friendly information to browbeating. I think this is accompanied by the emergence of a politically connected management class in science and the fact that such groups tend to be dominated by people with narcissistic personality disorder.
The way to defeat it is to have basic grasp of fundamentals.
So, when they tell that the emergence of novel respiratory virus CAN HAVE NOTHING TO DO with a nearby respiratory virus factory and that the hypothesis that it might is a RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THEORY or that 'virus is spread by racism', you can tell them with confidence that they are talking out of their arse.
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Jun 5, 2024 9:06:30 GMT
Of course society is based on science and technology, what else would it be based on?, religion? Not a bad idea if it wasnt corrupted by those that could learn from it. Why would Joe Bloggs from Wentworth Street want to be up on tech, when hed rather play poker, read the Daily Mirror, warch porn, and bet on the horses.
Society, the government designates persons in regards to the above. We all have to do it? I havent watched the video, i presume it covers my point, if its Sagan it must be true eh?
Im flicking through the schema for the transfer of electricity fromn earth to space via molecular clouds, asteroids and bouncing off the moon.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 9, 2024 18:16:07 GMT
We have not in my view yet quite reached that point in terms of science and technology but are becoming dangerously close to it. However, science is less vulnerable to ignorance than politics. Are you sure about that? Basing an entire transport policy on those is ignorance. Ignorance of the dangers. Ignorance of the lack of infrastructure. Ignorance of the alternatives. I think politics today IS more susceptible to the rantings of those who seek political influence by bullshitting their credentials as scientists than the scientific community i left behind was. The susceptibility of those in the scientific community to such rantings comes solely from the need to bend to such bollox to get funding from government sources. The problem we have is when those in power have no training in anything outside politics, arse kissing, and being first to remove the shoes from the dead so as to step into them. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 10, 2024 7:55:56 GMT
The problem we have is when those in power have no training in anything outside politics, arse kissing, and being first to remove the shoes from the dead so as to step into them. The have several unfortunate social trends colliding. Science is becoming politicised via the mechanism you highlight. People speaking on behalf of science should be parsimonious and make a clear divide between their opinions about what should be done and the science. This boundary is now being breached regularly. The public seems to being browbeaten into accepting a definition of science that includes 'what the government approved scientists think and feel' Run-away credentialism. This is a broader social trend that has accompanied the emergence of 'bat-shit credentials'. As a way of bolstering bat-shit credentials and their loans, the government has fostered an atmosphere where increasingly any statement about the world requires the correct government credential to be valid. When the un-credentialed opine that somebody who wants to cut off their own limbs, or who belives they are a reindeer, has a psychological problem, it is pointed out that these people are 'unqualified' to talk about another person's personality or understand what a personality is. This broad social trend spills out over science and affects the way a scientists sees himself and his relationship with non-scientists. The increasing influence of narcissists and their facile, one dimensional view of the world. This trend has been bolstered significantly by social media. Signs that this is overflowing into science are the emergence of statements like "I am the science" - a statement or sentiment that might have meant professional suicide and a visit to a 'nerve clinic' 60 years ago. Politicians are trapped by these social trends. Science is now less about open investigation of the world, and increasingly a social tool used by managerial narcissists to browbeat and intimidate politicians and the public. A lot of the puff also seems to have gone out of Science. We now seem to have a whole load of organisation charts and thick encrusted process (ritual) and very little else - a lot of the excitement of the twentieth century seems to have left the stage. |
|
