Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-23-2016, 03:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: How am I supposed to have a conversation with a man who represents scientific values? Do human values jive with scientific values? Are scientific values human in nature and similar to human values or are they more robotic in nature and machine oriented as far as values go? I need some clarity.

Hmm…  Do I really need to explain my concept of a scientific world view?  Really?  Well, maybe I do.  I’ve lived with it for so long as part of my way of looking at things that I find it hard to think others might not see things that way.

From a scientific perspective, one learns by observing the world.  The ancients stared at the stars and the planets in the night sky long and hard until they became able to predict with accuracy exactly where and when such tiny little lights would be found.  One wants to refine one’s observations until one can come up with predictive equations.  Some honored truths might be abbreviated F=MA and E=Mc^2.  Observations ought to be repeatable if they are to be taken seriously.  One can never absolutely prove a theory or equation, there is always a possibility that a new situation or experiment might invalidate any theory or analysis.  There are rituals such as observe, theorize, predict, confirm, publish.  The process of learning through observing has become highly ritualized.

A religious world view is more apt to derive its basic truths from holy texts or the words of holy men.  You can start a religious world view with the Ten Commandments or the entire Bible.  There are, of course, lots of other similar options.  The emphasis is on supernatural sources of moral truths, with ritual and hierarchy often following.  This is too short a summary and religions are too diverse for a brief description to apply well to all of them, but hopefully you can distinguish the difference between scientific and religious approaches to understanding and manipulating the world.

A political world view might also start with a handful of key principles, with Jefferson’s self evident truths being a familiar example.  While there are definite moral principles there, and God does get invoked on occasion, political world views draw one into day by day policy decisions and the practical bureaucracy involved in governing a town, county, state or country.  We’ve been comparing and contrasting the red and blue political systems forever.  Marx has his own systems of premises and procedures, as might the Greens and Libertarians some day.  Again, vague, but hopefully enough to compare and contrast with scientific and religious world views.  It hopefully shouldn’t be hard to distinguish between how physicists, priests and legislators pursue different forms of knowledge and action and shape the world in different ways using different tools.

In the United States, perhaps in most of the world at this point, many folk involve themselves in all three ways of learning about and manipulating the world.  If one uses technology, and who doesn’t these days, one has to be familiar with at least some basics of how technology works.  This suggests some acknowledgement of the fruits and methods of science.  Similarly, many folk go to church, and many people belong to political parties.  Thus it is almost always absurdly simplistic to speak as if any individual has a world view entirely dedicated to one approach, entirely devoid of the others.

In theory, you could have a one approach culture.  In theory a pure Marxist society does away entirely with religion, and politics becomes a science.  In Theory, one might develop a pure no tech theocracy where the church is the government, wholly dictated by holy writ.  In practice, one generally has to juggle the three perspectives.

In theory, all three approaches can stand independent and equal.  If one is presented with a question, it is convenient and simplest if one can decide which of the three approaches to knowledge is applicable to the question.  If one is trying to start a reluctant car, one puts on one’s science hat.  If one is teaching a child to become a aware prudent social creature, perhaps one puts on one’s religious hat.  If one is trying to prevent those (expletive deleted) from building a 700 foot tall windmill across the street, perhaps one puts on a political hat.

Sometimes things refuse to separate cleanly.  At what age does a fetus become sentient?  At what time does God grant a fetus a soul?  Does one take seriously the XIVth Amendment which says one becomes a citizen when one is born?   Never mind that some of these question are hard to answer, which question ought to be relevant?

They can be juggled in many ways.  The example I often use is the fundamentalist whose understanding of holy writ conflicts with the theory of evolution.  If his dedication to religion is close to the core of his being, many fundamentalists find it necessary to declare that the science of evolution must somehow be false.  Carbon dating doesn’t work as the scientists say it does.  Maybe there is a conspiracy theory out there.  Anyway, if the holy book is right, the scientists have to be wrong.

I try to put science ahead of politics ahead of religion.  If a political system says supply side stimulus is good, that one should always take from the poor to give to the rich, and I see economic failures when the theory is put into practice, I would learn from observing the world rather than cling to political speeches and theories claiming how wonderful supply side is.  On the other hand, some buy very much into politicians and politics, will follow sets of political principles rigidly, and avoid looking at how poorly the political promises and predictions match what occurs on the streets.

This is just one more convoluted way of categorizing how different people look at the world differently.

(08-23-2016, 03:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Also, why do you think this a time when we should be leaning blue economically?

Another note...