I keep trying to hack the dLength parameter but it’s not working and I’m running out of money.
If reality is a sim, I’m deeply worried that Cleve Blakemore an Derek Smart are the developers.
Makes sense, as Donald Trump is basically just screaming at everyone to read the fucking manual when they point out that none of his shit works.
Science is, has always been, and will always be a process.
Eugenics and the like is especially silly since it was just an attempt to use to science to prove what people already thought. And then science proved it was bullshit.
Like Spock!
Wait, no, he was something else.
I don’t think either part of this is correct.
First, there’s nothing silly about using science to prove or measure the accuracy of common pre-existing beliefs about the world. Just as long as you keep your mind open to the possibility that the results will disprove the belief instead.
Second, although science picked at the edges of eugenics, it didn’t prove that it was bullshit. The core premise of eugenics is that humanity as a whole would be better off if the average human were stronger/smarter/healthier/whatever. Science can point out the perils of inbreeding, but it can’t refute the idea altogether. The real reason for resisting it is that the means of reaching this goal involve using the power of the state to prevent or discourage people without the desired traits from reproducing, and that is incompatible with the modern western notion of individual human rights. That’s a judgment that comes from moral philosophy, not from science.
Science is an amazing tool for understanding the world, but it has no inherent morality, certainly isn’t the only worthwhile form of learning, and shouldn’t be treated as the answer to every possible question. Science helped us create nuclear weapons, but it can’t tell us not to use them.
From a purely scientific perspective, you probably COULD achieve some kind of improvement in humanity through a genetic breeding program of some sort, at least from the perspective of accentuating favorable traits.
The tricky part is that the really important things, like intelligence, are harder to figure out in terms of genetic contributors. I believe there’s been actual scientific evidence that these traits do have a hereditary component, but they’re more complex than more straightforward traits like height.
The issue comes from whether or not we compromise some aspect of our humanity by treating humans in the same way as livestock, or judge people based on their genetic components like some Gatica style dystopia.
Yeah, the scary part about Eugenics is well… how similar it is to what is going to be happening real soon. I think that the movie Gattaca might be close to what our future will be in terms of having children. Designer babies, and all that. Which, on the whole, could be a great thing for society. Imagine that your child will be born free of heart defects, genetic disorders, and will be guaranteed the best chance at life. This kind of thing is less than 50 years away.
But, this isn’t a breeding program like old school genetics, but more of a genetic engineering to remove undesirable traits from the fetus for all. (in the dream world) but more likely for the rich only… which is probably the plot of 100 sci fi dystopian novels.
And… of course Timex also with the Gattaca reference.
There are almost certainly already people selecting for traits in their unborn children already. Even if it’s just something as simple as hair colour, eye colour, free of known genetic diseases.
Nicely put. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should. Science can tell us what we can do, not what we should do. It’s a process/tool, not a moreal compass, as you have noted.
It is nicely put, the implication being that global warming has progressed from a scientific issue to a moral one.
Which is fine, but they are too different streams and it is wise to remember that. Eugenics is highly unfashionable now, but it certainly wasnt in the 30s.
Jon, one thing you will learn from studying history is that every generation thinks they are modern and at the forefront, more correct than their misguided predecessors.
The introspective arguments re the scientific method and Kuhn serve to strengthen the point, not weaken it. The science will always change and correct itself, sometimes drastically.
Dragging science into politics and rendering it beyond criticism as ‘fact’ is fundamentalism. Which is a a verbose procrastination, it is far more accurate and timely to sit under a bridge and yell BALLS with the other 47 percenter luddites.
Lol what a fuckin loon
Now, beyond everything you said so far, you are quite right, science isn’t political. But you have to realize that smart people don’t render it beyond criticism. The scientific community does nothing but challenge theories and accepted facts. Science is the closest thing we can get to facts in this world, so we have to use the latest available agreed upon data to make decisions. And as the world progresses and we unlock more and more mysteries of genetics, climate data, and so forth, we can change our stances.
But, the problem that I have with client change denialists, is that they deny the latest available agreed upon data and cling to some sort of “This will all be disproven in the future” which is an even bigger leap of faith over facts.
And, I think people do not realize this, but science is fucking ruthless. It is cutthroat out there, ask any career academic how much care they take in submitting their research papers and data. Because if you fudge data, or fuck up, you can not only lose your job, but your credibility in the community. And you can bet that there are hundreds if not thousands of other researchers waiting to pick apart your data to prove you wrong. The peer review system is a strong part of what makes science so factual. You can’t just say anything you want, you need to prove that with data to the point where your peers, accept the results into the general lexicon of knowledge.
And I have said this to many people before, but it doesn’t matter what you think, or how you choose to interpret the data, but the data is the data, and the truth will be correct, because nature, physics, chemistry couldn’t give two shits about someone might misinterpret the data, or claim something is false, because if it is going to happen, it will happen. The climate won’t suddenly choose not to change because you don’t think it will, if it is going to, it will. And all available data we have points to catastrophic consequences both financial and ecological.
Additionally, as ammo for those out there who would like to combat rhetoric with fact.
Here is some ammunition.
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Some rebuttals for the common denialist.
This is a straw man, because no one thinks that climate change science is complete.
But incomplete science doesn’t preclude acting on our current understanding.
We don’t stop engineering just because we don’t completely understand physics.
We’ve replaced BadSport with a Markov chain generator. Let’s see if anyone can tell the difference.
I’m dying. I don’t usually subscribe to the Zylon insult feed, but this is awesome.
On the topic of how to communicate with skeptics, here’s a good corrective to the notion that all skeptics are blatantly anti-science or anti-evidence.
I’m actually pretty sure the Nov 2016 election brought out the very best in Zylon, cuz he’s been pure gold for months now.
Do you think we’ve reached peak Zylon, or will new technology allow our culture to plumb ever greater depths of stupidity and enhance his abilities even further?