(anti)scientism

Steven Pinker dismisses "scientism" as a canard: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities

Here is a response to his piece by Massimo Pigliucci:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2013/08/steven-pinker-embraces-scientism-bad.html

Do you have a dog in this fight?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Steven Pinker dismisses "scientism" as a canard: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities

Here is a response to his piece by Massimo Pigliucci:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2013/08/steven-pinker-embraces-scientism-bad.html

Do you have a dog in this fight?

Can't we all just get along🙂

Can you help with some of the terms? Postmodernism and Dogmatic Relativism, what are they? Pigliucci talks about the self inflicted wound of postmodernism but what is it exactly?

He also says that there are pluses and minuses in science but I think he misplaces the moral judgement about some of the misuses such as the current crisis with climate change. He blames technology for that and that technology is certainly at fault but the continued use of that same technology such as burning fossil fuel and the present mire of fracking, those are techniques forced on the public by politicians and industrialists who want to hold the status quo above all else, keep the money flowing to industry and politics and everything will work out in the end, which is clearly a load of BS. We are headed for a climate cliff which we will certainly fall over if the status quo is the goal.

Do philosophy students actually score higher on academic tests?

I think some of the objections to science lies in jealousy in that the sciences REQUIRE huge financial resources and that obviously leaves less to the humanities. But isn't that a societal problem where the politicians are in charge of the direction of academia?

One hopes that science can get us out of the present dilemma of climate change, that is the largest threat to civilization world wide since the Chixulub asteroid strike and may have similar consequences.

If we cannot solve that problem and wean ourselves of fossil fuels of all types, and use oil for what it is supposed to be used for, lubrication, then we will find the 22 and 23rd century a dismal place indeed.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Steven Pinker dismisses "scientism" as a canard: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities

Here is a response to his piece by Massimo Pigliucci:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2013/08/steven-pinker-embraces-scientism-bad.html

Do you have a dog in this fight?

I thought it interesting that he mentioned pseudoscience. Taking the global warming issue that seems to be morphing into climate change debate, there is pseudoscience involved. I wouldn't be surprised if both sides are using it to win their argument. Bring on the solar cells and lithium sulphide batteries and be done with the nonsense. Much fewer wells would be needed for our plastics and lubricating oils and the landscape would be much nicer. 🙂

Originally posted by joe beyser
I thought it interesting that he mentioned pseudoscience. Taking the global warming issue that seems to be morphing into climate change debate, there is pseudoscience involved. I wouldn't be surprised if both sides are using it to win their argument. Bring on the solar cells and lithium sulphide batteries and be done with the nonsense. Much fewer wells would be needed for our plastics and lubricating oils and the landscape would be much nicer. 🙂

The only thing wrong with the solar solution is the cost, right now it would cost something like 10 trillion dollars just to make the US free of Arab oil. One big problem is the lack of electrical delivery systems in the deserts of the US where the sun is most useful for energy. No infrastructure of the million volt lines to get electricity from where it wants to be generated to where it is needed.

That alone is going to cost over a trillion dollars.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, it should.

But engineering developments in the past couple of years are reducing the price tremendously and in a few years may be down to 50 cents a watt installed. At that point a concerted effort could pay off big time.

But you still have to build the infrastructure of electrical delivery and even if
solar was totally free it would still mean spending a trillion or more on such infrastructure.

Presently all the electric pylons are in the north, east and far west, not much in the deserts. Therein lies the problem.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The only thing wrong with the solar solution is the cost, right now it would cost something like 10 trillion dollars just to make the US free of Arab oil. One big problem is the lack of electrical delivery systems in the deserts of the US where the sun is most useful for energy. No infrastructure of the million volt lines to get electricity from where it wa ...[text shortened]... pylons are in the north, east and far west, not much in the deserts. Therein lies the problem.

One of the problems is those Liberal politicians spend our tax money on nonsense that has been putting us in debt for years.

The Instructor

http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/debt/US-national-debt-GDP.png

Originally posted by RJHinds
One of the problems is those Liberal politicians spend our tax money on nonsense that has been putting us in debt for years.

The Instructor

Oh, you mean like Bush Jr giving away 3/4 of a trillion dollars in 'incentives' and half of it lost because there was zero accountability? When Obama used the same amount of money in his incentive program it was with full accountability and the country was better off for it. Bush Jr, just gave away 300 billion dollars to keep his job. A nice payoff for SOMEONE. Several somebodies has a REALLY nice golden diamond platinum parachute. Money of that level does't just disappear. It went to a few dozen pockets.