tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107741264578130285.post5951094588935336792..comments2023-04-12T08:38:17.603-04:00Comments on RIMATARA: The Crisis of the Sciencessamrochahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17819664824559433157noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107741264578130285.post-84415633733579526112009-01-06T15:53:00.000-05:002009-01-06T15:53:00.000-05:00Also, the whole "I don't like your prose" argument...Also, the whole "I don't like your prose" argument is just about as interesting as airline attendant parodies. I find pleasure in reading different manners expression in the written word, and Bill's is certainly one to be taken seriously, I think. Lets not get down to telling each other how to write or what words to use or not use. Imagine if you were denied the use of the F-word...samrochahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17819664824559433157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107741264578130285.post-6198282314011084502009-01-06T12:00:00.000-05:002009-01-06T12:00:00.000-05:00No nuance to the rise of modernism via science, mo...No nuance to the rise of modernism via science, most explicitly found in technology, as it relates to the ability of humans to nuke itself out of existence. No nuance to that at all. I rarely make statements this strong, but there is no comparison to the level of destructive capability we no possess -- and employ -- as a result of modern innovation. None at all within the general story of human history.samrochahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17819664824559433157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107741264578130285.post-8579768971577538822009-01-06T11:36:00.000-05:002009-01-06T11:36:00.000-05:00Sam you've surprised me with the broad stroke of h...Sam you've surprised me with the broad stroke of hyperbole in this reply. The implication that because of science we are killing each other and the earth "now" is a bit far. First, we're not killing the earth, as if it could be killed, it always has and will continue to be polluted by human activity, but pollution should be defined I suppose at a later time. Science has been both a positive and negative force in this, more recently to the positive. As for killing each other, I don't think we needed science or modernity for that. Both have been a positive and negative influence in our treatment of human dignity. Perhaps a bit of nuance is warranted.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17922787849011462564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107741264578130285.post-28421373380506198822009-01-05T19:41:00.000-05:002009-01-05T19:41:00.000-05:00Sam, if anyone other than you had written that las...Sam, if anyone other than you had written that last paragraph, I would assume it was a joke.<BR/><BR/>Also, if anyone in this blog uses the word "inasmuch" for the next week, I'm ordering them shot.<BR/><BR/>My biggest "quibble." You are attacking "science" (as if it's a monolithic entity) from a metaphysical point of view. "Science" doesn't seek to provide answers in the same way as philosophy does - it merely seeks to understand phenomena. It is not a worldview, despite what you would like to think.<BR/><BR/>Second, I've said it before, but my biggest "quibble" with you philosophical types is your grounding of weak arguments in convoluted language. Can I understand it? Sure. Does it need to be said that way? No. This is sesquipedalianism as a retreat from intellect.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15066039848031168637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107741264578130285.post-47623206059182927612009-01-05T14:26:00.000-05:002009-01-05T14:26:00.000-05:00I think this is a wonderful argument against scien...I think this is a wonderful argument against science. I have one point that I'd like to emphasize and two small quibbles.<BR/><BR/>I think it is very important to notice that when we contrast the phenomena of science from those of religion, culture, theology and so on, we are not speaking of religious fundamentalism. What we are speaking of, primarily, is the flux of experience that floods the person. This drowning state of humankind presents us with a vast array of things to deal with. <BR/><BR/>Now to my quibbles. One of those things we have to deal with is the natural world and no one, I think, can deny that science has dealt with it in very impressive ways. The reaction, however, after harnessing these things as mere objects has been a destructive technological, political, and social force we call modernity. We named (and only named) gravity and fixed the orbits in our heads (and only in our heads) and now we can blow up the earth and are slowly killing it and each other. So, I want to say -- without being pressed to qualify it right now and without needing to recourse to time travel -- that science does say something very impressive indeed. But that it doesn't say it any differently than anything else that is true that is said. <BR/><BR/>The bigger quibble is that you seem to treat objects as objects. That is you seem to ignore the subjectivity of object as they contain and give of themselves, albeit without the notion of intentionality that we have for humans. This seems like a rather short sighted way of treating rocks, and waterfalls, I think.<BR/><BR/>Overall, I'm on your team.samrochahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17819664824559433157noreply@blogger.com