Should pro-science world citizens form their own independent nation?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by cosmictotem, Mar 13, 2015.

?

Should pro-science citizens from around the world form a pro-science nation?

  1. Yes

    7.7%
  2. No

    61.5%
  3. Depends

    38.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Well river, I would make the following observation, that I would certainly rather follow the advice of science, rather then anything else, making a valued judgment of the benefits that science has obviously had for mankind in general and always will.
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Further then , we need more scientific philosophers that are presidents and prime ministers , not lawyers and/or business minded people ( or sophists of rhetoric )
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    True

    But science has also given us knowledge that is beyond even those that utilise it ; such as politicians
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Of course Dawkins would believe that way. As much as I respect what science has accomplished, it's really not a drop-in replacement for community based values and tradition like religion provides. Religion isn't going to go away any time soon, and that's a scientific, as well as a realistic fact. It's part of what makes us human.

    What is needed is a faith that does not discourage scientific or other learning and can accommodate a wide range of beliefs ranging from orthodoxy to atheism. I have already found it. Rabbis have argued the book of Genesis for millennia before there was anyone identified as part of any other Abrahmic religion. And although they valued both literacy and scholarship, they never tried to convert Genesis into a science textbook, or discourage anyone from learning about science. Even the vengeful G_d of the old testament didn't care if man sought the truth about his existence, so really, why should any other?

    But something that needs to go along with faith is a means to discourage the ultra-orthodox from getting so obsessive-compulsive about religions that they become engines of intolerance. When someone orthodox begins teaching intolerance of other religions as part of their religion, that needs to stop, and sooner rather than later. And with all the prejudice that is due any faith that legitimizes murder of other faiths.

    A quarantine of such people from practicing their religion this way would be the only way to avoid murdering them before they can teach intolerance to their children and is really the only way to put a stop to the cycle of violent intolerance. Is this not a better idea than to quarantine scientists in their own independent nation, as this thread suggests?
     
  8. TBodillia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Former medical researcher Andrew Wakefield is the anti-vaccine nutjob that faked the infamous paper linking vaccine use to autism.

    Actress Mayim Bialik has a PhD in Neuroscience but she is also an anti-vaccine nutjob. She is trying to back away from all the anti-vaccine statements she has made.

    Science was and is used to promote racism. Negroes are inferior to whites in every way...according to some scientists.
    Some racial peculiarities of the Negro brain
    Scientific Racism: The Justification of Slavery and Segregated Education in America
    Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment <--not exactly on point, but it is a fine example of science gone awry.

    And you have scientists that support the Hanke-Henry Permanent Calendar since it was made by scientists. March 21 & 22 would always be Saturday & Sunday under their calendar. If you were born on a Friday, your birthday would always fall on a Friday. With their calendar, they also want to eliminate all time zones. If it's noon in Hong Kong, it's noon in Moscow, London, Sydney, Washington D.C., ...
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Nice one. I would hesitate to lump the calendar reform folks in with those other 'nut jobs', though. For one thing, daylight savings time could go away on a permanent basis. The hours could be adjusted along with the sun. This is a practical idea for computers at least. Too bad about your $17K Rolex changing overnight to a paperweight, but Apple does have a solution to that problem.

    Bringing back polio, typhus, diphtheria, mumps, measles, smallpox, really not such a great idea.

    I have written before on this forum, science does not support the idea of race, regardless of what you may have read. But the legal systems of most countries still do.

    One time zone is the only part of the flat-earther's ideas that is commendable. A model of simplicity, even if unworkable.
     
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    And these legal systems merely codify the attitudes in the nations' cultures, which have been carried forward for generations, or even centuries or millennia. We Westerners would need two semesters of a university course to even vaguely understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam, yet the members of those communities (in many of the places where they live together or nearby) hate each other as much as the French and the Germans in the early 20th century. "Race" (yes, a very unscientific concept yet it still strongly shapes many people's feelings nonetheless) is hardly the only trigger for ethnic hatred.

    Legal systems would not emphasize race if the people who build those systems did not emphasize it. Here in the USA, ironically, we are still stuck with racial categories (even though we try very hard to rename them to remove any trace of insult) which we use in our attempt to eliminate racism. Apply for a job in almost any large corporation and one of the first questions you'll have to answer is, "are you White, Latino, Black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, or some combination thereof?" Their purpose is to make sure that every ethnic group is represented in their workforce in approximate proportion to their representation in the American population.

    At my age (71) I clearly remember Eisenhower integrating the schools, the lunch counters, Rosa Parks (here in Maryland, the most well-integrated state in the nation, every county seems to have a school named after her), the Virginia county that shut down its entire school system to avoid integration, Selma, Watts, Loving vs. Virginia, and all the others, and I've read enough about America's history to know about Jim Crow, the KKK, the Chinese railroad workers, "gentlemen's agreements" (no Jews in fancy neighborhoods no matter how rich they were), the sunset towns (no negroes allowed after dark), the Japanese-American relocation camps (my college roommate was born in a stable at the Santa Anita racetrack because his family was on their way to Manzanar the next morning), Truman integrating the armed forces, etc.

    Race may be a fantasy, but racism is real.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I am not at all certain that a community of pro-science citizens would automatically disavow racism.
     
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I see that you are right (as if there were any doubt). I also see why it's mainly HARVARD to blame, yet again, for signing off on a dissertation about the IQ of hispanics.

    Their graduates from THE SAME YEAR could not relate why there are seasons. This does not even rise to the level of being stupid scientifically, as that would be an insult to stupid people who have not had the benefit of study at Harvard, yet have more sense. By that I mean, money to go to Harvard is not a substitute for brains.

    Anyone who has not read and understood Stephen Jay Gould's 'Mismeasure of Man' cannot call themselves a scientist, as far as I am concerned. That Harvard dissertation would have earned an expulsion with extreme prejudice from me. The ones who could not explain why there are seasons would have their fancy expensive Harvard degrees permanently revoked as well. Obviously, they did not earn the academic status such degrees are intended to confer. I know sixth graders in poor neighborhoods who can explain the concept.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    In case anyone has got my opinion wrong.
    I certainly do not believe that science and scientists need to form their own nation.
    My point is that ideally, every politician should be educated in science, the scientific method, and the obvious fact of how science has always and always will benefit mankind.
     
  13. jabbaska Registered Member

    Messages:
    40
    Greetings,

    This is my first post here and since I am at work, I may as well confess I didn't read almost any of the replies to the initial post

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Anyway, I do not think we (pro-science citizens) should start an independent Nation, at least for now. First and foremost, science should be available for everyone without exception, secondly we humans suck ass when power is on the line. Can you guys imagine a purely science based Nation, totally dedicated to science? It would be the wealthiest Nation in the world for sure, and that my friends would bring a whole lot of bad stuff...also, it would only work if we changed quite a lot of rules when it comes to government and politics in general, so I understand why there were some people that said this was a fantasy idea. It needs to be done by humanity and not by just some of us. It won't work unless the little, "less smart" people commit to it as well. You got a lot of stuff which needs to be solved before even considering going further with your idea. Jacque Fresco already talked about this and even though we all may tend to agree with him, the reality is much more complex...we humans are more complex and we need evolution to do some work for us, even if it is just social evolution.

    I am sorry for my English.
     
  14. jabbaska Registered Member

    Messages:
    40
    Science and scientists in general advocate the use of Critical Thinking above all. We take most stuff for granted that's for sure, at least I do take them for granted. I am an amateur scientist if that even exists, and I can't for my sake interpret most of the mathematical data which proves a certain theory, making it a fact. We just need to aknowledge there are people who know way way more than us (they studied for it) and that's that. Now, even though I do understand this, I will never accept anything I find suspicious even if it was some famous scientist talking...before I could get my hands on some evidence and peer reviews. Science is shared among scientists and if one scientist experiments with something resulting in TRUE, and if all his peers do the same test resulting in TRUE as well, we need to accept it as fact. Things change though, knowledge changes and facts become theories, theories become facts.
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    An amateur is one who engages in a study, sport, etc., for pleasure or enlightenment, rather than for financial benefit or career advancement. So it's rather easy to be an amateur scientist.
    Theories do not become facts. Facts are observations that occur so consistently that they are accepted as simply part of the structure of the universe. The observation and correlation of facts is what elevates a hypothesis to the status of a theory, the highest level of knowledge. (We ignore the vernacular uses of the word "theory" by laymen; meaning "hunch," "good guess," promising explanation," etc.)

    If you cannot understand the observations, calculations, etc., that support a theory, then the best you can do is to check the credentials of the scientists who performed the peer review on it. Peer review is one of the most important steps in science.
    Well not exactly. You don't have to accept their expertise. You can review it by researching the methods they have used in their own work, and by checking the credentials of the other scientists who support them, as I said above.

    Contrary to popular belief, faith has a place in science. However, it is not the unreasonable faith of the religionist, which is based on argument by authority ("my father/priest/bible told me so") or, at worst, mere wishful thinking ("there must be a God or else life would be hopeless").

    The scientist has reasoned faith based on evidence. As I've noted before, my dog has been unfailingly kind, loyal and affectionate to me for ten years. It is now reasonable for me to assume that he will continue to be so.
    That's fine. Eventually you will come to recognize a large contingent of scientists who have proven themselves to be wise, intelligent, unbiased and trustworthy. You will not find it necessary to review their work very often.
    You haven't got that quite right. Knowledge is gathered in the course of scientific work. As I noted earlier, a fact is merely an observation that has been made so often and so consistently that it is accepted is absolutely true. And a theory is nothing more or less than a hypothesis that has been tested in accordance with the scientific method and found to be true.
     
    jabbaska likes this.
  16. Kajalamorth The Doctor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    76
    I guess on paper Technocracies as well as meritocracies sound like fantastic ideas. But there are far too many considerations to be made. And in terms of legislation could be a nightmare.

    You should consider reading Brave New World as well as Gothic literature. Maybe some Cyberpunk, Biopunk.... oh and play Bioshock 1 which is a look at Objectivism.

    The reason I suggest Gothic, is because it functions as a bit of a parody of romanticisms concept of Utopia. The same can be said about Brave New World. And everyone needs more Cyberpunk in their lives.
     
  17. jabbaska Registered Member

    Messages:
    40
    Thank you for that mate. I probably used words I shouldn't have used, at least in this context. This is what I do actually, even though it didn't seem like it by my post. I don't like calling it faith though. Take Newton's Laws for instance, they are extremely accurate...at a certain level. We do know we need to use another "kind of science" - relativity/quantum mechanics, to understand the Cosmos in a different way, in a correct way, but we do know Newton's Laws work and almost everything we've done in space and on earth for that matter, follows them. So one should have - like you said - reasonable faith in science (based solely on empyrical evidence) and it's discoveries but the word faith for me is a completely different thing...unless you're talking about the everyday stuff we take for granted, I'm not sure. When I said "accept" their expertise I meant exactly that, checking the credentials of whoever said or did something. That is how I, as an "Amateur Scientist", view the complex but beautiful world of extremely complicated mathematics and physics. I embraced science as a way of life a long time ago.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    The Internet is a boon for us amateurs, as long as we are able to sort the wheat from the chaff.
    WIKI is OK for basic stuff, but for more advanced scenarios, I try and reference Uni sites or other learning institutions like NASA or Smithsonian.
    Your last sentence could also apply to me.
     
    jabbaska likes this.
  19. jabbaska Registered Member

    Messages:
    40
    Don't forget books! I own more than one thousand books on my collection and I pretty much read them all! From Principia Mathematica - Isaac Newton to the latest science - string theory and quantum mechanics etc etc...Knowledge is everywhere and bookdepository.co.uk is my friend.

    Edit: People say ignorance is a bliss but shit, being ignorant is just being ignorant...Like I said, I can't interpret the mathematical and physics equations for deep space exploration and black holes for instance, but I understand the "theory", the science behind it...
     
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    If you understand the science behind it, you're hardly "ignorant."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    First my answer: No. Nations have defense forces, currency, police, etc, supported mainly by taxes.
    Except for the very best, quality of universities and the "education" they provide is declining. All who want a good job do need an college degree to get their first. Then most find what they learned there is not of much use at work. Employers often require college degree - the lazy way to select between two applicants.

    The US would be better off, IMO, with more in trade schools and less in universities. Also the decline in intellectual quality of the typical college student is being matched by that of the typical professor. There may be a better way: don't have professors give lectures (except at very good universities, with great professors). Instead have a core reading list all students read assigne chapters each night and then with a professor monitor, discuss the next class period.

    Years ago, perhaps still, in Southern Maryland there was such a college. I think it may have been called "St. Johns." I had friend who graduated from there, not especially high in IQ, but very capable of independent though and IMO, much better educated than the typical graduate of conventional college that got rewards for parroting back what ever the professor said in his lectures.

    As I recall, there were subdivision in that you could major in Math, Science, History, Psychology, etc. but all synchronously read the same core texts; the specialization was via the professor added dozen of books in the field of specialization he "taught" and student had selected after first general year all went thru.

    I think this "read & discuss" great books from past writers and current ones in your specialization, type of college probably would be of great benefit to US if at least 80% of not top level colleges switched to this model. Then US might no longer have a voting mass that votes for candidates who promises the most "Goodies Now" with bill sent to later generations, and also have a population who could think, and not just parrot back what the rich could insure was on TV. - Hell they might read and not watch TV much except to get "up-to-the minute" news.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2015
    jabbaska likes this.
  22. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    A country with only scientists would eventually become a very difficult place to live. Everyone tries to outdo the others for recognition for their pet projects and turmoil would insure to who gets the money for their research.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    But at least any country with Politicians educated in, and made aware of the latest scientific data, would seemingly be at an advantage to what we generally see with Politicians today.
    As I've said many times on this forum, with science, we would still be swinging in the trees.....Perhaps some of us still are, taking into account the reactionary attitude and stupidity taken by some on this forum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page