Why we're creating weapons of mass destruction

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by stateofmind, Mar 27, 2010.

  1. stateofmind seeker of lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    We're creating large scale, mass murder weapons because we're severely unbalanced. Science, on the whole, is severely unbalanced. All of this striving and suppressing in order to become "more objective" is the cause of all this. Where is my evidence for this claim? I have nothing more than common sense, which is all one can take into the present and further on into the unknown - the future. What will be the result of the inevitable wholesale murder caused by these weapons? A much needed dose of personal reflection... for those that survive... the subjective side of things. We've all forgotten that the sole purpose of this objective science was to please our subjective desires. But the objectivity has become an end in itself and the subject is forgotten and neglected. Why do we keep pressing on when we're not having fun anymore? Because we're all insane.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

    We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

    Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

    Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

    Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

    There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

    Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

    When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    "Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, mankind should be thinking about getting more use out of the weapons we already have." - Jack Handey
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,537
  8. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Because we can.
     
  10. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Actually the two nations with the most atomic weapons have been REDUCING their stockpiles and not building anything new since the 1990's.
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    You mean the development of drones and cluster bomblets, white phosphorus missiles and flechettes are all mythical?
     
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Those are not considered weapons of "mass destruction".
     
  13. stateofmind seeker of lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    Says who? The head of the nations? Get real...
     
  14. kurros Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    793
    The developed nations have pretty much no need for such weapons except as a deterrent, and they already have enough to lay waste to anyone stupid enough to start a nuclear war (not that it will help them much), so they don't really need to build any more. Conventional (but modern and high tech) weapons are much more useful in modern warfare.
     
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    By Dale McFeatters
    Scripps Howard News Service

    Climaxing a triumphant week for a president who only recently seemed to be stumbling badly, Barack Obama announced Friday that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had agreed to cuts of about a third in their nations' nuclear arsenals, from about 2,200 long-range weapons to 1,550.

    The new agreement would be a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, which expired last December. Early talks on a START II pact ended when Russia walked away from the table in 2002 after President George W. Bush abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.


    http://www.google.com/search?q=nucl...=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQsQQwAA
     
  16. stateofmind seeker of lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    That's all good and well but what about all the weapons we DON'T know about and they don't want us to know about?
     
  17. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    EMP bombs are more likely to be used against us than nukes.
     

Share This Page