Moving on... Assessing science is like assessing an Isaac Asimov novel. The fundementals are based in factors prevalent in society or in the natural world, but take into account human ingenuity and natural phenomena. Overall, it makes you think.
All I got here is: Huh? I am having trouble parsing this one. Heeeelp!In a society overwhelmed with religious fanaticism and blind acceptance as a key element of the status quo, we need skeptics.
Is this statement truly accurate? Is our society truly “overwhelmed with religious fanaticism”? Is “blind acceptance” a correct description of Americans’ participation in the world? I am not saying there are no problems, but is the situation truly this dire? Yes, the world is in desperate need of skeptical thinkers, but is this the way to argue this point?
People are generally weak and insecure.
Just an opinion here, but I find this Hobbesian view of the world and human nature terribly depressing and rather inaccurate. Again a strongly worded statement does not the truth make… One would hope that our vision of humanity’s political and social interactions have evolved since 17th century. In my opinion such a vision of the human condition is not only outdated, but dangerous. It is this fundamental believe that produces at best nanny-states and at worst oppressive totalitarian regimes. “People are generally weak and insecure,” starts the argument, therefore they need strong government to protect them. In order to protect the weak populace government needs to be able to identify aberrant (i.e. abhorrent) thought. The easiest way to do this … well, bugging phones would be a start. Do you see where I am headed with this? Take it from someone who grew up under such a regime – it is not pretty.
Humanity has always needed something to explain the basics and explore the unknowns involved in the lives we live every day.
No argument here.
Without god or science we would all be walking around in an existentialist haze.
What is your objection to existentialism? The movement gave us plenty of brilliant writers (from Dostoyevsky to Kafka) and great philosophers. In my view, in its spirit existentialism is not that far removed from scientific skepticism. Existentialist thought began with examining and questioning the assertions and assumptions of proceeding philosophical movements. Skeptical thought questions the assumptions and the methodologies underlying scientific conclusions. In spirit the two are not so dissimilar. Thus, of all the hazes in which one can find herself, existential haze does not seem so bad… Hazy reasoning and hazily (or hastily?) assembled arguments seem to be a lot more dangerous.Where was I going with this convoluted line of reasoning? Yes, the world needs skeptics and, one hopes, good science education would be able to produce a few more of them, but what the world needs even more is people of great ideas to be willing to voice those ideas eloquently and articulately and more importantly sign their names to them.
And finally (unrelated to science, but the question is eating at me) why post a comment on skepticism and pseudoscience under the name “Balzac…” I have read plenty of Balzac in my younger years and (unless I have missed something) there are plenty of other s-words I would associate with his writing (like satirical, sarcastic, sardonic) but skeptical certainly would not be one of them. Did the great French writer change his spots in the jaws of death? Or if the author refers to a (somewhat differently spelled) band, then again, I ask, why? What is the analogy/relevance?
And having responded to the last paragraph she rested…
13 comments:
Ok, it is time once and for all, to clear the name of Balzac the Jaws Of Death. Starting with the name itself. Ok, so my nom de plume (having seemingly become a nom de guerre) IS in fact a satirical combination of two satirical figures (the french writer Balzac and the guitarist fom the band GWAR). I am actually a little glad that someone can appreciate it (appreciation being a subjective term). It combines a love of literature (and sarcasm), with my opinion of blogs (God What an Awful Racket). just trying to lighten the mood. After all, isn't life just a Comedie Humaine? LOVE the realism. Also, the fact that I got my phys teacher to google gwar gives me that tickly feeling on the inside.
First off, do you think that someone who compares life to an Isaac Asimov novel doesn't love Kafka? When I use the term Existentialism, I pair it with haze in an exaggerated phrase. We would not be able to function if we had no answers to the mysteries of the world around us. How much did Gregor Samsa get done in his room while he mourned the social stigmas of society (and his jerk family)? Nothing. But then again, if we are merely the result of our own perceptions, does anything mean something? Does life really consist of only those concrete universals we study, or does platonic realism and metaphisics begin to rear its ugly head? These are the questions that keep anybody who is mentally curious up at night. It is pretty funny, because after you wrote for a bit about existentialism you inevitably arrived at the term convoluted, which discribes the last few (existentialist) sentences I have written (in which nothing was accomplished) pretty well. I smell a pattern.
Ok, you call my argument disjointed. Wrong. Sequential Math and amputees are disjointed, my argument is not. I am noticeably pro science, and i value skepticism.It all follows a loose path. I also dislike the assumptions you draw from my (agreeably hobbesian) statement about humanity. You take it to mean a support of totalitariamism, but you also talk about my statement that the population needs to be mentally stimulated. i quote,
"Is the importance 'to mentally stimulate the populace' axiomatic? Why would this be important? I require clarification…". I don't mean to hate on the USSR, but questions over whether or not the need to mentally stimulate the populace is axiomatic lend themselves to certain deductions. it's like I'm talking to two Glazs' simultaneously.
I'm not talking about science as a whole as being useless, and I love my regents physics class to death (as well as your method of teaching glaz), but the question was over the overall importance of learning science. I think it's important, but not entirely necessary when it comes to regents phys. When i say Pseudo-scientific i mean "does not correspond with reality". This you have stated many times. I can always observe that gravity exists, but if i were ever required to do something of grave importance in an exacting manner involving real world physics, I would not be able to; given the information i have learned. it just doesn't totally apply. The fact that i'm a teenager lends me to exaggerate a lot. but doesn't that make it more fun? If anybody is deeply offended, i apologize.
I loved your James Randi video (looking at that sort of stuff is like a hobbie to me); but my question regarding it is, what does a pretensious santa claus destroying an illusionists livelihood have to do with seeking skepticism through other outlets in life? Psych. is considered by many to be a non-science, but it gladly takes the lead in revealing people such as Uri Geller through experimental methods. i am a proud subscriber to the skeptical inquirer, and i believe science is our primary outlet for finding truth in the world. But that doesn't make it the only way. And we can all agree that HS phys. has its limitations.
If nobody ever stands out and says something seemingly fatuous or disagreeable, how will we ever progress? I apologize for coming off as an arrogant faux-intellectual. I grew up in westchester.
The only thing i can definitively say is that I wouldn't mind sitting down with you after school and talking literature and philosophy. You, me, Tolstoy, whadda ya say? "My little cup brims with tiddles" (not tolstoy). Yay to physics and the motherland. (My passion for phys and procrastination involving econ. has led me to post this at 11:29 pm. I really do have a life. I swear.)
"Also, the fact that I got my phys teacher to google gwar gives me that tickly feeling on the inside."
Hey! I object -- no googling was involved..! Some of us know stuff...
In response to Balzac:
I find myself agreeing with most of your points, and those that I don't are negligible except for this one:
"We would not be able to function if we had no answers to the mysteries of the world around us."
I cannot help but disagree vehemently with this, and in fact find myself thinking the opposite: that we as a species in fact thrive due to the mysteries around us. Consider that at the beginning of Human history we were ignorant, and as time went on we sought to uncover the truth about the unknown, and while we have uncovered much in our time we have created more questions than we have found answers. As I heard someone say the other day, two or three hundred years ago one person could know all or most of what there was to know in multiple subjects (medicine, history, other sciences) whereas nowadays one can study all their life and not know everything that there is to know on a single subject. While this may seem to prove the statement I disagree with consider that these scientists, historians, etc. do not merely sit on their laurels and those of their predecessors but continue to seek more knowledge in their chosen fields. So I propose to you and anybody else who reads this that, if I may paraphrase from Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, it is not achievements that drive us but rather seeking these achievements.
Also, a more general question: Who does Glaz think she is to use a picture of Morbo to represent her? Morbo is superior to ALL puny Humans, and would likely be quite insulted.
I completely agree with you in your assessment of my overly vague statement. When I say "answers", I am accounting for the fact that there are, in fact, very few actual answers to the "mysteries" of life. When I say we would not be able to function if we lacked answers, i am referring more so to the means by which we derive these answers. Curiosity undoubtedly motivates human advancement, but without a means to arrive at conclusions (science and skeptical analysis), we would live very empty existences. Good call on that one. Hopefully clarification was apt.
I would also like to disagree with your observations on Ms. Glazenburg:
Morbo: “Morbo can’t understand his TelePrompTer. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.”
Linda: “It’s a T, it goes tah.”
Morbo: “Hello little man. I WILL DESTROY YOU!”
Sounds like Glaz to me. (I realize that Glaz has reached a level of mastery of the english language. Please don't fail me. please.)
Also, a more general question: Who does Glaz think she is to use a picture of Morbo to represent her? Morbo is superior to ALL puny Humans, and would likely be quite insulted.
After two month in my classroom you still don’t get Morbo…I am disappointed… Not to mention: who said I am not superior (to say nothing of being human)
Morbo would suffer no insolence from Humans (excepting Richard Nixon), you do.
1. Oh, please… Morbo is all talk.
2. Perhaps I am plotting a revenge.
What's with the French?
Hey, be thankful I am not writing in Russian. :-]
In response to Prometheus:
I wouldn't push your luck with Glaz my friend. Lest we forget how things turned out for the real Prometheus.
(hint: not so well)
Unless I am mistaken, things have not backfired on anyone so far. I might be a nut, but I pride myself on being an open-minded nut…
I would hope Glaz would not chain me to a mountain and have an eagle eat my liver.
Hmmm, perhaps I should tread more cautiously.
Post a Comment