Not just "fake news"

[Ringo Stalin]

There was a time when slavery was profitable for the capitalists, but there was a dissonance between slavery and the bourgeois "freedom" in its various forms, proclaimed by the bourgeoisie, when it was profitable for them. "Science" came to the rescue. Theories were created about the inferiority of the negroid race, about its various shortcomings (for example, Drapetomania), which prevent negroes from living in freedom. What did you think, only news can be fake? Oh now! And here are interesting articles about the benefits of eating different garbage:

How to get people to eat bugs and drink sewage

Disgust has its evolutionary advantages, but is also a barrier to more sustainable consumption. Marketing may help.

theconversation.com

*

5 reasons we need to start nurturing – and eating – weeds

Weeds can help us readdressing food consumption, production and nutrition at the roots.

www.weforum.org

What do you think the appearance of such "scientific" articles means? And I have not even given research on the benefits of eating human meat, but they exist...
Do you remember such articles in times of prosperity? No? Me too

 

[Emily L]

Some things trump science. A society ruled by science would be absolutely terrible. I'm not talking about bad or faulty science--which would certainly be bad for a society--I'm talking about even legitimate, truthful science. If you were to write down science's "solutions" to societal problems, it would read like a Stephen King horror novel.

Please don't get me wring--I LOVE science, and science can certainly solve a lot of our problems. But there are so many problems that science would make WORSE that it would be a huge mistake to let science be the final solution to everything.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The opinions of two people does not equate to the opinions of their entire academic discipline.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Some things trump science. A society ruled by science would be absolutely terrible. I'm not talking about bad or faulty science--which would certainly be bad for a society--I'm talking about even legitimate, truthful science. If you were to write down science's "solutions" to societal problems, it would read like a Stephen King horror novel.

Please don't get me wrong--I LOVE science, and science can certainly solve a lot of our problems. But there are so many problems that science would make WORSE that it would be a huge mistake to let science be the final solution to everything.

Science is neither good or bad, neither moral or immoral. Science does not "rule" anything. Science is used by everyone to one degree or another. Whether they acknowledge it or not is irrelevant. Science is a combination of proven facts, new technology, practical applications, and currently reasoned hypotheses. When the body of knowledge increases, some hypotheses are discarded as they are proven false and replaced by new hypotheses and theories.

The way science is applied is tempered in one way or another by the morals and passions of those who apply the science.

What people do with science is a whole different matter.

In the 1930's, Hitler did not campaign on a platform of "Let's kill all the Jews!" One thing that he did campaign on was putting an end to birth defects. The science of mendelian genetics was in its infancy back then, but scientists were already hypothesizing how to apply this new found knowledge. Birth defects immediately came to mind. If science could prevent genetically inherited birth defects, who could be against that? Of course, non-critical thinking people could not project the unstated implications of such a goal.

First off, what constitutes a "birth defect"? How about being born as a non-Aryan? No blond hair or blue eyes? you are an inferior race. You suffer from a genetically inherited birth defect. The other side of the coin is with this knowledge we can now raise up a master race to rule over all others. Hitler supporters have always thought this is an awesome idea.

Today, the science says maintaining social distance, limiting size of gatherings, and wearing masks can reduce the transmission of covid-19. Nevertheless, the USSC has ruled that religious organizations are not constrained by health mandates by the state. The court has essentially said religious practice trumps public health measures. The science says the virus doesn't give a damn what religion you are. Disregarding these health measures will increase your chances of contracting and spreading the disease. So here we have an example of ignoring science will cost people their lives. And some people are OK with that.

 

[Emily L]

Science is neither good or bad, neither moral or immoral. Science does not "rule" anything. Science is used by everyone to one degree or another. Whether they acknowledge it or not is irrelevant. Science is a combination of proven facts, new technology, practical applications, and currently reasoned hypotheses. When the body of knowledge increases, some hypotheses are discarded as they are proven false and replaced by new hypotheses and theories.

The way science is applied is tempered in one way or another by the morals and passions of those who apply the science.

What people do with science is a whole different matter.

In the 1930's, Hitler did not campaign on a platform of "Let's kill all the Jews!" One thing that he did campaign on was putting an end to birth defects. The science of mendelian genetics was in its infancy back then, but scientists were already hypothesizing how to apply this new found knowledge. Birth defects immediately came to mind. If science could prevent genetically inherited birth defects, who could be against that? Of course, non-critical thinking people could not project the unstated implications of such a goal.

First off, what constitutes a "birth defect"? How about being born as a non-Aryan? No blond hair or blue eyes? you are an inferior race. You suffer from a genetically inherited birth defect. The other side of the coin is with this knowledge we can now raise up a master race to rule over all others. Hitler supporters have always thought this is an awesome idea.

Today, the science says maintaining social distance, limiting size of gatherings, and wearing masks can reduce the transmission of covid-19. Nevertheless, the USSC has ruled that religious organizations are not constrained by health mandates by the state. The court has essentially said religious practice trumps public health measures. The science says the virus doesn't give a damn what religion you are. Disregarding these health measures will increase your chances of contracting and spreading the disease. So here we have an example of ignoring science will cost people their lives. And some people are OK with that.

Wheel, I think we might actually be on the same page, although I was taking the view a little more literally. You said, "The way science is applied is tempered in one way or another by the morals and passions of those who apply the science"--and I agree with that--morality has to have the final say.

What I was referring to is the application of science without the morality even coming into play. For this example, I've got to be very careful how I say it, but for years there have been indications that Asians in general have a higher intelligence than non-Asians, e.g., they score higher on tests, advance academically quicker (and easier?) than non-Asians. At least, that's what I've read and heard. If that is indicated by science, then a society that puts science ahead of everything else might declare that all of society's leaders need to be Asian. Another example might be that citizens who pay no taxes and depend on welfare are a burden to society and, if they get sick, they should be denied health care and allowed to die. But, thankfully, we'll never restrict our leadership positions to people of one race, and we'll never allow poor people to simply die--that's because such would be against out morals.

So, yes, we can certainly use science to improve our lives, but it should always be held in check when it conflicts with our morality.

 

[ecofarm]

Learning about edible weeds is not a sign of the endtimes. It's being more aware of one's environment and probably vitamin c.

Blackjack, for example. That weed with thin brown stickers that can be in absurd numbers and they stick to everything. The young leaves are edible and good for ya.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Wheel, I think we might actually be on the same page, although I was taking the view a little more literally. You said, "The way science is applied is tempered in one way or another by the morals and passions of those who apply the science"--and I agree with that--morality has to have the final say.

What I was referring to is the application of science without the morality even coming into play. For this example, I've got to be very careful how I say it, but for years there have been indications that Asians in general have a higher intelligence than non-Asians, e.g., they score higher on tests, advance academically quicker (and easier?) than non-Asians. At least, that's what I've read and heard. If that is indicated by science, then a society that puts science ahead of everything else might declare that all of society's leaders need to be Asian. Another example might be that citizens who pay no taxes and depend on welfare are a burden to society and, if they get sick, they should be denied health care and allowed to die. But, thankfully, we'll never restrict our leadership positions to people of one race, and we'll never allow poor people to simply die--that's because such would be against out morals.

So, yes, we can certainly use science to improve our lives, but it should always be held in check when it conflicts with our morality.

This is where the conflict comes in. Whose morality shall we follow? Some say the science that allows us to perform abortions safely is a good thing. Others want that science prohibited on the basis that it is morally offensive.

Some people celebrate the science of in vitro fertilization (IVF) which allows otherwise childless couples to have offspring while others decry IVF as immoral as murder, even mass murder.

Nazi scientists were notorious for conducting absolutely horrific ghastly experiments on humans during the Third Reich. Many of their scientific observations, results, and conclusions were recovered by the Allies after the war. Should we apply what they learned for the benefit of mankind or shall we ignore this body of work because of its terrible origins?

Who shall we entrust to make these decisions?

 

[Emily L]

Whose morality shall we follow? . . . Who shall we entrust to make these decisions?

Wheel, I think what we are getting around to--whether intentional or not--is that the system we have now is the best one. All the important decisions are handled through voting in elections, through legislation (that is voted on) and through judicial review. That way, no single set of morals gets to make these kind of decisions, but rather a general mixture of the morality of the masses.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Wheel, I think what we are getting around to--whether intentional or not--is that the system we have now is the best one. All the important decisions are handled through voting in elections, through legislation (that is voted on) and through judicial review. That way, no single set of morals gets to make these kind of decisions, but rather a general mixture of the morality of the masses.

I agree. However, we must remain ever vigilant because the system is fragile. The Christian Taliban are relentless in their efforts to make their rules and their values the law. Complacency will allow them to secure their stranglehold on state and national government leading to the rest of us being punished for not adhering to their prescribed behaviors.

 

[j brown's body]

This is where the conflict comes in. Whose morality shall we follow? Some say the science that allows us to perform abortions safely is a good thing. Others want that science prohibited on the basis that it is morally offensive.

Some people celebrate the science of in vitro fertilization (IVF) which allows otherwise childless couples to have offspring while others decry IVF as immoral as murder, even mass murder.

Nazi scientists were notorious for conducting absolutely horrific ghastly experiments on humans during the Third Reich. Many of their scientific observations, results, and conclusions were recovered by the Allies after the war. Should we apply what they learned for the benefit of mankind or shall we ignore this body of work because of its terrible origins?

Who shall we entrust to make these decisions?

Supporting the use of science ways that help people and doesn't hurt them works for me.

 

[Ringo Stalin]

What does "progressive" propaganda lead to: