>>7643467 >it's a problem when scientific illiterate kongressmen/taxpayer pull the plug on important research just because they don't understand why it's important. yeah, I lost faith in him as a representative for atheism when he got rekt in a debate about if there can be objective moral values and duties without religion/jesus. How atheism succeed when its religion that wins every argument?
>>7644529 nobody has a belief in atheism you troll, it's a lack of theism. The "a" is the clue there. Religion can't be right about anything, that would remove the requirement for faith. Science requires rigor, the ability to change views when presented with compelling new evidence. Religion requires faith, the ability to keep a view in SPITE of compelling new evidence. Faith is belief despite proof that belief is wrong. The average joe's inability to put this together is why the religion/science 'debate' is such an abject waste.
>>7644526 >Who gives a shit if a Mexican dirt farmer doesn't understand covalent bonding He doesn't have to understand chemistry, the problem arises when a chemist comes up with a cheap, clean way to preserve trace elements in soil that would increase the farmer's efficiency but no, the farmer don't wanna hear from no scientist, he wants to sacrifice chickens to a carved face on a mountain because that's what's worked for hundreds of years so far. You probably think we're a long way from such primitive stupidity.
>>7644526 People that need to convince them off anything using scientific data for the betterment of humanity. If they don't understand enough to trust scientific evidence when it's rigorous and relevant, how will you convince them to spend money replacing something like fossil fuels, for example?
>>7644715 >Who translated the classics from Greek to Latin to English Hint, the monasteries >Who developed the scientific method There are many examples of religions contributing to science, I don't deny that sometimes they directly contradict but you sir are a fucking dip
>>7644725 Have you read Sam Harris' book? Sam Harris is a would-be philosopher who is only an expert in neuroscience. He has charisma, for sure, but he clearly does not know what he is talking about when concerning philosophy. He profits by being a public figure for atheists by using his PhD credentials. His arguments are influential for younger atheists who are looking for commiseration, but if you are looking for intellectually sound arguments, he is not the man.
If you want intellectually strong arguments from a philosopher who works with neuroscience, read Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's book and watch his debates.
>>7641688 Scientific illiteracy is a problem when concerning politics and education.
Because the scientifically illiterate have a significant hand in deciding policies and education, their inability to understand science reaches to the future generations, crippling their ability to make sound decisions for the future.
This is why we have politicians using snowballs as counter-arguments against Climate Change. This is why we have presidents who do not believe in the big bang, evolution, and thinks pyramids were built by biblical figures.
>>7641688 I think in industrial societies it's a problem even in America: think of the Tacoma narrows bridge. But more than anything else the problem is a PR problem. About every person(non /sci) I meet will assume my intelligence/expertise because I have a BA in EE, that's a problem. People tend to view scientific process more or less like magic instead of archaeology (creation instead of discovery). The examples of the two extremes could be thought of as Solar road ways fanatics and young earth creationist museums, both are problems created by mysticism surrounding scientific knowledge. This sort of mysticism could easily be dispelled by a basic schooling in relevant topics but that schooling requires some effort and discomfort so good luck with that I'll just be over here trying to do my thing and hope that this type of illiteracy doesn't ruin our democracy.
>TL; DR: IDK God did it and IDK Scientists did it are both bad but good luck trying to solve that problem without becoming a meme or celebrity scientist.
The truth is now that people in the West are somewhat comfortable they don't feel the need for inquiry or even self reflection on the state of their own ignorance.
>>7644896 You really summed up the problem in your last sentence there. I just don't understand how politicians can take scientific proposal A and reject it without so much as listening to an advisor who knows what it is about.
>>7644999 Sam Harris makes a lot of bold assertions about there not being free will -- which, there very well may not be, but his argument is very weak for how strong his claim is. Furthermore, he neglects criticisms from his colleagues.
Read his book Free Will and compare it to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's. Sam Harris is not an idiot by any measure, but his book is in a field that he is not an expert in -- which is fine. It just shows when you read a book by a fellow atheist whose field of expertise this is in.
>>7645141 >Read his book Free Will and compare it to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's. Sam Harris is not an idiot by any measure, but his book is in a field that he is not an expert in -- which is fine. It just shows when you read a book by a fellow atheist whose field of expertise this is in.
maybe some of you will find this interesting... shows that this whole free will debate existed long ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCwR1ztUXtU
I also liked the heisenberg interview from the same channel (if you speak german) its not about free will though.
>>7645931 I'm not him but the problem is in understanding consciousness. From what I understand you can directly influence the brain and make someone feel like they chose an action themselves.
I like the perspective that feeling like "you" own "your" actions allows one to recognize those actions that "you" don't own and occur due to a neurological disorder for example. Pinning down what in the brain causes one to distinguish involuntary movement from intended movement would likely be related to the hard problem of consciousness. I don't really know anything about neurology but I'm guessing we can know if an action was "intentional" or not by directly examining the brain without the consciousness we associate with that body telling us that it is so.
>>7645944 >I'm not him but the problem is in understanding consciousness. I'm not him either, but your argument consists of "you aren't really making the decisions, your brain is". You're overlooking the fact that the brain is a part of me. If I have a neurological disorder, then that's part of who I am. So it's still me making the decisions.
>>7645956 No it doesn't. If someone twitches, they twitch, we don't say their body twitched. A person is hungry, a person is sad, it isn't that the person's body are these thing, or that they have it (fuck Spanish so hard).
>>7645993 Latin America are arabtier in intelligence, there is nothing of value to be found there. Only europeans and eastasians are worth anything, but europeans are genociding themselves, and japanese and korean are a small fraction of China's population.
That you accept your chinese overlords or not will not change the outcome.
>>7645951 >If I have a neurological disorder, then that's part of who I am. This is not always so clean cut, though.
In 2003, a man had a brain tumor that slowly but dramatically altered his behavior from being a clean-cut man with no criminal record for 40 years to a raving pervert that eventually devolved into a pedophile.
After begging for medical treatment, doctors discovered and removed an egg-sized brain tumor from his frontal lobe. Immediately, his thoughts returned to normal. A year later, he reported that his perverted thoughts were returning. After another brain scan, they discovered the tumor returned, and they removed it again, returning him to normal.
So was the tumor a part of who he is? I personally think not. I also believe the tumor excuses him from his actions, since he was not responsible for them. Accountability is a large aspect of the notion of free will, and I believe most humans think the same considering how our laws are designed to consider intent and if a person was able to make a rational decision on their own.
>>7645944 There are many studies that try to pin down intentional vs. not in our consciousness. The situation is very convoluted, because in some cases, decisions are made before humans are conscious of them. That is, they experience the thought process after it occurs in other parts of the brain. However, in other cases, the conscious mind can supersede thoughts and stop actions.
>>7645951 Does it make sense to say that a system that behaves completely within the principles of determinism has a "free will"? Is being aware of our decisions and having the illusion of choice enough to say that we possess free will?
>>7641688 Yes if more people were scientifically literate they would know how to protect themselves from the vaccines that give their children autism, and the microwave ovens that send cancer waves into your family. It's shit like this that makes me cry every time I see a GMO food in the market.
If you want to know more check out my friend Beth's Facebook posts, she's included a few tumblr links in them you should really read.
>>7648142 Are you embarrassed because that's your home board? There's no need to be, you can do your part to help make /sci/ better! It's really easy, all you need to do is go straight back there ASAP:
>>7641688 I think we've largely been meme'd. Yes more scientific knowledge among the general public would be nice but the notion that we'd be living real life Star Trek now if it wasn't for those pesky republicans is nuts.
The fact is allot of the things we try to in science now are very complex and technical and that can't necessarily be alleviated by just throwing more money at the problems or even throwing more people at them.
Like space travel for example. Even if they gave NASA an unlimited budget and as many workers as they wanted that wouldn't change the fact that the real problem with travel to Mars is we don't have a practical design for a space craft that can take off from Earth, land on Mars, then turn around and do it again.
Scientific progress is "slow" now because we're trying to do really complicated shit, the easy stuff has been done.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.