Is Science Broken?

[Wally]

Remember for most of human history most men lived under totalitarian rule, and the species survived just fine.

This is not true, it's a recent phenomenon.

For most of human history, we lived in extended family groups. Small tribes.

[seer]

This is not true, it's a recent phenomenon.

For most of human history, we lived in extended family groups. Small tribes.

Yes, where the alpha males dominated I'm sure like with the higher primates. And I'm not sure that the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mongol, Maurya, Chinese or Armenian Empires are recent phenomenon.

[Wally]

Yes, where the alpha males dominated I'm sure like with the higher primates. And I'm not sure that the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mongol, Maurya, Chinese or Armenian Empires are recent phenomenon.

The smaller the group, the more important cooperation is. After all, you have to sleep sometime.

Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mongol, Maurya, Chinese or Armenian Empires are very recent compared to the total of human history.

[seer]

The smaller the group, the more important cooperation is. After all, you have to sleep sometime.

No, the higher primates do just fine under totalitarian rule. As a matter of fact it probably promotes social cohesion.

Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mongol, Maurya, Chinese or Armenian Empires are very recent compared to the total of human history.

Well I'm speaking of mainly recorded history - we don't have a lot of information on how societies or groups before that ordered themselves.

[Carrikature]

And you wonder why I think you are ambivalent?

I do. That I don't subscribe to the major systems doesn't make me ambivalent.

I never suggested that a violation of a moral code makes it invalid. Not the point, which is ultimately, the only moral code that would be valid would be what furthered the survival of the species - the actual behaviors - good, bad or indifferent would be completely interchangeable. And meaningless in and of themselves.

Then it's completely pointless to bring up murder, rape, killing, Europeans, or whatever else.

Reproduction is the inherent goal of most creatures, but that doesn't speak at all to the morality of various methods for attaining that goal. You're assuming that a moral code can only be valid if it furthers the survival of the species, but why should any of us accept that? It's pure assertion.

[Carrikature]

But what is inherent to human nature would be there by chance or accident. There is no actual teleology. Which mean there may be a different enough genetic make up to where some humans may actually be happier in a subservient role.

So?

[Carrikature]

First, if you look at many of the higher primates the alpha males rule with an iron hand, often taking the food and females from the weaker males, and they survive just fine, and the stronger males get to pass on their genes. So kindness and altruism may actually be detrimental, allowing the weak and infirmed to pass on their genes. So behaviors are incidental, what benefits survival is all that matters - whether they are kind or cruel. And second, you can not even make the case that the survival of our species is in itself a moral good.

You'd have to make the case that allowing weak/infirm individuals to pass on their genes outweighs the increased ability for life and reproductive success. There's no end goal, here, and mutations can only be judged in a given environment. If the end goal is to reproduce more, there's little question that our kindness and altruism have enabled that outcome.

[Carrikature]

JonF - I'm not sure you are addressing the same element as seer. Our (western) civilization has evolved - yes. But the nature of man that seer is talking about is that nature that manifests when the learned constraints of civilization are removed. And we see that in the tribal warfare in Africa and the middle east (or wherever). What we are as individual men can't easily be divorced from the civilization we are a part of. And so it is hard to see what we might be in a different environment. But I doubt that the people in ISIS are fundamentally less evolved than any of the rest of us, and I doubt they are fundamentally any more or less evil. But they exhibit a potential for evil that is fundamentally in all of us, given the right environment. That potential for evil is what seer, and the Christian faith, addresses in its theology.


Jim

The potential for evil is the focus. The potential for good is denied. This is seer's problem in a nutshell. The rest of us acknowledge that potential for good exists and see it growing in relation to the potential for evil.

[Wally]

The potential for evil is the focus. The potential for good is denied. This is seer's problem in a nutshell. The rest of us acknowledge that potential for good exists and see it growing in relation to the potential for evil.

It's that "self loathing" characteristic of a lot of Pauline Christian dogma that I find repulsive and depressing.

I would hate to live in the dystopian world that they think exists.

[rwatts]

Thoughts?

An interesting article on peer review:-

http://www.nature.com/news/peer-revi...-start-1.19763

[seer]

I do. That I don't subscribe to the major systems doesn't make me ambivalent.

Well you have never been clear to me in the past - if memory serves. So what do you believe?

Then it's completely pointless to bring up murder, rape, killing, Europeans, or whatever else.

Reproduction is the inherent goal of most creatures, but that doesn't speak at all to the morality of various methods for attaining that goal. You're assuming that a moral code can only be valid if it furthers the survival of the species, but why should any of us accept that? It's pure assertion.

Then what is the reason for morality if not for survival?

[seer]

You'd have to make the case that allowing weak/infirm individuals to pass on their genes outweighs the increased ability for life and reproductive success. There's no end goal, here, and mutations can only be judged in a given environment. If the end goal is to reproduce more, there's little question that our kindness and altruism have enabled that outcome.

That is not the point, but it is obvious that in the animal kingdom the weak and infirmed are allowed to die. And why is more reproduction the goal? What if that causes resources to become scarce and lead to wide spread starvation? But my point is and was - actual behaviors are incidental to the whole discussion of survival. Which was Jon's point.

[shunyadragon]

That is not the point, but it is obvious that in the animal kingdom the weak and infirmed are allowed to die. And why is more reproduction the goal? What if that causes resources to become scarce and lead to wide spread starvation? But my point is and was - actual behaviors are incidental to the whole discussion of survival. Which was Jon's point.

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

[seer]

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Hey you started this whole moral/theological discussion after I said to Roy that man was broken. You had to put your big nose in and it cascaded from there. Besides, this is my thread and I don't mind the diversion.

[shunyadragon]

Hey you started this whole moral/theological discussion after I said to Roy that man was broken. You had to put your big nose in and it cascaded from there. Besides, this is my thread and I don't mind the diversion.

Who has the power and authority to break Creation and Humanity?