Reason Rally (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, April 02, 2012, 01:42 (4597 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Matt: Here's the rub. The world really is better off now than it was 3000 years ago. I'll get to that. -That statement was not along the lines of morality/ethics that you mention below. It is meant that they were more scientifically/technologically advanced which defies the evolutionary concept of simple progression from cave dwellers to today. 
 
> 
> > If you think that numbers are not sufficient to explain the entirety of existence, then the reason rally is not for you. 
> > 
> 
> Matt: There actually were some artists attending the reason rally. They have a different take on that. -By definition, if you think that chance and random events are enough to explain the life, the universe, and everything, then you think that numbers are sufficient explanation.-> 
> > If you realize that something can not come from nothing, then the reason rally is not for you. 
> > 
> 
> But if you realize that God, too, is *something* you also realize that all you've done is shift the existence question from the universe to God. And the reason rally IS for you. -I don't claim to know where God came from, or how he came to be in existence. I only claim that the well regulated system that we are fortunate enough to live in has to start with organization. Even if you try to say that "the laws of physics dictate that...." you are starting with a rule, a law, a means of organization. -> 
> > ->Matt: "We don't know what we don't know.) So science starts out of the gate with no assertions about truth. -I think you should explain that to Dawkins and Hawking. I am not questioning the power of science as a tool however. -> Troublesome is your statement in red. What's the moral value of a rock? How about a qubit, quark, the Sun, or the new planet they just discovered 22 light years from here? 
> -When a new string of genetically engineered food is introduced, or a new vaccine is developed, or a new drug, or a new system of power generation, a new weapon, or a new piece of hardware, there are ALWAYS moral questions that should be examined with the same exactitude as the discovery itself. -> Furthermore, science limits itself in psychology and sociology by ethics boards, whose job is to stop experiments like The Stanford Prison Experiment.
> 
> But even for the harm those studies have caused, they certainly give us extremely powerful information about the human mind, do they not? 
> -Was the expense worth it to the people being experimented upon? Are the advances in pharmaceuticals worth it to the people who die or have a life filled with horrendous side effects of medications that in all likelihood were not 100% necessary to begin with?-
> I will further make the claim that morality now, is far superior to the morality of 3000 years ago. I read a book over the last few months called "The Better Angels of our Nature." It makes no argument over what's caused the nonviolence trend in our species, but it seems to me pretty clear that despite Hitler and Pol Pot, we live in a much more moral age than our ancestors. 
> --I will argue this point. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Bosnia, Apartheid, WWI, WWII, etc etc. We are no better. Don't kid yourself. More people have died in wars/murders in the 20th Century alone than in all of recorded history combined. -
> Morality has *nothing* to do with science. Though I would argue that science has certainly made our lives more livable over the last 30 years. 
> -Morality has EVERYTHING to do with science; how the research is conducted, how the advancements are implemented, even the ends to which the research is being conducted, regardless of the means. You will never convince me that just because you CAN do something you automatically have the right or obligation to do it. -> Finally, I'd like you to point me to where you got the statistic about "most" of all scientific papers being retracted after 3 years. Considering how fast paced some fields are (like my own computer science) it doesn't sound like a horrible number.-I will have to find the link again. It was an article I read about a year ago that, with particular regard to the medical field, cited a 60%+ redaction/overturn rate.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.