From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
> Science, Knowledge, and Humanity: Debating the future of progress
> Are scares about modern food and medicines a rational response to a
> world apparently dominated by corporate greed and government
> corruption, or do they express an ill-founded pessimism about human
> achievement?
The latter statement more closely approximates the truth.
> Do the complexities of the natural world demand a more
> precautionary approach, or are we exaggerating uncertainties for
> fear of the future?
The latter statement more closely approximates the truth.
>
> Have we abandoned the concepts of universal knowledge and
> objectivity for good ?
Many people apparently have, but a few people still hold out for sanity.
> Is there something important about these
> ideas that needs to be rescued?
Yes, rescue the importance of finding out facts instead of jumping to
conclusions.
> Does the ever-increasing ethical
> scrutiny of scientists' work reflect a more responsible attitude to
> competing interests or an unhelpful politicization of science?
Mostly the latter, because scientists have done insufficient empirical
investigation on the subject of ethics itself. Political science is still an
oxymoron.
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, cryonics, individual
uniqueness, ego, human values
Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
(Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:44 MDT