Cool story, methinks you may go beyond Part II. You had me at the hook, my daughter ended up in the NICU because she didn't pass the apgar test and that was followed by a week of terror with her living in an oxygen tent. Forever traumatized by this and thankful for science and now she is 27(!) and amazing
What an engaging read, despite the somewhat heavy subject matter. I enjoyed it a lot!
Also:
"I claim there is an invisible purple unicorn in my garage, undetectable by all instruments and producing no perceivable effect in the environment, yet it is there, watching over you and judging every decision you make."
Please, the next time you "see" Mr. Sparklez, tell him to come home. I didn't mean any of that "fake horn" and "you can't fly like Pegasus" stuff. I miss him.
Actually, seeing how we can't detect his presence via any modern means, as per described scenario, we cannot accurately determine whether Mr Sparklez is alive or dead. #SchrodingersUnicorn
You missed a really big area of knowing. There are real world empirical questions that fall outside of the domain of science.
These are questions for which Yes/No answer is required. Faced with such questions, Science permits a third answer: I don't know. If science cannot resolve the issue using its method, it punts. But often punting is unacceptable. So we need something else.
We have developed Law, Justice. or Legal Theory, however you may call it, as the method by which the (provisional) truth of important matters is determined, at least for now so we can get with life.
In actuality Law was developed long before Science, and Science had done what it can be make Law more congruent with empirical reality (which strengthens it, so Science was welcome).
Well where does Law come from? For Anglo-American law, originally it came from tradition, religion, and Roman Law. But since 1189 (Time Immemorial) it has come from the product of Legislatures and the edicts/presidential orders of rulers. And these come from Politics.
So yes, politics is a way of knowing too, a couple of cycles deep. The messiness is always going to be there :(
What a great read. And I agree with you that the scientific method is possibly the most important achievement of humanity. It’s a shame that so many non-scientists don’t understand it. It’s a shame that many scientists don’t understand it either (especially when they get involved in activism and politics)
Knowledge as a belief system and science as an epistemological system—justified belief which should be outside of opinion—and not an authoritarian one is an extremely rare perspective. Thank you for writing with such honesty and integrity. Very few scientists today would admit to having limitations in the application of ‘the method’ or admit complete dependency on a belief system—the origins of science being the pursuit of understanding the divine in the physical realm not the rejection of all things outside of science (which is the modern authoritarian view). Well done.
Thanks! Well, if we mean the soft sense of "people in charge of something should have demonstrated expertise in that something", I'm in favor of it. But technocracy can be very easily devolve into something closer to "CEOs of big tech companies should be in charge" which is a thought I absolutely abhor. I definitely believe we shouldn't pick people for a job based solely on charisma or promises, they must have some demonstrable experience that they are capable of fulfilling these roles. That doesn't mean the Secretary of Energy has to be a nuclear physicist, but definitely has to be someone who can talk the language of science as well as the language of legislation.
I share your concern about tech giants holding on to power. Keeping balance is key. However hard to come by with the right mix of skills and spice to ensure a well-rounded and effective governance. Just seems like no one can aim good enough or these specific set of qualities are hard to come by!
All normative claims are super hard! "This is how we should organize as a society" is probably the hardest of them all. And whatever clever definition we come up with, someone will find a way to hack it into authoritarianism.
Cool story, methinks you may go beyond Part II. You had me at the hook, my daughter ended up in the NICU because she didn't pass the apgar test and that was followed by a week of terror with her living in an oxygen tent. Forever traumatized by this and thankful for science and now she is 27(!) and amazing
I totally get the feeling. Parenting is the scariest job in the world, isn't it? Thanks for sharing!
Good introduction with a lot of nuance.
Thanks ;)
Wonderful article!!!
“is there an objective moral system?” Objectivism
What an engaging read, despite the somewhat heavy subject matter. I enjoyed it a lot!
Also:
"I claim there is an invisible purple unicorn in my garage, undetectable by all instruments and producing no perceivable effect in the environment, yet it is there, watching over you and judging every decision you make."
Please, the next time you "see" Mr. Sparklez, tell him to come home. I didn't mean any of that "fake horn" and "you can't fly like Pegasus" stuff. I miss him.
Mr Sparklez is dead, we have killed him. Now we have to deal with the consequences of living a meaningless life.
Actually, seeing how we can't detect his presence via any modern means, as per described scenario, we cannot accurately determine whether Mr Sparklez is alive or dead. #SchrodingersUnicorn
You missed a really big area of knowing. There are real world empirical questions that fall outside of the domain of science.
These are questions for which Yes/No answer is required. Faced with such questions, Science permits a third answer: I don't know. If science cannot resolve the issue using its method, it punts. But often punting is unacceptable. So we need something else.
We have developed Law, Justice. or Legal Theory, however you may call it, as the method by which the (provisional) truth of important matters is determined, at least for now so we can get with life.
In actuality Law was developed long before Science, and Science had done what it can be make Law more congruent with empirical reality (which strengthens it, so Science was welcome).
Well where does Law come from? For Anglo-American law, originally it came from tradition, religion, and Roman Law. But since 1189 (Time Immemorial) it has come from the product of Legislatures and the edicts/presidential orders of rulers. And these come from Politics.
So yes, politics is a way of knowing too, a couple of cycles deep. The messiness is always going to be there :(
Yes, absolutely! I skimmed over all branches of philosophy including ethics and politics. Great point.
What a great read. And I agree with you that the scientific method is possibly the most important achievement of humanity. It’s a shame that so many non-scientists don’t understand it. It’s a shame that many scientists don’t understand it either (especially when they get involved in activism and politics)
This is incredible. You are an amazing teacher as always!!!
Thanks man ;) really appreciate the kind words, as always.
Knowledge as a belief system and science as an epistemological system—justified belief which should be outside of opinion—and not an authoritarian one is an extremely rare perspective. Thank you for writing with such honesty and integrity. Very few scientists today would admit to having limitations in the application of ‘the method’ or admit complete dependency on a belief system—the origins of science being the pursuit of understanding the divine in the physical realm not the rejection of all things outside of science (which is the modern authoritarian view). Well done.
Thanks ;)
Hola Alejandro! Great post, thanks for sharing. What is your take on technocracy?
Thanks! Well, if we mean the soft sense of "people in charge of something should have demonstrated expertise in that something", I'm in favor of it. But technocracy can be very easily devolve into something closer to "CEOs of big tech companies should be in charge" which is a thought I absolutely abhor. I definitely believe we shouldn't pick people for a job based solely on charisma or promises, they must have some demonstrable experience that they are capable of fulfilling these roles. That doesn't mean the Secretary of Energy has to be a nuclear physicist, but definitely has to be someone who can talk the language of science as well as the language of legislation.
I share your concern about tech giants holding on to power. Keeping balance is key. However hard to come by with the right mix of skills and spice to ensure a well-rounded and effective governance. Just seems like no one can aim good enough or these specific set of qualities are hard to come by!
All normative claims are super hard! "This is how we should organize as a society" is probably the hardest of them all. And whatever clever definition we come up with, someone will find a way to hack it into authoritarianism.