Comments on: The Meaning of Science http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/the-meaning-of-science/ refracting theory: politics, cybernetics, philosophy Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:04:27 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Ben Geare http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/the-meaning-of-science/#comment-2162 Ben Geare Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:57:08 +0000 http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/?p=586#comment-2162 My first observation of your article is that science, or perhaps our thinking about what science is reflects a sort of deepened repression regarding its actual motivations. You argue, very convincingly, that in the scientific pursuit we, as a society, have reclaimed Truth, though only by once again decieving ourselves about how groundless this Truth actually is. How have we managed to do this? The progress of intellectual history has done away with faith and, I'll say Classical science as sources of this Truth. You bring up two different possible explanations. The first, and most Nietzschean, is that the psychological engine of ressentiment has allowed us to deceptively reinvent the acetic ideal in the modern "objectivity" of the scientist. Our same vengeful and self-loathing psychological processes manifest themselves in the work of the scientist, and this is evident in how, though always in the name of seeking Truth for the betterment of mankind, ultimately self-destructive science is in the name . The other explanation, though, in your argument, this one seems to presuppose the first, is that capitalist, self-interested economic forces greatly benefit from our faith in scientific truth. I would argue that this line of reasoning could be taken further. What this article has forced me to consider is that how can modern science, by modern here I mean post-Einstien and more specifically post-Relativity, still through the word Truth around? Is it just historical inertia? This is me just thinking off the cuff a bit, but modern science seems to make "Truth" a meaningful notion by borrowing from the future. But now we are always only making this word meaningful by borrowing from the future; we will learn the truth tomorrow, so we can use this word meaningfully today. This seems to me to stink of the reinvestment of capital, for the sake of gaining more capital, only to reinvest for the sake of still more capital and so on. That said, I still think the Nietzschean interpretation is quite interesting. Your article comes back to a point which has been a topic far too long on my mind, and that is how, if it is even possible, can one free themselves from a reactive, resentful, attitude. If this ascetic ideal inadequately fills the void left by reactive, resentful attitudes, how can they be changed? Nietzsche surely doesn't want to say that this is even possible for everyone. how can one, nevermind an entire society be changed from a reactive attitude to a creative one? I am interested as to what you think. I just discovered your blog and have only just begun reading your articles. I thank you for the work you have done. It is impressive and rather inspirational. My first observation of your article is that science, or perhaps our thinking about what science is reflects a sort of deepened repression regarding its actual motivations. You argue, very convincingly, that in the scientific pursuit we, as a society, have reclaimed Truth, though only by once again decieving ourselves about how groundless this Truth actually is. How have we managed to do this? The progress of intellectual history has done away with faith and, I’ll say Classical science as sources of this Truth. You bring up two different possible explanations. The first, and most Nietzschean, is that the psychological engine of ressentiment has allowed us to deceptively reinvent the acetic ideal in the modern “objectivity” of the scientist. Our same vengeful and self-loathing psychological processes manifest themselves in the work of the scientist, and this is evident in how, though always in the name of seeking Truth for the betterment of mankind, ultimately self-destructive science is in the name .
The other explanation, though, in your argument, this one seems to presuppose the first, is that capitalist, self-interested economic forces greatly benefit from our faith in scientific truth. I would argue that this line of reasoning could be taken further. What this article has forced me to consider is that how can modern science, by modern here I mean post-Einstien and more specifically post-Relativity, still through the word Truth around? Is it just historical inertia? This is me just thinking off the cuff a bit, but modern science seems to make “Truth” a meaningful notion by borrowing from the future. But now we are always only making this word meaningful by borrowing from the future; we will learn the truth tomorrow, so we can use this word meaningfully today. This seems to me to stink of the reinvestment of capital, for the sake of gaining more capital, only to reinvest for the sake of still more capital and so on.
That said, I still think the Nietzschean interpretation is quite interesting. Your article comes back to a point which has been a topic far too long on my mind, and that is how, if it is even possible, can one free themselves from a reactive, resentful, attitude. If this ascetic ideal inadequately fills the void left by reactive, resentful attitudes, how can they be changed? Nietzsche surely doesn’t want to say that this is even possible for everyone. how can one, nevermind an entire society be changed from a reactive attitude to a creative one?
I am interested as to what you think. I just discovered your blog and have only just begun reading your articles. I thank you for the work you have done. It is impressive and rather inspirational.

]]> By: John Allen http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/the-meaning-of-science/#comment-2153 John Allen Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:35:46 +0000 http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/?p=586#comment-2153 Your article has increased my personal conviction that, in the dawning space age, humankind needs both science and religion in harmony. I have become so convinced of this need that I have recently developed a website as a vehicle to join in the growing consideration of the subject. The website will soon point to this article as an important part of the consideration. The site will be updated next week. Here’s a link: <a href="http://www.spaceagereligion.com/" rel="nofollow">SpaceAgeReligion.com</a> We have been encouraged of recent by an increasing global dialogue regarding the need for concord between science and religion. Currently the subject of evolution is the meeting ground being selected by some religious groups in the United States. An article regarding this initiative in the Christian community is available on the site. Your article here has caused me to further consider how the *scientific attitude* might be a major obstacle in the effort of reconciliation between the social reality paradigms of science and religion in the future. It will not do to just *preach* to the religions about *Truth*, as you have pointed out, some sermons must be reserved for the scientist. Truly enjoyed your article and appreciate the deep thought and consideration it reflects. Your article has increased my personal conviction that, in the dawning space age, humankind needs both science and religion in harmony. I have become so convinced of this need that I have recently developed a website as a vehicle to join in the growing consideration of the subject. The website will soon point to this article as an important part of the consideration. The site will be updated next week. Here’s a link: SpaceAgeReligion.com

We have been encouraged of recent by an increasing global dialogue regarding the need for concord between science and religion. Currently the subject of evolution is the meeting ground being selected by some religious groups in the United States. An article regarding this initiative in the Christian community is available on the site.

Your article here has caused me to further consider how the *scientific attitude* might be a major obstacle in the effort of reconciliation between the social reality paradigms of science and religion in the future. It will not do to just *preach* to the religions about *Truth*, as you have pointed out, some sermons must be reserved for the scientist.

Truly enjoyed your article and appreciate the deep thought and consideration it reflects.

]]> By: Cosmicbrat http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/the-meaning-of-science/#comment-2149 Cosmicbrat Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:28:41 +0000 http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/?p=586#comment-2149 Science tends to explore all that isn't about a thing, until it eventually stumbles upon something that is what they seek... It is something like searching for a needle in a hay stack, by searching for the hay stack everywhere it isn't, until the hay stack is the last thing to be found.. an M. O. that is extremely wasteful on all its resources... An alternative process, one that would be much more functional, would be to bring the intangible sciences into the equation, the cosmics, the psychics, the sorcerys, and the magics.. in order to predetermine the viability of the science item tabled, before wasting most of its resources searching and researching that which does not relate to the end result, thereby disposing of the uselessness in advance, in favor of spending resources on the true task at hand in the first place... Old science needs a hard meaningful boot in the rear, to force the antiques to accept the rest of the mind's existence.. to enable the old ways to become new ways.. after cutting history's anchor chain to the nothing... Science tends to explore all that isn’t about a thing, until it eventually stumbles upon something that is what they seek… It is something like searching for a needle in a hay stack, by searching for the hay stack everywhere it isn’t, until the hay stack is the last thing to be found.. an M. O. that is extremely wasteful on all its resources…

An alternative process, one that would be much more functional, would be to bring the intangible sciences into the equation, the cosmics, the psychics, the sorcerys, and the magics.. in order to predetermine the viability of the science item tabled, before wasting most of its resources searching and researching that which does not relate to the end result, thereby disposing of the uselessness in advance, in favor of spending resources on the true task at hand in the first place…

Old science needs a hard meaningful boot in the rear, to force the antiques to accept the rest of the mind’s existence.. to enable the old ways to become new ways.. after cutting history’s anchor chain to the nothing…

]]>