4 ms·

> Science is facts, cold hard facts. How do you figure?

RobertRoberts 7y ago
How I "feel" about a scientific result is irrelevant to the result. (ie, if I am mad or happy, it doesn't _affect_ the result) Therefore feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it.
- arrrg 7y ago
  That’s correct, but science also won’t solve this. This is a political/social issue that has to be approached this way. The science should inform our decisions but in order to reach that goal one might have to do more than insist that the science is correct and doesn’t care about your emotions.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    Is there a non-science based solution for fixing the climate? Those that argue against science tend to argue that myths are real. Like the existence of aliens, crystals have magic powers, aligning of chakras, etc... Edit: An example of science fixing pollution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20774621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20774621
- n4r9 7y ago
  Right, but they're very relevant to the process of convincing people to accept those results, which is potentially a big part of the solution.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    This seems to be the mantra, justify manipulation of people through emotions to push through a solution. The problem with this is that who decides what solution? If the motive for the solution is emotions, then any solution that "feels good" or "appears to solve" the problem will suffice.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - n4r9 7y ago
      > If the motive for the solution is emotions This is a stark misrepresentation of my point. Persuading people to accept climate change is (or at least may well be) part of the solution. Persuasion involves an emotional aspect for the majority of people. On a broader note, motives unavoidably involve emotion, or at least a value judgement. Scientific results never inform what ought to be done. Science does not provide values. It's a tool that helps us to achieve valued outcomes.
- danharaj 7y ago
  It does not follow, for either result or the process. For example, whether or not a scientist or you feels like a result is relevant or interesting is crucial to the scientific process. Have you ever met a scientist in their element? They are passionate, mercurial creatures who will bitterly feud as well as sing the highest praise about their work. This seems to be integral to the process. Curiosity is a feeling, too. I think you're idealizing science and I don't even think your ideal is a particularly useful aspiration for scientific activity.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    Science is simple, if something works, you can prove it. I am not idealizing anything, it's an indisputable fact that repeatable scientific results are repeatable by anyone. There are real solutions to climate change, they can be implemented today, right now. And the followers in society have nothing to do with it, it's the leader responsibility to implement. “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” ― Carl Sandburg
- Brain_Thief 7y ago
  In your fervor to dismiss the human experience it appears that you have played a bit loose with the logical formation of your argument and thereby missed an important point. Your premise is that the veracity of previously-achieved scientific results holds independent of human opinion or emotion. You then use this basis to conclude that "...feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it." But here you are 1) confusing the product of the scientific process (a distinctly human endeavor with obvious limitations) with the actual nature of reality that said process is attempting to probe, and 2) conflating the achieved results of the process with the process itself. In fact, nearly every novel scientific result achieved is the product of a human mind's creative efforts (and sometimes fortunate accidents). The enthusiasm, open-mindedness, and feelings of a scientist absolutely impact his or her line of thought and level of creativity and therefore directly influence the set of scientific results that are generated by the scientific process. Our ability to probe reality is correlated with our ability to imagine and intuit relationships (and to construct experiments that may illuminate them); our imagination and intuition are correlated with our current and past emotional states. Ergo, human feelings directly impact the output of the scientific process and our understanding of the natural laws underpinning reality. You may consider the case of pure mathematics, where intensely creative and open-minded individuals manipulate exotic structures atop towering ladders of abstraction; such exploration is the source of much of our most powerful technology and insights into reality. If you listen to explanations of the working methods employed by mathematicians many of them will claim that among the tools they rely upon most heavily are intuition and "feeling". Once you move beyond the unfortunate anti-human perspective of what I'll half-jokingly call "extreme scientific materialism" and accept the fundamental role of the human experience in the unfolding of the cosmos you might come to see that a mind bent on pure rationality (to the exclusion of all else) is like a beautiful, fueled-up airplane idling on the runway with no pilot in it.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    I won't pretend feelings don't exist, science can't even measure them. I am simply arguing that we need a real solution, and how we feel about that solution doesn't change whether it will work or not. A non-functioning solution that feels good won't fix the climate. Arguing that feelings are relevant isn't a fix. The great leaders down through history did not rely on making people feel good, they did the opposite. They inspired people to take on real difficulties. To face _not_ feeling good. That is the problem right now, hypocritical leadership has no ability to inspire or motivate and will not make any changes to the climate.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

How I "feel" about a scientific result is irrelevant to the result. (ie, if I am mad or happy, it doesn't _affect_ the result) Therefore feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it.

arrrg 7y ago
That’s correct, but science also won’t solve this. This is a political/social issue that has to be approached this way. The science should inform our decisions but in order to reach that goal one might have to do more than insist that the science is correct and doesn’t care about your emotions.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  Is there a non-science based solution for fixing the climate? Those that argue against science tend to argue that myths are real. Like the existence of aliens, crystals have magic powers, aligning of chakras, etc... Edit: An example of science fixing pollution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20774621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20774621
n4r9 7y ago
Right, but they're very relevant to the process of convincing people to accept those results, which is potentially a big part of the solution.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  This seems to be the mantra, justify manipulation of people through emotions to push through a solution. The problem with this is that who decides what solution? If the motive for the solution is emotions, then any solution that "feels good" or "appears to solve" the problem will suffice.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - n4r9 7y ago
    > If the motive for the solution is emotions This is a stark misrepresentation of my point. Persuading people to accept climate change is (or at least may well be) part of the solution. Persuasion involves an emotional aspect for the majority of people. On a broader note, motives unavoidably involve emotion, or at least a value judgement. Scientific results never inform what ought to be done. Science does not provide values. It's a tool that helps us to achieve valued outcomes.
danharaj 7y ago
It does not follow, for either result or the process. For example, whether or not a scientist or you feels like a result is relevant or interesting is crucial to the scientific process. Have you ever met a scientist in their element? They are passionate, mercurial creatures who will bitterly feud as well as sing the highest praise about their work. This seems to be integral to the process. Curiosity is a feeling, too. I think you're idealizing science and I don't even think your ideal is a particularly useful aspiration for scientific activity.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  Science is simple, if something works, you can prove it. I am not idealizing anything, it's an indisputable fact that repeatable scientific results are repeatable by anyone. There are real solutions to climate change, they can be implemented today, right now. And the followers in society have nothing to do with it, it's the leader responsibility to implement. “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” ― Carl Sandburg
Brain_Thief 7y ago
In your fervor to dismiss the human experience it appears that you have played a bit loose with the logical formation of your argument and thereby missed an important point. Your premise is that the veracity of previously-achieved scientific results holds independent of human opinion or emotion. You then use this basis to conclude that "...feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it." But here you are 1) confusing the product of the scientific process (a distinctly human endeavor with obvious limitations) with the actual nature of reality that said process is attempting to probe, and 2) conflating the achieved results of the process with the process itself. In fact, nearly every novel scientific result achieved is the product of a human mind's creative efforts (and sometimes fortunate accidents). The enthusiasm, open-mindedness, and feelings of a scientist absolutely impact his or her line of thought and level of creativity and therefore directly influence the set of scientific results that are generated by the scientific process. Our ability to probe reality is correlated with our ability to imagine and intuit relationships (and to construct experiments that may illuminate them); our imagination and intuition are correlated with our current and past emotional states. Ergo, human feelings directly impact the output of the scientific process and our understanding of the natural laws underpinning reality. You may consider the case of pure mathematics, where intensely creative and open-minded individuals manipulate exotic structures atop towering ladders of abstraction; such exploration is the source of much of our most powerful technology and insights into reality. If you listen to explanations of the working methods employed by mathematicians many of them will claim that among the tools they rely upon most heavily are intuition and "feeling". Once you move beyond the unfortunate anti-human perspective of what I'll half-jokingly call "extreme scientific materialism" and accept the fundamental role of the human experience in the unfolding of the cosmos you might come to see that a mind bent on pure rationality (to the exclusion of all else) is like a beautiful, fueled-up airplane idling on the runway with no pilot in it.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  I won't pretend feelings don't exist, science can't even measure them. I am simply arguing that we need a real solution, and how we feel about that solution doesn't change whether it will work or not. A non-functioning solution that feels good won't fix the climate. Arguing that feelings are relevant isn't a fix. The great leaders down through history did not rely on making people feel good, they did the opposite. They inspired people to take on real difficulties. To face _not_ feeling good. That is the problem right now, hypocritical leadership has no ability to inspire or motivate and will not make any changes to the climate.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]