3 ms·

> Give it 150 more years and all the current "mysteries" will appear more or less ridiculous. My bet is in 150 years we will have even more questions, and mayb

> Give it 150 more years and all the current "mysteries" will appear more or less ridiculous. My bet is in 150 years we will have even more questions, and maybe one or two solved ones. Let’s look at history. If you were blind 500 years ago there was no cure. If you are blind now, while the life conditions might be better (guide dog, support from organizations) there is still no cure. We really do not know much. Science is great, but, ironically, this blind optimism in it smells of religion. An old idea, not mine, from Nietzsche.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
There is no cure for blindness? What kind of blindness? Even a popular entertainer made news when curing 1,000 cataracts with a today's standard procedure. How would cataracts be cured 500 years ago? Bloodletting? Very soon (10 years, 20, maybe more) we will be able to restore full eyesight, even regrow eyes [1], and beyond. But sure, cling to dusty metaphysics while sending messages at light speed across the entire planet with a detour in Low Earth Orbit using materials which were invented 116 years ago [2], it's your privilege. [1] "Researchers restore lost sight in mice, offering clues to reversing aging. But many hurdles remain before approach can be tried in people", https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-restore-lost-sight-mice-offering-clues-reversing-aging https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-restore-... [2] "In 1907 Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite, the first fully synthetic plastic, meaning it contained no molecules found in nature.", https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-plastics#:~:text=In%201907%20Leo%20Baekeland%20invented%20Bakelite%2C%20the%20first%20fully%20synthetic%20plastic%2C%20meaning%20it%20contained%20no%20molecules%20found%20in%20nature https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-pla....
- mejutoco 4y ago
  > But sure, cling to dusty metaphysics while sending messages at light speed. I do not understand what you mean by dusty metaphysics. I am guessing you mean religion? I can criticize science without endorsing religion. It is not either or. If that is the case, I believe you read into my comment things I did not say. I already said science is great. At the same time, we hardly know anything. These are orthogonal. We are a bunch of apes on a rock in the middle of space. Replacing religion with science is what (one of the things) Nietzsche was talking about. What a better example, ironically, that not being able to criticize Science.
  - ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
    In a funny way, by dusty metaphysics I actually meant the great Swiss philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In Genealogy of Morals he has quotes such as "Science is not nearly independent…, in every respect it first needs a value-ideal, value-creating power, in whose service it can believe in itself,—science itself never creates values." [1] using the word wissenschaft for science, knowledge-making, translating literally the German word. The point was that we are already beyond any dreams Nietzsche could have imagined, the dichotomy religion/science was merely a cultural artefact of the Enlightenment. Hence the replacement you mention is not even an issue. As for "hardly knowing anything", just looking at the front page of HN right now: we are discovering new water sources on the Moon [2], new primitive cells [3]. We are improving, however knowledge is not about totality (omni-scientia, as the religious terminology would put it). Even if we were to condense all the knowledge in one place, hoard it, it would only collapse into a black hole, our universe is rather limited. Knowledge is about principles: we will never again have to worry about the sun not rising tomorrow because we made the god of Sun angry (although we should worry that the Sun will evaporate Earth in a few billion years, so I suppose Nietzsche has his point [4]). [1] Two Genealogies of Human Values: Nietzsche Versus Edward O. Wilson on the Consilience of Philosophy, Science and Technology, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6978441 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6978441 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35565553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35565553 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35537248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35537248 [4] 'Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die.', 1873, F. Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense
    - mejutoco 4y ago
      Thanks for the detailed response. I will try my best to answer. > science itself never creates values I did not say I agree with Everything Nietzsche says. I disagree on that one. > The point was that we are already beyond any dreams Nietzsche could have imagined, the dichotomy religion/science was merely a cultural artefact of the Enlightenment. Hence the replacement you mention is not even an issue. Why are we already beyond any dreams Nietzsche could have imagined? You state it as fact but do not justify it. The Hadron collider has not discovered many of the things people were hoping to. Mathematics optimism was demolished with Gödel. If anything, it feels like we need to put more and more effort to get less and less progress (diminishing returns). IMHO it is fine, what else can we do, but I don't think it is a situation to brag about. This naïve positivity that Science will solve all problems _is_ the cultural artifact of the Enlightenment. By now the optimism has faded. In 150 years no more illnesses? Who can believe that, if we are not all dead from the environment or nuclear war. But most importantly: > As for "hardly knowing anything", just looking at the front page of HN right now If instead of looking at hn we go to a hospital it will be obvious how little we know.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago

There is no cure for blindness? What kind of blindness? Even a popular entertainer made news when curing 1,000 cataracts with a today's standard procedure. How would cataracts be cured 500 years ago? Bloodletting? Very soon (10 years, 20, maybe more) we will be able to restore full eyesight, even regrow eyes [1], and beyond. But sure, cling to dusty metaphysics while sending messages at light speed across the entire planet with a detour in Low Earth Orbit using materials which were invented 116 years ago [2], it's your privilege. [1] "Researchers restore lost sight in mice, offering clues to reversing aging. But many hurdles remain before approach can be tried in people", https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-restore-lost-sight-mice-offering-clues-reversing-aging https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-restore-... [2] "In 1907 Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite, the first fully synthetic plastic, meaning it contained no molecules found in nature.", https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-plastics#:~:text=In%201907%20Leo%20Baekeland%20invented%20Bakelite%2C%20the%20first%20fully%20synthetic%20plastic%2C%20meaning%20it%20contained%20no%20molecules%20found%20in%20nature https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-pla....

mejutoco 4y ago
> But sure, cling to dusty metaphysics while sending messages at light speed. I do not understand what you mean by dusty metaphysics. I am guessing you mean religion? I can criticize science without endorsing religion. It is not either or. If that is the case, I believe you read into my comment things I did not say. I already said science is great. At the same time, we hardly know anything. These are orthogonal. We are a bunch of apes on a rock in the middle of space. Replacing religion with science is what (one of the things) Nietzsche was talking about. What a better example, ironically, that not being able to criticize Science.
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  In a funny way, by dusty metaphysics I actually meant the great Swiss philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In Genealogy of Morals he has quotes such as "Science is not nearly independent…, in every respect it first needs a value-ideal, value-creating power, in whose service it can believe in itself,—science itself never creates values." [1] using the word wissenschaft for science, knowledge-making, translating literally the German word. The point was that we are already beyond any dreams Nietzsche could have imagined, the dichotomy religion/science was merely a cultural artefact of the Enlightenment. Hence the replacement you mention is not even an issue. As for "hardly knowing anything", just looking at the front page of HN right now: we are discovering new water sources on the Moon [2], new primitive cells [3]. We are improving, however knowledge is not about totality (omni-scientia, as the religious terminology would put it). Even if we were to condense all the knowledge in one place, hoard it, it would only collapse into a black hole, our universe is rather limited. Knowledge is about principles: we will never again have to worry about the sun not rising tomorrow because we made the god of Sun angry (although we should worry that the Sun will evaporate Earth in a few billion years, so I suppose Nietzsche has his point [4]). [1] Two Genealogies of Human Values: Nietzsche Versus Edward O. Wilson on the Consilience of Philosophy, Science and Technology, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6978441 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6978441 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35565553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35565553 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35537248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35537248 [4] 'Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die.', 1873, F. Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    Thanks for the detailed response. I will try my best to answer. > science itself never creates values I did not say I agree with Everything Nietzsche says. I disagree on that one. > The point was that we are already beyond any dreams Nietzsche could have imagined, the dichotomy religion/science was merely a cultural artefact of the Enlightenment. Hence the replacement you mention is not even an issue. Why are we already beyond any dreams Nietzsche could have imagined? You state it as fact but do not justify it. The Hadron collider has not discovered many of the things people were hoping to. Mathematics optimism was demolished with Gödel. If anything, it feels like we need to put more and more effort to get less and less progress (diminishing returns). IMHO it is fine, what else can we do, but I don't think it is a situation to brag about. This naïve positivity that Science will solve all problems _is_ the cultural artifact of the Enlightenment. By now the optimism has faded. In 150 years no more illnesses? Who can believe that, if we are not all dead from the environment or nuclear war. But most importantly: > As for "hardly knowing anything", just looking at the front page of HN right now If instead of looking at hn we go to a hospital it will be obvious how little we know.