The dangers of science philosophy to the enviroment.

[David T]

The anthropocene epoch is 99% a science generated issue. It is not an.issue.created by dimwits misreading ancient esoteric bronze age poetry or the bible in lay terms it's a science created phenomena a science.issue.

Dr Steven Hardy lays out nicely The early development of modern western Science philosophy as extremely problematic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The anthropocene epoch is 99% a science generated issue. It is not an.issue.created by dimwits misreading ancient esoteric bronze age poetry or the bible in lay terms it's a science created phenomena a science.issue.

Dr Steven Hardy lays out nicely The early development of modern western Science philosophy as extremely problematic.

How does philosophy apply with science?

The closest person I could think of that was philosophical as a scientist was Carl Sagan. I think he kept the two separate though and made the distinctions between philosophy and practiced science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Anthropocene - Wikipedia

Just for information.

 

[David T]

How does philosophy apply with science?

The closest person I could think of that was philosophical as a scientist was Carl Sagan. I think he kept the two separate though and made the distinctions between philosophy and practiced science.

Watch the video. Science is anything but devoid of philosophy. We observe, or experience we then create narrative of that experience. That has philosophical structures to it regardless. What did Darwin experience or observe exactly. What he observed or experienced is not his philosophical narrative it's something else.

Narrative or model can be split from experience, but oh, that's not easy to do.for us today. Of you don't do that then It's just religious nutty in secular lab coat is all. A jesus without jesus so to speak.

 

[sayak83]

The anthropocene epoch is 99% a science generated issue. It is not an.issue.created by dimwits misreading ancient esoteric bronze age poetry or the bible in lay terms it's a science created phenomena a science.issue.

Dr Steven Hardy lays out nicely The early development of modern western Science philosophy as extremely problematic.

Science has been warning about global warming and ecological degradation since 1980. If people refuse to listen to science when it interferes with making profit, then there will be consequences.

 

[Sunstone]

The primary human contribution to global climate change so far as I know is the burning of fossil fuels. It takes relatively very little science to learn how to do that. So I think it misleading to suggest global climate change is mainly caused by science.

 

[David T]

Science has been warning about global warming and ecological degradation since 1980. If people refuse to listen to science when it interferes with making profit, then there will be consequences.

Science is the generator of it. To state we see it as scientists, and to then turn and say it's Not A science generated issue is bad science. The reason for that is that science takes on personal philosophical meaning where none exists.

All I have said is scientifically speaking science is the causality of the environmental degregation. Nothing personal to it simple scientific observation is all.

Now the forum RF naturally draws in people who would hold negative views on religion based on science. That's turning science into philosophical narrative and actually bad science.

My statement it valid and science is the fundamental causality of the global destruction . its not dimwits misreading bronze age esoteric poetry on Sunday morning. . Although Monday morning even creationists are "scientifically" engaged despite their narrative beliefs about science facts.

 

[David T]

The primary human contribution to global climate change so far as I know is the burning of fossil fuels. It takes relatively very little science to learn how to do that. So I think it misleading to suggest global climate change is mainly caused by science.

Well let's talk overpopulation first. Is that a religious problem? Uh no.sex itself by itself isn't the causality.
In regards to burning fossil fuels, the discovery, extraction,synthesis, distribution is 100% intense science. So pushing the gas pedal is the very last aspect of an entire intensely scientific endeavour.

Dominionism in religion is fascinating. It requires the totality of science in application to the process to get to" press the gas pedal". But as soon as we say we need to back off from that experience they deny scientific observation. They embrace science to get them the gas they deny science when confronted by the issue created by science, gasoline.

So if I say scientifically speaking science is the causality , to deny that is a form of dominionism or "we want our cake and eat it too. " You cannot possibly have it both ways. My statements are in fact sound science.

 

[Cacotopia]

I can see the future.

When people demand a separation from philosophy and state, and keep philosophy out of schools. Silly humans.

 

[exchemist]

How does philosophy apply with science?

The closest person I could think of that was philosophical as a scientist was Carl Sagan. I think he kept the two separate though and made the distinctions between philosophy and practiced science.

To practise or to understand science properly, one needs to know a bit about the philosophy of science.

It is a failure to understand the philosophy behind science that leads to 90% of the attacks on science, by creationists and others, on this forum.

To say, as De Grasse Tyson does, that philosophy is a waste of time, is the remark of an ignoramus.

 

[james blunt]

The anthropocene epoch is 99% a science generated issue. It is not an.issue.created by dimwits misreading ancient esoteric bronze age poetry or the bible in lay terms it's a science created phenomena a science.issue.

Dr Steven Hardy lays out nicely The early development of modern western Science philosophy as extremely problematic.

Indeed they do not listen, they will be past the point of no return soon if they are not already past it.

 

[David T]

Indeed they do not listen, they will be past the point of no return soon if they are not already past it.

I think we only really make changes not before a disaster but after a disaster. I think the pain has to be greater than the complaint or denial or confusion before we go OK ok this is waaaay deeper than we realised.
In a certain way I am pro science but its also culpable in this..

 

[james blunt]

I think we only really make changes not before a disaster but after a disaster..

But what if there is no we after the disaster? What if there is nobody left to pick up the pieces and rebuild?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

No. These are old, and overly simplistic/wrong arguements.....and frankly attacking the wrong problem.

Science observes. It also helps to make the tools. It is human ingenuity, and industriousness, and human greed that determine what tools will be built, and how they will be used.
- Science found out how to get higher crop yields from an acre of land - Greed led to industrial farming and all the ramifications of the Standard American Diet (S.A.D.).
- Science discovered that E=MC^2 and released energy from the atom - human warfare ordered this to be crafted into nuclear bombs.
- Science yielded medicines to let us live longer and more vibrant lives. Human rutting has lead to an unsustainable overpopulation.
- Science identified global warming, and advised us how to save ourselves from its effects and it’s advancement. Human greed has resulted in political backlash and propaganda by industries set to lose money if the public acknowledges the reality that science has shown.
- Science allows radio, television, computers, global communication, and sharing of knowledge. Some humans have embraced these things, and used them for good, both the good of humanity, and the good of the Earth. Other humans have used it to spread lies, conspiracies, hatred, bigotry, to incite anger, violence, and misdirection.

- Science has ......and on.....and on......and ooonnnnnnnn........


The philosophy of science is to observe and study, and confirm or deny what our initial impressions are. To document these truths and spread them so that others can do their own experiments to confirm or deny the initial findings. Altering and adapting as time goes on.
It has NOTHING to do with “conquering the Earth”, or anything else.....except ignorance.

 

[exchemist]

No. These are old, and overly simplistic/wrong arguements.....and frankly attacking the wrong problem.

Science observes. It also helps to make the tools. It is human ingenuity, and industriousness, and human greed that determine what tools will be built, and how they will be used.
- Science found out how to get higher crop yields from an acre of land - Greed led to industrial farming and all the ramifications of the Standard American Diet (S.A.D.).
- Science discovered that E=MC^2 and released energy from the atom - human warfare ordered this to be crafted into nuclear bombs.
- Science yielded medicines to let us live longer and more vibrant lives. Human rutting has lead to an unsustainable overpopulation.
- Science identified global warming, and advised us how to save ourselves from its effects and it’s advancement. Human greed has resulted in political backlash and propaganda by industries set to lose money if the public acknowledges the reality that science has shown.
- Science allows radio, television, computers, global communication, and sharing of knowledge. Some humans have embraced these things, and used them for good, both the good of humanity, and the good of the Earth. Other humans have used it to spread lies, conspiracies, hatred, bigotry, to incite anger, violence, and misdirection.

- Science has ......and on.....and on......and ooonnnnnnnn........


The philosophy of science is to observe and study, and confirm or deny what our initial impressions are. To document these truths and spread them so that others can do their own experiments to confirm or deny the initial findings. Altering and adapting as time goes on.
It has NOTHING to do with “conquering the Earth”, or anything else.....except ignorance.

I sympathise with much of what you say. My only quibble is that the philosophy of science is not, as you suggest, making a practice of doing science, but instead is a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of scientific enquiry about the world, the limitations to the knowledge thus acquired, and matters of that sort. More here: Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

However I am sure you are quite right in divining that what the OP had in mind was actually not the above, but the ramifications for the world of a scientific worldview.

 

[David T]

But what if there is no we after the disaster? What if there is nobody left to pick up the pieces and rebuild?

Well the Bible says we are about 14 billion years old. That is outrageous! "In the beginning was the logos, the logos was God, the logos is God, he was with God in the beginning"

Leaving open what we may be and how that's generally interpreted, if we become extinct it will be us digging up our own bones, us digging up our civilizations millions of years in the future. We of course will be baffled because we will wonder what happened to, "them". There is no such thing as that separation being literal. Or extinction would become our history. I might say we don't get out of this thing called existence by simply self destructiing. Which actually means we are immortal and for a brief time mortal. We are not mearly random accidents or magically created robots. We are a something else as all of life is.


The new testament understands nature better than we do today. That's not shocking.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Most plants arose with vastly higher levels of CO2 'pollution' around 20x or 7000ppm

They thrived but consumed this resource over millions of years, reducing it to a near starvation level of <300 ppm pre-industrial- helping to create vast deserts on Earth which used to be lush.

We have recycled and replenished a very small fraction of this vital consumed resource

If humanity disappeared tomorrow, it's lasting legacy would be to extend the viable life span of the biosphere, if it were not a natural byproduct of economic activity, extracting and recycling CO2 back into the atmos would be a great environmental cause. Unfortunately our tiny contribution is probably not going to be enough to stave off the next imminent glacial period... but nothing Earth hasn't been through before

 

[dfnj]

Most plants arose with vastly higher levels of CO2 'pollution' around 20x or 7000ppm

They thrived but consumed this resource over millions of years, reducing it to a near starvation level of <300 ppm pre-industrial- helping to create vast deserts on Earth which used to be lush.

So burning fossil fuels will get rid of the deserts? And doctors used say, "Smoking is good for you. It clears your lungs."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So burning fossil fuels will get rid of the deserts? And doctors used say, "Smoking is good for you. It clears your lungs."

Well not at our minuscule level of contribution, but absolutely yes, if we burned enough. Increased CO2 not only increases plant growth, it greatly reduces dependency on water/ increases drought resistance- so it is already helping to repair deserts to some extent.

In fact a sudden global greening of vegetation, is one indicator some propose to watch for, as a sign of technological civilization on exo-planets

 

[Bear Wild]

The anthropocene epoch is 99% a science generated issue. It is not an.issue.created by dimwits misreading ancient esoteric bronze age poetry or the bible in lay terms it's a science created phenomena a science.issue.

Dr Steven Hardy lays out nicely The early development of modern western Science philosophy as extremely problematic.

I just found this post and find it interesting. It would have been interesting for him to describe the split in the western view of our world with the differentiation of Arcadian Ecology and Imperial Ecology in the early eighteenth Century. Gilbert White endorsed the view of Arcadian ecology advocating for a harmonious relationship with humans and nature as described in his book “Natural history of Selbourne”. The opposite Francis Bacon’s Imperial Ecology who proposed the exercise of reason and by hard work, man’s dominance over nature and Donald Worster with his “Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas” where he argues for the Imperial ecology as a counterpoint to Arcadian ecology. They were both viable views until Carl Linnaeus’s gave his support of the imperial ecology view which became the dominant view which has carried through so much of science history.

The alternate philosophy however was expressed later by Alexander von Humboldt who combined both the precision of the developing science with the sensory “Artistic” view to develop his view of a complete science. He saw the patterns that now lay the fundamentals of Ecology both with an analytical approach as well as the sensory approach which was shared by those blended the romance movement with science. Thus, an alternative way of viewing our world using scientific method but also using our senses/feelings about the subject has been used in our western scientific past. I think we would not be in such a dire state of existence with our world if we had not paid more attention to this view.