In the 1800s Marx declared (and rightfully so IMO) that religion was the opiate of the masses. It was an idiot-proof solution to all your worries. That was 150 years ago…so perhaps things have changed a little since then?
Lets see, where to begin…television, the hypnotic box that pretends to show us the real world while subtly creating one for us instead.
The world wide web…the truly ‘breakthrough’ technology that is ‘revolutionalizing’ the planet…or perhap just a tool for the hungry spiders.
What of textbook science. Does it exist to teach people the best ways to live their lives or the best way to live in ignorance? Where as once they used the absurd notion of god to passify us, now they use ‘reality’, the dna supercomputer quantum-mechcanically taking care of all our worries so we can sleep tight at night.
I’m not sure how the different statements in your OP relate to each other, but I’ll have a go anyway:
Yes, it looks as though people generally continue to prefer the opiate to whatever it was that Marx promised.
Much as I’d like to think that watching ‘Junkyard Wars’ will resolve the remaining questions in my life, sadly it is not the case.
I presume you are lamenting the hijacking of the Web by commercial interests. Thing is, no one is really required to use commercial web sites if they don’t want to (except this one, of course).
Neither. It teaches people about, uh, science.
Er, who’s ‘they’ again? And what’s this ‘dna supercomputer’ you’re ranting about? 'Fraid I’m losing the plot here.
I think you’re confusing “science” with “technology”. Science is a method or group of methods of finding out things about the natural world by using observation and experiment to test and develop theories or models about how the universe works. It’s hardly just a pacifier or opiate for the masses.
As to technology (tools for manipulating the world)–technology can be used to stupefy or to empower. On balance, I’d say technology has done far more to empower common people. Ordinary people, at least in the advanced industrialized nations where technological progress has been greatest, now have vastly more mobility, more access to information, more control and power over their lives than ordinary people in any period in history–in many respects, more power and control over their lives than great lords and mighty conquerors in past times. I don’t think it’s entirely an accident that the rise of industrialization, capitalism, and high technology seem to have gone hand in hand with the rise of democracy and human rights and dignity.
The style of this thread (my first on SD) is apparently not quite in sync with the more traditional academic way of thinking, so I will do my best to translate.
My thesis if you will was to prove that science is no ‘truer’ a truth than religion, and in fact serves the exact same purpose. After 2000 years people have become jaded, and slightly more wise to the ways of those that wish to take advantage of stupidity.
As such, the system spawned a new means of passification, a new set of stories to explain the world around us. Mind you, to some it might seem absurd to think of something as “practical” as the web, or bioinformatics as merely a well thought-out ruse, but I think its well worth exploring the possibility.
For you see while these things may well seem practical to us, that is only because we have grown up inside a closed ball of circular logic and self-referentialism. By being forced to experience the stupidity of 486dx processors, we drool at the notion of pentium 5s and whatnot, all the while not pondering even for a moment if their might be better alternatives to living life at its fullest. For our god does not wish us to pray to false idols, and ensures we do not have the time to find any of them whilst being bombarded with CNN, videogames and fast cars.
Far be it from me to reject technology outright, for that would be most hippocritical to do so in an online post. But thats just my point, how else could I talk to people? Everyone is online! And so too are all the ‘answers’. After so many years of turning to religion for ‘all that there is to know’, we now find ourselves with science & technology to turn to for any and all truths.
Science isn’t particularly holy. It’s just a systematic method of figuring things out, by forming a hypothesis, then using observation and experimentation to attempt to disprove it. Ultimately, science can’t figure out “all truths”…science doesn’t deal in truth at all, unless you take a really reductionist view of truth.
It’s also important to remember that all scientific theories are subject to amendment or rejection, even those that are pretty well established. For a long time, Newton’s theory of gravity was accepted as the best theory of gravitational force there was, until Einstein came along with a theory of gravity that explained the universe better than Newton’s. It’s quite probably that one day, Einstein’s theory will be replaced by another, more explanable theory of gravity.
MEBuckner: Science is a disturbingly unified way of looking at the world that is intrinsicately linked to this handy-dandy gadgets that seemingly fall from the sky.
S & T dictate how we live our lives, based on the fact that it is supposedly ‘the best way to do things based on true hard unbreakable fact’. hah.
On empowerment, “Ordinary people, at least in the advanced industrialized nations where technological progress has been greatest, now have vastly more mobility.”
True. But perhaps people were allowed to mingle in different areas of the world only because the whole place has been more tightly fortified because of communications technology & other factors. So can look at as more mobility for individuals in a particular area, but if you look at it globally, you see everyone is now more emprisoned than before…isn’t “unity” grand?
You go on to make a great many more claims about what science has accomplished, so for now I will just end by reminding you logic is merely a system of consistent statements!
btw I really liked your sig, but I couldn’t figure out one little thing. I searched and search and searched all the world wide web but couldn’t for the life of me figure out what in the hell the ‘Illuminati’ were?
—S & T dictate how we live our lives, based on the fact that it is supposedly ‘the best way to do things based on true hard unbreakable fact’. hah.—
If you’re against even the ideal of science (you know, like, actually caring what the world is like, trying to find out, then build on this knowledge), I’m not sure what else can be said. If the project of science isn’t an honest search for truth about the world around us, then I don’t know what else possibly could be, and you are simply preaching some sort of super-relatavistic subjectivism.
—I searched and search and searched all the world wide web but couldn’t for the life of me figure out what in the hell the ‘Illuminati’ were?—
Well, you have certainly not proved that thesis, you have merely asserted it. At any rate, we can say that science seems to provide a consistent and repeatable view of reality. There are logically internally consistent ways of questioning whether or not that view is really real, but I wouldn’t advise leaping from any tall buildings in order to test the laws of physics.
As to science serving the “exact same purpose”–religion has served lots of purposes, which have certainly included attempting to understand how the world works, and also to some extent to control the world. Religion has many other “purposes” as well–giving people a sense of significance in their lives, developing moral codes–which science doesn’t do all that well, or not at all. If you want to argue, somewhat cynically but not without a fair amount of justification, that an important role of religion has been social control, then I don’t really think science has moved into that role at all. (I’d look to political ideology, or even consumerism–which is not the same thing as science, or even necessarily technology–as moving into those roles, alongside religion still being used that way in many places.) How does the atomic theory of matter maintain social control? And scientists have quite often been a somewhat subversive element–after all, science itself will dissolve the claims of the powerful as well as the powerless, if those claims are allegedly rooted in facts about the natural world. (“Those of aristocratic blood are naturally superior to commoners.” “Er, genetically, there seems to be no meaningful difference between noblemen and commoners.”)
None of that really has anything to do with “science”.
So, if a way of looking at the world is “unified”–self-consistent–it’s automatically “disturbing”? I’d find it pretty disturbing if things weren’t reasonably self-consistent. It’s when things cease to be consistent that I usually get perturbed–I expect my car to start when I turn the key in the ignition, and when it doesn’t, I have to call AAA and pay good money to get it fixed.
How is it “dictating” to give people the means to not starve to death or live in poverty and ignorance all their lives? If people really want to, they can go live in shacks in the woods with no electricity or running water. So long as they don’t mail bombs to people, no one will stop them.
People in modern countries have more freedom. Period. You have the freedom, for example, to claim that this freedom is an illusion, without being burned at the stake for heresy or sent to the re-education camps.
But some systems of consistent statements describe what will happen when you do certain actions in the real world. Other systems don’t.
Geez, doesn’t look like you guys are going to explore idea without a fight…fair enough I guess.
As I keep trying to show you, there is a tremendous amount of circular logic used in scientific analysis. But more explicity, the system is created from the ground up to generate information in a very contrived manner. You see, from say, grade 3 on, kids are taught to regurgatate very specific ‘LAWS’ of the unvierse. If they prove to be good regurgiaters, then they are encouraged to proceed (by allocating marks) into highschool science, whereby the same system is used. We’re talking about 10s of 100s of hours of information drilled into these guys. And let me assure you, neither kids nor teenagers are in anyway capable of objectively or “scientifically” judging this data for its usefullness or motives. Some may even say this process closely resembles ‘brainwashing’ albeit in a seemingly liberal form.
So by the time any of these budding scientists get to university, they find their seemingly objective cognitive systems telling them that the info in university is top notch (because it is a re-inforcement of all their previous experience)…they then go on to learn to regurgitate more facts for 4 or 5 more years (going to 6-8 hours of class a day, 3 hours of homework, if not more).
So finally a few of the really keen ones go into “research”…what a joke. So you tell me, are these people likely to develop ground-breaking new ways of looking at the world…or merely build upon the 10+ years of disinformation they’ve been programmed with?
Let me assure you I do very much “care what the world is like, and trying to find out” however I try not to let my schooling interfere with my education. Ever consider that maybe its science that is the super-relatavistic subjective crap?
Allow me to paraphrase with the change of one word "‘we can say that science or RELIGION seems to provide a consistent and repeatable view of reality. There are logically internally consistent ways of questioning whether or not that view is really real.’’’
But some systems of consistent statements describe what will happen when you do certain actions in the real world. Other systems don’t.
“People in modern countries have more freedom. Period.”
Many might argue that slavery never went away, it just changed colors to escape the visible spectrum.
So, if a way of looking at the world is “unified”–self-consistent–it’s automatically “disturbing”? I’d find it pretty disturbing if things weren’t reasonably self-consistent. It’s when things cease to be consistent that I usually get perturbed–I expect my car to start when I turn the key in the ignition, and when it doesn’t, I have to call AAA and pay good money to get it fixed.
Excellent! more fuel to my fire. self-contained theories are catch-22s in action. They do whatever they do, but godhelpyou if you need something from outside the box. And yes it may well be PRACTICAL to have everything revolve around the same stuff so you can get your car keys, but don’t kid yourself, it simply makes jumping through hoops that much easier.
Well, I don’t believe many religions are all that internally consistent, at least not the ones I’m most familiar with (Judeo-Christian, mainly).
You seem to be making a lot of assertions (often in the form of pseudo-questions or pseudo-hypotheticals), with little to back them up. If “many might argue” such-and-such, why don’t you present an argument for such-and-such?
—By being forced to experience the stupidity of 486dx processors, we drool at the notion of pentium 5s and whatnot, all the while not pondering even for a moment if their might be better alternatives to living life at its fullest.—
I kind of resent this sort of pop psychoanalysis of individuals. Have you ever considered that people HAVE considered the various things life has to offer and LIKE what faster and better computers can do for them? Your philosophy seems taken right out of Hanah Arendt’s Totalitarianism, which puts it on pretty shaky ground.
—Many might argue that slavery never went away, it just changed colors to escape the visible spectrum.—
Are YOU making that arguement? Because if so, other’s might argue that this is a pretty sloppy comparison.
—You see, from say, grade 3 on, kids are taught to regurgatate very specific ‘LAWS’ of the unvierse.—
Well, I can’t defend teachers who teach like this. But almost no one who actually does science, or even thinks about the philosophy of it a little, thinks that this is the goal of a scientific education. Virtually every science class I’ve ever taken or seen also teaches kids some basic concept of HOW to do science: how certain laws are defended and constantly tested. And to the best of their technical ability to do so, most science classes even perform as many basic experiments as they can. The core of scientific thinking is skepticism, full presentation, and arguement from continually re-examined data. If that’s not as far away from rote thinking as one can get (without simply making things up), I don’t know what else could be.
—Some may even say this process closely resembles ‘brainwashing’ albeit in a seemingly liberal form.—
Again: are you this some? Would you be willing to argue this so that people can respond to it?
—Geez, doesn’t look like you guys are going to explore idea without a fight…—
I think most of us HAVE explored this idea at great length at one time or another. Almost everyone has this idea at one point in their lives: and it drives them to go out and search for better answers than they had before. Personally, I find the comparison either just very very sloppy and ill-fitted, or so vague as to be almost meaningless.
I thought my dissection of the school system was rather lucid, no?
So nit-pickings aside, I am pretty sure the fundamentals of the religons you mention are EXTREMELY consistent and self-referential, and paradoxal.
ie. God is omnipotent, allknowing and always right
-God commands you to do x, y and z
-if you don’t do x, y and z then your going against God
Scientific theory is merely an extended version of this same logic. Both god and science are inaccessable to the average man, and thus are merely faith in a concept. One is a concept of a man in the sky, the other is a man in a lab.
There is much relative truth to be found in both, but the important stuff lies tucked away in perfectly inaccessable nooks and crannies.
Apos sorry to ignore you in the above post but our timing was such that you posted whilst I was replying to MEB, anyways here goes nothing.
Now I by no means was attempting to psycho-analyse the individual. Rather I was presenting the very tangible logic of the trap setout for all of us. “'Have you ever considered that people HAVE considered the various things life has to offer”…no I have not considered this for a second, because everyone’s view’s are spawned by the world around them, its a vicious circle.
—Many might argue that slavery never went away, it just changed colors to escape the visible spectrum.—
Does it matter if I’m making the argument or not? Why not be an intellectual and not just a petty person trying to validate his ideas. I don’t give a shit if I’m right, for concepts exist outside of myself. Debate should not be about who is right, its about exploration.
—You see, from say, grade 3 on, kids are taught to regurgatate very specific ‘LAWS’ of the unvierse.—
Science works because 'seeing is believing'. But there is a great amount of stuff inbetween, going on inside our heads. Our views are by no means objective...
I assure you back in the day, people believed in religion b/c they could not think of how else the sun could move around the sky, or children pop out of women's bellies.
I for one don't think science has gone any further than relgion in terms of validity. Just more detailed stupid explanations, classifications and labels.
To use a scientific metaphor, thing of the heisenberg uncertainty principle. One can describe aspects of the unit, but never show what happening or going to happen.
—Some may even say this process closely resembles ‘brainwashing’ albeit in a seemingly liberal form.—
again who cares? but just for you…sure, why not?
My definition of brainwashing in this case is merely a contrived dataset.
I think the proper terminology would be a sandbox.
—Debate should not be about who is right, its about exploration.—
But we should at least be exploring WHAT is right, no? It shouldn’t just be tossing out a bunch of sloppy claimed parralels and sitting back and saying “well, what about THAT, hunh? Hunh?”
—I for one don’t think science has gone any further than relgion in terms of validity. Just more detailed stupid explanations, classifications and labels.—
Okay. I disagree, and I think plenty has been presented so far to explain why, until we get a more subatantive rebutal.
Though it depends on what you mean by “religion.” You’re lumping an awful lot under that term.
Thank god, the onslaught is taking a break…I don’t think I’ve typed this hard since back when I played quake!
Again because this is my first thread I’m still getting a feel for the waters here, but they sure do seem mighty choppy! One thing I do know is that debate is about more than attacking the opponents arguments.
Deconstruction is nice, but deconstruction’s ultimate goal is to prove nothing, to reduce the power of any statement to the point of non-existence. Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard are interesting but the end result of emasculating words of the dominant meaning and replacing it and then emasculating this new meaning in favor of the meaning you discarded might very well be worth all of…nothing.
A formal debate (worlds standards) contains both a deconstruction as well as constructive arguments.
All statements are partially true, partially false, in accordance to fnord eris. Anyways. What I’ve done is presented you with a working concept, what you’ve done is spout off why you don’t like it, but certainly haven’t refuted anything. Irregardless, I think I’m satisfied with the information I’ve disseminated for now, and look forward to any other input people may have.