Physicist educates philosophers on how to think rationally.

[danielpalos]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

How is it that Man, having eaten the fruit of the tree of (Perfect Knowledge) of Good and Evil can be ignorant of any Thing?

You can lead a horse to water, except you can't make him drink.

Perfect Knowledge is about "just knowing".

 

[RandomPoster]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

The funny thing is, the scientist is ignoring the fact that science is merely a form of applied philosophy.

No, people understand that Philosophers started an experiment millenia ago. Science is the experiment and Philosophers won't accept the results of the experiment when scientists come back and say "Logical Positivism has served us best overall in the context of the physical sciences". Instead, they attempt to cast any dissenters out as heretics. They have disparaged Steven Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, among others for speaking the truth of their own experiences.

Nope, you're making that up. Logical positivism is a relatively recent idea, emerging (early 20th century) well after the modern realm of scientific study began. In fact, the whole idea behind logical positivism is to convert philosophy as a whole into field that more closely resembles a hard science. But that is an ass backwards approach, because as I explained a moment ago, science is a form of applied philosophy. Trying to turn philosophy into a form of applied science is contradictory.

Logical Positivism is simply the results of an experiment. Scientists took a couple thousand years to get back to the world of Philosophy and report their philosophical findings because they are a cautious group of people. Well, the jury is in and everyone can start practicing Logical Positivism now.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

The funny thing is, the scientist is ignoring the fact that science is merely a form of applied philosophy.

No, people understand that Philosophers started an experiment millenia ago. Science is the experiment and Philosophers won't accept the results of the experiment when scientists come back and say "Logical Positivism has served us best overall in the context of the physical sciences". Instead, they attempt to cast any dissenters out as heretics. They have disparaged Steven Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, among others for speaking the truth of their own experiences.

Nope, you're making that up. Logical positivism is a relatively recent idea, emerging (early 20th century) well after the modern realm of scientific study began. In fact, the whole idea behind logical positivism is to convert philosophy as a whole into field that more closely resembles a hard science. But that is an ass backwards approach, because as I explained a moment ago, science is a form of applied philosophy. Trying to turn philosophy into a form of applied science is contradictory.

Logical Positivism is simply the results of an experiment. Scientists took a couple thousand years to get back to the world of Philosophy and report their philosophical findings because they are a cautious group of people. Well, the jury is in and everyone can start practicing Logical Positivism now.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're just making up bullshit, trying to fill in the blanks of your uneducated mind.

 

[RandomPoster]

No, the study of how to solve problems and make progress that can be objectively measured is all there is to Philosophy.

Define "problem" and "progress," please. When you are done with that, and in the light of the foregoing, proceed toward "solve / solution", and "objectively".

Because, to me it seems there's no clear meaning to any of the terms.

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

It's called "STEAM" now. Let it sink in.

It's only called STEAM by a bunch of hot headed blowhards obsessed with "fixing" gender ratios that are not broken, except simply reflect a pattern of choices people tend to make when given that pesky thing known as free will.

You seem to have a bug up your ass about gender.

Better get used to STEAM, because that’s the commonly used acronym now, like it or not.

Nope. I am not concerned about gender. The feminists are obsessed with it and simply can not accept people making their own choices. STEM does not need the arts. The liberal arts need to adopt the same problem solving mindset that STEM has.

 

[Unkotare]

Define "problem" and "progress," please. When you are done with that, and in the light of the foregoing, proceed toward "solve / solution", and "objectively".

Because, to me it seems there's no clear meaning to any of the terms.

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

It's called "STEAM" now. Let it sink in.

It's only called STEAM by a bunch of hot headed blowhards obsessed with "fixing" gender ratios that are not broken, except simply reflect a pattern of choices people tend to make when given that pesky thing known as free will.

You seem to have a bug up your ass about gender.

Better get used to STEAM, because that’s the commonly used acronym now, like it or not.

Nope. I am not concerned about gender. .....

And yet you are the only one who has brought it up.


........

 

[RandomPoster]

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

It's called "STEAM" now. Let it sink in.

It's only called STEAM by a bunch of hot headed blowhards obsessed with "fixing" gender ratios that are not broken, except simply reflect a pattern of choices people tend to make when given that pesky thing known as free will.

You seem to have a bug up your ass about gender.

Better get used to STEAM, because that’s the commonly used acronym now, like it or not.

Nope. I am not concerned about gender. .....

And yet you are the only one who has brought it up.


........

No. I brought it up as to why people want to change STEM to STEAM. The gender disparity in STEM upsets people. I myself do not believe we should be measuring gender ratios in specific fields in the first place.

 

[Unkotare]

It's called "STEAM" now. Let it sink in.

It's only called STEAM by a bunch of hot headed blowhards obsessed with "fixing" gender ratios that are not broken, except simply reflect a pattern of choices people tend to make when given that pesky thing known as free will.

You seem to have a bug up your ass about gender.

Better get used to STEAM, because that’s the commonly used acronym now, like it or not.

Nope. I am not concerned about gender. .....

And yet you are the only one who has brought it up.


........

No. I brought it up as to why people want to change STEM to STEAM. The gender disparity in STEM upsets people. ....

You must be one of those people because you keep bringing it up when no one else has.

 

[RandomPoster]

It's only called STEAM by a bunch of hot headed blowhards obsessed with "fixing" gender ratios that are not broken, except simply reflect a pattern of choices people tend to make when given that pesky thing known as free will.

You seem to have a bug up your ass about gender.

Better get used to STEAM, because that’s the commonly used acronym now, like it or not.

Nope. I am not concerned about gender. .....

And yet you are the only one who has brought it up.


........

No. I brought it up as to why people want to change STEM to STEAM. The gender disparity in STEM upsets people. ....

You must be one of those people because you keep bringing it up when no one else has.

No, I keep responding to you trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[Unkotare]

You seem to have a bug up your ass about gender.

Better get used to STEAM, because that’s the commonly used acronym now, like it or not.

Nope. I am not concerned about gender. .....

And yet you are the only one who has brought it up.


........

No. I brought it up as to why people want to change STEM to STEAM. The gender disparity in STEM upsets people. ....

You must be one of those people because you keep bringing it up when no one else has.

No, I keep responding to you trying to put words in my mouth.

Again, you and only you have mentioned it at all.

 

[RandomPoster]

Nope. I am not concerned about gender. .....

And yet you are the only one who has brought it up.


........

No. I brought it up as to why people want to change STEM to STEAM. The gender disparity in STEM upsets people. ....

You must be one of those people because you keep bringing it up when no one else has.

No, I keep responding to you trying to put words in my mouth.

Again, you and only you have mentioned it at all.

If you don't believe that the push for trying to attach the Arts to STEM has to do with a desire to remove the gender gap in STEM, what is the reason? More to the point, what specific problem solving skills does STEM not instill that the Liberal Arts do?

 

[Unkotare]

And yet you are the only one who has brought it up.


........

No. I brought it up as to why people want to change STEM to STEAM. The gender disparity in STEM upsets people. ....

You must be one of those people because you keep bringing it up when no one else has.

No, I keep responding to you trying to put words in my mouth.

Again, you and only you have mentioned it at all.

If you don't believe that the push for trying to attach the Arts to STEM has to do with a desire to remove the gender gap in STEM, what is the reason? ......

So you admit that you are obsessed with gender and are trying to force it into this topic?

 

[Unkotare]

... More to the point, what specific problem solving skills does STEM not instill that the Liberal Arts do?

Insight
Communication skills
Enhanced ability to handle ambiguity
Wider range of career paths available in the future
Management skills
Ability to lead, create, and collaborate highly valued by large organizations
Critical thinking skills
Creativity
Continuing education
Problem solving
Skills that outlast changes in technology and market trends

 

[RandomPoster]

No. I brought it up as to why people want to change STEM to STEAM. The gender disparity in STEM upsets people. ....

You must be one of those people because you keep bringing it up when no one else has.

No, I keep responding to you trying to put words in my mouth.

Again, you and only you have mentioned it at all.

If you don't believe that the push for trying to attach the Arts to STEM has to do with a desire to remove the gender gap in STEM, what is the reason? ......

So you admit that you are obsessed with gender and are trying to force it into this topic?

No, I acknowledge your constant accusations that I am in an attempt to sidetrack the conversation. Here are simply a few of the many articles complaining about the "problem" of the gender imbalance in STEM and how we need to "do something about it". I can find dozens of articles on the topic within a matter of minutes. Nice attempt to sidetrack the conversation away from the indefensible anti-Empiricist mentality that is poisoning Western Civilization.

How to solve the STEM gender equality equation

Ground STEM in the real world to fix the gender imbalance - Insight for Good

The Root of the Problem: Gender Imbalance in STEM Fields | The Harvard-Westlake Chronicle

Women in STEM Majors Offer Solutions for Gender Imbalance

Can This Change Eliminate The STEM Gender Gap?

Engineering a solution to the gender imbalance | Vercida

 

[RandomPoster]

... More to the point, what specific problem solving skills does STEM not instill that the Liberal Arts do?

Insight
Communication skills
Enhanced ability to handle ambiguity
Wider range of career paths available in the future
Management skills
Ability to lead, create, and collaborate highly valued by large organizations
Critical thinking skills
Creativity
Continuing education
Problem solving
Skills that outlast changes in technology and market trends

Scientists, Mathematicians, and Engineers lack insight? They grasp concepts and apply them better than anyone.

They lack Creativity? Who has so far been solving the mysteries of the universe? Most of them were solved by introverted nerds like Isaac Newton who died a virgin, had no friends, and sat there for hours obsessively repeating phrases over and over again to himself, often even giving lectures to an empty hall if no students showed up. He discovered laws of motion and invented calculus. Inventors like Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, etc. are some of the most creative people in the history of the planet.

They lack "critical thinking"? Yep, they don't think things through like painters, poets, literature professors, and others do. Doctors simply start hacking away without putting serious "critical" thought into it first. Engineers simply throw bridges together with no clear, carefully thought out plan because no one care if it collapses and people die. If only Scientists, Doctors, Engineers, etc. developed the "critical thinking" skills that are required of a sociology professor in his ivory tower on a daily basis, as life and death hangs in the balance in the sociology classroom. I'll let you in on a little secret. In STEM, ideas actually have to work, not simply be popular. STEM is the area where it is easiest to be WRONG about something in a way that can be very difficult to argue your way out of.

They lack problem solving ability? WTF? That is all STEM is about, solving problems! That's all they do. They figure out how, how, how. How is the difficult question in every situation, the rest is easy. How to solve the equation, how to design an algorithm efficient enough to run on the available hardware, how to build a robot that can smash the other guys robot, make faster cars, build better tanks, build faster airplanes. Progress is what it is all about.

"Skills that outlast changes in technology and market trends"? I've had to re-train myself constantly and learn new technologies on my own on a non-stop basis. I've worked with a dozen different programming languages, hardware platforms ranging from mainframes to AS400 minicomputers to PCs, countless operating systems, half a dozen different database management systems, the list goes on and on.

Where is the evidence that STEM lacks anything on your list?

 

[emilynghiem]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

Dear RandomPoster
I can give you a couple of prominent examples of how
"empirical science" can be controversial and how
"science is concerned with culture".

A. the arguments over whether homosexual orientation or transgender identity
* is a born trait, genetic or developed in the womb, or behavior developed after,
* is a choice or not a choice,
* can change or cannot change,
* is natural or unnatural, is healthy or unhealthy.

B. the arguments over whether the data or interpretations of it point to
* manmade influence on climate change and global warming
* naturally occurring factors such as volcanic/radioactive energy
* and whether the percentage coming from human activity can
be changed enough to have a significant impact compared to forces outside our control
* or whether the better approach is to focus on stopping waste and pollution for the sake
of better health of people and the planet, regardless of arguments over effects on climate

Issue A - LGBT beliefs, and whether this can be PROVEN Empirically to be
a changeable choice or NOT a choice "of behavior" that can be changed,
would be a prime example of how REQUIRING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE would
be controversial. In the case of Christian identity, beliefs, expressions and practices,
such people are NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THEIR BELIEFS "empirically" in order to
defend their rights to free exercise without discrimination or regulation by Govt.

If you were to apply this "empirical evidence" requirement to
PROVING if people are LGBT or not, or if they are the type that CANNOT change
even if they wanted to choose that,
Yes, that would become even more controversial than it is now.

Issue B - science and culture.
Because our modern culture is based on certain standards of living and access to
technology we are used to, trying to EXPERIMENT to study if we could reduce the
impact on the planet by CUTTING OUT excess energy consumption would
inevitably involve CULTURAL issues and considerations.

Even to STUDY what the impact would or could be
would require changing how we operate. Which involves cultural
changes. Trying to study the changes, and the impact these have,
would DEFINITELY be tied in with culture.

(Currently we can't even have a political debate about this issue
without getting into cultural beliefs about climate change, and
whose culture or politics is predatory and trying to profit off
the problems, etc. etc.)

RandomPoster I would agree with you that if we COULD stick
to only what is proven by scientific methods, that might end all this
other "conjecture" and force the removal of political, religious, social
and cultural BIASES and attachments to "ways of thinking."

I don't think we can totally remove the debates or studies from
the cultural contexts that humans operate in.

We can still agree to pinpoint just the AGREED principles and points
Rationally between people WILLING to do that.

If that's what you mean, I agree this will be a helpful step.
But after that, there is still the process of integrating those
solutions back into the culture mix of the REST of humanity
who ISN'T willing to put aside their beliefs to stick to just the science
that can be proven. There is still a whole STEW of people with
biased interpretations of science who think theirs IS rational and not
skewed. So we'd still have to deal with all that!

Thanks for posting.
I don't want to discourage you, I DO think this approach will help.

But you are kidding yourself if you don't think the
cultural considerations are a major factor to be addressed
IN ADDITION to the flat science. People are cultural creatures
and this affects our relationships and how we process information.