Do you believe the scientific community in 2020?

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
phouton
Online
Last seen: 13 min 34 sec ago
Joined: 10/23/2019 - 19:06
Posts: 592

Deputy Dog wrote:
I’m talking about dark matter and dark energy which many say accounts for 96% of the universe. It’s not playing by the rules so it seems.

What bearing do some current unknowns have on the reliability of science?

Incidentally, awareness of those unknowns came through science…

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9639
Location: Berkeley, California

“some could argue”

“many say”

I say, again — citation needed. Wikipedia offers help for how to properly cite a source, e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template:cite_guy_in_bar

klrman
klrman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 days ago
Joined: 11/07/2016 - 22:44
Posts: 2844
Location: Canada

NorthernHarrier wrote:
klrman wrote:

Westworld could become a reality.  This is from a women's perspective, my wife...... as many women are starting to become more masculine, many men will search for other ways to find femininity again, even if its human looking robots.  I personally think she could be on to something.  Many guys don't find heavy masculine traits appealing in women.  Some do, but not all.  Maybe star trek could foresee the future a little. It also could be part of natures balance in reducing the population and giving our planet a break.  My wife is very proud to be feminine and also 100% supports women  who want to be manly.  I like her attitude much more than people who try and force their way of life on others instead of accepting diversity.

I don’t believe women are becoming more masculine. What’s happening is that some of us are expanding our conceptualization or definitions of masculinity and femininity to incorporate equality and freedom for men and women in ways we didn’t before. I don’t find any femininity lacking in women today.

 

I would say it depends where you live.

BurningPlayd0h
BurningPlayd0h's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 06/22/2018 - 02:16
Posts: 1797
Location: MN

NorthernHarrier wrote:
BurningPlayd0h wrote:
xevious wrote:
I don’t think Westworld will ever become a reality. The whole fallacy is the idea of creating AI that imitates humans. Why? What a tragic waste of time. Real AI will be better than the human mind, in that it will be free of the primal physiological influence that binds us all. That’s superior.

My hypothesis? Mankind will become “God.” Not in the Biblical sense. We will spawn AI that will eventually evolve into something far beyond humanity. It won’t destroy us. Because it’s not bound by the primal imperative. AI will head to the stars, where humanity is too ill suited. That will be our legacy. We will have created a whole civilization of artificial life that will go where we could never go. Deep into the universe.

There is no reason to assume that advanced synthetic intelligences won’t be completely removed from human morals either. A lifeform doesn’t need to be “primal” to be completely ruthless, in fact our sense of morality is a uniquely human trait.

I agreed with you until you said our sense of morality is a uniquely human trait. I think there is growing empirical evidence showing it is not a uniquely human trait. Recent studies involving bonobos, rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees show complex behaviors suggesting these species have moral emotions similar to those of humans. Altruistic behaviors have been also shown in rats, and pigeons. Empathy has been demonstrated in primates, corvids (crows, ravens), canines, elephants, horses, and budgies.

In humans morality and ethics are not just instinctual emotions but rather complex social rules that only exist due to our more complex ability to communicate and have abstract concepts. These ideas can also vary greatly from one culture to another.

IDK about other primates but many animals have no ability to consider and plan for future events either (other than instincts to fatten up for the winter, etc.) and I’d say thats a very important part of human morality too.

I guess my point should be that intelligent life that doesn’t have the any link to biological life on Earth other than us being involved in it’s creation shouldn’t be assumed to have the same deep motivations as us or other animals.

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9639
Location: Berkeley, California
Quote:
morality and ethics are not just instinctual emotions but rather complex social rules that only exist due to our more complex ability to communicate

Citation needed to whatever leads you to believe this.

You might look through some of these studies, if you want to test your belief against, ya know, science.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=children+apes+fairness

NorthernHarrier
NorthernHarrier's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 11/30/2018 - 12:05
Posts: 719
Location: Eastern USA
hank wrote:
Quote:
morality and ethics are not just instinctual emotions but rather complex social rules that only exist due to our more complex ability to communicate

Citation needed to whatever leads you to believe this.

You might look through some of these studies, if you want to test your belief against, ya know, science.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=children+apes+fairness

I agree. The more we learn about non-human animals, the more we find that other species have complex emotional lives that often include complex communication and complex social relationships that incorporate decision making based on ethical motivations and delayed gratification to achieve future goals.

As for the statement above claiming we have a “more complex” ability to communicate, with abstract concepts, than other species, so our morality and ethics are different from those in other species, I disagree. We are learning that many animals are able to communicate and perceive reality in ways we cannot. If one assumes our communication abilities give us emotional tools unique to our species (a big assumption not proven empirically), then it must also be assumed that the unique communication abilities of other species give those species emotional abilities and tools that are beyond the capabilities of humans. Animals such as whales and porpoises, for example, have larger brains than we do and communication skills we don’t possess. Could it be that they are capable of emotional lives, including ethical considerations, that are beyond our grasp? We don’t have the evidence to show this now – but we also have no evidence proving our ethical and moral lives are fundamentally different than those of other animals.

"However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light." - Stanley Kubrick

BurningPlayd0h
BurningPlayd0h's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 06/22/2018 - 02:16
Posts: 1797
Location: MN
hank wrote:
Quote:
morality and ethics are not just instinctual emotions but rather complex social rules that only exist due to our more complex ability to communicate

Citation needed to whatever leads you to believe this.

You might look through some of these studies, if you want to test your belief against, ya know, science.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=children+apes+fairness

Literally any difference in what is acceptable or taboo between cultures, there are far too many to list.
“Honor killings” would be an extreme example.

The concept of “fairness” may be a deep foundational aspect in how humans and other primates act, but the exact point I’m making is that humans have much more complex rules that can vary greatly between cultures (whether large civilizations or even small tribes/groupings of people from very similar demographics). I think that cults or other groups that act very differently from the larger population they exist in are a great example of this as well.

Either way, I think clear links between different species on Earth sharing similar social rules still doesn’t at all suggest that synthetic life would be benevolent or share anything at all with humans, probably the opposite really.

iamlucky13
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 hours ago
Joined: 06/22/2018 - 09:18
Posts: 1177
Location: USA
Deputy Dog wrote:
xevious wrote:
SIGShooter wrote:
Deputy Dog wrote:
Some could argue it’s only about 4% reliable now.
You’re saying that the scientific method is only 4% reliable according to some? That would greatly astound me and depress me at the same time Sad
If it was only 4% reliable, nothing would work. I think that’s just senseless pondering.

I’m talking about dark matter and dark energy which many say accounts for 96% of the universe. It’s not playing by the rules so it seems.

The effects that we, for lack of better terms, call dark matter and dark energy, do not play by the rules of classical mechanics, or even relativity.

However, the observations that led us to come up with those terms play by the rules of the scientific method. Those observations so far seem to be very reliable when repeated by others and when repeated looking at different objects.

Deputy Dog
Deputy Dog's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/15/2017 - 07:53
Posts: 434
Location: behind you

hank wrote:
“some could argue”

“many say”

I say, again — citation needed. Wikipedia offers help for how to properly cite a source, e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template:cite_guy_in_bar

I’m glad to see you’re not sure about the 96%. Wink

Pages