Athena

In another forum someone explained how science is increasingly autocratic and why, and this goes against my belief that science is essential to democracy, so I googled for support of the idea that democracy is rule by reason, and I found this great U tube argument that relates the connection between science and democracy.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_smolin_...democracy.html

Science is essential to democracy. A democracy needs a well educated mass to make all the decisions citizens of democracy must make, from decisions about the environment to decisions about justice. These decisions should not be based on ignorance and superstition.

 

Speaking only for myself, I cannot read minds. Thus, I can only go by what people actually post. I try to interpret as little as possible; when there is ambiguity I ask for clarification. In this case, others beat me to it. There has been none.Then by all means, make the argument. That's preferable to an argument about semantics, IMO.

It is not my argument that science is not important, and Esbo made a true statement, that does not require mind reading to know what he said. To find fault in what he said, you had to assume he was saying he personally doesn't find science important, and there why would assume this. In fact that isn't even a logical assumption, because why would someone who doesn't like science be here? What he said about most people is true. I will explain.

.

esbo, on 09 Feb 2013 - 18:35, said:

Science education is not very important for most people.

Surely those who insist creationism in school, believe studying the bible is more important than studying science, and some of these people take their children out of public schools so their children are not corrupted with ideas that they believe are false and influence their children in a bad way. And if you check your library, you may find it has few books, if any, on math and science, indicating the people who run the library and most the people who use the library, are not interested in learning math and science. Esbo 's statement is just an observation. Math and science are not normal discussion subjects at parties, and trying to talk this stuff with most people doesn't go very well.

Even in my own family, my efforts to interest people in science are frustrating. Except for my 5 year old great grandson. He is too young to be thinking about girls, or to restrict his thinking to what he must know for his job. This kid is a delight. As soon as he enters my home he is wanting to do science experiments. Do you know if you put salt and pepper on a plate, than use wool to get static electricity on a plastic spoon, it will pick up the pepper? You can clean silver by putting it in a pan of boiling water (turn burner off before putting in silver), lined on the bottom with aluminum foil, and than dumping in baking soda. That is really fun because the baking soda foams. The kitchen is a great place for science! But in how many homes do you think someone is doing science with kids in the kitchen?

And math, We just do not commicate math as we do words, so of course children will learn to use words, but not math. When I realized this, I started making a point of saying as much about the shapes and numbers around as I can, just to prepare their brains for thinking math as naturally as we think words. But seriously in how many homes does this happen?

You have to admit, most people act as though math and science are not important. They might be glad someone else learns math and science and gives them good medicine and electronic devices, but they personally express no interest in either, and then expect their kids to do well in school. My father who was a NASA engineer, would say people do not like to think. They want to experience life, not study it. Personally, I think this is sad, but people think I am strange.

 

 

That's just it, though. Not being perceived as important is not the same as not being important. You're right: if the statement had been different, people would have reacted differently to it.

Is it all about the words we use or might it also be how others interpret what is said? By seeing "Science education is not very important for most people". meant from these people's point of view, science is not important to them, this discussion gains a ligitimate argument when it is asked why is science important? There is a ligimiate argument that it is not important, even though you do not agree with that point of view. I think there is value in establishing there are people who do not believe science is important, and even think it is harmful. It helps us understand our reality when we know there is more than one point of view. We can explore why some people do not think science is important, and why public libraries are seriously lacking when it comes to books about math and science, and why schools have math and science teachers that really do not value these subjects and can not inspire the children to like the subjects. Then we can take steps to correct this. This is really about having an open discussion that is inclusive of all points of view, and therefor expands our consciousness, or having a closed discussion, that excludes people and also entrophies our consciousness. It is also about what kind of people we are and want to be.

Science education is not very important for most people.

I think you have made a true statement and it is most unfortunte you got bad points for a true statement. For sure science is not percieved important to my Christian friends, who actually avoid science, because they are afraid of Satan!

May be if you had used the word "preceive" people here would have understood what said differently, and they would not have given you bad points. This is the problem we face, many people do not precieve science as important to their lives. Sadly, many schools have teachers teaching subjects they do not understand very well themselves. And I go crazy with home schoolers, who are great at teaching language arts, but terrible at teaching math and science, and they defend themselves as great teachers for their children. And have you checked out your local library? Libraries tend to about amusing people with literature, not spreading knowledge of math and science. There is much to say about this problem.

It is really sad when someone has something important to say, and it is judged so badly, because of the mind set of the judges.

Well, there is a larger attitude of "this is useless, until it actually applies to me" out there, manifesting itself in more than science education. OTOH, people seem willing to embrace quack cures and a lack of science literacy means they can't tell the difference., so the internet is not a replacement for legitimate education. Take the anti-vax/autism crowd, for instance. The fit the profile of looking on the internet for peers, but they come to the conclusion they want to hear, rather than the one supported by rigorous scientific analysis.

 

 

That may apply, but it was an Oklahoma bill (which, I believe, died in the senate) focused on academic freedom, and implied scientifically wrong answers could not be marked off if they were based on strongly held beliefs of the student.

I don't remeber anything about an Oaklahoma case, but there are plenty of them going on in Texas.

https://www.au.org/church-state/september-2010-church-state/au-bulletin/texas-educator-loses-court-fight-over

The fight is going on in Louisiana. I have Christian friends and they ah, have some interesting ideas about how God works. Like one prayed to God to make a computer work, because she didn't know the steps to take to get the results she wanted. These folks seriously believe a God can violate the laws of nature and please them on the condition they are His good children. And they are politically organizing to promote their beliefs through education.

http://www.wwltv.com/news/opinion/Louisiana-students-must-learn-evolution-186187302.html

Right now this young man is getting all the media in the fight agains teaching creationism.

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-fighting-creeping-creationism/

It's pretty well known that America has a problem with science education. Not many countries elect people to their Congressional science committees that believe that Evolution and Climate Change are false.

 

Science education (like the rest of the American system) is "teaching to the test", so instead of teaching how to figure out general approaches, they are taught specific equations for each type of problem. There's no problem solving in the solving of physics problems. Students aren't taught how to do science, they're taught how to memorize equations and swap out the numbers. Instead of being given the basic equations and being taught how to derive what they need, they're given pre-made equations molded for specific types of examples. So, given a novel type of problem (which they should be able to easily derive) many students will be completely lost because their crutch equations don't work.

 

This problem is completely pervasive in American education not just in science. The students aren't taught critical thinking. They're taught how to identify nouns, pronouns, adjective, and verbs, but they're not taught how to identify logic in sentences and how they fit together with other sentences logically. They're not taught how to tell if once sentence follows from another. Logic, for most people, is completely untouched until college (if they even get it there).

 

As for the credence you can have in a sentence given an argument, that's even worse. Even at the college level, most people don't know you need probability to determine the relation of the actual content's likelihood rather than just the form.

 

Students aren't taught about psychological biases and how to look out for them.

 

And we wonder why the American public is so easily manipulated and swindled by con-men.

This was not always true. Education was more focused on what you say is important before the 1958 National Defense Education Act. I painfully remember hating diagramming sentences. I didn't have a clue why this was important, until I began studying the education issue and learned what it has to do with teaching logic.

I think Swanspont is talking about the 2012 Texas Republican agenda to prevent education in the higher order thinking skills. Their argument is teaching children to think for themselves, disrupts parental authority. Of course this goes with Texas insisting creationism be taught along with evolution theory, as equally valid science.

As for the health care issue, our medical system has failed us. Doctors are ignoring information about wheat causing people with psoriasis and athritis trouble. We learn of this from each other, and it is not being non scientific. Either giving up wheat resolves these health problems or it does not, and each one of us can find this out for ourselves by adjusting our diets. Then we tell our doctors we are experiencing major improvement and we get a blank stare. Unless this is what the doctor was taught, s/he finds it hard to believe and unfortunately does not investigate information and make an independent decision.. Education since 1958, has created dependence on "experts" instead of preparing everyone for independent thinking, as was said in the OP. This is when we switched from education for independent thinking, to "group think" and reliance on authority. This is good for the rapid advancement of technology, but it is not good for a democracy that requires a mass that can think independently. It is not good for our future as it kills innovation.

Perhaps this is a better reply to Swanspont questions. He did say he really didn't care about the subject, but I still have the frustration of not completing a communication about a subject he did question. Today the characteristics of our education are pretty much the same, and no one remembers when our education was different, nor all the aguments against change, so we can discuss the social, economic, and political ramifications of a change that is not part of consciousness.

However, those who opposed compulsory attendance have won their fight with laws that make home schooling legal. I have not heard of anyone being fined $300 dollar later, for a child not attending school, but before the home schooling rule parents were fined. But before education was made compulsory, plenty of parents kept children home to work. Child lobar laws applied only to industry. Parents could keep their children and make the work. I am not saying that is a good thing, but who should be the authority over children, parents or the state?

Characteristics of the Prussian education system



The Prussian system instituted compulsory attendance, specific
training for teachers, national testing for all students (used to
classify children for potential job training), national curriculum set for each grade and mandatory kindergarten.

History



During the 18th century, the Kingdom of Prussia was among the first
countries in the world to introduce tax-funded and generally compulsory
primary education, comprising an eight-year course of primary
education, called Volksschule.
It provided not only the skills needed in an early industrialized
world (reading, writing and arithmetic), but also a strict education in
ethics, duty, discipline and obedience. Affluent children often went
on to attend preparatory private schools for an additional four years,
but the general population had virtually no access to secondary
education.

Lutheran influence



Historically, the Lutheran denomination had a strong influence on German culture, including its education. Martin Luther advocated compulsory schooling and this idea became a model for schools throughout Germany.

Pietist influence



Pietism,
a reformist group within Lutheranism, forged a political alliance with
the King of Prussia based on a mutual interest in breaking the
dominance of the Lutheran state church. The Prussian Kings, Calvinists
among Lutherans, feared the influence of the Lutheran state church and
its close connections with the provincial nobility, while Pietists
suffered from persecution by the Lutheran orthodoxy. Bolstered by royal
patronage, Pietism replaced the Lutheran church as the effective state
religion by the 1760s.

Pietist theology stressed the need for "inner spirituality", which can only come about through the reading of Scripture. Consequently, Pietists helped form the principles of the modern public school system, including the stress on literacy.

The political motivations of the King of Prussia



Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy,
the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the
citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become
convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his
decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.[citation needed]

The schools imposed an official language, to the prejudice of ethnic
groups living in Prussia. The purpose of the system was to instill
loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the
bureaucracy. As the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte,
a key influence on the system, said, "If you want to influence [the
student] at all, you must do more than merely talk to him; you must
fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will
otherwise than what you wish him to will." [1]

Compulsory education



A series of edicts made clear for the first time that education was a
task of the state. This evolution finally culminated in 1763, when
Frederick II made schooling compulsory for all children between ages
five through 13.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system

<br>Well, a formal definition of morals would be a "distinction between good and evil in an ethical manner", which ties into the native american interpretation because they would understand what living things actually deem good and evil, but consciousness itself I would say isn't directly related to morals, it's more of how something is taught, which is why morals around the world vary widely, you could have a fully conscious being but have them view murdering someone as a good thing in some respect, which is actually true for ancient Aztec and Mayan culture, as well as others.<br>

 

 

"http://natureofthings.blogspot.com/2005/12/morality-and-cicero.html">http://natureofthing...and-cicero.html

 

Cicero qualifies this by saying that the ability to be perfectly moral

is therefore dependent on having a perfect knowledge. If you can't

perfectly understand the consequences of your actions, then you can't

determine whether they are truly advantageous or not, and thus cannot

determine whether they are truly moral.

Each culture has a different consciousness and relegates different things into the subconscious by declaring them taboo. How people are educated will make a difference in how they perceive the world. We do not rely on nature as native Americans did and have a very different relationship with it. We can clear cut a forest for the jobs and revenue and have been blind to the consequences of this until recently. However, morality remains consistent, because the consequences are the same, regardless of our intentions or our awareness of them. The morality is not different, but the awareness of it differs. Aztecs had ritualized cannibalism We make cannibalism taboo We are not to even think about it. Ritualizing something that is taboo gives society control over the individual doing. We can not kill, unless drafted into the army and then we are to kill on order. A problem with this is, someone who has been conditioned to kill, may need to be conditioned to not kill when put back into society We have the science to know this, but we are ignoring it. The explanation of what happened in Germany was that people were conditioned to discredit their emotions and follow orders without question. This is presented as having superior logic and reason, and unthinkable things were done, by those "Just following orders". It was culturally expected to behave in this way, with much social pressure to do so. Human beings without the same reasoning, have judged what happened as immoral As we judge cannibalism immoral. Can we use logic to determine morality? What were the consequences of Aztec cannibalism and what happened in Germany? Everyone around these people returned on them. As Socrates said, it may take 3 generations before we realize the problem caused by our bad choices, but sooner or later the consequences will be noticeable. Like that is what makes one thing moral and another immoral, the consequences. Things are not right or wrong, because someone says so, or a holy book says so. It is the consequences of the act that makes something right or wrong.

I think your intentions are clear. I am not sure if this is what everyone says does not happen?

There's a tendency for the evolution of mathematics to branch. If we assume the basic line of mathematics to be basic arithmetic, then one of the earliest branchings would have to be algebra. More recent developments might include calculus, combinations and permutations, trigonometry, set theory, logic and computer science, and so on. One thing I'm curious about is whether there is a mathematics of patterns. You know, repetitions and regularities. Is there such a thing?

Would fractals qualify as the mathematics of patterns you are looking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

I am not sure math begins with arithmetic. People did not begin with Arabic numbers, or equal symbols. For the Egyptians the problem is figuring land boundaries after flooding, and building buildings and monuments, and art which is sacred and controlled by geometry. Greeks used stones arranged in patterns to discover fundamental concepts.

Well I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, I don't know exactly what the crisis is, but based on the reference to Hitler and a few others, it seems to point out some conflict with the use of technology and how people like to think that society is more enlightened because its more technological and has more science yet most of the time the drive for using science is just emotional. But, that doesn't mean it can't have other meanings. I think that it could also mean that society likes to think its so much more enlightened because of how much technology it has, yet ironically the presence of such technology creates ignorance, people just seem to stop caring about learning because they think they are already so advanced.

Well said. We can be aware of causes of global warming, and the harm being done, and how to reverse the causes, but we can not motivate the masses to cooperate with changes we need to make. We have public broadcasting stations, but the government has cut funding to them, so we are not using this technology as effectively as it could be use to educate the masses. When public broadcasting can not make high quality shows, the average person is not attracted to the public broadcasting stations, and instead of being educated, that masses are being entertained by commercial TV that caters to our desire for entertainment rather than a desire to be informed. This makes no sense to me. We are not using the technology we have as efficiently as we could be using it to have a well educated mass.

"The skepticism of scientific reason sapped our critical reason." This is the real problem of the modern crisis. Liberal education prepares everyone for critical thinking, but not education for technology. Liberal education internalized authority and education for technology prepares individuals to be dependent on authority. The reason for this is, technology advances fastest when those entering the fields rely on the experts, instead of rethinking everything themselves. Whereas, social decisions, how to vote and what actions a person may take, require independent thinking. Technology favors "group think" to independent thinking, so people work together to advance technology. You can see this cultural change by comparing the original Star Trek shows with the Next Generation. Captain Kirk of the original series is the John Wayne of space. Captain Picard of the Next Generation is of the "group think" generation. I am saying this is a major cultural change brought about a change in education. Advancing technology is the purpose of this education, not advancing a highly moral and refined civilization.

The change has effected our legal system. We used to speak of the spirit of the law, and it was said, to go by the letter of the law, is another forum of tyranny. Today we go by the letter of the law and call it being technologically correct. We trusted judges to sentence those declared guilty and now Oregon has taken that power from the judge and mandates some crimes result in 11 year sentences. Added to this is no longer treating the young as different from adults. We seem to be denying the judgment of a 16 year old is very different from the judgment of 42 year old. In the past a person could hide his errors, but today there is no hiding and there is no new start, but a record open to employers and property managers. Sure there are good reasons for things being as they are, but there were also good reasons for them being different. I think we are becoming increasingly brutal.

Then there are the debates about morals, and the opinion that morals are just a matter of personal preference. Okay, if morals are just a matter of personal preference, and if we are to be rational and non emotional, and an employer wants to involve you in wrong doing, what do you do? I will tell you what my public policy and administration professor told the class. "Never argue with authority because it would not be good for your career". That means if your employer is doing something that you believe is wrong, or asks you to do something you believe is wrong, you better go along with what your employer wants. That is how the horrors of NAZI Germany happened. They happened because of how the Germans used public education "to organize capacities for conduct." It happened because of Germany being authoritarian and citizens being willing to obey authority without question. A little different from Patrick Henry who is know for saying, "Give me liberty or give me death". In the US we have a tradition of questioning authority and believing our liberty means independent moral decisions, but I am not sure if this is still important in our culture. It was not important to my professor.

It doesn't say anything about morals being cause and effect and having anything to do with the universe in the English dictionary, I guess for some other language that's what it could mean though, but given that, it also doesn't say morals directly pertain to religion either.

Not that long ago it was common to read secular moral stories to our children, and at the end of the story we would ask, "what is the moral of that story". The answer is always one of cause effect. While this is less common today, I did buy a new book of moral stories. The book not only gives the story, but also explains the moral of the story. It includes stories such as "The Little Red Hen" and "The King With No Clothes". The little red hen asked all her friends to help with the process of making bread, and none of them would, so when the bread was baked, she did not share it. The moral is, if we want to share in the benefits of labor, then we need to share in that labor.

Knowing these stories is what we call cultural literacy. I have a book about what kindergarten children should know, and I was surprised by the number of very old stories the book said children should know. Unfortunately, this was not associated with the moral lessons of the stories.

For adults, this information would be literacy in Greek and Roman classics. This is the foundation of our democracy and the reasoning for liberty. Cicero, a Roman Statesman is perhaps the most important when understanding the law and moral conduct. Another source of moral lessons is the native Americans of the US. The Haude No Sau Nee would say to be moral, is to "deeply understand the relationships of all living things". They speak of the Peacemaker who came to them with a message that human beings should stop abusing one another. He stated that "humans are capable of reason, that through the power of reason all men desire peace, and that it is necessary that the people organize to ensure that peace will be possible among the people who walk about the earth". From "A Basic Call to Consciousness" the Haude No Sau Nee address to the western world. I mention the Haude No Sau Nee, because of their explanation of reason and our capability to reason, is identical to morality coming from the ancient Greeks. What separates us from animals is the ability to discover the reason of things and the capability to reason. This is what brings us to good moral judgment. Science is "knowledge" and "con" when used as a prefix makes the word "conscience" mean, coming out of knowledge.

!

Moderator Note

It seems pretty clear that you have fundamental differences with our approach here at SFN. It's also abundantly clear that your grievances are not shared by anyone else. This leads to a very obvious conclusion.

 

Rather than ask you to continue to participate in a community whose leadership you oppose so vociferously, we invite you to look elsewhere for discussion. Rather than gripe about the moderators in every thread, we invite you to start your own forum where you can seek the perfection you're looking for. Rather than continue to degrade the work we all put into this forum with your anger and hate, we invite you to leave.

I am clear about being in favor of enforcing rules. Both posters and moderators need to be principled people. The leadership of the forum involves many things besides the action of moderators. I have not attacked the leadership of the forum, but questioned the action of those who are probably subordinate the leadership, and possibly loosely supervised or not supervised at all. I am not sure how leadership identifies and corrects errors, only that errors are made. Actually I know nothing of the leadership. I do not know if the owner of the forum is actively involved, or trusting everyone to do what should be done. I do not know if the leadership is one person or many. I have said, occasionally moderators are being reactionary, reacting emotionally to a word or a subject, without paying attention to the content. Can we go back to the original post and determine if that grievance has merit?

All the rest of what has happened in this thread is me dealing with the attacks made against me personally, and me trying to convey why, we as citizens, we need to be careful about something as fragile as our freedom of speech, because if we reason against it, we could loose it, and at the same time ovoid being banned for trying to make this point. This has become a moral discussion about principles. That is not what I intended, but it is what others made of this thread.

And if anyone has the temerity to disagree, they get branded as being bad persons or having bad judgement. Many an atrocity has been performed by people believing they were doing right. Obviously, that's an insufficient standard, and the details of "the right thing", aka principles and morals, will vary from person to person. Which is why we have rules that are more specific than that.

Hum, you should take your argument to the thread about secular morality. How do we determine what is moral? NAZI Germany is an excellent case of good people committing atrocities.

What are you saying is "the insufficient standard"? This thread is about censorship, and censorship without good standards is a bad thing. That was the purpose of this thread, to point out the power of being able to censor someone, needs to go with the merits of being a good moderator. Censoring someone because of the use of a word, or mention of an unpleasant subject, without consider of the context of what is being discussed, is reactionary and this is not a good thing. Moderators need to be careful before reacting. Their reaction needs to be based on reason, not emotion.

Having no knowledge of a subject and saying someone is saying outrageous things, is not good judgment, because the opinion is based on what this person does not know. Jumping from this ignorance of what is being said, to accusing someone of violating rules, is equal to the church putting Galileo under house arrest and preventing him from speaking of what science can tell us. The reason the US adopted the principle of freedom of speech is because of human failing, and for the same reason we have moderators. It is not easy being human. It is a big responsibility to be a moderator. Knowing what everyone is talking about, before censoring someone is part of that responsibility. This thread was started because of two cases of moderators reacting emotional, without being careful of what was being said.

The proof of bad judgment is the result of the decision. Making bad decisions does not mean the person is bad, but the person is most likely poorly informed, because in general, when we know right from wrong, we are compelled by our nature to do the right thing. However, humans also have this incredible ability to rationalize why what the know is wrong is right. That is one reason we need each other, to keep each other in check.

Deming, in his explanation of good industrial management, says not only does management need to pay attention to what workers are doing, but also someone needs to pay attention to what management is doing. Moderators are not perfect gods, but humans who do not know it all and who make mistakes. It seems mostly this thread is arguing that moderators should be treated as perfect gods, who never make mistakes, because by god this forum is private property and the principle of freedom of speech does not apply here. To question this relationship to authority, is to be hateful and an enemy of the people. To say this obedience to authority is what went in wrong in Germany, is to be attacked for being intolerant of other people's opinions. I think these attacks are what we might call projection, because they are seem so completely backwards to me. I argue for freedom of speech and questioning authority and individual rights, and get treated as though I stand for the opposite of everything I value. Oh well, may be in the end everything will come out okay. If not, at least I have done my best to raise awareness and sensitive, and I have stood on principles. I did not cower to avoid the attacks, or act as though nothing matters but being liked.

Whoooo no ____ there is a blurring of religious groups and secular authority, and this is really getting nasty, with these groups on the verge of corrupting the supreme court with money used for power. In some states religious groups have gotten judges out of office for declaring homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. The Texas Republican agenda is to prevent education from teaching the higher order thinking skills, that are essential to independent thinking, and these folks have pressured for science text books that teach creationism as equal to science. Because Texas is such a large state and buys so many text books, the decisions made in Texas determine what goes into text books.

When we had liberal education, we had education for good moral judgment without religion, but we have not had this since 1958, and that brings us to what some have referred to as the modern crisis. Only highly moral people can have liberty. When the young do not learn principles and good moral judgment, that leaves only the written policy and law, to maintain order. This is devastating to our liberty.

Religion in all nations stands against social change. This might not be all bad. I am unaware of any civilization that was not organized by family order. I do not think it is a good idea to be organized by the military, industrial order, because this order does not meet fundamental human needs. However, we are a civilization in transition after 54 years of education for a technological society with unknown values. We are now scrambling to determine what our new morals should be. I hope freedom of speech comes up as one the principles we decide we want to keep. I am at a total loss when it comes to family order. I am very concerned that our children are getting a bad deal, resulting from a weakening of family values, and excessively self centered motives, made by people who never learned about virtues and principles, nor what logos has to do with moral judgment.

How are we to determine secular morality when we have not been prepared to do that for 54 years?

Moral is a something like gravity. Did it exist before homo sapiens came to be? Robert M. Pirsig says it's a ghost in his most famous book.

Some people watch movies where a hungry Cheetah is skin over bones and they sigh with relieve when it finally gets a meal.

Some people watch movies where a limp impala is struggling to luck out of it's delayed destiny of being a diner to a predator.

 

The truth is that morals do not exist but in human minds.

 

I do not see why you distinguish "secular moral" from "religious moral"

 

Moral, the word and its explanation itself is discriminate and full of bias. In political denomination it would be called "left wing".

Morality favors the weak and outcasts and it rather sides that part of life that struggles.

Empathy is moral, that is why psychopaths lack moral.

But all in all "moral" is a human invention and therefor not the truth per se.

You can deem "moral", when looking objectively from an extraterrestrial mind's eye on earth, just a character trait of the mammal homo sapiens sapiens.

People who hate to see cattle slaughtered for hamburgers sometimes do not mind cattleslaughters to die by the knife themselves.

 

Some philosophers, like Christopher Hitchens, knowing and realizing that evolution through natural selection is rather cold and impersonal, we should regardless all that be nice to each other.

Some jews say: if you kill one person you kill the entire world.

 

Both are right in the realm of morality.

 

The execution - the following up to, rather than the demise of - moral is an utopian one, walking on a conjecture gold lanes of pre-paved idealism.

 

The truth is not a mixture of the classical and romantic truth. No, the truth is still the truth when no humanoid ever got into existence period: a dystopia of a cheetah that needs to feed, and an impala that in peace needs to breed.

 

Moral, and thus empathy, is merely a human surplus that is granted to lesser beasts because we are in the position to play god over all other mammals and co.

 

The annual pardon of the turkey in the usa is a prime example of this. I personally do not give a shid. As goes for the holocaust.

 

6 million "jewish" homo sapiens sapies died along with homosexuals and "gypsies". That is what THEY say.

Multiply 6 million by 10 and you get the total death rate of that stupid war based on sheer bigotry nationalism.

I do not like religions, nationalism and culture. But those are the 3 prime suspect warmongers that get rewarded by tax money the most worldwide.

 

Stop being proud of your place of birth (of which you had no vote anyway), and stop believing that one human race is superior over another. Let alone religions, because you all should realize that religion is stupid like you think your kids are stupid when they keep believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

 

 

Somehow modern philosophers forsake philosophie by stating that even though Darwin has deprived us from a omni- scient, present and potent God, that we yet got to remind ourselves that we are humans and should keep in high regard the so called " Anthropic principle".

 

I wonder why. Why is this world or universe, after the demise of God, having a big brother in order to judge your karma?

 

There is no moral other than the one that is protecting people at best, it is called democracy.

 

 

A moral is a matter of cause and effect, and they have existed since the beginning of time, only our awareness of them has not. Moral is to know the law and good manners. To know the law is to know universal law. That is science. Conscience is what comes out of knowledge. If we do not know molesting a child is harmful to a child, we have no conscience of the wrong. Socrates was most concerned with our conscience, because when we know right from wrong, we are compelled to chose right. Except perhaps in a case like molesting children, where something has gone wrong in the human psychi resulting in abnormal compulsive behavior. Mental dis-ease is a social problem we must deal with, but in general, as we gain awareness, our moral judgment improves.

I find your posts so filled with hate, with self righteous indignity and not a trace of humility that I have no wish whatsoever to have any further dialogue with you. Indeed dialogue with you is impossible. You insist upon an acidic, destructive monologue while claiming to be arguing for the betterment of society. It won't wash. Please do not direct any more of your posts towards me. Thank you.

What or who do I hate? That is such a strange opinion to me, because it sure does not fit any feelings I have. You might be projecting something in me that is not true of me.

The other possible explanation is, virtue, is synonymous strength. Personally, I am very humble person who knows how much she does not know. I have an income far below the poverty level, and this forces me to live a very simple life. I do my best to live by my grandmother's 3 rules"

1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

2. We protect the dignity of others.

3. We do everything with integrity.

I walk my dog down the bike path and all the homeless people think I am their friend because I treat them just as I would anyone else. I just came back from managing a foster home for a week, and the 4 mentally challenged adults who live there, see me as a good friend who eats with them and socializes with them as equals. I am forever, thanking them for helping me get around town by giving me directions, or do whatever is hard for me to do without help. I don't think anyone who knows me would hold the opinion of me that you have expressed.

Morale is what comes out of believing we are doing the right thing. When I speak of our freedoms, I certainly believe I am doing the right thing. Standing for our rights, when everyone is attacking me, is the virtuous thing to do, and I become as a soldier standing his duty. Only if we live by our principles, and stand for them, will we keep them, because it is not the police or the military that can protect our human rights and liberty. Laws take away our liberty. When people live by principles and morals, they do not need laws. Moderators who do not value principles, might be a problem as much of a problem as the posters who do not live with principles and values. This is something we need to be mindful in all areas of our lives. We protect our liberty by obeying the laws, and having good moral judgment and living by principles.

Speaking of the education that has changed our understanding these matters, is equally important to defending democracy. Explaining the change in bureaucratic order that has shifted power and authority from the individual to the state, is just as important to defending democracy. Your awareness of such matters is what gives you power, to maintain the changes, or question if we should maintain the changes. Information is power, and I am trying to give everyone power. I speak with love, not hate. My user name is a statement of my love of democracy and human rights.

Streets, parks, government buildings, etc.

 

 

Perhaps because the government against whom we rebelled had a habit of clamping down on this freedom. But the constitution is a document describing the power of government and the rights people have with regard to these government powers. This forum is not an arm of the government.

 

"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech"

 

About which congressionally formulated law are you complaining?

Not exactly. Our downtown is an exclusion zone. That means governing authority can determine who can enter this area and who can not, and this is strongly enforced with security guards and police. In some cities, government decided the people who live on a street are the people who have to pay for the road repair. They have no say over how the street is used, but their homes are taken if they do not pay for the street or the sewage line that runs down the street. When people do not live by principles, they do not enjoy the benefits of the principles, and it is not the police or military that defends us our rights, but our willingness to live by principles. When power and authority are not ours, we do not enjoy the benefits of power and authority, nor do we live with a sense of responsibility when power and authority are not ours. The more power an authority takes, the more it undermines the power and authority of the individual.

Freedom of speech is a matter of principle. This is really a moral matter, not a power struggle. We are very good at protecting our property rights, but not so good at protecting human rights. Now if we all agree the principle of freedom of speech is meaningless, and only property rights exist, then we loose our freedom of speech. This is as sure as 2 plus 2 equals four. This is not 'opinion" but just the way things work. Only if we live by principles, do we enjoy the benefit of them.

The US entered WWI crying "Democracy and autocracy can not co exist". However, US industry is built on England's model of autocracy. Later, replacing liberal education with education for technology, and thinking of students as products to prepare for industry, had ramifications that are not good for democracy. Edwards Deming dealt with the problem of our autocratic industry, and his institution carries on his work. I write because I believe a return to education for democracy and replacing the autocratic model of industry with Deming's democratic model, would correct many of the problems we are experiencing, including our present economic problem.

http://en.wikipedia...._Edwards_Deming

Key principles

Deming offered fourteen key principles to managers for transforming business effectiveness. The points were first presented in his book Out of the Crisis. (p. 23-24)^[24] Although Deming does not use the term in his book, it is credited with launching the Total Quality Management movement.^[25]

 

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive, stay in business and to provide jobs.
2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change.
3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for massive inspection by building quality into the product in the first place.
4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of a price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move towards a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.
5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.
6. Institute training on the job.
7. Institute leadership (see Point 12 and Ch. 8 of "Out of the Crisis"). The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul, as well as supervision of production workers.
8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company. (See Ch. 3 of "Out of the Crisis")
9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, in order to foresee problems of production and usage that may be encountered with the product or service.
10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
11. a. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute with leadership.
    b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers and numerical goals. Instead substitute with leadership.
12. a. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
    b. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objectives (See Ch. 3 of "Out of the Crisis").
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.
14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody's job.

"Massive training is required to instill the courage to break with tradition. Every activity and every job is a part of the process."^[26]

 

 

Seven Deadly Diseases

The "Seven Deadly Diseases" include:

 

1. Lack of constancy of purpose
2. Emphasis on short-term profits
3. Evaluation by performance, merit rating, or annual review of performance
4. Mobility of management
5. Running a company on visible figures alone
6. Excessive medical costs
7. Excessive costs of warranty, fueled by lawyers who work for contingency fees

"A Lesser Category of Obstacles" includes

 

1. Neglecting long-range planning
2. Relying on technology to solve problems
3. Seeking examples to follow rather than developing solutions
4. Excuses, such as "our problems are different"
5. Obsolescence in school that management skill can be taught in classes^[27]
6. Reliance on quality control departments rather than management, supervisors, managers of purchasing, and production workers
7. Placing blame on workforces who are only responsible for 15% of mistakes where the system designed by management is responsible for 85% of the unintended consequences
8. Relying on quality inspection rather than improving product quality

Deming's advocacy of the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, his 14 Points, and Seven Deadly Diseases have had tremendous influence outside of manufacturing and have been applied in other arenas, such as in the relatively new field of sales process engineering.^[28]

 

What are the benefits of meritocracy? What are the problems with meritocracy?

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Meritocracy

In a more general sense, meritocracy can refer to any form of government based on achievement. Like "utilitarian" and "pragmatic", the word "meritocratic" has also developed a broader definition, and can be used to refer to any government run by "a ruling or influential class of educated or able people."^[3] This is in contrast to the term originally coined by Michael Young in 1958, who critically defined it as a system where "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications."^[4] Meritocracy in its wider sense can be any general act of judgment upon the basis of people's various demonstrated merits; such acts are frequently described in sociology and psychology. Thus, the merits may extend beyond intelligence and education to any mental or physical talent or to work ethic. In rhetoric, the demonstration of one's merit regarding mastery of a particular subject is an essential task most directly related to the Aristotelian term Ethos. The equivalent Aristotelian conception of meritocracy is based upon aristocratic or oligarchical structures rather than in the context of the modern state.^[5][6]

Here is the thing with users and the supposed "censorship". First of all, this forum is private property and is owned by the people who bought the product. Freedom of speech applies to public property under the laws of the United States. The owner of this site has the right to determine if freedom of speech is allowed in his or her forum if he or she wants. If you don't like that, go to a different forum or whatever you intend to do. For example, if freedom of speech were to apply also for private property that would mean that protest groups would have the ability to protest inside the building they are protesting.

What is not privately owned?

Why did anyone bother to put something about freedom of speech in the US constitution?

Who enforces freedom of speech?

And I will even give you these forums are privately owned, does that excuse moderators bad judgment? How can the logic of an argument be judged when the judge is ignorant of the subject? If you knew nothing of physics, would you enter a discussion of physics and start attacking the logic of someone well educated in physics? Why aren't mods suppose to participate when they are wearing their moderator hat?

Athena, your post #63 presents your views as if they were undeniable facts. It does so with aggression and implicit condemnation of the intellect or motives of anyone who dares to disagree with you. You pretend to be willing to debate the points, but really wish only to destroy any opposing arguments by weight of cherry picked or misinterpreted evidence. This approach is in my view an especially sinister and vile form of censorship by bullying, browbeating and authoritarian preaching. I retract an earlier remark of mine that we were singing from the same hymn sheet. I do not wish to inhabit the same choir, church, diocese or denomination with you.

Would you please be more specific? Please, copy and paste the evidence, of the charges. Especially list what you think I said that is not a fact, so I can provide the source of the fact you question.

What's wrong with having morality just because you want to? You don't mean anything to the universe, you can't because the universe isn't a living thing and therefore lacks the capacity to assign meaning, and your going to die anyway, what does it matter if your selfish anyway? I think because of that you can have secular morality, or really any morality you want.

What's wrong with having morality just because you want to? Okay, what morality would you have us have?

I know that it was odd point, but the way it's worded, I don't know what else to concretely say because I might be misinterpreting it, I'm not very familiar with the Crisis of Modernity, and it seems the way it was worded perplexed other people as well because everything I research about it seems to conflict somewhat with other sources as well as lacking the ability to generalize the original information. But, it seems like it's pointing out some kind of conflict between following a path of pure reason which is what modern society is trying to do while the axioms for pursing the reason or I guess using any particular part of it are purely emotionally driven.

Excellent reply. I wish some mods would learn from you. You have identified the point of possible disagreement, making it possible for me to address this point. Let me start with confessing my head is really spinning as all of sudden I am hearing cries from everywhere about our moral dilemma, and a need for a new religion, and there are new books about democracy being written, explaining how democracy is being destroyed, or explaining what an ideal democracy looks like and all the morality that goes with it. I am not alone with concerns about a "modern crisis", although my understanding of how we got in this mess is different. I came to my understanding of the problem by studying the history of education, and did so by collecting and reading old books. My information is not common because the source is not common, however, it is factual.

Just now, in a geology thread, I was ranting about this crisis from a different point of view. In general the public is extremely ignorant of geology, and some of noticed their local libraries do not have good books on geology. No matter how good our logic or our reasoning may appear, if it is too narrow, and in fact ignorant of a field of study as important as geology, it is bad reasoning with destructive ramifications. In the geology thread, the greater problem of our present industrial life style was identified as global warming. I threw in the terrible ramifications of being ignorant of where our oil comes from, the reality of it being finite, and the economic, military and political realities of oil.

I don't know what is meant by " the axioms for pursuing the reason or I guess using any part of it are purely emotionally driven" means? I think it is reasonable if we have an emotional reaction to the destruction of our lives. Actually I am reminded of a few Star Trek shows that address this question of the value of our emotions. I like what I learned from a diabetic pamphlet about anger. It explained anger is our natural warning system that something is warn. When we become aware of the anger, we are to check for what is wrong and think what needs to be done to correct the wrong. I tell children and their parents that fear is a sign of intelligence. Emotions are not a bad, but are an important part of survival system. What is really scary is humanity can self destruct with complete ignorance of what it is doing!

We need a new frame work for thinking. To ignore this is to remain on the path Germany followed. That is the path to the horrors of NAZI Germany. Let me repeat, there are many cries for an urgent need to gain awareness and change how we think. Others see what I am seeing, but they do not normally mention NAZI Germany. The link I used does mention NAZI Germany, but not what I think is essential to this understanding. What I think is essential to the understanding is, how education for technology is different from liberal education. I have been told I can not talk about this, by those who have no understanding of what I am talking about, so I used a link to make a point. It is really hard to talk about something I have been told not to talk about, but I think it is very important we have awareness of what is happening, why and the ramifications of it. There was a line of philosophy that lead to the idea that planners should plan our lives for us, and this is what we have educated for, a society that is planned and run by policy, while public education conditions the citizens to be lead by the planners.

Yes, well I was rather ill for 24 hours after opening the Geology book about the Silurian sea, and smelling this strange old smell which you tell me is bacteria. It was printed in 1868, so I have probably released some dreadful 'Bug' from 1868.

 

If you have some relevant point to offer on geology which requires God and humans and morals and it relates to the subject in hand, then go ahead !

I will just say, the difference between moral and immoral is the outcome. Ignorance is the biggest reason humans do destructive things. I think destroying our planet is the ultimate immorality. The best we can do is spread information and hope knowledge overwhelms ignorance. I think we need to discuss education, why we have it and who controls it, but that is a different subject. I just don't think the Military Industrial Complex has a motivation to assure students understand things that are really important to their lives.

Mike, you give new meaning to "from dust to dust".

Nature must be carefully balanced, and we could say "evil" results from imbalance. We learned a lot when we reintroduced wolves to their habitat. All life forms did better from trees to animals and the river and everything in the river. The moral is, too much of a good thing makes things go wrong. I want to direct this away from blaming humans, to broaden our point of view. When there are no wolves, to keep the deer population in check, the deterioration of the environment can be blamed on deer. Now, like the deer, humans are just doing what humans do. The problem is there are no forces that keep us in check. We have over come most the threats to our lives, and actually are doing a good job of prevent violence against each other too. Our biggest problem now is our success.

On the bright side, unlike deer we can become aware of the impact we are having, and we can change our behaviors. But darn, we have to do something about education, because humans seem to think they know everything they need to know, and are not seeking information. We need education to prevent this. That is somehow instill in young minds a burning curiosity so everyone is engaged in these forums, instead of watching mindless TV shows, or sitting at Star Bucks trying to look cool. I want to keep this on track- "conventional industry based on physics and chemistry mainly..." Who is regulating this? I few fanatic women have started screaming about how we are being poisoned by pesticides, but who pays attention to these hysterical women? Unless they are acting up, what is said in our media about the use of these chemicals?

A problem with relying on the bible for our understanding of reality and morals, is the book was written long ago. We had more laws against sodomy than laws regulating the pollution of our planet, and I am not sure this what we should be talking here, because this about human beings, not geology. But maybe the bible has some people fussing about the wrong things, and ignoring the things that should not be igored?

Several years ago, my local newspaper ignored a local author's book titled "Mineral Resources and the Destinies of Nations". This is essential information, directly impacting our daily lives, from the price of oil, to the wars we get into, and the newspaper ignored it. The author's second book, "GeoDestinies" got the author a special award from the Geological Association, and this time I was able to get the editor of the paper to pay attention to it, so just before everyone realized we have an oil supply problem, the local newspaper did acknowledge this problem. I mean talk about the problem ignorance can cause! Being ignorant of the connection between oil and our economy and oil and war is about the worst! Ah, we seriously need to rely on something besides the bible to understand life, and I think we need to rethink education, and stop preparing products for industry who are unprepared for life in a modern world.

I'm not really sure what your saying, but Hitler didn't kill them because he believed it was some practical purpose for the human race, he just used Jews and Gays and Gypsies as scapegoats to take power.

Did you read the link? I don't know how to deal with your response because it is so far off the point. Sincerely, can you help me here? Did you get the part that this school of education is directly related to what happened in the US in the 1960's and the following cultural change?

I'm intrigued by this notion that our education system is to blame for our modern mindset of "relativism." I think this is a complaint of some right-wing ideologues who blame liberal education for destroying America's moral fabric (if I understand that perspective correctly). I often feel there is partially a certain truth in that notion about liberal education, but rationally I feel confident that liberal education is appropriate (afterall, it's what I was taught).

 

As I read your posts, it seems that notion of "relativism" is the common factor in the problems you describe. Cultural relativism, biological relativism (evolution), social relativism (objectivist/libertarian), and of course physical relativism (relativity), as well as the moral relativism that seems to be politically correct in a secular society, all contribute to the fundamental background of our society.

 

Materialism, consumerism, and a vicious circle of capitalism --as manifested through Marketing-- has elevated relativistic individualism to a fundamental value of Western society, which is validated by our education system, and this may lead to ...ummm, basically the seven deadly sins... or "moral decay" or the decline of civilization, civic apathy, etc. There are certainly examples of this sort of pattern throughout history, right? Anyway....

 

God & Religions used to keep societies cohesive to whatever extent was needed at the time and place. Things move a bit too fast these days, and are relatively global in nature, so we need a new paradigm to focus our need for cohesiveness and the communitarian benefits of civilization. With that in mind, have you heard of:

====

 

ReInventing the Sacred, a book by Stuart Kauffman, argues [iMHO] for a natural morality since a strictly rationality-based morality is easily corrupted or too short sighted.

http://www.noetic.or...venting-sacred/

 

 

 

This notion of something that is "sacred" or recognized as eminently significant, by everyone in common, is what relativism erodes--it seems to me. So maybe this new perspective of Kauffman's could help move us beyond relativistic fundamentalism, eh?

 

~

Yipes, your post brings us to the complexity of the subject. The 2012 Texas Republican Agenda is to prevent public schools from teaching the higher order thinking skills, because they believe this undermines parental authority. To teach higher order thinking skills is to teach independent thinking, and leads to people questioning authority. Personally I think this is vital to our democracy and morality, and it is why I keep bring this up. It goes with liberal education, so there is a connection with liberal education and morality, and it also goes with every revolution against state authority making citizens subjects to authority.

What is sacred is math and logos and our earth. Why is something sacred? Because it is a power much greater than our own and our lives depend on it. Math is the language of God and with it we can understand logos and then we can make moral decisions, and life on earth gets better instead of being destroyed.

I forget the German words, but one means being a generalist and other means being specialized. Education for technology specializes everyone, and this is in part what brings us to a mechanical society. Pericles funeral oration explains why Athens is worth fighting for and how it is different from Sparta. Athenians had education for generalist, and were they expected to know something about everything, so when they voted they did so with a broad understanding of life. Sparta specialized and took pride in being as German long before there were Germans. The difference between the democracy we were and the Germany we fought against, was the same as the difference between Athens and Sparta. We are living with this clash today in a new way, because as Athens did, following its war with Sparta, we have also internalized our enemy and now the culture of our enemy has replaced the one we had and we are realizing the problems this manifest.

Education for technology is education for specialist, and because everyone is specialized instead of generalist, they are no longer capable of governing themselves as they once were, but this doesn't matter because we also adopted the German model of bureaucracy that goes with specializing individuals. I don't know how to say this in a way that is not offensive, but if it is not understood this stuff, we can not deal sanely with the reality we have created. We do not have the individualism of the past, which resulted from a very different education than our present education for technology, which replaced education for independent thinking with "group think". In the past, the compass for moral decisions was not self interest and how we "feel" about things. In the past we were united by education that transmitted a culture with logos, or God, at the center, and built on decisions were based on learned principles. This was not perfect because it lacked the science we are gaining today, but without it we are realizing serious problems. What is needed is a better balance of the old and new. We are entering a new age with a consciousness so completely different from past consciousness that those of the future will not be able to relate to the history that got us to this point. Just look at the other forum about geology and your post of the thousand cords. Scientific discoveries like this are revolutionizing our consciousness. But to get where we must be, we must now go from education that specializes, back to education that generalizes. That is having citizens who know a little bit about many things, and a belief in human beings as having a responsibility to the rest of humanity and the planet.