1 hour ago, Linkey said:

I don't violate the forum rules, and discuss not only political topics but also scientific ones

Neither very well.
Your arguments don't make much sense, and don't seem to make the connections you think.

Take some advice from this channel, and come prepared with proper backing evidence

Edited October 2Oct 2 by MigL

On 9/29/2026 at 5:42 AM, Eise said:

So just as a wild idea (I am not sure if it is a good idea myself): why not close the politics forum here, and refer to CW.

One thought is that this forum is mostly used by a bunch of regulars which have been around for a fairly long time. And perhaps one of the issue that I am grappling with is that IRL politics has functionally overwhelmed science.

There was always a tension here, where politics at best ignored science, if it didn't fit agenda, but over the years, the outright hostility has pretty much won out. Almost all structural elements of science, be it funding, education, its administration etc. is now struggling with issues of political control, lack of trust, and now also new technologies. The latter is new, as usually technology enabled science, but now it does benefits and harms at multiple levels.

But I do feel that science is increasingly taking a backseat. Right now it seems to me actually worse than the creationism situation around the 2000s. Fundamentally, we have unlearned the art of public discourse as well the art of learning. I think with the overwhelming influence of politics and associated issue on virtually every aspect of science, I don't think that science can or will continue as it had for the last decades.

Thinking of HMS Beagle. Darwin was picked because he had the backing of a rich uncle (of the Wedgwood dynasty) and so could pay his own way. The expedition was about the Navy gathering information to consolidate political control of new territories. Darwin was there to provide the Captain a dinner companion. Without politics, would we even have a theory of evolution? Same thing for Wallace - without British power and political control of far-flung places would he have been able to develop the same basic theory? Would vitamin theory have emerged without British political power being dependent on long sea voyages where one quarter of sailors were being lost to scurvy?

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

But I do feel that science is increasingly taking a backseat. Right now it seems to me actually worse than the creationism situation around the 2000s. Fundamentally, we have unlearned the art of public discourse as well the art of learning. I think with the overwhelming influence of politics and associated issue on virtually every aspect of science, I don't think that science can or will continue as it had for the last decades.

This is why I disagree quite fundamentally with @Eise . In recent years, the social authority of science has been under assault from multiple directions simultanously: the 'traditional' antagonists of religious absolutism; Luddite false nostalgia and anti-intellectualism of 'Little England' conservatives; continuous ideologically based disinformation from all extreme political factions (far-left, far-right, conspiracy theorists, denialists of all flavours); and even from within art and literature via post-modern rejection of objective reason.

Are we really to stick our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening as everyone around us is being dragged back into some pre-enlightenment dystopia? No one here is forced to participate in the Politics and Philosophy sections of the site, so denying those fora to those of us who wish to discuss such issues frankly seems rather perverse to me.

13 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Are we really to stick our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening as everyone around us is being dragged back into some pre-enlightenment dystopia? No one here is forced to participate in the Politics and Philosophy sections of the site, so denying those fora to those of us who wish to discuss such issues frankly seems rather perverse to me.

Yep. Not inclined to think science is, or should be, a purity bubble somehow unattached to philosophy, and those institutionalized bits of philosophy that we call ideology. The real problems come from people believing that they can't question ideology or have public conversations about how it should shape our science/tech. The science genies are out of their bottles - nukes, AI, turbocharged carbon releases, environmental chemicals that kill, Kessler Cascades, bioweapons, plastic nanoparticles, etc. This would be the worst time in human history to be backing away from the sweaty, dirty work of politics and public policies on what we do with science and where we point its products. Saying let's not talk politics is like saying let's not discuss traffic patterns while we're trying to cross the freeway at rush hour.

Let me continue:

6) In 2016, Swiss citizens rejected a proposal to introduce a universal basic income in a referendum (77% voted against). This example illustrates that in a direct democracy, the population do not always beievesvthe promises of populists. I should note, however, that in March 2024, the Swiss voted to increase pensions (58% in favor, with a 58% turnout), but as far as I know, this was the only time they had voted to increase social benefits in the last 170 years. That time, the trade unions that proposed the initiative did not explain where the money for these pensions would come from (how much taxes would have to be raised). Overall, I assume that despite the world is experiencing a general decline in intelligence, in September 2024 the Swiss nevertheless again voted against increasing the pensions;

7) In 2013, a referendum on abolishing compulsory military service was held in Switzerland. This proposal was not supported (73% of voters voted against it). It's difficult to draw strict conclusions here, but since conscription doesn't play a decisive role in modern warfare, it can be assumed that military service in Switzerland serves a social function, as in Israel. Most importantly, this should mean that the Swiss army, unlike the armies of many other countries, does not have “hazing” practices. Furthermore, this example illustrates that the population of European countries does not vote for demilitarization, as it might look like for those who don’t know about these referendums;

The information below is presented in the book "Switzerland in the Pocket," written by an immigrant woman who had married a Swiss man:

8) In villages in Switzerland, there are shops without salespeople: products are placed on a bench, customers take them and put money in a box for them. In other words, customers are so rarely able to cheat the system and avoid paying, that such method of trade is possible. Switzerland also has many bus routes without ticket inspectors, with a similar payment system. The author also writes that she personally experienced the honesty of people in Switzerland;

9) Switzerland has a very humane attitude toward animals. This is reflected in various laws; for example, if you get a guinea pig, you must introduce it to other guinea pigs to prevent it from becoming lonely. For owners who don't want to keep multiple guinea pigs, there are agencies that, for a fee, bring other guinea pigs to their homes for introductions. A sick aquarium fish cannot be disposed of simply by flushing it down the toilet; it must be humanely euthanized first. Butchers are required to stun the animal before slaughter to prevent it from suffering.

On 10/14/2026 at 6:08 PM, TheVat said:

Yep. Not inclined to think science is, or should be, a purity bubble somehow unattached to philosophy, and those institutionalized bits of philosophy that we call ideology. The real problems come from people believing that they can't question ideology or have public conversations about how it should shape our science/tech. The science genies are out of their bottles - nukes, AI, turbocharged carbon releases, environmental chemicals that kill, Kessler Cascades, bioweapons, plastic nanoparticles, etc. This would be the worst time in human history to be backing away from the sweaty, dirty work of politics and public policies on what we do with science and where we point its products. Saying let's not talk politics is like saying let's not discuss traffic patterns while we're trying to cross the freeway at rush hour.

It seems to me a lot of this is not fair to @Eise 's point. As I see it, all he was suggesting was that purely political discussions, i.e. those that are unrelated to a science topic, should perhaps not be hosted in this forum, when there is another forum created expressly for that purpose. I do not think @Eise or anyone else has been suggesting science can live in a "purity bubble", divorced from all other topics or modes of thought. It was just a question of what the focus of this forum ought to be.

I suspect part of the issue is that people tend to have strong opinions about politics, whereas actual science topics generally elicit polite interest at best. Also, silly people tend not to understand or be interested in science much, whereas any fool can sound off on politics like a pub bore. And then again, trolls often have political motivation, whereas trolling science topics is more of a niche pursuit. So, one way and another, political discussion can tend to swamp the science.

On the other hand, one needs a certain degree of life on the forum, so if having a lot of politics churning away is the price we have to pay to keep the forum going, I guess we will all have to put up with it.

Edited October 17Oct 17 by exchemist

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

I suspect part of the issue is that people tend to have strong opinions about politics, whereas actual science topics generally elicit polite interest at best.

Probably because we continuously tell young people that they should involve/engage with Politics.

We are failing to push them towards more involvement with Science.
Young people see Science interests as 'nerdy', not as a discipline that teaches and re-enforces critical thinking.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Probably because we continuously tell young people that they should involve/engage with Politics.

We are failing to push them towards more involvement with Science.
Young people see Science interests as 'nerdy', not as a discipline that teaches and re-enforces critical thinking.

My take is a bit different. First, the issue is the critical thinking part. It is hard, counterintuitive and often results in friction with things that folks have learned as children or other long-held beliefs. What I have found is that kids are much less able to deal with friction of any sort. Regardless of political stance, this alone results in disengagement with critical thinking. However, on the right we see in recent times outright hostility to it.

The second part involves the nerds. They are not the underdogs with marginalize rationalist worldview. Now they are the one who try to rule the world. With that, I don't mean the actual scientist, who are on the deep end of science, but those that promote a lightweight scientiscism/rationalism that seems to be rooted in science and realism, but frankly do not survive critical analysis.

They have a certain simplified view on many science issues, some of them more or less accurate, but they then try to extrapolate to areas where they have little to now expertise, including societal issues. The gender/sex debate is such an area, for example. Or the rationalist view on optimisation, where some think that because there are systems that can outperform humans, it is not efficient and useful for humans to engage in those processes. It is a very myopic view in the world and while this tension always existed (e.g. between theoretical physicists and biologists) they are now a template for the young folks who struggle complex issues.

On 10/17/2026 at 12:34 PM, exchemist said:

It seems to me a lot of this is not fair to @Eise 's point. As I see it, all he was suggesting was that purely political discussions, i.e. those that are unrelated to a science topic, should perhaps not be hosted in this forum, when there is another forum created expressly for that purpose. I do not think @Eise or anyone else has been suggesting science can live in a "purity bubble", divorced from all other topics or modes of thought. It was just a question of what the focus of this forum ought to be.

Thanks, @exchemist, that is what I mean. I see two ways science and politics are related, in two different directions:

• What politics does to science. The way science is threatened by Trump politics is a (terrible) example

• Science about politics: politology

But I think with the latter arguments should be based on politological publications, not some wild speculations we get from @Linkey. So al less radical idea is to put posts like Linkey's into the speculations forum, with its special conditions.

On 10/14/2026 at 5:25 AM, sethoflagos said:

No one here is forced to participate in the Politics and Philosophy sections of the site, so denying those fora to those of us who wish to discuss such issues frankly seems rather perverse to me.

Perverse? I hope you see that is pretty exaggerated now. You do know that I have a degree in philosophy? But for the philosophy forum I would prefer that not every freewheeling thought is counted as philosophy. Philosophy questions are of course OK, but I think that philosophical opinions should be supported by philosophical or scientific literature.

Surely what Science needs is a jolly decent war ?

The politicians' respect and support for Science has always been directly proportional to the size and state of any war they were engaged in.

On 10/17/2026 at 4:34 AM, exchemist said:

It seems to me a lot of this is not fair to @Eise 's point. As I see it, all he was suggesting was that purely political discussions, i.e. those that are unrelated to a science topic, should perhaps not be hosted in this forum, when there is another forum created expressly for that purpose. I do not think @Eise or anyone else has been suggesting science can live in a "purity bubble", divorced from all other topics or modes of thought. It was just a question of what the focus of this forum ought to be.

I suspect part of the issue is that people tend to have strong opinions about politics, whereas actual science topics generally elicit polite interest at best. Also, silly people tend not to understand or be interested in science much, whereas any fool can sound off on politics like a pub bore. And then again, trolls often have political motivation, whereas trolling science topics is more of a niche pursuit. So, one way and another, political discussion can tend to swamp the science.

On the other hand, one needs a certain degree of life on the forum, so if having a lot of politics churning away is the price we have to pay to keep the forum going, I guess we will all have to put up with it.

Sounds reasonable. I was reacting to someone's reaction, and not directly to Eise, so I may be addressing a broader issue I've seen at some forums. It does seem to work out that a lot of political issues (aside from the gossiping stuff of "he said something outrageous today") will hinge on science and technology, given how much tech plays into everything now. And of course the functioning of governments and economies do fall within the purview of social sciences. (Not that the barstool bellowers are operating in that mode)

My $.02... In the modern world, it is not possible for science and politics to coexist without significant intersection. One thing I would be very interested in is a robust discussion about how to get more science into politics when so much of the political body seems hostile to science. I don't see how that can be done without a politics forum but maybe I am the only one who would be interested. At least the politics forum here is relatively civil and people are expected to back up their statements with facts.

On 10/17/2026 at 4:20 AM, Linkey said:

Let me continue:

Since you insist on posting crap with no substantiation, and persist in not explaining the relevance to your thesis, I don’t see why you should be allowed to.

On 10/17/2026 at 4:20 AM, Linkey said:

6) In 2016, Swiss citizens rejected a proposal to introduce a universal basic income in a referendum (77% voted against). This example illustrates that in a direct democracy, the population do not always beievesvthe promises of populists. I should note, however, that in March 2024, the Swiss voted to increase pensions (58% in favor, with a 58% turnout), but as far as I know, this was the only time they had voted to increase social benefits in the last 170 years. That time, the trade unions that proposed the initiative did not explain where the money for these pensions would come from (how much taxes would have to be raised). Overall, I assume that despite the world is experiencing a general decline in intelligence, in September 2024 the Swiss nevertheless again voted against increasing the pensions;

Are you really claiming that Swiss social benefits remained the same from ~1850-2020 or so? And without providing a reference for it?

Even going back just 70 years we can see how much buying power has decreased

“today's prices are 4.64 times as high as average prices in 1956, according to the OECD and the World Bank consumer price index for Switzerland. A franc today only buys 21.5% of what it could buy back then.”

https://www.in2013dollars.com/switzerland/inflation

This site has info; just the mention of new programs added thoroughly debunks your claim

https://www.historyofsocialsecurity.ch/timeline

conscription doesn't play a decisive role in modern warfare

All of the Russian army fighting in Ukraine are volunteers?

9 hours ago, Eise said:

Perverse? I hope you see that is pretty exaggerated now. You do know that I have a degree in philosophy? But for the philosophy forum I would prefer that not every freewheeling thought is counted as philosophy. Philosophy questions are of course OK, but I think that philosophical opinions should be supported by philosophical or scientific literature.

So let me get this straight. It's okay for we mere technical types to ask questions of politics and philosophy, yet we should defer all definitive statements and judgments to the exclusive purview of those degreed in these fields?

Nice work if you can get it!

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

So let me get this straight. It's okay for we mere technical types to ask questions of politics and philosophy, yet we should defer all definitive statements and judgments to the exclusive purview of those degreed in these fields?

@Eise can speak for himself, but I don't think you've got it straight and may be over-reacting.

I believe he is addressing people, and we do get quite a few, who consider themselves Philosophers, and think they are making deep enlightened 'logical' statement, but in effect, don't have a clue what Philosophy entails.
As a matter of fact, we run across so may of those people in SFn, that most of us in the Sciences and Math considered Philosophy a 'crackpot science', before Eise explained the purpose and reach of actual Philosophy.

That is how I read the statement

11 hours ago, Eise said:

But for the philosophy forum I would prefer that not every freewheeling thought is counted as philosophy. Philosophy questions are of course OK, but I think that philosophical opinions should be supported by philosophical or scientific literature.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

@Eise can speak for himself, but I don't think you've got it straight and may be over-reacting.

I very much enjoy @Eise 's input to the site and invariably find his posts well-constructed and illuminating. His understanding of his subject is obvious and impressive. However, I occasionally find that I do not come to the same conclusions as he does. Unlike most of established science, it is possible in philosophy for both of two conflicting ideas to be quite valid. Is the future predetermined? Is existence itself simply an absurdity? Yes/No.

Personally, I quite enjoy folks' philosophising, both the good and the bad. It helps sharpen up long forgotten debates whether one actually participates or not. Perhaps I'm in a minority of one in this viewpoint. So be it. It's far from the first time.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

This site has info; just the mention of new programs added thoroughly debunks your claim

I will check this site more thoroughly later. If I wrote something not fully true, please note that I am not a professional blogger to factcheck everything.

Geschichte der Sozialen Sicherheit in der Schweiz

Partial Implementation of an Old Postulate

Maternity insurance had been a topic of debate since the 1920s and a constitutional obligation since 1945. However, funding concerns proved hard to dispel. In fact, the breakthrough did not come until

A renewed push for a solution that would be funded through value added tax returns was rejected in a 1999 referendum.

At least in 1999 the Swiss people rejected the proposal of populist, and at the main link you provided this referendum is not mentioned, so I suppose the aim of this site is to propagate the idea of "social security", or the distribution of state money to the poor stratas of population - this is preferred by the Left politician everywhere.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

All of the Russian army fighting in Ukraine are volunteers?

They are mercenaries, "condottieri".

10 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I very much enjoy @Eise 's input to the site and invariably find his posts well-constructed and illuminating. His understanding of his subject is obvious and impressive. However, I occasionally find that I do not come to the same conclusions as he does. Unlike most of established science, it is possible in philosophy for both of two conflicting ideas to be quite valid. Is the future predetermined? Is existence itself simply an absurdity? Yes/No.

Personally, I quite enjoy folks' philosophising, both the good and the bad. It helps sharpen up long forgotten debates whether one actually participates or not. Perhaps I'm in a minority of one in this viewpoint. So be it. It's far from the first time.

I agree that two conflicting theses can be supported, especially where there are two views on what specific terms mean or may imply. I also can respect philosophizing from amateurs, so long as they understand the terms they use, whatever ambiguity may lie there, and can produce tools of logic and reason to "show their work." And can gracefully accept when the history of the discipline shows an idea as long refuted. E.g. Anselm's ontological "proof" of God is not something we should waste time with. (Unless the topic is actually on the history of ideas)

15 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

So let me get this straight. It's okay for we mere technical types to ask questions of politics and philosophy, yet we should defer all definitive statements and judgments to the exclusive purview of those degreed in these fields?

Not exactly, especially when concerning politics. Maybe I am not expressing myself so well; also I am still developing my ideas under the 'pressure' of the discussion here. But let me be clear: my aim is to have more quality in the discussions here, nothing more. A place where people can learn from each other. But not a place where people do not accept expertise at all. If somebody has some ridiculous, wrong, or unclear ideas about physics, but does not accept the expertise of physicists here, discussion will get nowhere; same with other areas, like chemistry, biology, math, and yes, even philosophy (I am not the only one with some philosophical background here...).

In politics there can be reactions on publications, from books to recent events, but just some freewheeling thoughts based on just a gut feeling are not fruitful.

I am hoping for argued opinions, with relevant and valid arguments.

I do not know why I touch such a nerve with you. But I would invite you to think with me, not against me.

13 hours ago, MigL said:

I believe he is addressing people, and we do get quite a few, who consider themselves Philosophers, and think they are making deep enlightened 'logical' statement, but in effect, don't have a clue what Philosophy entails.

Yep.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

But let me be clear: my aim is to have more quality in the discussions here, nothing more. A place where people can learn from each other. But not a place where people do not accept expertise at all.

This is an entirely worthwhile objective. I passionately wish it success. However, there is one little cloud on the horizon that I believe is worthy of consideration. How would we wish this paradigm state to be policed? And who polices the policeman? That's all I'm asking really.

2 hours ago, Eise said:

I do not know why I touch such a nerve with you. But I would invite you to think with me, not against me.

It's not my nerves that are being touched here. I have a natural tendency to present arguments in polemic form probably since that's how I pre-process them for reconciliation within my own mind. Please feel free to shoot it out of the sky, that's why it's sitting there with a big target painted on the side. If it helps focus and strengthen your argument, we'll both have cause to be happy.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

when the history of the discipline shows an idea as long refuted. E.g. Anselm's ontological "proof" of God is not something we should waste time with.

How many young people today had Hume or Kant on their school curriculum. In its absence I fear we are doomed to endless repetition.

If I can imagine a doom of endless duration, then the combined doom of that and its manifestation in reality must be even greater... O well. Look on the bright side.

Edited October 19Oct 19 by sethoflagos

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

How would we wish this paradigm state to be policed? And who polices the policeman?

Exactly the same way other threads get policed.

My impression of Philosophy wasn't always the best; I remember seeing a T-shirt that said

Philosophy - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat
Metaphysics - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there
Theology - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there, and announcing "I found it!"
Physics - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat ... with a flashlight

which made sense to me, as sciences, like Physics, are dependent on observational evidence.
And although humorous, the above description of Philosophy isn't exactly accurate.

Philosophy is more accurately like being in a dark room and thinking, or pondering, the ways to look for a black cat.
( which might include the use of a flashlight; and as always, I welcome your input @Eise )

Edited Tuesday at 03:27 PM5 days by MigL

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Exactly the same way other threads get policed.

My impression of Philosophy wasn't always the best; I remember seeing a T-shirt that said

Philosophy - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat
Metaphysics - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there
Theology - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there, and announcing "I found it!"
Physics - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat ... with a flashlight

which made sense to me, as sciences, like Physics, are dependent on observational evidence.
And although humorous, the above description of Philosophy isn't exactly accurate.

Philosophy is more accurately like being in a dark room and thinking, or pondering, the ways to look for a black cat.
( which might include the use of a flashlight; and as always, I welcome your input @Eise )

I know this is you being a bit tongue in cheek, but it nevertheless makes me wince a bit. 🙂 I fear that quite a lot of scientists can be tempted to denigrate philosophy without appreciating the way in which natural science itself depends on philosophical assumptions and has philosophical implications. Even today some arenas of science give rise to a fair degree of philosophical debate, interpretations of quantum theory being a case in point.

(By the way, we are all miles off-topic now! Direct Democracy in Switzerland?? Eh? What? )

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

My impression of Philosophy wasn't always the best; I remember seeing a T-shirt that said

...

+1

🤣

My impression of philosophy is that it is mired in the past, when it had more traction.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

a lot of scientists can be tempted to denigrate philosophy without appreciating the way in which natural science itself depends on philosophical assumptions and has philosophical implications

I hope you didn't get that impression from my post, because I attempted to explain how my perception of Philosophy has changed.

Philosophy provides the paradigm for the sciences; the standard set of ideas, or thinking, that shapes how we view and understand the world.

But, like studiot, I still find that T-shirt funny.
( but yeah, way off topic )

Edited Tuesday at 06:29 PM5 days by MigL