And the Internet spoke its will, and the videos in question are reuploaded, in the “For the Allure of Physics” youtube channel.
1 Like
Not just any thread; the mother of this thread, the primary troll, and this the predominant reason for this side channel
1 Like
It’s not about the world itself changing (or nature changing), it’s about our perceptions and how we see the world changing. As you’ve often argued, none of us agree on our social reality. And just because we better understand how the natural universe functions and would function regardless if we were there to observe it (or that’s what we assume anyway - how can we know if we aren’t there to observe? And as an aside, doesn’t observation change things), it’s not really about that, but rather about what that means for us as a species. Knowledge is nice, and I’m all for the production of knowledge (obviously, as I’ve dedicated my life to that cog in that wheel), but the question is always “So What?” Why does it matter to know any knowledge? What does it do to help us as a species? We are all affected now by things that happen clear across the world.
I do agree with this and this is especially prevalent in the “west”, where it is assumed our values are everyone’s values - a science based, rationalistic world view that assumes the autonomy of the individual.
In our modern world history (meaning since the age of imperialism and industrialization in the 19th century) there has been a closing off of alternatives to the “western” derived capitalism and some form of parliamentary style “democracy” (even the most ruthless regime usually has some form legislature). Deviation from the norm has consequences - look at “rogue” states like Iran, North Korea, Somalia - all non-conformist to international law. Or, historically, if you prefer, look at the case of the non-aligned movement a set of states which sought an alternative to the dichotomous cold war. Both the US and Soviets spent the next 30 or so years chipping away at that. Eventually, you got results such as the end of pan-arabism (and the rise of the Islamist movement as a serious political entity in the middle east/south east Asia), the violent destruction of Yugoslavia through ethnic nationalism, and the incorporation of India, Vietnam, Sudan, Egypt etc into the capitalist system of production.
Look, I know this line of thinking sounds totalitarian to speak in broad generalities, as these are broad systems of power. And of course, we can all “drop out” and not participate. But assuming that everyone can or wants to tends to be a little short sided. I think when you dismiss systems of power, how they work, how people are affected by them (and they operate in very opaque and complicated ways), you are bringing your own subjective cultural assumptions to bear and thinking it’s the baseline of reality.
And that’s part of the problem - you seem to be assuming (as many of us do, of course, myself included) that your own subjective view of reality is THE view of reality. Is there even a common reality to be had of our social world, and can we pin that down and scientifically prove that it exists? Again, it seems to me that in order to do that, we need to get outside of our subjective self, and we do that how exactly? I don’t know. I’m not sure if we can answer that question. Human lives are not cells, or chemicals, or star systems, or atoms, or a building or other things we might bring science to bear to better understand.
Hence, history (no matter what the orthodox marxist), and the study of the humanities are not really sciences, because they often rest on the assumptions and subjective experiences and reflections of people. That being said, there is still value in trying to understand what is actually happening historically, socially, etc, in our world and in trying to pin down and understand the big picture.
But now I’ve gone off on a big rant which seems to be all over the place and probably makes no sense…
1 Like
But, I think that’s a different thing than stating that science and the rationalistic world view can function as a system of power, which shapes the possibilities of human lives. Science is great, but it can function as an ideology, which shapes our lives and can foreclose other types of knowledge production. Like the notion that all scientist need to be atheist in order to produce rationalistic, good science… well Newton certainly wasn’t an atheist, nor was many of his contemporaries. But now we have a clashing of ideologies, Dawkin’s atheism vs. the ultra-religious right, which are deadlocked debating the issue of god as somehow being contrary to a rationalistic world, but good scientists whose work we still value had no real issues in their work and their faith.
Totally agree here.
I have dearly loved every beat of this whole conversation, but I rail against this last point. Hell yes the call is for nuance, but hell no it doesn’t have to be unsatisfying. I call myself thoughtful, and I insist on a nearly daily basis that nearly every judgment we ever face requires (or at least would benefit from) a case-by-case evaluation.
Nixon was wrong-headed on so many points, but canny and clever and even humane on certain occasions. Hitler did ever so many profoundly evil things, murdered so many innocent people, and altered the course of the entire twentieth century in negative ways beyond count, but he was possibly well-regarded by Eva Braun and their dogs (at least, until he had them killed), and it’s not outside the realm of possibility that at some point in his life he may have performed an act of kindness or beauty somewhere, before he drove the world into a vortex of hatred, death, and misery. I myself am generally regarded as a swell guy by most who know me, but I’ve caused a great deal of pain and unhappiness in my life (as I suspect most of us have, however inadvertently), and I hope that the good things I’ve done will outweigh the evil in the final accounting. And even if they don’t, I hope that the few good things I’ve created in my life can be judged and appreciated on their own merits, regardless of what degree of assholery their creator may have indulged in during his misspent life.
Every case is unique, and there are an infinite number of degrees on any spectrum. I always feel we should err on the side of compassion, though I understand why that’s not a popular opinion.
1 Like
Slight difference being that if Keith could somehow give up drugs, he would make an excellent, influential PSA. Cosby? Not so much.
Edit, I don’t remember writing the above, I just loaded this page and the pre-configured comment was waiting for me. However, I feel like I should have to live with my commenting behaviour, so there it is.
This topic was automatically closed after 778 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
