If scientists had the slightest bit of societal power, our response to climate change wouldn't be this shameful, and climate activists wouldn't be so successfully marked for the daily sessions of "5 minutes of hate".
What did gain societal power is capitalism is brute-forcing its way into everything via "tech" that then pats the people in gold-plated cages, who allow their genius to be used for that on the back, while feeding them crumbs. Where nothing that can't be counted matters and destroying the environment -- both physical and that of society, that which minds get formed in -- is perfectly rational, as long as there is a cent of profit to be made.
Some people get really high on it, think someone's "won" (what?) and it might even be them, but let's not pretend any of the great scientists that get name-dropped so easily have anything to do with that, or haven't even spoken against it at length.
> Our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal.
-- Albert Einstein
> Let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.
> What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living.
-- Albert Einstein
> As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. [..] This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings.
-- Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man" (1871)
> It would not be much of a universe if it wasn't home to the people you love.
-- Stephen Hawking
Science is a tool. More precisely, it's a method to make and improve and gauge tools. But those tools can't ask questions (we didn't somehow put there first), they cannot judge. They can tell you if something is fair according to your parameters and heuristics, but they know nothing of the inherent value in being fair, they can't answer "should I be fair?", and the same for everything else that actually matters.
> Science is a tool. More precisely, it's a method to make and improve and gauge tools. But those tools can't ask questions (we didn't somehow put there first), they cannot judge. They can tell you if something is fair according to your parameters and heuristics, but they know nothing of the inherent value in being fair, they can't answer "should I be fair?", and the same for everything else that actually matters.
And do you think that philosophy has shed any light on the answer to the question, "Should I be fair?" Or indeed on what the word "fair" actually means?
You're not wrong that science can't answer these questions, but what science can do is demonstrate that, for example, different people want different things, and have different ideas of what words like "fair" mean. We can then go one to (say) devise systems that maximize value according to some quality metric, but that's the best we can do. We cannot somehow derive some universal standard of "fairness" because no such thing exists. And we don't need philosophers to tell us that.
> We cannot somehow derive some universal standard of "fairness" because no such thing exists. And we don't need philosophers to tell us that.
But you're doing it right now? I agree and would like to subscribe to your philosophy newsletter ^^ Kidding aside, I have to think of this talk by Erich Fromm, "Psychology for non-psychologists", where he starts off with saying there everybody is a bit of a psychologist, otherwise we wouldn't be able to even navigate and survive infancy. The same with what you just said and philosophy in general, I think. The only difference between a hot take on a forum (which is grounded in your experience and thoughts you had previously about it) and "a philosopher" would be doing it full time and for money I guess, or being known for your claims, but that's secondary IMO.
Sorry, what exactly is the "it" that am I doing right now (or was doing right then)?
> everybody is a bit of a psychologist
Sure. So?
> The same with what you just said and philosophy in general
Sure. So? Everyone is a bit of an amateur everything. That doesn't mean that everything that people do can be meaningfully elevated to the level of a profession.
> "a philosopher" would be doing it full time and for money
Yes, exactly. Everyone is an amateur philosopher just as everyone is (say) an amateur thumb-sucker at some point in their lives. That doesn't mean that there ought to be an elite cadre of thumb suckers who get paid to do it.
Sure, many scientists work for PR firms of the fossil fuel industry, or worse. But they rarely make a public fuss about how awesome that is and how there should be more of that, right? That is what societal power would mean IMO, having respect and attention -- not working on evil shit in the "basement" of a corporation you can only talk about in layers of rationalizations and jargon in public, if even that. They may rake in the cash and then get respect for the things that buys, but not directly for who they are and what they do.
Whereas scientists that are alarmed by things like biodiversity loss and climate change really are pounding at our door, and have societal power in some circles but not on the whole, not enough, which is made clear by the outcomes.
What did gain societal power is capitalism is brute-forcing its way into everything via "tech" that then pats the people in gold-plated cages, who allow their genius to be used for that on the back, while feeding them crumbs. Where nothing that can't be counted matters and destroying the environment -- both physical and that of society, that which minds get formed in -- is perfectly rational, as long as there is a cent of profit to be made.
Some people get really high on it, think someone's "won" (what?) and it might even be them, but let's not pretend any of the great scientists that get name-dropped so easily have anything to do with that, or haven't even spoken against it at length.
> Our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal.
-- Albert Einstein
> Let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.
> What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living.
-- Albert Einstein
> As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. [..] This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings.
-- Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man" (1871)
> It would not be much of a universe if it wasn't home to the people you love.
-- Stephen Hawking
Science is a tool. More precisely, it's a method to make and improve and gauge tools. But those tools can't ask questions (we didn't somehow put there first), they cannot judge. They can tell you if something is fair according to your parameters and heuristics, but they know nothing of the inherent value in being fair, they can't answer "should I be fair?", and the same for everything else that actually matters.