Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality | Just another The Socjournal Sites site

Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality | Just another The Socjournal Sites site

socera: COMING SOON! Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth an...

socera: COMING SOON! Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth an...: "Drawing upon a sequence of the most important breakthroughs in the history of science, Good Science develops a ground-breaking argument ab..."

COMING SOON! Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality

Drawing upon a sequence of the most important breakthroughs in the history of science, Good Science develops a ground-breaking argument about the evolution of social reality. From Galileo, to Darwin, Einstein and beyond, landmark achievements in science have transformed the way that we perceive and live in the real world. Indeed, science routinely transcends the boundaries of lived reality; transforming what was once fantasy, such as space travel or thinking computers, into commonplace features of everyday reality. Though science has routinely produced marvels of thought and technology, scientific achievements have also brought about dire threats to human existence, such as overpopulation, ecological disaster, and nuclear annihilation. As such, science must be understood as the most important, and simultaneously, the most hazardous invention that humans have ever conceived. Indeed, some have argued that, due to the unforeseen ills that it has introduced, science is a fundamentally destructive endeavor. Nevertheless, Good Science asserts that the fortunes of humanity have always been closely associated with the pursuit of more and better knowledge: truth. Thus, imperfect as it may be, science offers the most efficacious means of confronting global crises, redefining reality and creating the abundant opportunities for humanity to thrive in the future.

Website: goodscience.sociology.org

Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality

Lexington Books

September, 2011

by

 

Timothy McGettigan

Field of Dreams

I want the thirsty to have water
I want the hungry to have food
I want the sick to be healed
I want the homeless to have shelter
I want the illiterate to have education

Can it be done?

If we can think it, we can do it.

Let's get it done. 

socera: Book Announcement - Good Science: The Pursuit of T...

socera: Book Announcement - Good Science: The Pursuit of T...: "Coming Soon! Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality Lexington Books September, 2011 by Timothy McGettiga..."

Book Announcement - Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality

Coming Soon!


Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality
Lexington Books
September, 2011


by


Timothy McGettigan

Brief Description

Drawing upon a sequence of the most important breakthroughs in the history of science, Good Science develops a ground-breaking argument about the evolution of social reality. From Galileo, to Darwin, Einstein and beyond, landmark achievements in science have transformed the way that we perceive and live in the real world. Indeed, science routinely transcends the boundaries of lived reality; transforming what was once fantasy, such as space travel or thinking computers, into commonplace features of everyday reality. Though science has routinely produced marvels of thought and technology, scientific achievements have also brought about dire threats to human existence, such as overpopulation, ecological disaster, and nuclear annihilation. As such, science must be understood as the most important, and simultaneously, the most hazardous invention that humans have ever conceived. Indeed, some have argued that, due to the unforeseen ills that it has introduced, science is a fundamentally destructive endeavor. Nevertheless, Good Science asserts that the fortunes of humanity have always been closely associated with the pursuit of more and better knowledge: truth. Thus, imperfect as it may be, science offers the most efficacious means of confronting global crises, redefining reality and creating the abundant opportunities for humanity to thrive in the future.


Website: Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality

socera: Conquering the Beast Within and Without: Maintaini...

socera: Conquering the Beast Within and Without: Maintaini...: " Long ago, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued that, in the absence of strict civilizing influences, humans tended to lead lives that..."

Conquering the Beast Within and Without: Maintaining a Sibling Rivalry with Big Brother

        Long ago, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued that, in the absence of strict civilizing influences, humans tended to lead lives that were “nasty, brutish, and short.” For Hobbes, human nature was brutal largely because nature is brutal. The law of the jungle is harrowing and, in a state of nature, social niceties generally take a back seat to the grim realities of no-holds-barred struggles for survival.

That humans could flourish in natural environments that were predicated on lethal competition is a complement to the unique array of evolutionary adaptations that comprise modern Homo sapiens. Lacking formidable claws, teeth and body mass, humans have overcome their physiological shortcomings by evolving a matchless intellect. Humans have succeeded in exerting unparalleled dominance over the earth by repeatedly making the point that brawn can always be subjugated by intellect.

For his part, Hobbes was convinced that social control was the key to human progress. No matter how refined any individual may appear, Hobbes was convinced that a primitive beast lurked within. Intellects that have been honed in the pitiless crucible of survival competitions remain indelibly a product of those struggles. Yet, though Hobbes believed that a savage resided within every human heart, he also believed that it was possible to tame those internal beasts. This could be accomplished via the application of social control. In a well-regulated environment where ne’er-do-wells are disciplined swiftly and certainly, Hobbes asserted that individuals can be effectively dissuaded from pursuing purely self-interested, and thus, anti-social activities. The key to civilizing the human animal is to ensure that individuals remain more fearful of disobeying the instruments of centralized authority (i.e., Big Brother) than they are tantalized by the potential benefits of pursuing brazen self-interest. Under such circumstances, “civilized behavior” results from a straightforward cost-benefit calculation: if defying authority bears greater costs than the perceived benefits of seeking self gain, then individuals will elect to pursue loftier, more socially-productive goals.

Though it’s an unflattering view of human nature, nevertheless, Hobbes’ principles still remain the foundational insights upon which many modern criminal justice systems operate. Humans can accomplish great things, but only if we imprison our baser human natures--whether we reside in penitentiaries or not--in rigidly enforced systems of social correction.

Indeed, this was also Michel Foucault’s key insight in Discipline and Punish (1975). Foucault argued that, as societies have become increasingly complex, forms of social control have also evolved to new levels of sophistication. For example, as fast as information technologies evolve, surveillance technologies that are designed to monitor the thoughts and movements of global netizens proliferate. Though IT users understandably chafe under the often onerous intrusiveness of evolving surveillance technologies--and the policies that authorize their use (e.g., USA Patriot Act)--failure to maintain aggressive data-monitoring initiatives invites 9/11-style abuses. Thus, humans being what they are, the more that IT enhances our intellectual capabilities, the more necessary it will be to impose increasingly draconian forms of electronic surveillance.

But that’s not a very pleasant thought, is it? Who the heck wants to believe that Big Brother will (or, worse yet, ought to) inevitably win in the end? Not me. No way.

Still, for every new use that we discover for information technologies, it seems as if digital scallywags invent at least one, if not a thousand, more abuses. Which of the visionary inventors of the Internet imagined that cyberspace would open up boundless opportunities to hawk pornography, sidestep gambling restrictions, pilfer electronic identities, manage shadow banking systems, or coordinate global terror networks?

Self-regulation has a tendency to be ineffectual simply because, as Hobbes argued, it is folly to rely upon the better angels of human nature. Left to itself, human nature tends to be dominated more by demons than angels. For example, Alan Greenspan, the former Chair of the Federal Reserve, subscribed to the fanciful conviction that deregulation would inspire a market-based solution to financial fraud. Instead, as one might expect, Greenspan’s philosophy of unchecked deregulation only amplified the scope of financial abuse (a la Bernie Madoff and OTC derivatives) during his term as Fed Chair. The 2008 financial meltdown was largely a consequence of Greenspan’s pollyannaish faith in the magic of deregulation.

Civility is a product of social control, whereas crooks flourish in an environment of deregulation. Further, it is naive to insist otherwise--unless we’re intent upon aiding and abetting crooks. That said, creativity is inspired by unfettered individual inquiry. From Galileo to Julian Assange, the best ideas often transgress the most sacred social boundaries. This is a point that I have made repeatedly in other discussions.* Truth is an outcome of conflict and dissent rather than consensus.

Can we have it both ways? In other words, can information technology be both an instrument of repression as well as a vehicle with which to creatively contravene established rules and regulations? Like it or not, it is both already and must remain so. If we are going to outmaneuver mischief in the rapidly evolving landscape of the information society, then we will need to employ a big, strong, technically-savvy Big Brother to put the kibosh on fast-adapting cyber-deviants. However, the more adept that Big Brother becomes, the greater the chances that he’ll become an overzealous bully.

Family relationships are never ideal. We may need a Big Brother, but we don’t have to like him. In fact, if we are going to derive any real benefits from this sibling relationship, then it will have to remain a rivalry. We can empower Big Brother to be a protector, but only if, simultaneously, we apply ourselves unremittingly to dissuading Big Brother from being a bully. In practice, this means trying to put one over on Big Brother every chance we get. Big Brother may not agree, but hackers and crackers are his best friends. It might sound counterintuitive, but there is no better way to keep Big Brother alert and in line--and also to inspire the individual intellectual bravado that will ensure an enlightened and progressive civilization--than an incessant and ferocious sibling rivalry.

*See Utopia on Wheels (1999) and Good Science (2011).

socera: Cajun Culture Wars: Another Victory for LouSEA Sci...

socera: Cajun Culture Wars: Another Victory for LouSEA Sci...: "On June 2, 2011, Mark Guarino reported in the Christian Science Monitor that the Louisiana Science Education Act managed to survive a recen..."

Cajun Culture Wars: Another Victory for LouSEA Science Education

On June 2, 2011, Mark Guarino reported in the Christian Science Monitor that the Louisiana Science Education Act managed to survive a recent legal challenge in the Louisiana legislature. Sadly, that does not bode well for science education in Louisiana, or in the other states that are considering similar legislation.

The Louisiana Science Education Act (or LouSEA) was enacted in 2008 and masquerades as an attempt to enhance critical thinking in the schools. The provisions of LouSEA* enable science teachers to introduce supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials in order to facilitate an objective analysis of scientific theories “including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

While at first blush LouSEA appears to be an effort to promote science in the schools, a closer reading reveals that LouSEA is naught but a thinly-veiled attempt to subvert the federal ban on teaching religion in the public education system. Let’s begin with LouSEA’s contention that critical thinking is contingent upon an “open and objective discussion of scientific theories...” Anyone who has even the slightest acquaintance with scientific principles should recognize this as a self-evident statement. Open, objective debate is a central pillar of scientific philosophy. Always has been, always will be. Given that no one advocates open, objective debate more zealously than scientists, one may wonder why Louisiana legislators felt compelled to reaffirm such a conviction in their LouSEA law. It is here that LouSEA begins to reveal itself as the anti-scientific initiative that it truly is.

For scientists, open, objective debate means that all ideas have a right to receive a fair hearing in the pursuit of scientific truth. However, it must also be understood that, in the hyper-critical atmosphere of scientific debate, ideas that fail to withstand the acid test of rigorous scientific scrutiny will be unapologetically debunked. Thus, if someone wishes to propose that the moon is made of green cheese, they are entirely at liberty to do so. However, green cheese theorists should not expect a warm, cuddly embrace from scientists. Rather, serious scientists would be duty-bound to tear such a cockamamie theory to shreds. It’s nothing personal. The facts simply fail to support lunar cheese theories, and good scientists are not going to countenance nonsense simply because cheese-enthusiasts might get their feelings hurt.  

In the realm of science, that’s what open, objective debate means: in the struggle for existence, only the fittest ideas survive. Ideas that cannot withstand scientific scrutiny go extinct. That’s how science progresses. Good ideas outlive bad ideas. Typically, the distinguishing factor between good vs. bad ideas is factual support. Good ideas tend to be supported by a preponderance of prevailing evidence, whereas bad ideas are not. In brief, that’s why scientists support evolutionary theory and repudiate creationism. The facts overwhelmingly support evolution.

However, under a false guise of “scientific objectivity,” LouSEA endeavors to validate creationist critiques of evolutionary science by stating that LouSEA:

...shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

Methinks ye doth protest too much.

In other words, LouSEA contends that, even though theology does not hold water in the realm of scientific inquiry, it is not legitimate to discriminate against religious beliefs in science classrooms. Further, LouSEA implies that Louisiana’s schools can do a better job of teaching science by permitting science teachers to promote religion in the classroom. LouSEA is decidedly incorrect on both scores.

To begin with, it is important to establish that it is not just legitimate to discriminate against religious ideas in science classrooms, it is essential! This prejudice is validated in part because federal law prohibits religious indoctrination in the public schools. More importantly, however, faith-based religious dogmas lack even the pretense of the rational, empirical explanatory power of science. Consequently, all science teachers worth their salt should openly discriminate against religious doctrine in their classrooms. Religious explanations for “evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” are wrong--often embarrassingly so. Thus, explicitly protecting religious instruction in Louisiana’s public schools, as LouSEA unequivocally does, serves as a means to legally promote outmoded, illogical, unscientific ideas in science classrooms.

That being the case, it is astounding that LouSEA could exist as long as it has without having undergone a serious court challenge. Certainly, the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision established a clear, contemporary legal precedent with which to prevent theological obfuscation of science education in the public schools. No doubt, LouSEA can and should be struck down as the kindred theological contrivance that it is.

There is nothing to be gained by tip-toeing around these issues. In the culture wars, there are winners and losers. Faith-based dogmas are antithetical, and inferior to critical, open-minded scientific inquiry. As such, in the war of ideas, theology has perpetually lost ground to scientific perspectives that provide demonstrably superior explanations for the natural phenomena that make up the empirical universe. Contrary to LouSEA’s assertions, theology does not enhance critical thinking in science classrooms. Instead, it propagates the reverse by inspiring blind obedience to faith in defiance of the facts that parade before our very eyes--this is a point of which I suspect LouSEA’s sponsors are only too well aware. LouSEA is simply the latest in a long history of misguided attempts to undermine science through the wrong-headed application of theology. LouSEA needs to be officially recognized as such and curtailed forthwith. Until it is, all the kids in Louisiana’s schools who deserve much better are going to get stuck with (you guessed it) a lousy science education.


*Click here to read LouSEA’s original wording: http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=503483

socera: Butchery vs. Surgery: A Political Health Plan for ...

socera: Butchery vs. Surgery: A Political Health Plan for ...: "As far as I am concerned, the sooner Muammar Qaddafi is gone the better. Forty-plus years of his malignant tyranny is more than enough. The..."

Butchery vs. Surgery: A Political Health Plan for the Middle East

As far as I am concerned, the sooner Muammar Qaddafi is gone the better. Forty-plus years of his malignant tyranny is more than enough. The only misgivings that I have about deposing Qaddafi is the inordinate time that it took for the global community to unify against him.

That said, it is interesting that so few people have elected to use the “W” word in connection with the current US military intervention in Libya. Arguably, given the hostile nature of the US incursion, it seems reasonable to characterize such trespasses as acts of war. However, from the moment that the US began its assault on Libya (as of March 19, 2011), President Obama has worked hard to emphasize that the US is not now, nor will it ever be, at war with Libya. Instead, President Obama has insisted that US military operations in Libya are only intended to prevent Muammar Qaddafi from butchering his rebellious citizenry.

OK. Even though I tend to be an advocate of peaceful diplomacy, I support the spirit of the US military intervention in Libya. Given the available alternatives, I would vastly prefer to see the US and NATO providing military support for Libyan rebels than standing idly by while Qaddafi exacts brutal revenge on his enemies.

In part, the Obama Administration has eschewed the term “war” with regard to the US action in Libya because, technically speaking, only Congress can declare war. Nevertheless, commanders-in-chief can exercise a great deal of latitude in the deployment of military personnel for the purposes of achieving strategic diplomatic objectives. Therefore, so long as he does not usurp the power of the US Congress (i.e., using the term “war” when a well-chosen synonym will suffice), Barack Obama retains the necessary moral and legal authority to intervene in Libya on behalf of its democracy-hungry rebels.

Another tactical reason to avoid the term war is that, having been embroiled in two other interminable wars, the US public has no stomach for involvement in yet another foreign war. But, perhaps more important than that, I daresay President Obama wishes to avoid calling the Libyan imbroglio a war because, at least from the US perspective, it really isn’t a war -- and Obama wants to keep it that way.

Recall that Barack Obama’s predecessor declared war on Iraq largely for the purposes of deposing Saddam Hussein. The problem with that particular military campaign, apart from all of the claptrap about WMDs, is that the US declared war on an entire nation in order to terminate the vile regime of one single miscreant. Certainly, the war in Iraq achieved that particular mission objective, but at what cost? Arguably, the US war in Iraq has created at least as many problems as it has solved. Worse still, after almost ten years, trillions of dollars, and untold loss of human life, there is still no end in sight.

What a mess.

With all of the above in mind, Barack Obama has plenty of reasons to resist identifying the US intervention in Libya as a war. For starters, the US does not want to repeat the mistakes that it made in Iraq. There’s no point in declaring war on an entire nation in order to depose one dratted trouble-maker -- especially if the citizenry of the nation in question are similarly committed to ousting their local despot. Sometimes war is not the answer.

Fortunately, there is more than one way to fight tyranny. In spite of the missteps that the US has taken in Iraq, the US can still fight the good fight for democracy. We just have to be smarter, and more precise. If Qaddafi is the problem in Libya, then US military operations should concentrate on surgically intervening against Muammar Qaddafi. Period. Bolstered by such interventions, the Libyan rebels will be in a better position to win their (not our) civil war.  By taking this approach, the US is more likely to inspire the enduring friendship, rather than the enmity, of the Libyan people, while also avoiding the pitfalls of another foreign military quagmire. Genius.

In sum, the current US military operation in Libya is an illustration of the fact that surgical operations offer the advantage of dramatically improving social health and welfare with a minimum of bloodshed. Can we build on that success? In other words, can we use the tools and techniques of the surgeon in order to do away with butchery once and for all? That may be too much to hope for, but at least with Obama’s more fine-tuned military strategy in Libya, we have a start.