Evolution of our socio-economic system - what should scientists do about it?

[avtodorov]

1 - 'Current socio-economic system is an artifact of (thus-far) intellectual development' -a fact of biological and anthropological sciences.
2 - Genetic imperative drives the life-form to 'live as long as possible as a life-form' -human in particular here -a same such fact of biological sciences
3 - Science (and mathematics), therefore, is ineluctably 'stuck' as the only agency of such doing -destined therein.
4 - All 'government and economics', then, will inevitably come to be reconstituted about science-and-mathematics toward that heuristic end

What the scientists should do about this logic?

 

[WhoWee]

What do you think scientists should do - about this logic?

 

[Evo]

1 - 'Current socio-economic system is an artifact of (thus-far) intellectual development' -a fact of biological and anthropological sciences.
2 - Genetic imperative drives the life-form to 'live as long as possible as a life-form' -human in particular here -a same such fact of biological sciences
3 - Science (and mathematics), therefore, is ineluctably 'stuck' as the only agency of such doing -destined therein.
4 - All 'government and economics', then, will inevitably come to be reconstituted about science-and-mathematics toward that heuristic end

What the scientists should do about this logic?

Huh?

 

[avtodorov]

What do you think scientists should do - about this logic?

scientists should form the group that will become a seed group to "speed up" this inevitable process

this seed group of scientists will form sooner or later but the sooner the better because every day counts as the socio-economic system out of our primitive evolutionary origins as warm-blooded verterbrates comletely ignores genetic imperative

as the result of "operating out of ignorance" mankind is steadily corrupts resoursce/environment on which its own viablity and "quality of life" is dependant

once the system reaches its limits the rebalancing will entail the die-off of many many people which should not have been born in the first place - a process that is already under way in many parts of the planet

the sooner scientists form the group with the view to be the basis for institutionalization of the logic of my original post the sooner will "melioration of human condition" be possible

 

[WhoWee]

For clarification - is your concern that medical science (for instance - only a select example) is too cautious or conservative?

 

[avtodorov]

Huh?

I have reviewed the guidlines again and did not immediately see how my suggestion for the thread is inappropriate.

Is this thread in the wrong place in the forum?

 

[WhoWee]

I have reviewed the guidlines again and did not immediately see how my suggestion for the thread is inappropriate.

Is this thread in the wrong place in the forum?

I think it might be helpful if you clarify your main point of concern.

 

[avtodorov]

For clarification - is your concern that medical science (for instance - only a select example) is too cautious or conservative?

to answer your question i woud need clarify with you your definition of "cautious" and "conservative"

my original post referred to "science" as the process of accumulation of knowledge in such a way that each "addition" is consistant and non-contradictory to the whole body of knowledge

science is about refining the definition towards decreasing or eliminating ambiguity

 

[WhoWee]

to answer your question i woud need clarify with you your definition of "cautious" and "conservative"

my original post referred to "science" as the process of accumulation of knowledge in such a way that each "addition" is consistant and non-contradictory to the whole body of knowledge

science is about refining the definition towards decreasing or eliminating ambiguity

That is fair. My intent is to define cautious and conservative in this discussion as careful and peer-reviewed - also making small advances and building on established results.

 

[avtodorov]

I think it might be helpful if you clarify your main point of concern.

my interest is to discuss evolution of our socio-economic system as it is implied by the accumulated to date science and what scientists should do when they step out of their labs and are doing what non-scientists are doing - that is to continuing "default human condition" withat regard to what they have learned in their labs

 

[avtodorov]

That is fair. My intent is to define cautious and conservative in this discussion as careful and peer-reviewed - also making small advances and building on established results.

you have described how all science progresses medical or any other branch

 

[WhoWee]

you have described how all science progresses medical or any other branch

Yes and after reading your previous post I realize you are not concerned with the methods used - instead you are interested in how scientists respond to their findings - correct?

 

[avtodorov]

Yes and after reading your previous post I realize you are not concerned with the methods used - instead you are interested in how scientists respond to their findings - correct?

not exactly

scientists are "scientists" only in their labs and when they step out they are like "everybody else" who "has kids to feed and bills to pay"

my post is about the fact that such situation is not sustainable over deep (evolutionary) time

the science has progressed enough by 1960ties to be able to reach such conclusion

the scientists will eventually have no other choice but act as "scientists" outside the lab as well

 

[WhoWee]

not exactly

scientists are "scientists" only in their labs and when they step out they are like "everybody else" who "has kids to feed and bills to pay"

my post is about the fact that such situation is not sustainable over deep (evolutionary) time

the science has progressed enough by 1960ties to be able to reach such conclusion

the scientists will eventually have no other choice but act as "scientists" outside the lab as well

Aside from experimentation (or classified work) - are scientists not already working more outside of their labs on home office or laptop computers?

 

[Evo]

atodorov, maybe it's because you don't speak English, but you really don't have a clear POV.

 

[avtodorov]

Aside from experimentation (or classified work) - are scientists not already working more outside of their labs on home office or laptop computers?

i did not mean your literal interpretation of "outside" :)

i meant more along the lines of scientists thinking a behaving a certain way when they discuss science they do with their peers and the way they think and behave when they express opinions and act upon their "beliefs" on the topics and issues that are outside their narrow "scientific" focus

a good example would be a scientist that professes "belief in god" or feels compelled to fight on the side of "atheism": when he does his science he does not care about existence or non-existance of such concept as "god" but when he steps outside the lab he feels that he changes his ways and suddenly is compelled to seriously consider the issue of existence or non-existence of god

the "faith/atheism" debate is just an example; there are numerous others about a multitude of "beliefs" that strictly speaking are completely outside of science

 

[avtodorov]

atodorov, maybe it's because you don't speak English, but you really don't have a clear POV.

everybody always has a point of view

if you are interested in understanding my point of view and are willing to spend your time clarifying the definitions i am willing to spend my time engaging in the discussion

this is precisely what is going on now with me and WhoWee

 

[WhoWee]

i did not mean your literal interpretation of "outside" :)

i meant more along the lines of scientists thinking a behaving a certain way when they discuss science they do with their peers and the way they think and behave when they express opinions and act upon their "beliefs" on the topics and issues that are outside their narrow "scientific" focus

a good example would be a scientist that professes "belief in god" or feels compelled to fight on the side of "atheism": when he does his science he does not care about existence or non-existance of such concept as "god" but when he steps outside the lab he feels that he changes his ways and suddenly is compelled to seriously consider the issue of existence or non-existence of god

the "faith/atheism" debate is just an example; there are numerous others about a multitude of "beliefs" that strictly speaking are completely outside of science

I think it might be difficult to raise children in a "fact based" environment - kids need emotional connections.

 

[Evo]

everybody always has a point of view

if you are interested in understanding my point of view and are willing to spend your time clarifying the definitions i am willing to spend my time engaging in the discussion

this is precisely what is going on now with me and WhoWee

Please clearly state what you are posting about. Give me a short, to the point, clear statement of what you wish to discuss.

Your thread title is "evolution of our socio-economic system - what should scientists do about it?" I have yet to see anything about this.

 

[avtodorov]

I think it might be difficult to raise children in a "fact based" environment - kids need emotional connections.

"fact based" <> "lacking emotional connections"

"emotion" = "the response to _fact_ without employment of 'conscious mind of reflexion'"

emotion is the "older" in evolutionary terms than "deliberative capability"

it is not possible to be "emotionless" but disciplined thinking and adherence to scientific method builds connectivity in the brain that favours certain emotions over the others

in my experience people who never stop learning are "better" parents simply because they pay more attention to the trajectory of cognitive development of their children

 

[Evo]

"fact based" <> "lacking emotional connections"

"emotion" = "the response to _fact_ without employment of 'conscious mind of reflexion'"

emotion is the "older" in evolutionary terms than "deliberative capability"

it is not possible to be "emotionless" but disciplined thinking and adherence to scientific method builds connectivity in the brain that favours certain emotions over the others

in my experience people who never stop learning are "better" parents simply because they pay more attention to the trajectory of cognitive development of their children

What has this got to do with the thread topic?

 

[avtodorov]

Please clearly state what you are posting about. Give me a short, to the point, clear statement of what you wish to discuss.

Your thread title is "evolution of our socio-economic system - what should scientists do about it?" I have yet to see anything about this.

see post # 10 for a short paragraph

 

[Evo]

see post # 10 for a short paragraph

Then you have failed at doing so.

 

[avtodorov]

What has this got to do with the thread topic?

that was in reply to WhoWee because he is the only one who showed any interest in the topic by way of asking clarifying questions

i also agree that his comment was not directly related to the topic but i do not mind answering it in the hopes he/she would like to get back to the topic

 

[avtodorov]

Then you have failed at doing so.

what is not clear in my paragraph?

 

[Evo]

what is not clear in my paragraph?

What has it to do with the OP?

You have yet to make a comprehensible OP. If you just want to discuss anything, then please take it to your personal blog. That's what the blog is for.

 

[WhoWee]

that was in reply to WhoWee because he is the only one who showed any interest in the topic by way of asking clarifying questions

i also agree that his comment was not directly related to the topic but i do not mind answering it in the hopes he/she would like to get back to the topic

My intent was to determine your meaning. Your answer indicates that you believe an emotional bond is important with children. It also clarifies your position relevant to developing thought patterns and (I'll assume) reasoning?

With this said - do you believe children of scientists would need to be kept separated from other children - or would they associate freely?

 

[avtodorov]

What has it to do with the OP?

You have yet to make a comprehensible OP.

what is not comprehensible in points (1) -(4)?

any specific one?

all of them?

you do not see how (4) flows from (1)-(3)?

any specific word needs clarification?

could you ask specific question rather than saying that opening post is not comprehensible

 

[Evo]

Start over with a topic that matches the thread title, or post in your blog please.