[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

So reason has a best before date? I'm not sure how you think that just because a concept is old, it can no longer fit in society. What would you rather replace reason then?

Of course it does and that's about time+1hour. Then, I'm not talking of reason, I'm talking of the "age of reason", a concept which dates back to the 18th century and doesn't only include reason, which already evolved into something else and has ended as early as late 18th century (strictly speaking). It has, however, left its mark and part of the concept remain valid but only part of it.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Or what should replace the current scientific method, or the principles of freedom, and democracy? As you said, these concepts are old so they can't fit into society anymore.

The principles remain valid, the concepts have changed deeply and will again. Actually, they are changing right now has we exchange. scientific methods is changing all the time, people are discredited because they attack the common science (only six months ago, a majority of the french scientits involved in studies over climate change issued a petition to have the minister of science silencing one of their oponents/The politicians refused showing more reason than all these bright-scientists), principles of freedom are even more moving and you'll be thrown in jail today for things that were perfectly acceptable only 10 years ago. By the way democracy and principles of freedom are not included in the concept of the "age of reason". They are a further development of it.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

We are a part of nature "now" thanks ENTIRELY to science. Science classifies humans as part of the Animal Kingdom... we know that we are a subspecies of apes. There is absolutely no special separation for humans in the classification of living things thanks to our discoveries.

For a tiny bit of the population. Show an evolved ape having sex with a human in a movie and you get a scandal. Tell most people that they are no more than animals and they immediatly oppose you intelligence, science, arts... to prove that you are wrong. In most countries (including democracies) you even put your life at risk.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Ecology and a variety of biology disciplines also focus entirely on understanding and preserving and sustaining nature - not dominate it. Unless you can give an example, I don't see what kind of scientific discipline is currently out of date with regards to nature.

Recycling, mining, oil exploitation, agriculture, species reintroduction in areas where they can't fit any more... However, by writing science I made a mistake , I should have writen science application.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Science is providing new answers to current problems every single day. Every day dozens of new journals publish new discoveries and shed light on old ones. Science is fluid, always in motion. I find it mind boggling that you think science is stagnating with nothing new being offered. If anything, science is growing faster than ever before.

Again you are right, I was thinking science application but that is all that matters. Theory is useless unless applied. We have checked (quite some times ago) and only one of us (Targan) could find one new invention since WW2.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Japan owes EVERYTHING to science. Without science the loss of life would have been far greater. Japan's infrastructure has been designed specifically to withstand or reduce the effects of earthquakes. You can't build anything there without following construction codes that fall in line with what scientists have learned. I'm sorry if you think that means you won't be able to build anything (a silly notion), but human life is far more important than your exaggerated complaints.

Of course you can build something but nobody can afford it. Right now, establishing these new codes is simply throwing people in the streets.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Top 10 earthquakes by death tolls
1556 China 820,000 deaths from a weaker (8.0) quake
1976 China 242,419–779,000 deaths from a weaker (7.5-7.8) quake)
525 Turkey 250,000 deaths from a weaker (8.0) quake
1920 China 235,502 deaths from a weaker (7.8) quake)
2010 Haiti 222,570 deaths from a weaker (7.0) quake)
856 Iran 200,000 deaths from a weaker (7.9) quake)
893 Iran 150,000 deaths from an unknown quake
1923 Japan 142,000 deaths from a weaker (7.9) quake

Your comparison with recent Japan quake
2011 Japan Earthquake (9.0) was stronger than ALL of the top 10 killer earthquakes yet it suffered "only" 15,093 deaths which includes those also killed by a tsunami. At least 10 times more people survived due to building codes that you find inconvenient than the quake on the bottom of that list.

And no, this isn't the "limit current approach". This technology continues to grow and expand as new knowledge is gained.

You are totally out of track here as I never talk (not even thought) about casualties.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Wow. You point a finger at science, claiming it is out of date and stagnating, then continue to complain that what it has learned (to improve people's lives) is disrupting you.

Again, in a way, you are right, I meant its application.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

A minute ago you complained we are not one with nature. Now you are complaining that ecology uses guilt? One big difference is that there is no evidence for purgatory or hell, but we know the facts of what negative effects can occur to ecosystems and the planet as a whole. Ecology uses facts and evidence... whether people feel guilty over this is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves.

To return your own saying you claimed that science constantly evolves : "Every day dozens of new journals publish new discoveries and shed light on old ones.". Then, you state that Ecology uses facts and evidence. and you express a certainty (in fact two). First, that we know the facts of what negative effects can occur to ecosystems (if you do, I don't and the only certainty I have is that it affects it). Second, you place your faith in a the idea that we will be able to fix it (Probably, or at least, we could manage it, but if, and only if, we fully back all the scientist working on the subject and listen to all of them) . By the way you are right about hell but not about the purgatory which is 12th century invention (historical science).

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Are those science or government? Science explains the natural world, government administers its population and makes policies. Scientific knowledge can influence a government decision, but you can't blame the progression of knowledge and education on unpopular government decisions.

It's all the same. First science doesn't explain, it attempts to explain. Second, to achieve the slightest of things it needs government and financial support. Without these, it remains an obscure theory and a piece of paper. Indeed we publish a lot but we hide as much (The last flu pandemic being the best exemple). Something else, science and reason didn't appear on the 18th century but with humanity unless if you consider that people such as Thalès, Plinus, Archimede, Leontios, Abd el-Latif el-Baghdadi, Copernicus were not scientists. What I mean is that sciences have always known periods of great expensions and period of stagnations (depending on how it managed to seduce the political, popular, religous and financial powers). Indeed, I think that we entered a period of stagnation as we essentially improve what already exists, inventing very little (pushing the real inventions to the closet).

Originally Posted by Fusilier

None of those things also mean that logic and rational, critical thinking are out of date. If anything, it shows those concepts are NOT being used.

I think we entirely agree with this and if it was not the case we would not have this exchange. Too bad I can't be in Bangkok.