Just In: Osama is dead

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Implying what? Simply that we must not remain stuck 3 centuries before our time.

What makes it outdated?

1) It is 300 years old and doesn't fit our today's world anymore.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

More importantly, it replaced god by science but retain the original mistake of most modern religion. It retains the separation between mankind and the planet it lives on. We still are not part of nature but above it with a continuing idea of domination.

Not sure what you mean with this.

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.

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 Unless you can give an example, I don't see what kind of scientific discipline is currently out of date with regards to nature.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

3) We are currently seeing the limit of it as science no longer provides answers to our current problems.

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Just take a recent exemple: Japan and Fukushima. We have seen the limit of our current approach and what is our answer: Change the building norms. What will be the result of it: Nothing can be built anymore. I'm living in the region of Draguignan which was hit by floods. What is our answer: the same. Why teaching people to live with the risk while we simply can forbid them to live?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Funny how the current sciences evolved in ways similar to the medieval religions. At first, it progressively freed man from restraining religious rules (many still surviving nonetheless). Nowadays, It imposes even more rules that are as restraining :

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

- ecology plays on guilt as did the priests with the made-up ideas of purgatory.

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

- construction : within a few years I won't be anymore able to sell my house (new regulations that are too demanding) while housing price becomes so important that many can no longer to even afford to have a house.

- limitation of freedom of speech and attempt to limit the free flow of information : Patriot act in US, Hadopi in France... (all with a good reasons but always with no clear limits)

- destruction of the freedom to make a descent living (and I'm not kidding): you can no longer grow the plants grown by your father and sell them. We are now licensing life itself. Just as an exemple: In India, cotton growing farmers are now forced to use GM cotton from Monsanto. They can't afford it and currently more than 1000 of them commit suicide every month. That makes more casualties than the official numbers for the US intervention in Iraq.

- pure stupidity: We are outraged by the BP rig off the coast of US but don't care for the destruction in Nigeria. France is promoting nuclear power and dumping our waste with no control in the middle of Siberia. We are fighting piracy off the coast of Somalia and allowing industrial fishing within the limit of their national waters pushing people there toward piracy.

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.

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.