It is a "model" about one single aspect of science.

But it does so using a highly simplistic model of what science is and how it works, and as such is not of value.

You have misunderstood the text. It does not claim to provide the answer to how science works. It just illuminates a particular sociological aspect of the workings of science.

[removed]

The identification of integrity as essential to information's validity is quite telling.

Science relies on accurate information to make actual advances. Thus, deception/misinformation is clearly antithetical to learning.

Stop lying, a sustainable society can be built.

Condone lying, societies will continue to rise & fall like the ocean tides.

Why do you assume we live in a reality of IS and not a reality of OUGHT?

Where are the "and so on...and so on"?

> At least with capitalism, everyone has a shot.

except that, exactly like communism

> those in power become corrupt and optimize around themselves.

Thats just the reality of social and economic systems. Basic human greed means there will always be people wanting to take advantage of the system to benefit themselves, and will twist and manipulate the system however they can in order to do so.

Monopolies, price fixing, buying politicians, etc

and now that much of the western world has moved from capitalism into corporatism, where the assets available to those in power are so massive that the general public have zero chance to really compete against that manipulation of the system.

I like SOME things he says, but the sniff is just too overpowering

Morality is relative, and so is science.

There are many possible moral systems - it should be evident from the situation in the world today. If you can justify something based on your values/beliefs - it invokes your "feeling of justice". And there are many values/beliefs combinations. Not everything is pure facts of science (something like "single truth of what the world is") to compare against and tell what is the best, especially because of the uncertainty of the future.

Science is not "here on its own", but in people's minds. More importantly, it is spread in society. The rigorous methods/tools of science are one thing, but the gaining of knowledge as social debates (reasoning based) is another. The models that science builds are not "absolutely true". Therefore, the selection of models by social interactions (persuasion, truthfulness, financing, etc.) has similar characteristics as social morality.

To put it simply: the "fighting" of social models is the same as the "fighting" of scientific models.

> Do you know the story about the Stanford experiment in which a group of students were put into a room and money was distributed among them; then there was an offer that they can get whatever money they want but at the same time one aristocrat will be randomly picked and thrown out of the window. So everyone took the money, because they knew they would be the lucky guy thrown out of the window. And I think this is the most difficult ethical question in today’s world. It is the question: what do we do with those who are condemned by the majority? Here I am totally against death penalty; I am totally for it. I think in our narcissistic permissive society people who are mentally disturbed or cannot manage their lives are condemned to death. It’s not done literally, but this is already enough. We don't need no state to kill them.

I want to be the lucky guy.

> What do you mean, it’s not a name? I will give you a couple of letters. You can spell my name however you want It’s still the same person. W-E-R-N-E-R H-E-R-Z-O-G. So what’s the problem?

Communism inevitably leads to the death of people from hunger. The state cannot regulate all the needs of the people. The atrocities that took place under capitalism were simply natural for this time. And in these cases, some people suffered from others, but not from the state.
My relatives miraculously did not die of starvation under the USSR. The planned economy sucks.

[removed]

There goes objectivity. Good thing science doesn’t require that.

/s

Saying capitalism is behind advancements is the same as saying unemployment is behind advancements.

I just heard it as well. Herzog was saying it

[removed]

Yeah exactly that is the hard part about practicing stoicism, knowing where you can’t push or where you should push. But personally, I see it as this: for emotional angry interactions with others I use stoicism 100%, but for personal goals I dial it back to 60%.

Huh? Science is a tool, not a ascetic priesthood. Businesses are historically one of if not THE greatest utilizers and drivers of science. Claiming otherwise requires a ridiculous amount of gatekeeping as to what constitutes “real” science, and that just makes one sound like a bitter mathematician who gets angry because someone figured out a real-world application for a “pure” theoretical model.

Hint: getting a new flagship smartphone that requires some actually fairly scarce material isn't a human need.

Yes, I'm discussing something that would have to be done hand in hand with reworking what we consider valuable or necessary to some degree.

But runaway crony capitalism and the TV/radio/internet screaming that you "need" the latest and greatest Thing are poisons that will continue to keep humanity from moving beyond primitive "competition" and into a more sustainable cooperative.

It's about a realignment of values, and the value we assign to things. But the idea that "competition" in the modern world is some natural state that isn't the direct result of propaganda and manipulation is ridiculous.

But sometimes we cant escape utility, some situations simply call for it, such as the trolley problem.

I dont think morality can be pure utility or pure virtue/values, it depends on the situation, sometimes its more utilitarian, sometimes its more virtuous, different circumstances require different tools to solve.

I wouldn't use ants as an example considering they constantly wage wars against other colonies and will wipe out any small creatures that are in their way and are constantly expanding. Sure they don't compete within the colony but they will against colonies even of the same species

1. my bad i should have been clearer , i should have said the reason it’s still talked about and used is because it’s incredibly timeless and still applies today 2. Maybe you are right, but i still think if i implemented stoicism in my life i would limit what i’m able to achieve but i can’t speak for anyone else

"IS cannot become Ought but Ought needs to reference IS to even make sense." -- by me, lol.

It means we live in a reality of IS, so any Oughts we developed have to reference some IS from nature and reality, we cant develop ought statements based on nothing that IS not already there.

Even our most basic behaviors are simply biology (instinct, evolution, natural selection), basically a bunch of biological "IS" that existed long before we could conceive of any philosophical Oughts that are still rooted in our primitive biology.

According to Is/Ought fallacy, you cant say there IS gravity so we Ought to be nice to our neighbors, but we can make reference to gravity when we say we Ought not to push our neighbors off a building, because that would kill them. lol

I dont believe any moral ought can be made without making use of various scientific facts about our reality, rooted in them even.

Hello again,

Yes, capitalism can be described as such, though I have seen some debate among scholars of the issue of whether or not something like State capitalism can exist such as the case with China once the precepts and statutes of capitalism are more closely looked and how china makes use of them even though their enterprise is not entirely private, but I don't know much about Deng's ideas to tell you. However, the definition you provided does necessarily reinforce your original comment.

I agree that capitalism does use the idea of free trade among free individuals, but if that were all that it entailed we would have never made another term for something that already existed. The key word would be profit. What separates capitalism from simple commerce or trade is that surplus value is generated by these transactions instead of just satisfying the needs of the two parties.

Also, although a quick definition might be a good starting point for discussion of the topic, it is also too short and simplified to capture the nuances and intricacies of an ideology that has had books written about it.