New Abortion Law Wave

[Jhyrachy]

While I agree with many of the points in that I am not entirely sure I go with the underlying logic of some of it, and I am not sure how many opt for such things as a contraceptive or are otherwise "proud". Though I don't find those that would want to claim some kind of pride (though I would wonder if it was pride in going up against those that would call it murder and such, as opposed to the act itself) to have terribly much to be prideful of.

I'm sorry, I can't properly convey the feelings I have, since neglish is not my first language.
What i meant is that I have seen more then one time collectives and others org promote "pride" for the abortion, this span from "I'm not going to hide that I had an abortion" to "You should be proud to have exerted agency on your body"

I am not sure the analogy with the broken wrist works in the way you have it there. By all means "shit happens, use protection/knowledge next time, let us sort it though" but the attempt to draw parallels with consent there don't work. The foetus by definition lacks agency...

I had a discussion with some reddit users who claimed that the basis for the abortion was about the mother not giving consent to the fetus to use their body.

I can't get to calling abortion an evil. At worst I am going with morally neutral.

in my tlanguage it's called "male necessario", that i translated in "necessary evil"; but it means something like "something bad but needed", it's not about morality.

Similarly I have to ask "When you see the actual women who wants to have one, there is no joy in them" do we have data on what goes for different cultures here?

I admit that that part was from my personal experience, from when I had my training in ginecology.
It's not hard data, but I think it's a bit of personal experience that a lot of people lack in this thread.

Sure culturally it changes a lot, and chinese and arabs have a lot of them (some arabs woman use it as a contraceptive method, often performing it without telling it to the spouse; it's taken with pride the fact that they have the proof that they are fertile, but they have often already 3 or 4 child and do not actually want another, plus their culture is not good with contraceptives

 

[pustal]

Science is also bound by political motivation.You never see any scientific studies done on race and the different characteristics among each race,why is this?Because to do so would be politically incorrect and goes directly against the narrative that we are all "created equal". Repeating what you heard in school does not make you an intelligent individual.

You don't?

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1969-17169-001

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886997001104

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=pt-PT&as_sdt=0,5&q=differences+ethnicity

And whatever you publish is always peer reviewed, that's why when some shady institution publishes bad data, it is countered by the scientific community.

When exactly, does the brain activity in an Oak Tree start taking place? I mean, we should protect these trees at all cost. Just wondering?

It'd be good on time cut it as it is part of the oxygen <-> carbon dyoxide cycle, and we cut down too many trees an disturbed the balance. A fetus is not part of such balance or similar. But we do cut down some trees and plant them back for the purpose of building stuff or produce paper, etc. And it is perfectly fine if we keep the balance and cut down on polluting practices. And we eat plants and kill them all the time for it, and it is not wrong as long we keep the balance.

A much better analogy would be weeds. If you want a good patch of grass, you have to kill the weeds not to affect the grass. If you want people to get out of poverty you have to provide them with planned parenthood, else unwanted babies will consume the resoursces and it'll be both bad for the families and them that'll grow in poverty and will be neglected both by families and society.

Science is not a religion in definition, I am aware of this. People are simply replacing religion or using science as a basis of their actions instead of religion. People now have faith in science. So in practical application people are worshiping science or using science as the explanation for "why we exist" (which is what the majority of people used to use Religion for). Just like religion science is flawed. I'm not bound to any laws that have been created by man and who knows what sort of laws people will find "next" that will replace the current ones (including replacing science, physics and chemistry). These will all be outdated concepts some day. Who knows, they may also be also proven totally inaccurate or wrong. What won't change is if you have an abortion and use your faith in science to justify it - this is something you did, commit murder, that won't change and you can't take it back.

People don't worship science and of course they use it as base of their decisions. It's the objective analysis and study of practical data - as oppodite of religion, that is the blind following of something that cannot be verified or contested. It's pure rationality as oppose to ratonalizations, so of course they use it and should definitely.

You on the other hand are using actual faith to base your decisions. Nothing outside religious talk tells you that a fetus is sentient in any way shape or form, so I'm sorry, you rather decide on knowledge that we don't have rather than the one we do?

And also, I'm sorry, science very rarely contradicts previous concensus. A fetus brain activity is pretty much verifiable, it's not like String Theory or the Relativity Theory where it's based on some assumptions and widely believed do to mathematical corroboration. It's knowledge gained on hard observable facts.

 

[Foxi4]

You don't?

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1969-17169-001

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886997001104

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=pt-PT&as_sdt=0,5&q=differences+ethnicity

And whatever you publish is always peer reviewed, that's why when some shady institution publishes bad data, it is countered by the scientific community.

The subject of race, as a general rule, is verboten in modern science. The commonly accepted consensus is that race is a "social construct" based on visual assessment more so than actual genetic differences, which might make sense if you look at genetic variability within and across ethnic groups, but seems like a flawed conclusion just on the face of it. It's a generally frowned upon, sore subject to research due to its implications on society and the inescapable danger of "racist" consequences. With that said, some researchers apply the Dawkins approach, meaning that any characteristics or variability related to race, however small it may be, is of taxonomical importance and thus worthy of being researched. Your mileage may vary, but if you proclaimed that you're researching IQ distribution through the lens of race, for instance, expect to see some people frowning because, no matter how pure and innocent your intentions might be, some groups will be statistically ahead of others.

As for your comment on peer review, you're assuming that scientists are incorruptible, don't make mistakes and have no political alignment that may cause them to, intentionally or unintentionally, overlook evidence. You might want to look into the recent social sciences hoax where three researchers wrote 20 completely fake, ridiculous papers and attempted to have them published in peer reviewed journals to check if they can be accepted purely on the merit of the jargon they used, as opposed to the strength of their evidence. 4 of the papers were successfully published, 3 were accepted and pending, 7 went into review and only 6 were rejected. The experiment led to much embarrassment and pearl-clutching in the "soft sciences" community. If you're looking for older examples of the system failing, there's always the Sokal Hoax. Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's true - you should always question and verify everything. Don't take the conclusion as gospel, look at the evidence first. Knowing the result is good, knowing and understanding how the researchers arrived at the results is better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html

This kind of thing isn't limited to social sciences either, "hard sciences" produce an abundance of trash research, especially in the realm of fluff pieces for pharmaceutical companies, double-blinds with awful controls etc. - pretty much anything with a profit motive where the result of the study directly affects the product. It is not at all uncommon to find several studies that all contradict each other - the more complex the subject the larger the data set required to find the answer, and the larger the data set the more likely it is to become contaminated, so to speak. Then there's straight-up pseudoscience that can be popular at a given time just to be completely or partially disproven many years later - phrenology comes to mind, since we're talking about race. The concept helped us advance neuroscience and psychology, but the actual 19th century findings were completely debunked.

 

[kuwanger]

The societies we currently live in are as far from the natural state of things as possible, we've crossed past the Dunbar's Number a thousand fold in any random modern metropolis - just this fact alone puts a big question mark at the end of "the value of a single human life".

What's the value of a single human life? What's the value of all of humanity? Can you derive one from the other? That's the problem when you try to quantify things that probably aren't meaningfully quantifiable to proxy some other possibly meaningless quantifiable value. Yet the value of all logic and science to us is in some fashion to benefit some quantity of humanity in some way.

It's also worth noting that axioms are only assumed true - a logical system based on a premise that can be disproven is hardly sound. This is why axioms must necessarily be self-evident in order to be viable, that's what I meant when I contrasted feeling-based and fact-based reasoning. The orbit of the Earth is a self-evident and verifiable fact, moral calculations rarely are.

Many things aren't self-evidence. The orbit of the Earth is actually one of those things. It is hindsight and a lot of experimentation that derives the orbit of the Earth. Most of all, most self-evident things aren't self-evident to everyone. Part of a proof that declares axioms does so precisely because things aren't self-evident. In fact, the greatest strength of science has been to disprove, as much as can be done, the self-evident.

What you're arguing more is that logically inconsistent systems tend to have less value. The problem is, of course, that if think hard enough you can create paradoxes--like the Raven paradox--which are hard to rectify. I definitely understand why one would not want to try to argue morals from logic or logic from morals. I do think there's value, though, in listening to systems that we know are broken--general relativity and quantum mechanics--even if we know long term they're not the right answer if they're the best we have so far. :/

 

[Foxi4]

What's the value of a single human life? What's the value of all of humanity? Can you derive one from the other? That's the problem when you try to quantify things that probably aren't meaningfully quantifiable to proxy some other possibly meaningless quantifiable value. Yet the value of all logic and science to us is in some fashion to benefit some quantity of humanity in some way.

You're making my argument for me.

Many things aren't self-evidence. The orbit of the Earth is actually one of those things. It is hindsight and a lot of experimentation that derives the orbit of the Earth. Most of all, most self-evident things aren't self-evident to everyone. Part of a proof that declares axioms does so precisely because things aren't self-evident. In fact, the greatest strength of science has been to disprove, as much as can be done, the self-evident.

What you're arguing more is that logically inconsistent systems tend to have less value. The problem is, of course, that if think hard enough you can create paradoxes--like the Raven paradox--which are hard to rectify. I definitely understand why one would not want to try to argue morals from logic or logic from morals. I do think there's value, though, in listening to systems that we know are broken--general relativity and quantum mechanics--even if we know long term they're not the right answer if they're the best we have so far. :/

It depends on what you consider to be self-evident. There's a pre-requisite of a correctly made observation here. Copernicus knew that the Earth was round and orbiting the Sun long before we went to space and actually saw it with our own eyes - it was verifiable based on the apparent movement of celestial bodies and provable via math. It was "self-evident" provided you actually sat down and observed the sky.

I also do agree that there is some value in looking at "broken" systems in order to get at least a vague approximation of the correct answer, but again, you're making my argument for me. Sometimes you really don't need to weigh the pros and cons of something on a spreadsheet - your gut will tell you if what you're doing is right or wrong, and that's not particularly quantifiable.

 

[kuwanger]

It was "self-evident" provided you actually sat down and observed the sky.

This is sort of the core of it, though. There's a point in "Groundhog's Day" when Bill Murray declares himself a god because he's had enough time that things are self-evident to him. Yet in the end, he's still bound by the same limits as any mortal, no matter how many times he relives the same day and no matter how self-evident things are to him.

Sometimes you really don't need to weigh the pros and cons of something on a spreadsheet - your gut will tell you if what you're doing is right or wrong, and that's not particularly quantifiable.

Also from "Groundhog's Day", the point at which the cycle was broken wasn't when he was able to through simple pros and cons deduce the best way to seduce his co-worker. The right and wrong of the day was a massive collection of things that were too difficult to do on purpose for a specific end, yet they produced the overall desired result. One could make this a metaphor for science in general, morality, etc. It's not enough, though, to argue that your gut knows right from wrong. Clearly many people believe very different things based on their gut.

 

[cots]

People don't worship science and of course they use it as base of their decisions. It's the objective analysis and study of practical data - as oppodite of religion, that is the blind following of something that cannot be verified or contested. It's pure rationality as oppose to ratonalizations, so of course they use it and should definitely.

When you use science as a way to explain everything and justify everything and use it as a basis for your every action and then defend it as the only way there is all I see is worshipers. People put their faith in science all of the time. The same exact thing was done with Religions in the past. Changes some terminology, labels and faces have taken place, but the actual "believing this it the only way, the only truth" hasn't changed.

You on the other hand are using actual faith to base your decisions. Nothing outside religious talk tells you that a fetus is sentient in any way shape or form, so I'm sorry, you rather decide on knowledge that we don't have rather than the one we do?

I'm not a fan of science or faith, but just like anyone else they are influencing my decisions (which I have no problem admitting). Even if I were using faith instead of science to justify my beliefs what makes using science instead of faith the superior or only considered method? What happens down the road when science is replaced by something superior? Where then, would you stand?

Just, something in my gut tells me that killing unborn children is wrong. You can name "unborn children" however you like, or debate what exactly "life" is, but that doesn't matter to me. The act of aborting the child doesn't fit well with me and thus if you're using my money to perform one than that even ticks me off further. I'm going to go with my "gut" feeling over what the current science and the people that are interpreting it are saying and what various faith based groups are saying. I can try to use science and faith based arguments to justify my stance, but in the end of the day it's just "how I feel". Considering various popular groups stance on feelings you'd figure that would be enough, but apparently it only applies to them and in certain situations. For me, everything about it tells me it's wrong.

And also, I'm sorry, science very rarely contradicts previous concensus. A fetus brain activity is pretty much verifiable, it's not like String Theory or the Relativity Theory where it's based on some assumptions and widely believed do to mathematical corroboration. It's knowledge gained on hard observable facts.

Well, I'm not a fan of science, but just throughout my life (not to mention since the conception of science) consensus on various scientific data and issues have changed frequently and honest scientists themselves admit that they really don't know anything about the brain at all nor even know how to judge the percentage of how much they know versus how much they don't know. Anyone who claims they know it all is clearly a liar and the understanding of science is in a constant flux - which is why I don't put much faith into it (as others seem to do).

 

[pustal]

The subject of race, as a general rule, is verboten in modern science. The commonly accepted consensus is that race is a "social construct" based on visual assessment more so than actual genetic differences,.

Is it? Because we have sometimes different medicine prescribed to different ethnicities or different marketing resulting of studies

Your mileage may vary, but if you proclaimed that you're researching IQ distribution through the lens of race, for instance, expect to see some people frowning because, no matter how pure and innocent your intentions might be, some groups will be statistically ahead of others.

Sure, but this has been done, and since the common conclusion would be that environmental factors have a much bigger impact on one's development than ethnicity, you'd expect frowning on insistency. But if done, again the result can be revalidated and the experience redone.

As for your comment on peer review, you're assuming that scientists are incorruptible, don't make mistakes and have no political alignment that may cause them to, intentionally or unintentionally, overlook evidence.

No, I'm staying that putting bad data and information out there will be contested elsewhere.

You might want to look into the recent social sciences hoax where three researchers wrote 20 completely fake, ridiculous papers and attempted to have them published in peer reviewed journals to check if they can be accepted purely on the merit of the jargon they used, as opposed to the strength of their evidence. 4 of the papers were successfully published, 3 were accepted and pending, 7 went into review and only 6 were rejected. The experiment led to much embarrassment and pearl-clutching in the "soft sciences" community. If you're looking for older examples of the system failing, there's always the Sokal Hoax. Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's true - you should always question and verify everything. Don't take the conclusion as gospel, look at the evidence first. Knowing the result is good, knowing and understanding how the researchers arrived at the results is better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html

This kind of thing isn't limited to social sciences either, "hard sciences" produce an abundance of trash research, especially in the realm of fluff pieces for pharmaceutical companies, double-blinds with awful controls etc. - pretty much anything with a profit motive where the result of the study directly affects the product. It is not at all uncommon to find several studies that all contradict each other - the more complex the subject the larger the data set required to find the answer, and the larger the data set the more likely it is to become contaminated, so to speak. Then there's straight-up pseudoscience that can be popular at a given time just to be completely or partially disproven many years later - phrenology comes to mind, since we're talking about race. The concept helped us advance neuroscience and psychology, but the actual 19th century findings were completely debunked.

There is a difference into being published and accepted. And what you said "Don't take the conclusion as gospel, look at the evidence first." This is what science is, and where consensus rise or not. And again, what we were discussed in this particular case is very easily verifiable

 

[cots]

It'd be good on time cut it as it is part of the oxygen <-> carbon dyoxide cycle, and we cut down too many trees an disturbed the balance. A fetus is not part of such balance or similar. But we do cut down some trees and plant them back for the purpose of building stuff or produce paper, etc. And it is perfectly fine if we keep the balance and cut down on polluting practices. And we eat plants and kill them all the time for it, and it is not wrong as long we keep the balance.

I'm pointing out that Liberals value the life of trees over unborn children and use mainly the "they aren't alive yet" arguement and use examples such as heart beats, brain development, brain activity, etc ... to defend their choices when yet, trees never develop these things, but are considered life forms none the less that should be protected. It shouldn't matter what "purpose" they serve. That's just another excuse.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

There is a difference into being published and accepted. And what you said "Don't take the conclusion as gospel, look at the evidence first." This is what science is, and where consensus rise or not. And again, what we were discussed in this particular case is very easily verifiable

I don't believe that consensus should be a deciding factor, which is another reason I don't give much merit to the subject. Consensus, like anything else, can be influenced, controlled, changed, erased, etc ...

 

[pustal]

I'm pointing out that Liberals value the life of trees over unborn children and use mainly the "they aren't alive yet" arguement and use examples such as heart beats, brain development, brain activity, etc ... to defend their choices when yet, trees never develop these things, but are considered life forms none the less that should be protected. It shouldn't matter what "purpose" they serve. That's just another excuse.

Again, trees serve a purpose on our survival on this planet, unborn children don't. They have the same feelings and sentience though, but you need the first to live. On that line, conservatives value unborn children lives more than already-born people. And nobody is putting people on prison for life for cutting a tree.

When you use science as a way to explain everything and justify everything and use it as a basis for your every action and then defend it as the only way there is all I see is worshipers. People put their faith in science all of the time.

As opposed to use what? Religion?

The same exact thing was done with Religions in the past.

And in the present. All these laws are based on religion. The Alabama marriage laws passed now are based on religion. Teaching that the World is only a few thousand years in US schools, religion. Etc.

Even if I were using faith instead of science to justify my beliefs what makes using science instead of faith the superior or only considered method?

For everything I wrote thus far: you're basing your decisions on imposed beliefs rather than hard evidence, you're worried about stuff that a priest says it's true than something it can be verified truthfulness.

What happens down the road when science is replaced by something superior? Where then, would you stand?

Science isn't something you can replace. If you burn all the religious books today and silenced every preacher and every believer, that religion wouldn't come back, was we've seen before in some cultures. If you did the same to every scientific knowledge, theories aside, the knowledge would be back in a couple of thousand years. Science isn't opinion, science is either theoretical and contestable or factual. Two plus two are always four.

Just, something in my gut tells me that killing unborn children is wrong. You can name "unborn children" however you like, or debate what exactly "life" is, but that doesn't matter to me. The act of aborting the child doesn't fit well with me and thus if you're using my money to perform one than that even ticks me off further. I'm going to go with my "gut" feeling over what the current science and the people that are interpreting it are saying and what various faith based groups are saying.

It's called thruthiness, the exact definition on it: facts don't matter, but your gut feeling. And people with that gut feeling are putting people in jail for life for it...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I believe that consensus should be a deciding factor, which is another reason I don't give much merit to the subject. Consensus, like anything else, can be influenced, controlled, changed, erased, etc ...

Again, here we're talking about something easily verifiable. It's not a debatable theory, is checking hard evidence.

 

[cots]

Again, trees serve a purpose on our survival on this planet, unborn children don't. They have the same feelings and sentience though, but you need the first to live. On that line, conservatives value unborn children lives more than already-born people. And nobody is putting people on prison for life for cutting a tree.

I don't really care what conservatives value. If they were for killing the unborn (which some of them are) I would still disagree.

As opposed to use what? Religion?

As opposed to something that will probably be discovered later down the road and replace science.

And in the present. All these laws are based on religion. The Alabama marriage laws passed now are based on religion. Teaching that the World is only a few thousand years in US schools, religion. Etc.

They don't teach the world began only a few thousand years ago in schools (at least, not public schools). I never attended a Christian school and would have most likely been kicked out of more of them than the normal schools I was kicked out of.

For everything I wrote thus far: you're basing your decisions on imposed beliefs rather than hard evidence, you're worried about stuff that a priest says it's true than something it can be verified truthfulness.

I'm not worried about what Priests say nor am I worried about what scientists say. I don't need them to make up my own mind. I had to learn how to learn the hard way as I've always had people trying to control me from birth and like most other kids wasn't taught how to think, but only what to think.

Science isn't something you can replace. If you burn all the religious books today and silenced every preacher and every believer, that religion wouldn't come back, was we've seen before in some cultures. If you did the same to every scientific knowledge, theories aside, the knowledge would be back in a couple of thousand years. Science isn't opinion, science is either theoretical and contestable or factual. Two plus two are always four.

That's your faith in science lying to you. The theory behind scientific method seems sound, well, until you involve the human factor, then it all goes to shit. Don't trust it, never have, never will.

It's called thruthiness, the exact definition on it: facts don't matter, but your gut feeling. And people with that guy feeling are putting people in jail for life for it...

Facts are debatable. I don't agree with how our legal system works either and you also must take into account that science is being used to justify both sides of the issue as it just depends on what science you use.

Again, here we're talking about something easily verifiable. It's not a debatable theory, is checking hard evidence.

Verifiable by whom, for what reason, what will it be used for, what was their motive? It's horseshit. Try going 5 minutes without being lied to in some manner by yourself or society in general. I don't trust science as it's by nature flawed by design. You can't convince me otherwise.

 

[Rolf12]

Facts are debatable. I don't agree with how our legal system works either and you also must take into account that science is being used to justify both sides of the issue as it just depends on what science you use.

Verifiable by whom, for what reason, what will it be used for, what was their motive? It's horseshit. Try going 5 minutes without being lied to in some manner by yourself or society in general. I don't trust science as it's by nature flawed by design. You can't convince me otherwise.

I dont agree with you in this matter of abortion @cots; but the whole worship of science-part I am to some extent sceptical to as well.

In general: Wouldnt it be nice if people wrote shorter posts? Made an effort to concentrate their arguments rather than painting wall of texts.

 

[SG854]

I don't really care what conservatives value. If they were for killing the unborn (which some of them are) I would still disagree.



As opposed to something that will probably be discovered later down the road and replace science.



They don't teach the world began only a few thousand years ago in schools (at least, not public schools). I never attended a Christian school and would have most likely been kicked out of more of them than the normal schools I was kicked out of.



I'm not worried about what Priests say nor am I worried about what scientists say. I don't need them to make up my own mind. I had to learn how to learn the hard way as I've always had people trying to control me from birth and like most other kids wasn't taught how to think, but only what to think.



That's your faith in science lying to you. The theory behind scientific method seems sound, well, until you involve the human factor, then it all goes to shit. Don't trust it, never have, never will.



Facts are debatable. I don't agree with how our legal system works either and you also must take into account that science is being used to justify both sides of the issue as it just depends on what science you use.



Verifiable by whom, for what reason, what will it be used for, what was their motive? It's horseshit. Try going 5 minutes without being lied to in some manner by yourself or society in general. I don't trust science as it's by nature flawed by design. You can't convince me otherwise.

cots-Ow Ow I’m in extraordinary pain. I sure hope medical science can help me!

 

[Xzi]

That's your faith in science lying to you. The theory behind scientific method seems sound, well, until you involve the human factor, then it all goes to shit. Don't trust it, never have, never will.

Yet you're typing this on a PC or smartphone and you probably aren't worried that it's going to explode on you. That's the result of a whole lot of mathematical and scientific calculation. Humans are indeed flawed, but the scientific method is built to discard flawed results in the long-term, anyway.

 

[Rolf12]

Yet you're typing this on a PC or smartphone and you probably aren't worried that it's going to explode on you. That's the result of a whole lot of mathematical and scientific calculation. Humans are indeed flawed, but the scientific method is built to discard flawed results in the long-term, anyway.

Boeing 737 MAX is also the result of research, and some science. 350+ people died for scientific and economic reasons.

 

[Xzi]

Boeing 737 MAX is also the result of research, and some science. 350+ people died for scientific and economic reasons.

Purely economic reasons. When issues get reported and they're ignored, that's a decision made entirely out of greed.

 

[notimp]

Now compare 350+ (big plus) against the amount of economic growth that was generated since JFKs 1962 'We'll get a man on the moon' speech - trough technological advancements.
--

To compare and contrast - technological opportunity gains for the 500 largest investment fonds in the upcoming 15 years - if we pivot onto a 1.5°C climate target - now, if we assume they invest in a 'broad' societal portfolio, is 8 trillion USD. (Value taken from the UN report in the 'indoctrinated' thread.

Thats 533 billion USD per year.

350 people with an average US gross income of 59160 USD a year -

Thats 20 million USD per year.

Science wins.

By a factor of: 26.650 (= times more important that those lives in terms of value generation in USD).

And there we are only looking into technological advancement, not into "current overall value" which is much larger. (Over horse and cart? )

Such calculations are silly - but just to give you a feeling for perspective.

(In terms of world population divided by 350 you get a factor of 22 million. If total loss of loss of life is your angle. )
-

Also technology was fine afair - and I dont want to look it up right now, it was a software error. (Programmers get less gud )

edit: To your credit, if one of those people that died on that plane would have invented the cure for cancer in the future - entirely different story, economically.

 

[Rolf12]

Now compare 350+ (big plus) against the amount of economic growth that was generated since JFKs 1962 'We'll get a man on the moon' speech - trough technological advancements.
--

To compare and contrast - technological opportunity gains for the 500 largest investment fonds in the upcoming 15 years - if we pivot onto a 1.5°C climate target - now, if we assume they invest in a 'broad' societal portfolio, is 8 trillion USD. (Value taken from the UN report in the 'indoctrinated' thread.

Thats 533 billion USD per year.

350 people with an average US gross income of 59160 USD a year -

Thats 20 million USD per year.

Science wins.

By a factor of: 26.650 (= times more important that those lives in terms of value generation in USD).

And there we are only looking into technological advancement, not into "current overall value" which is much larger. (Over horse and cart? )

Such calculations are silly - but just to give you a feeling for perspective.

(In terms of world population divided by 350 you get a factor of 22 million. If total loss of loss of life is your angle. )
-

Also technology was fine afair - and I dont want to look it up right now, it was a software error. (Programmers get less gud )

edit: To your credit, if one of those people that died on that plane would have invented the cure for cancer in the future - entirely different story, economically.

Not so many deaths perhaps in total and over time. But quite a lot if you consider it was on the same plane model and 2 crashes within 6 months. Technology was flawed, new big engines and wings out of aerodynamic centre, which was why a software "fix" was implemented. Which had the opposite effect.
Agree that science has made progress. But what has progress done? Is it inherently good? All the way until the throughput economy makes everything collapse?

 

[notimp]

Management decisions. (and )

But then 26.650 times more (economical) value creation, and now _two_ planes.

But thats not the real argument. The real argument is something along the lines of human value, or emotional value (a human being is more that just their income over a year), vs economic value.

And then on the other side, technical advancement (science) also is more than only economic value.

And if we now do the stupid thing and try to compare them economically - we end up at "science" (in this case technological advancements in the field of climate change ('carbon reduction')) - we end up at stupid values like - science more important than 26.000 times a planecrash with 350 people dying.

The entire thing is stupid, but it gives you some perspective. "Felt" emotional value of a human being is immensely high. 350 of them dying is a tragedy of a high magnitude. Now how do you imagine a tragedy 26.000 times worse. Answer - you cant.

Those are the limits of "emotional truths".

Or to put it simple - if you are in an advisory council of lets say the president of the United States. You dont care about the 350 people dying in a planecrash. You cant. You have so much more impactfull stuff to deal with, that you start to think in abstractions, that allow you not to care emotionally about that incidence. Later on you have moments where you will care - but, on the job - you cant. At that point you start decisions based on minimizing risks or harm. And it partly also comes from empathy. (If you are good at your job. ) But then, at that abstraction level its also really easy to make mistakes.

Is it sciences fault? Is it religions? No - but then abortion rights is a discussion about more than just saving babies. If you start to think about it on a different level (micro vs. macro). And you have to have people that think about that on different levels. Because it impacts more than just your local community for instance.

 

[pustal]

As opposed to something that will probably be discovered later down the road and replace science.

I don't get where you are taking this idea that science will be replace with something else. Science is the study and analysis of our world. There is no replacing of that.

That's your faith in science lying to you. The theory behind scientific method seems sound, well, until you involve the human factor, then it all goes to shit. Don't trust it, never have, never will.

What are you talking about? Having your feelings cloud your judgement? Let your urges and impulses lead over critical analysis? Does that really sound good to you? That's insanity...

Facts are debatable. I don't agree with how our legal system works either and you also must take into account that science is being used to justify both sides of the issue as it just depends on what science you use.

A fact's a fact. It isn't, by definition, debatable, although half the World feels otherwise this days. You can have counterpoints, but I don't see what would support anti-abortion.

Verifiable by whom, for what reason, what will it be used for, what was their motive?

Literally any medical personal with a PET scan and a MRI. To a certain stage an ultrasound is enough, as it'll show a lack of a brain.

I don't trust science as it's by nature flawed by design.

Flawed why, because it disproves your points?

 

[SG854]

Not so many deaths perhaps in total and over time. But quite a lot if you consider it was on the same plane model and 2 crashes within 6 months. Technology was flawed, new big engines and wings out of aerodynamic centre, which was why a software "fix" was implemented. Which had the opposite effect.
Agree that science has made progress. But what has progress done? Is it inherently good? All the way until the throughput economy makes everything collapse?

Extending human life, TV’s, Internet, increasing our standard of living, increase faster ways of producing stuff, making our lives so much comfortable and better, compare us to third world countries and you’ll see what science and technology has done.

Just because it’s not perfect is no reason to dismiss it, nothing is ever perfect because humans are flawed, not because the laws of nature changes, and we are trying to figure out how to use those laws to our advantage. But with our modern technology compare that to what our ancestors had in the past it’s a lot better now. I am glad to not live in the stone ages and can listen to music on my smart phone thanks to science.

 

[cots]

I don't get where you are taking this idea that science will be replace with something else. Science is the study and analysis of our world. There is no replacing of that.
What are you talking about? Having your feelings cloud your judgement? Let your urges and impulses lead over critical analysis? Does that really sound good to you? That's insanity...
A fact's a fact. It isn't, by definition, debatable, although half the World feels otherwise this days. You can have counterpoints, but I don't see what would support anti-abortion.
Literally any medical personal with a PET scan and a MRI. To a certain stage an ultrasound is enough, as it'll show a lack of a brain.
Flawed why, because it disproves your points?

Your underlying faith in science disallows you to open your mind to further possibilities beyond it and if you're using a flawed instrument to justify the fact that you believe that it disproves my points you are even more blind. Insanity? I thought blind faith was insanity? You're no better than the generations of people that used faith instead of science before you. Label me what you want with your science, but when you're proven wrong I'm sure you won't even be able to acknowledge it.

Extending human life, TV’s, Internet, increasing our standard of living, increase faster ways of producing stuff, making our lives so much comfortable and better, compare us to third world countries and you’ll see what science and technology has done.

Just because it’s not perfect is no reason to dismiss it, nothing is ever perfect because humans are flawed, not because the laws of nature changes, and we are trying to figure out how to use those laws to our advantage. But with our modern technology compare that to what our ancestors had in the past it’s a lot better now. I am glad to not live in the stone ages and can listen to music on my smart phone thanks to science.

Nuclear bombs, abortions, guns, mass produced dangerous drugs, chemicals, plastics. All in all more people have been killed in the "name of science" than any natural disaster in our modern time. Third world countries are a great example of what the negative impact of science has been and I'll tell you where you can put that smart phone. You won't see me walking around with a radiation producing device, that tracks my location, listens and records my conversations just so I can see what some other idiot who is doing the same thing had to eat for breakfast. Paranoid? Tell that to the people who have been lied to about mostly even other Government program (ie, what the purpose is for, what the funds will be only used for, what will never happen, etc ...).

 

[pustal]

Your underlying faith in science disallows you to open your mind to further possibilities beyond it and if you're using a flawed instrument to justify the fact that you believe that it disproves my points you are even more blind. Insanity? I thought blind faith was insanity? You're no better than the generations of people that used faith instead of science before you. Label me what you want with your science, but when you're proven wrong I'm sure you won't even be able to acknowledge it.

Yes insanity. It is not blind faith, it's literally taking evidence as a basis, that is Science and everything else is BS. You fail to completely understand what Science is in your blindness for you to believe what you want to believe. You don't care what the truth is, you rather bend the truth to your beliefs rather than the other way around. Not taking evidence into account is the madness and the blind belief. You are literally saying to disregard reason, proof and evidence because there may be something better than truth - this is the definition of delusioness. You and these lawmakers are condemning people for life on the basis of you disregarding reason, proof and evidence - so yes this is madness or, malicious control of the population with poverty, if you disregard Hanlon's razor.

Nuclear bombs, abortions, guns, mass produced dangerous drugs, chemicals, plastics. All in all more people have been killed in the "name of science" than any natural disaster in our modern time. Third world countries are a great example of what the negative impact of science has been and I'll tell you where you can put that smart phone.

Nothing of this is "in the name of Science". Eisenhower bombed Japan for military / political reasons. Massive gun deaths in the US is a result of the economical incentive the NRA and gun makers have. The pharma industry goes off rail for monetary reasons as well. Etc.

Third world countries are a great example of what mislead human politics and religion can do. The belief that led to slavery that white people were superior to black people was religious alone, the Cruzades in northern Africa and later Jihad's were religiously driven. The spreading of AIDs in Central and South Africa are the result of the religious misonformation spread that condoms are bad.

Science has no will and makes no judgement or has any moral rule set. Again, you completely fail to have a grasp of what Science is.