The Death of Michael Hastings

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:44 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Science is morally neutral. It brought us antibiotics and the atomic bomb. You simply can't have one without the other. All we can do is try to keep things in check. That's literally all we can ever do. It's not like there's some great arbiter in the sky who can eliminate evil from the earth (which of course would be the moral duty of a being with any such capabilities).

i wouldn't agree with the statement 'science is morally neutral'. i think there can be evil science. depends on what definition of science we are going by, i guess. but i think, experimenting on humans for something with little benefit to mankind, would be evil, and i think you could fit the process of doing those experiments into the larger, encompassing picture of 'science', according to even the widely held academic definition of the word. the scientists doing those experiments, imo, would be immoral. science isn't nature itself or the actual facts about how nature works, its our human understanding of those things and the human processes that work towards that understanding. so yeah, contrary to popular belief, science can be wrong, and it can be immoral. science means 'knowledge', not 'reality' or 'nature' or 'how things work'. so it's a very human-centric thing, which means it can be wrong or bad. and how can someone who seems to think capitalism is immoral as a human-made system, use the argument that human-made systems cannot be immoral because they are merely systems? why can you hold economic or political systems accountable but not fields of science?

 

and it's all besides the point anyway, which was the idea of things instantly being better simply because of their being modern. i just pointed out that lots horrible things only exist because of our modern progress.

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:17 AM, cult fiction said:

 

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:12 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:00 AM, cult fiction said:

This last page is straight out of the CIA misdirection playbook

 

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

 

Legitimate discussion about a journalist who was probably murdered by the government -> this

 

 

CIA misdirection?

 

This is a bloody IDM forum.

 

CIA has a google alert set up for Michael Hastings

 

 

How do we know you're not the CIA shill?

 

It makes perfect sense that the one to bring up the CIA would be least likely to be in the CIA, innit?

Fuck

one cool thing about all this modern bullshit like hackable cars and xboxes/dishwashers/dildos that are always online is that, now it might actually be possible for a 'Maximum Overdrive' style apocalypse to occur, instead of the long-in-the-tooth zombie/virus/etc crap or post-nuclear thing. even if maximum overdrive itself was clearly just a remake of night of the living dead but with cars/pop machines/old rotary blade style pushmowers/demonic semi-trucks instead of zombies.

 

but think about it. that shit could maybe happen now!

SWEET

 

sometimes ya gotta look on the bright side.

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:21 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:44 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Science is morally neutral. It brought us antibiotics and the atomic bomb. You simply can't have one without the other. All we can do is try to keep things in check. That's literally all we can ever do. It's not like there's some great arbiter in the sky who can eliminate evil from the earth (which of course would be the moral duty of a being with any such capabilities).

i wouldn't agree with the statement 'science is morally neutral'. i think there can be evil science. depends on what definition of science we are going by, i guess. but i think, experimenting on humans for something with little benefit to mankind, would be evil, and i think you could fit the process of doing those experiments into the larger, encompassing picture of 'science', according to even the widely held academic definition of the word. the scientists doing those experiments, imo, would be immoral. science isn't nature itself or the actual facts about how nature works, its our human understanding of those things and the human processes that work towards that understanding. so yeah, contrary to popular belief, science can be wrong, and it can be immoral. science means 'knowledge', not 'reality' or 'nature' or 'how things work'. so it's a very human-centric thing, which means it can be wrong or bad. and how can someone who seems to think capitalism is immoral as a human-made system, use the argument that human-made systems cannot be immoral because they are merely systems? why can you hold economic or political systems accountable but not fields of science?

 

and it's all besides the point anyway, which was the idea of things instantly being better simply because of their being modern. i just pointed out that lots horrible things only exist because of our modern progress.

 

 

1) Once again, Science itself is morally neutral. It can be used by people for good or bad. Please read my post again and

try to understand how what you are saying is exactly what I was saying. Experimenting on humans would be an example of bad

people using science for bad ends.

 

2) Science is simply the process of learning about the universe. Science itself can't be wrong or immoral anymore than math can be wrong or immoral. You said "contrary to popular belief, science can be wrong." Well, this is like saying if someone writes 2 + 2 = 5 then "math is wrong."

Edited July 28, 2013 by LimpyLoo

Science is *a process of learning about the universe

Didn't you guys already have a 20+ page debate on this vapid "where do religion/morality and science intersect" business already

 

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78338-how-rational-atheists-spread-anti-islam-pro-us-military-propaganda/

don't forget this one, in which I was told there's no law of gravitation: http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78429-the-cult-of-science-politics-religion/

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:34 AM, LimpyLoo said:

2) Science is simply the process of learning about the universe. Science itself can't be wrong or immoral anymore than math can be wrong or immoral. You said "contrary to popular belief, science can be wrong." Well, this is like saying if someone writes 2 + 2 = 5 then "math is wrong."

as i just said, it's the process of experimentation by which knowledge is accumulated, and it's that knowledge itself. knowledge can be wrong. science is not the thing which the knowledge is about. you can't compare it to math like that. the math itself is a universal thing which is kind of woven into the fabric of the universe. we could have the understanding that 2+2=5, which would be wrong. the actual math itself wouldn't be wrong though, just our understanding. but in that comparison, science would be our understanding of something about nature, and the math itself would be the actual nature we are/were trying to understand. the actual workings of gravity or electro-magnetism cannot be 'wrong'. our understanding of them can. our understanding of them is the science. so science can be wrong.

 

one definition that deals with the actual accumulated knowledge part-

"a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject." a body of knowledge or just knowledge itself can be inaccurate or wrong or parts of it can be. it's a misunderstanding that people have that science itself cannot be wrong. it's our understanding of the universe and how it works, not the actual workings of the universe. our understanding can be wrong, and since that is what science is, it can be wrong.

 

other definition dealing with the experiments to scrounge up that knowledge-

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

so yeah i think you would have to explain to me why an experiment cannot be immoral, to convince me that activities towards advancing a scientific field could not be... immoral. just because the end goal is the pursuit of scientific knowledge does not give you a get out of jail free card with regards to the morality of the actions you undertake to obtain that knowledge. why would it? you are totally side-strafing this question here. here in this definition it's basically saying that the process of experimentation itself is part of science. which i already said. and which you repeated. so either you think that experimenting on living animals including humans is not immoral, or you think it is, in which case, since that's part of science itself, you would have to agree that science itself can be immoral. wouldn't you? it's a chain of logic here.

 

i mean i could say 'i'm going to go do some science', and be 100% correct in my usage of the word, if i'm about to go tear a guy's skull-cap off while he's still alive and prod on his brain to figure out what's what (without his consent). what i'm doing would be science, and what i'm doing would be immoral.

Edited July 28, 2013 by MisterE

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:54 AM, luke viia said:

don't forget this one, in which I was told there's no law of gravitation: http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78429-the-cult-of-science-politics-religion/

 

 

There is the observed phenomenon, and then there is the theory that attempts to describe the phenomenon.

 

We just got tripped up in semantics. The point still stands that there is no higher status than "scientific theory" and--like Germ Theory and Evolution--Grativy is no different.

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:58 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:34 AM, LimpyLoo said:

2) Science is simply the process of learning about the universe. Science itself can't be wrong or immoral anymore than math can be wrong or immoral. You said "contrary to popular belief, science can be wrong." Well, this is like saying if someone writes 2 + 2 = 5 then "math is wrong."

as i just said, it's the process of experimentation by which knowledge is accumulated, and it's that knowledge itself. knowledge can be wrong. science is not the thing which the knowledge is about. you can't compare it to math like that. the math itself is a universal thing which is kind of woven into the fabric of the universe. we could have the understanding that 2+2=5, which would be wrong. the actual math itself wouldn't be wrong though, just our understanding. but in that comparison, science would be our understanding of something about nature, and the math itself would be the actual nature we are/were trying to understand. the actual workings of gravity or electro-magnetism cannot be 'wrong'. our understanding of them can. our understanding of them is the science. so science can be wrong.

 

one definition that deals with the actual accumulated knowledge part-

"a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject." a body of knowledge or just knowledge itself can be inaccurate or wrong or parts of it can be. it's a misunderstanding that people have that science itself cannot be wrong. it's our understanding of the universe and how it works, not the actual workings of the universe. our understanding can be wrong, and since that is what science is, it can be wrong.

 

other definition dealing with the experiments to scrounge up that knowledge-

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

so yeah i think you would have to explain to me why an experiment cannot be immoral, to convince me that activities towards advancing a scientific field could not be... immoral. just because the end goal is the pursuit of scientific knowledge does not give you a get out of jail free card with regards to the morality of the actions you undertake to obtain that knowledge. why would it? you are totally side-strafing this question here. here in this definition it's basically saying that the process of experimentation itself is part of science. which i already said. and which you repeated. so either you think that experimenting on living animals including humans is not immoral, or you think it is, in which case, since that's part of science itself, you would have to agree that science itself can be immoral. wouldn't you? it's a chain of logic here.

 

i mean i could say 'i'm going to go do some science', and be 100% correct in my usage of the word, if i'm about to go tear a guy's skull-cap off while he's still alive and prod on his brain to figure out what's what (without his consent). what i'm doing would be science, and what i'm doing would be immoral.

 

 

Once again, I think semantics are gonna prevent people in this thread from agreeing with each other. At least on this page.

  On 7/28/2013 at 8:02 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:54 AM, luke viia said:

don't forget this one, in which I was told there's no law of gravitation: http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78429-the-cult-of-science-politics-religion/

 

 

There is the observed phenomenon, and then there is the theory that attempts to describe the phenomenon.

 

We just got tripped up in semantics. The point still stands that there is no higher status than "scientific theory" and--like Germ Theory and Evolution--Grativy is no different.

 

 

the awl of grativy

semantics? i'm talking about THE definition of the word science. you just mentioned the difference between a phenomenon and the theories attempting the describe that phenomenon. as far as i know, no academic definition of the word science includes the actual phenomena or workings of nature. the theories about it are the science. and they can be wrong.

 

that's just... what 'science' is. the knowledge/understanding of nature (which can be wrong), and the activities we use to collect that knowledge (which can be immoral).

 

you're more than welcome to find a definition of science that doesn't include those two things and/or DOES include the actual phenomena being studied instead, but i don't think that definition will be recognized or accepted by most actual scientists.

  On 7/28/2013 at 8:11 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 7/28/2013 at 8:02 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:54 AM, luke viia said:

don't forget this one, in which I was told there's no law of gravitation: http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78429-the-cult-of-science-politics-religion/

 

 

There is the observed phenomenon, and then there is the theory that attempts to describe the phenomenon.

 

We just got tripped up in semantics. The point still stands that there is no higher status than "scientific theory" and--like Germ Theory and Evolution--Grativy is no different.

 

 

the awl of grativy

 

 

http://thehappyscientist.com/study-unit/when-does-theory-become-law

 

 

Theories don't graduate and become laws. Like I said, "theory" is the apex, it is king shit of fuck mountain. There is literally nothing higher.

 

Laws express an observed phenomenon. Theories are the attempt to explain the mechanics of the observed phenomenon.

  On 7/28/2013 at 8:15 AM, MisterE said:

semantics? i'm talking about THE definition of the word science. you just mentioned the difference between a phenomenon and the theories attempting the describe that phenomenon. as far as i know, no academic definition of the word science includes the actual phenomena or workings of nature. the theories about it are the science. and they can be wrong.

 

that's just... what 'science' is. the knowledge/understanding of nature (which can be wrong), and the activities we use to collect that knowledge (which can be immoral).

 

you're more than welcome to find a definition of science that doesn't include those two things and/or DOES include the actual phenomena being studied instead, but i don't think that definition will be recognized or accepted by most actual scientists.

 

You've officially lost me.

 

Why are you bringing aspects of my and Luke's (unrelated) tangent into this one?

Edited July 28, 2013 by LimpyLoo

dude, lol, please give it a rest, my link was in jest. re-read the thread. someone said "we don't say 'law of gravity, we say 'theory of gravity'" (to which i said, playing off a joke in his post, "it's called the law of gravitation dude") and you came at me with all this shit about how it's a theory and nothing trumps that, lol.

 

a 'law' can be part of a scientific theory, but i really don't mean to care in this thread. i'm just drunk and you're taking me very seriously right now.

 

the government is killing our fucking journalists

Edited July 28, 2013 by luke viia

  On 7/28/2013 at 8:27 AM, luke viia said:

dude, lol, please give it a rest, my link was in jest. re-read the thread. someone said "we don't say 'law of gravity, we say 'theory of gravity'" (to which i said, playing off a joke in his post, "it's called the law of gravitation dude") and you came at me with all this shit about how it's a theory and nothing trumps that, lol.

 

a 'law' is a part of a scientific theory, but i really don't mean to care in this thread. i'm just drunk and you're taking me very seriously right now.

 

the government is killing our fucking journalists

 

Spoken like a true CIA shill.

Solid evidence that Kurt Cobain was killed by the CIA

I was probably killed too.

i wonder what the toxicology report will show. He went through 3 red lights apparently right before he crashed.
Right now I'm 50/50 on this. It's possible there was some foul play involved, but if there was it was very cleverly done spy style. If it was simply a high speed car crash on accident, something seemed to have scared him and made him fairly paranoid right before it happened. That e-mail he sent if anything shows that he was probably in a heightened mental state, and if he actually was working on a 'big story' about the CIa maybe him knowing about these new NSA revelations just set him off into the deep end of paranoid delusions. I broke from reality completely about 12 years ago, and it was perhaps the first time in my life that I actually believed in the concept of pleading insanity if you committed a horrible crime. During my crazed mental state i was so out of my mind that I started believing that people were holograms and stuff like that. I think it can happen to even a bright intelligent seeming guy like Michael Hastings

Edited July 28, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

nope. twas murder.

well let me be a little more specific with my tangent then. This whole thing has made me really paranoid more than usual. I have experienced the consequences of mental illness, and it can easily make a seemingly normal person be a danger to themselves and others almost with the flip of a switch. This is pure speculation on my part, but let's assume that the CIA or intelligence gathering networks have used various people's psychological weaknesses against them in the past. People were sent into break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychologist's office to attempt to discredit him in the public eye because of his leak of the Pentagon Papers. Now extrapolate this sort of smash and grab concept to what's technologically possible now. With enough retroactive surveillance i think you can get a pretty accurate portrayal of an individuals psychological weakness. How difficult would it be if you had this power and access into their personal lives with a series of circumstances or 'pushes' to get them to snap or dive head first into insanity. I don't think it would be very hard in the hands of someone intelligent and clever enough. It would only work on people who are prone to these things in the first place, and if you're a young man who got a major 4 star general fired from his job I bet that makes you a pretty understandably paranoid person.

The classic way it used to be done was death threats, but that seems almost too unsophisticated with what capabilities exist today.

Edited July 28, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

  On 7/28/2013 at 10:43 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

With enough retroactive surveillance i think you can get a pretty accurate portrayal of an individuals psychological weakness. How difficult would it be if you had this power and access into their personal lives with a series of circumstances or 'pushes' to get them to snap or dive head first into insanity. I don't think it would be very hard in the hands of someone intelligent and clever enough. It would only work on people who are prone to these things in the first place, and if you're a young man who got a major 4 star general fired from his job I bet that makes you a pretty understandably paranoid person.

 

The classic way it used to be done was death threats, but that seems almost too unsophisticated with what capabilities exist today.

kinda reminds me of Sonny Bono

 

If I was a government in the near future I would tag people (lots of people) with nanobots that would hide dormant in the butt cheeks or something until they were triggered to migrate around and interfere with parts of the brain or vital functions. perhaps the nano bots could even scavenge bits of basic elements from the body to synthesize a variety of drugs

 

i would wait for him to start driving at a good speed then I would flicker his vision and hearing on and off in disorienting patterns hoping for him to crash. if he didn't crash there is always the simple heart attack

If it really was foul-play with vehicle hacking or something to cause a crash then I agree it would have been to send a message because the easier and sneakier they do it is to put radioactive isotopes in someone's coffee and watch them get cancer.