The Morality of Science

A continuation of an ILP thread
by without-music.

Science as it existed so far has been a chess-game with nature.
Quantum-physics is its stalemate. This outcome has been inevitable from the beginning because nature does not try to defeat us, and it can not be defeated.

The reason that it has been a contest, a battle at all, has been our attitude towards nature, which has been hostile. Hostility against uncertainty.

We have recently however arrived at the certainty of uncertainty, a certainty we have tried to escape, but which we have discovered as inevitable. By this gradual dis-/uncovery we have learned what it "looks like". ("we" is presumptuous of course, Heisenberg has done this, standing on the shoulder of other geniuses, but whatever.)

We have been able to study natures moves, as it responds to our own.
We have been studying our moves, as they respond to nature as it responds to our own.
Out own moves have been hostile.
What can we learn?

Philosophy (exclusively) can retrace the steps of science back to the beginning, and from there approach nature anew.

So far, the morality of science has been a defensive one. The world it has created is governed by coercively containing principles.

Value-theory has re-enabled the initial perspective, and philosophy sets its gaze towards nature again. This time not against uncertainty, but with uncertainty as a self-evident and therefore axiomatic -- a fixed positive value -- a yes.

We aim directly at what has always been the reason to will to certainty: power.

Uncertainty must therefore be a means to power -
only the bold mind can accept this.

So, like Nietzsches ER, ours is also a weeding-out, a separating tool, to cultivate on the one hand and disengage on the other.

Science has its own logic because it holds certain things to be "fact".

Convince enough people of this and you have a tool for manipulation.
People will always follow authorities, experts, as it is more comforting to do so than to venture out using your own faculties and taking on all the costs.

All systems, including those of thought hold these self-evident facts as ideals.

The ideal never corresponds perfectly to the real as the static nature of the noumenon cannot fully symbolize the fluidity of the phenomenon and so it must crop it into digestible morsels.
Contradictions arise always within this discrepancy between the human thought, the thing, the ideal, and the real which cares not for human thoughts and conceptions.

Science is currently facing the limitations of its own abstractions in Quantum Physics.
It now reverts to poetics and metaphors, just as every man in history did when faced with the incomprehensible.

Satyr wrote:

Science has its own logic because it holds certain things to be "fact".

Convince enough people of this and you have a tool for manipulation.
People will always follow authorities, experts, as it is more comforting to do so than to venture out using your own faculties and taking on all the costs.

All systems, including those of thought hold these self-evident facts as ideals.

The ideal never corresponds perfectly to the real as the static nature of the noumenon cannot fully symbolize the fluidity of the phenomenon and so it must crop it into digestible morsels.
Contradictions arise always within this discrepancy between the human thought, the thing, the ideal, and the real which cares not for human thoughts and conceptions.

The difference between science and most other systems of values is that science holds its values in the tangible, the empirical. Its value-system appeals to the senses for verification. Contrary to for example Christianity, which appeals to the emotions.

The senses are of course a very strong criterium. But this does not mean that the very assumption of fixed, unchangeable values is not a fiction.

THis idea that there should be fixed unchangeable values is what I call the morality of science.
In this it is not different from Christianity.

Quote :

Science is currently facing the limitations of its own abstractions in Quantum Physics.
It now reverts to poetics and metaphors, just as every man in history did when faced with the incomprehensible.

If man were only more honest about this, the need for metaphor - which has always been a need, but man mistook metaphor for fact - the creative potential implicit in metaphors / poetry might be employed to greater aesthetics, and less to seve the neurotic compulsion for certainty.

The scientists dreads uncertainty, the artist dreads certainty.
The scientist wants to protect himself from danger, the artist wants to engage opportunity.

Indeed, the structure of science itself needs changing, for this structure has now been played-out -- we've seen its end in quantum physics. A new approach, a radically subjective, value-embracing approach, is what we need. A science characterized not by its disavowal of art, but rather by its identification with art!

Science has sought to subject nature, to tame it, control it, defeat it. It has begun from a radically un-natural perspective -- but a perspective nonetheless. The re-introduction of nature into science: a beginning from subjectivity. This must be our new science.

For Deleuze, this means a movement from abstractions to common notions. The common notion is the idea of something in common between two or more bodies that agree with each other, that compound their respective relations, that affect one another in keeping with a basic agreement or composition. A common notion, therefore, expresses our capacity for being affected and is explained by our power of comprehending. Comprehending, however, must no longer mean apprehending. An abstraction, on the other hand, arises when our capacity for being affected is exceeded and we are content with mere imagination instead of the power of comprehension, we retreat from the actual relation and set up an extrinsic sign to which we refer, we set up one trait and turn our eyes from the others. There is always some fiction in abstraction, and always likewise some abstraction in fiction. Taking from Deleuze, we might conceptualize a new science as a system of comprehending our capacities for being affected, our abilities to enter into compositional relations with each other than increase our own power, as well as our ability to enter into de-compositional relations that de-crease our power, that decompose our bodies and the bodies of those with whom we enter into relation. In this way, we might begin to classify beings in a more benign, natural way, according to their power, to their capacity to affect us, to our capacity to affect them, whether compositionally or otherwise.

without-music wrote:

"Taking from Deleuze, we might conceptualize a new science as a system of comprehending our capacities for being affected

Very interesting. This is the other side of the coin of the previously discussed.
it is like the difference between the english / german "being born" / and the french "naître".
The french word is an active verb. The implications on the psyche are immense.

The 'moralities' or attitudes conveyed /enabled by grammar are different.
Concerning this rather significant word, the French clearly has a more controlling, less passive inclination.

Parallel to this is the relation of "being affected" and "valuing in terms of self-value".

I would say that this is in turn similar to how Heidegger stands to Nietzsche.
And it was Heidegger who took the French approach to birth -- the properly subjective approach - the coming into the world.

In order to understand this we take a passive approach, we allow a coming into being by creating a space of observation.

So it is with science. A window of context is created to evoke a result.
In the case of science, this result is demanded, needed.

There is a difference between need and desire. To put this in ad hoc terms, because this is an issue of much more value than what I can do justice to now -- in the 1920's Eddie Bernays decided that America needed to be transformed from a need- to a desire-based society*. The results were dramatic, we are in the thick of it now.

I can only admire this move, because what he did was to alter mans capacity for being affected, to value. The fact that he was able to change the perspective to the world on the fundamental level of valuing, gives an indication hint as to where we might look for a real, practical way to transform the morality behind science.

Instead of to control (contain) the outcome of manipulations to fulfill a necessity - a need, requirement for operational context), the context must be de-operationalized. De-functionalized. Perceptions no longer interpreted to fit the existing requirements, but to surpass expectations -- this must be the first phase, in which we learn to recognize patterns too subtle to contain, but strong enough to guide processes, that otherwise would be uncontrollable.

Economy, of course -
but in psychology the greatest changes will be made possible.
We know nothing of the cycles of our psyche. These cycles are not tangible, not controllable, but they are interpretable.

We value what we perceive as 'as-is' in terms of our self-value, but have not learned to increase our self-value in terms by relying on 'as-changes'.

The science of this is far too subtle, too involved --
the senses are too lazy for them -- we need to experience directly our brain, and our nervous system.

The science of the indeterminate - creation of knowledge by applying subjectivity to the processes of change we learn to perceive, increases our capacity to be affected. It gives us control over affective world. We allow more uncertainty - and thereby more substance - in our self-determination, identity of experience.

This pandemic exposed the scientific community’s collusion with politics.
So called ‘experts,’ served as mouthpieces for political expediency.
I’m not saying they fabricated anything, but they did stretch it to its logical extreme, manipulating human fear to overcome all skepticism.
On the other side, I also believe that all the conspiratorial push-back was no less stretching its cynical paranoia to its logical edges. Both sides coming real close to the precipice of insanity.
What’s concerning is not that man turns to conspiracies to defend himself from the unknown, but that science is now completely corrupted by its dependence on funding and state power.
This was proven further by the scientific community’s support for the transsexual agenda, contradicting decades of scientific precedent to justify the state’s normalization of psychological dysphoria.

The pandemic exposed to me the Eugenicist society, that went into hiding after 1945, and conducted their research and development in secrecy since then. Them, along with the investment in Bioweaponry, are heavily connected and involved in the Wuhan Laboratory, and the spread of SARS-Cov-2. The lied about "gain-of-function research". They lied about the "vaccines", which obviously "don't work".

How many boosters are you going to take, to understand this? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15??

They changed the definition of "vaccine" from "immunity" to "protection".

They removed liability from the Pharmaceutical Industry, to cover themselves.


Anybody who doesn't see this...is lost. I can't believe so many billions of people were duped by this bullshit. But, then, I remember that they probably thought somebody was crazy in Central Europe in 1930 for warning that they were going to exterminate all the Jews. Times change, but Time doesn't change.

Eugenicists are still in charge of societies and a huge aspect of the world elitists and their "old money". They, perhaps rightly, view the masses of world population as their cattle and chattel, and so, eugenics via vaccination programs are explicitly stated in their agenda. They can put anything, in any shot, and nobody would be wiser.

Can't count how many instances of "mysterious illnesses" reported, and nothing done about, post-vaccination.


Pharmaceutical industries could sterilize and euthanize whole towns, and nobody would know, or care if they did know. Nobody can certainly stop them, at this point.

What happened in Canada? They threatened to seize truckers bank accounts, for not taking the MRNA-vaccines.

That's fucking crazy.

Minds born and raised on Abrahamic nihilism are addicted to the idea of an absolute - indivisible, immutable thing.
God-Particle....beginning/ends....complete/wholes...oneness, and if not one nil.

Binary.
It needs certainty. all must be ordered - god by any other name.
The singularity.
It must believe that everything is knowable, rational, intentional, even - everything must follow a comprehensible law.
M-Theory - theory of everything.

A mind still relatively young - by evolutionary timescales.
Self-Consciousness only a recent development, not fully realized - Know Thyself.
What is modern, current, is always the final word, the end, the pinnacle.

Satyr wrote:

On the other side, I also believe that all the conspiratorial push-back was no less stretching its cynical paranoia to its logical edges. Both sides coming real close to the precipice of insanity.

I think this has a lot to do with how social-media networks are managed.
The really outlandish stuff was often not banned or deleted while the more moderate anti-covid-vaccine arguments were silenced more often. At least that was the impression I got.

Outlandish stuff can be used to discredit the opposition, so you don't censor that part but point to it, maximize its reach. Same goes for what happened with Qanon.

Many such cases:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't believe so many people played Russian Roulette with their children...but then I woke up to how stupid and sheeple people really are.

The "cure" (it was never intended to cure anything) was worse than the disease, surprise surprise:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Germany's Largest Health Insurer Reveals 1 in 25 Clients Underwent Medical Treatment in 2021 for Covid 'Vaccine' Side Effects

Amy MekAugust 3, 202212 comments4 min read

Based on the figures from Techniker Krankenkasse, as many as 1 in 500 covid vaccine injections are expected to cause serious side effects.

The cesspool of vaccine side effects in Germany is finally completely open. According to the Dutch news site, Blckbx, five months after a Wob request, it appears that 437,593 of the 11 million insured persons of the country’s largest Health Insurance fund, Techniker Krankenkasse (TK), had to undergo medical treatment in 2021 for Covid vaccine side effects. That is 1 in 25 and an increase of 3000 percent.

This week, TK finally provided facts and figures about the number of treatments they had to reimburse in 2021 due to (serious) side effects of covid vaccines. But unfortunately, it took a lot of struggle and effort to get answers to the Wob request.

In 2021, the massive number of 437,593 insured, or 1 in 25, received medical treatment for side effects of vaccination, reports the Techniker Krankenkasse (TK). This number is almost twice as high as all side effects reported by the German federal medical agency Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) and Lareb Germany. Furthermore, it represents an increase of 3000 percent for TK compared to 2019 and 2020.

‘As many as 1 in 500 injections is expected to cause serious side effects

The figures also suggest that the number of 1:5000 serious side effects per shot reported by the German ministry last week is, in reality, much higher. Based on the figures from Techniker Krankenkasse, as many as one in 500 injections is expected to cause a serious side effect, and 3.3 million Germans would have had to be treated by a doctor by 2021 because of side effects of the covid shots. Serious side effects include (facial) paralysis, persistent pain, nerve problems, severe skin reactions, heart attacks, strokes, heart muscle inflammation, permanent disability, and death.

In the Wob request to the TK health insurance fund, the billing figures from 2019 to 2021 were requested per quarter and per person for the reporting codes T881 – Complications after vaccination (immunization), not classified elsewhere, including rash after vaccination, T88.0 – Post-vaccination infection (immunization), including post-vaccination sepsis (immunization), U12.9 – Adverse reactions to the use of COVID-19 vaccines, unspecified and Y.59.9 – Adverse complications due to vaccines or biologically active substances.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Reminder that Einstein was never peer reviewed (except once by accident) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Nando that Noticed (@QuetzalPhoenix) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is it surprising that when science became dependent on the state or wealthy funders it ceased to practice objective empiricism?
Is it any wonder why gender and race have been rejected as social constructs, helping the dimwits and midwits of the world find an reference to a popular authority, pretending to be objective science?
All these morons can do is defer and refer.....while the world around them remains incomprehensible to them.