Responsibility presupposes knowledge. Without knowledge, people do not understand the world enough to know the consequences of their actions, which means that they cannot act in a calculated manner to influence their environment in such a way as to achieve the intended result.

There are many demagogues claiming responsibility as their value while being against knowledge. These people rail against scientists, academia, climate science or "liberal elites" in the same sentence as they claim to support responsibility or integrity or American values. They are wrong - absolutely.

These people claim that prosperity is created by business and only by business. What they do not realize is where the knowledge behind this prosperity comes from. Most of what business sells is technology; and technology comes from science.

Which means that it is science, and not business, that is the ultimate source of prosperity. And while business certainly has a vast role in creating prosperity, without science capitalism would be nothing more than exchange of basic commodities at the level it was in medieval Persia.

The people who claim to value liberty, responsibility or economic opportunity at the same time as they attack or deny science are lying. Scientific knowledge is at the root of prosperity as well as of all progress. Texas Oil is not the root of prosperity; science is.

And lacking or denying this knowledge, people engage in grossly irresponsible behavior, such as poisoning the oceans and the air and making the world a worse place for their children than they have found it.

Are most scientists liberals? Yes. Why? Mainly because the scientists do not make very much money for the time, effort and money they put into their education, which means that the people driven by economic interest tend to avoid the profession. The only people who go into science are either the people who love the field or the people who are driven by the ideal of service..

And if the conservatives seek a greater presence – and influence - in the academia, they would be advancing these things as their values and teaching them to their kids.

It is much easier to rail against “liberal elites” than it is to produce knowledge. What we see instead is these people railing against “liberal elites” while using their work to enrich themselves. They fail to compensate the people from whom they get their knowledge according to the value that they are getting from it, choosing instead to damn or defund them.

That is an act of supreme dishonesty. And dishonesty does not qualify as a conservative value.

Or as responsibility. Or as liberty. Or as American patriotism or the American way.

Is academia right on all counts? No. I have opposed political correctness ever since I knew what it was, because it is intellectual fascism. I oppose personality psychology because it damns people, claiming irrationally that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do, however hard they work and whatever work they do on themselves. And I oppose materialist fundamentalism – falsely known as skepticism - because I and many people I know – including eminent scientists, successful entrepreneurs and highly educated, highly accomplished professionals in fields ranging from software to medicine - have had very real spiritual experiences. Experiences with less than one in a billion chance of happening. And not one, but many of them.

Does the academia not reflect “American values”? Political correctness, materialist fundamentalism and irrational psychological theories do not; but for as long as American values include honesty and integrity, real science does. This is the case for physics or mathematics or chemistry or biology or computer science or medicine or engineering; this is also the case for climate science. Not only has it been validated by 10,000 of the world's brightest minds, but it should be common sense. You raise carbon dioxide emissions while burning down the rainforests that absorb carbon dioxide, you have problems.

Responsibility presupposes knowledge; and claiming to be in value of responsibility while being against knowledge is a racket. It allows people to use the work of the scientists to enrich themselves without valuing or compensating them according to the value of what they get. It leads them to behavior that is vastly irresponsible and that leaves the world a worse place for their children. It leads them to engage in brutal, destructive practices. It leads them to listen to liars and demagogues who con them and laugh all the way to Congress or all the way to the bank.

There is no responsibility without knowledge, and there is no prosperity without science.

It is time that knowledge, education and science be valued according to the benefit they provide.

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 4:45:59 AM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Responsibility presupposes knowledge. Without knowledge, people do not understand the world enough to know the consequences of their actions, which means that they cannot act in a calculated manner to influence their environment in such a way as to achieve the intended result.
>

Responsibility does not presuppose knowledge. Does studying physics make people responsible?

Responsibility presupposes foresight (an awareness of the probable consequences of one's actions) and empathy for those one's actions might affect.

> There are many demagogues claiming responsibility as their value while being against knowledge. These people rail against scientists, academia, climate science or "liberal elites" in the same sentence as they claim to support responsibility or integrity or American values. They are wrong - absolutely.
>

First off, there is a well known adage which holds that the only absolute is that there are no absolutes. IOW: there are no absolutes in life.

Second, which demagogues are railing against scientists or academia? When you make these broad, and seemingly ridiculous generalizations, you need to be much more clear. As written, you see your world filled with evil, rabble-rousing politicians, statesmen and dictators who are attacking knowledge and science in an attempt to plunge humankind back into the Dark Ages.

Unless you can name these politicians/leaders and explain why they are attempting to create a world of Will Donkeys, you come across as a paranoid nutjob.

> These people claim that prosperity is created by business and only by business. What they do not realize is where the knowledge behind this prosperity comes from. Most of what business sells is technology; and technology comes from science.
>

Individual prosperity generally rises and falls in accordance with one's country's GNP.

> Which means that it is science, and not business, that is the ultimate source of prosperity.

Your "logic" is irrational. Just because you claim that business uses cutting edge technology (you haven't provided any statistics or even examples of said technology), does not mean that the technology is what generates wealth. You can have the most hi-tech equipment in the world, but if you lack good business acumen, you will fail as an entrepreneur.

>
And while business certainly has a vast role in creating prosperity, without science capitalism would be nothing more than exchange of basic commodities at the level it was in medieval Persia.
>

How so? Did scientists invent currency?

Did medieval Persians lack darics?

Not only that, but you're applying the word "science" very loosely if it is meant to include some of history's most influential inventors, like Eli Whitney and Thomas Alva Edison (who were much more responsible for the technology behind our modern commodities than Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo Galilei).

> The people who claim to value liberty, responsibility or economic opportunity at the same time as they attack or deny science are lying. Scientific knowledge is at the root of prosperity as well as of all progress. Texas Oil is not the root of prosperity; science is.
>

Actually, it's a matter of income generated from sales of goods minus production costs. If a Texan sells his oil at a cost of 10x the cost of producing it, he makes a profit. And how much scientific knowledge is required to drill a hole into the ground?

> And lacking or denying this knowledge, people engage in grossly irresponsible behavior, such as poisoning the oceans and the air and making the world a worse place for their children than they have found it.

Lacking or denying what knowledge? That evil demagogues are lying? That scientific knowledge is the root of prosperity?

Even if such "knowledge" were true, it would have no bearing on pollution and/or global warming.
> Are most scientists liberals? Yes.

Do you have any statistics to back up this claim?

Define "liberals."

Do you mean that most scientists are socialists? Democrats? Feminists?

>
Why? Mainly because the scientists do not make very much money for the time, effort and money they put into their education, which means that the people driven by economic interest tend to avoid the profession. The only people who go into science are either the people who love the field or the people who are driven by the ideal of service.
>

Define "scientist."

At several earlier passages in this (cough!) argument, you appeared to be lumping scientists and inventors together. But Thomas Edison and Henry Ford made fortunes for themselves via "technology."

How much money do scientists make? (HINT: You'll need statistics to support your "findings.")

Have these "starving scientists" been polled regarding their motivation for pursuing an unprofitable profession?

> And if the conservatives seek a greater presence – and influence - in the academia, they would be advancing these things as their values and teaching them to their kids.

First, it's not "the academia." Academia is a place of sorts. It is the combined portions of the world inhabited by men and women of learning. You wouldn't say "Will Donkey was born in the Georgia," would you?

Second, what things would the "conservatives" be teaching to their children? That "liberals" choose to be poor?

You need to specify what you're talking about. "These things" could refer to... anything. Underpaid scientists and the liberal tendency toward chosen poverty are the subjects that immediately preceded your statement, but one doubts that "these things" refers to them.

> It is much easier to rail against “liberal elites” than it is to produce knowledge.

Is knowledge mass produced, or hand-crafted individually by artisans?

> What we see instead is these people railing against “liberal elites” while using their work to enrich themselves. They fail to compensate the people from whom they get their knowledge according to the value that they are getting from it, choosing instead to damn or defund them.
>

Eli Whitney didn't make a fortune for having created interchangeable parts (the basis of modern technology), but patent laws were soon changed so that inventors like Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison could.

Today, if you use modern technology in your business (or everyday life) you can rest assured that you are paying for it, and that the inventors are being compensated up the wazoo.

> That is an act of supreme dishonesty. And dishonesty does not qualify as a conservative value.

This is an act of your imagination. We have copyright laws in America to protect the intellectual property of inventors.

> Or as responsibility. Or as liberty. Or as American patriotism or the American way.

Nor does dishonesty qualify as Easter eggs, tiddlywinks, or Italian cuisine..

> Is academia right on all counts?

You haven't stated academia's position on any count. How can you question whether they are right?

>
No. I have opposed political correctness ever since I knew what it was, because it is intellectual fascism.
>

Well... that came out of left field.

I thought you were arguing that knowledge makes human beings responsible.

Your lengthy digression claiming that knowledge, not commerce, is responsible for prosperity was bad enough, but you now appear to be randomly grasping at whatever marginally related (I'm being kind) ideas pop into your head.

> I oppose personality psychology because it damns people, claiming irrationally that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do, however hard they work and whatever work they do on themselves.

I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences with your psychiatrist/s. However, you need to bear in mind that not all mental illnesses can be cured.

> And I oppose materialist fundamentalism – falsely known as skepticism - because I and many people I know – including eminent scientists, successful entrepreneurs and highly educated, highly accomplished professionals in fields ranging from software to medicine - have had very real spiritual experiences. Experiences with less than one in a billion chance of happening. And not one, but many of them.
>

First off, I highly doubt that you are on intimate terms with all of these "eminent," "successful," and "highly educated"/"highly accomplished" people..

Secondly, what has materialism vs spirituality got to do with responsibility?

A few sentences ago, you were championing science. Now you're attacking the prevailing (or, at least, stereotypical) scientific mindset and falling back on "spiritual" phenomena... similar to the evil political demagogues who want to condemn science and plunge humanity back to the Dark Ages?

I fear you've been battling against dragons too long.

> Does the academia not reflect “American values”?

Again, there is no "the" before academia. Academia is a place where academics live. You can say "the academics," but not "the academia."

> Political correctness, materialist fundamentalism and irrational psychological theories do not; but for as long as American values include honesty and integrity, real science does.