Philosophy Now Forum

As time moves on the countrys of the world and there peoples are steadily but surely loosing local identity. In the end people will stop diffining them selves by local lables.will this be a more scientifically correct order?

jackles wrote:As time moves on the countrys of the world and there peoples are steadily but surely loosing local identity. In the end people will stop diffining them selves by local lables.will this be a more scientifically correct order?

Any "scientific correctness" would only consist of adhering to the preconditions for proper practice of science (methodological naturalism, etc). The knowledge that is outputted by the enterprise is perpetually open to revision or elimination, including any views about "what people ought to be doing or thinking about themselves" concocted by psycho-socio sciences trying to emulate philosophy. Even the operating presuppositions themselves are supposed to be open to modification, but that seems something of a pipe-dream. Even if all the Norse and Roman gods came thundering and flashing over the horizon, the native preferences of the formal system would simply force scientists to resourcefully conceive some explanation that could still fit that novelty into a natural / mechanistic scheme. Rather than provoke a change in procedural doctrine / worldview. The very concept of "proceeding as if naturalism is the case" could not be altered internally without thereby creating a different concept. The new one could still be labeled "methodological naturalism" or whatever preferred expression, but it would be unscrupulous opportunism which created the appearance of the same concept continuing.

Now, a "scientific correctness" in the context of scientism is a different matter. Since scientism is an ideology or philosophical worldview acquiring all kinds of regional and sub-cultural quirks that make it increasingly to difficult to define in a consensus manner. Devil knows what would be spit-out there in regard to your question.

I was thinking in terms of it being more scientifically accurate for a scientist to describe himself as just that. And not an american scientist or a russian scientist. To put a locality in front of the word scientist seems to me to be unscientific. An observer is an observer. And that should not include some made up location identity splicing its self on to Scientist. As the observer is natrualy its seems nonlocal.

jackles wrote:As time moves on the countrys of the world and there peoples are steadily but surely loosing local identity. In the end people will stop diffining them selves by local lables.will this be a more scientifically correct order?

The paradigm shift I see happening is this. In the future people will drift away from nationalism, and religious identity. Instead it will form into a conglomerate of faux-self identity, where the motto "Be Yourself, Everyone is Right" becomes the slogan for living. This will lul the humans into a sense of complacency, content with the fact that everyone is right, and yet noone is. Nothing will ever get done, because there are no groups, no allegiances, parties will bicker and infight over the slightest differences. Minorities (like transgenders, animals, rebels, original thinkers, and anyone they deem "politically incorrect") will still be trodded upon and turned into a laughing stock. Human ingenuity will decrease, and the 1 percent will still remain at the top.

Your saying a moraless morass of individual selfishness will peravade a denuded planet with a few egocentric souless scientist telling all is well. Trixie you aint making many optimistic noises.

jackles wrote:Your saying a moraless morass of individual selfishness will peravade a denuded planet with a few egocentric souless scientist telling all is well. Trixie you aint making many optimistic noises.

If they were good scientists or philosopher's, they'd tell it like it is. There are some philosopher's who ain't afraid to say it. Speaking of which the masses ridicule Richard Dawkins for not being politically correct enough for their tastes. The irony is the people who complain about his views on women I find highly distasteful in several ways, morally speaking they are much worse than him, Dawkins by and large is a moral man.