- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
- Messages
- 586
- Reaction score
- 56
- Location
- Transient
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Do any of you, brilliant, independent critical thinkers, have any ideas on how society could be organized using science?
Do any of you, brilliant, independent critical thinkers, have any ideas on how society could be organized using science?
Do any of you, brilliant, independent critical thinkers, have any ideas on how society could be organized using science?
Data, molecules, crystals, light beams etc., can be organized by using science.
Society is always changing - a product of the thoughts of its members. Impossible to organize because once you think you have succeeded, people die (or leave), new ones are born (or migrate in), and your "organized" society is now different, and must be re-organized.
Do any of you, brilliant, independent critical thinkers, have any ideas on how society could be organized using science?
That will be deliberated in the civil rights discussion.nah let's just organize it around how we think people should act and be treated
I believe science can provide the demarcation of knowledge and subsequently, the demarcation of law; which is useful for understanding the separation of government entities.science can help perhaps with evaluating the results of some actions
Atheism is a political doctrineprobably want to avoid religious threats and bribes that cannot be verified as sources of policy
Yes. I know science can be used to organize society. It has to do with understanding the social contract theory, and its subsequent derivatives and applications. As it has turned out, the ultimate social contract has not been deliberated properly, because of the lack of information manipulation tools that recent computer applications have delivered into service.You should perhaps provide your own spin first Prof. It would be a treat learning how a brilliant and independent thinker approaches the poll query.
Yes. I know science can be used to organize society. It has to do with understanding the social contract theory, and its subsequent derivatives and applications. As it has turned out, the ultimate social contract has not been deliberated properly, because of the lack of information manipulation tools that recent computer applications have delivered into service.
Emerging technology suggests that knowledge can be demarcated into six realms of reality:
Reality
- Nature
- Technology
- Life
- Society
- Culture
- Time
And derivatives of the technology suggests that the government can be divided into six parts:
Government
- Sovereignty
- Prosecution
- Diplomacy
- Commerce
- Trust
- Property
That will be deliberated in the civil rights discussion.
I believe science can provide the demarcation of knowledge and subsequently, the demarcation of law; which is useful for understanding the separation of government entities.
Atheism is a political doctrine
Do any of you, brilliant, independent critical thinkers, have any ideas on how society could be organized using science?
The fruits of science are most certainly used in the organization of society, but otherwise, this is a nonsensical question. Science is a methodology for investigating reality, not for organizing anything.
The pursuit of science in terms of inquiry and exploration is certainly that but such things as engineering take the knowledge gained by that and apply it to solving problems.
Thus it is very obvious that using the ideas generated by scientific inquiry into social behavior is very relevant to how we then choose to structure our society.
The role of women for example; there is a pervading meam of expecting women to be the same as men in society, in that they are expected to be as focused on their careers, on political power and general advancement as men. Thus we have questions of why is it that few women are on boards of directors or are other positions of power. We have programs to create opportunities for women to advance because there is the idea that it must be due to prejudice that there is not an equal number of them in such positions.
That this has no basis in science is slowly being shown. That science shows us that there are normal natural differences between men and women in terms of their drive to get into such positions from extremely early in human development will, if allowed to, become a reason to stop pushing girls so hard into places they don't want to be in.
YouTube
There is a legitimate reason for that...it is the way Jehovah created man and woman, with distinct, natural roles...woman was to be man's compliment, to complete him...that has not changed down through the centuries...
There is no legitimacy in any claim based on a book of plain evil. Do you consider slavery OK? If not then you must abandon any pretense at seeing your christian bible as good.
If we do experiments and see what the real world does. Look at the evidence. Think about it and check it again and again then we will get to a good result.
Evil is the world we live in without Jehovah's guidance...
Is owning slaves who you can beat as long as they doin't die within 3 days of the beating OK or is it evil?
Straight easy question. Try to answer it directly.
You act as if Jehovah invented/condoned slavery...He merely tolerated it temporarily...slavery is the invention of man...
Does the Bible Condone Slavery? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
A Religious Dilemma in Colonial Brazil — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
Did God Condone the Slave Trade? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
How do raw links to a biased and unscholarly web site show anything at all?
Shoot the messenger, as usual, when ya got nothin' else...:roll:
When you can't even extract the message from the raw link, and discuss it, and the passages it refers to in context, then, I see no reason not to shoot the messenger. One failing I noticed in the JW website, is when they aren't pretty much copying another source, they do not show the passages in context, nor with a good anaylsis of the original language, or the cultural content at all. Like many, they do 'theology by sound bits.' That is lazy , and most often inaccurate.