Covid-19 Thread

[SoulMonster]

Regarding trusting the numbers from China. Here is from an interview with veteran epidemiologist Bruce Aylward who was part of a mission to China recently:

Julia Belluz: Can we trust China’s data?

Bruce Aylward: The big question is, are they hiding things? No, they are not. We looked at many different things to try to corroborate that cases are dropping. When I went to fever clinics and talked to people working there, they’d say, “We used to have a line out the door, and now we see a case once per hour.”

According to the national data, fever clinics went from seeing 46,000 people per day at one point and it’s now down to 1,000. So there’s been a huge drop in numbers into the feeder system.

Second thing: When talking to physicians in hospitals, I heard again and again that we have open beds, we can get people isolated even more rapidly. I heard that in Wuhan and other provinces. The third thing: I talked to people running clinical trials of drugs, and they are having a problem recruiting patients. All these things helped corroborate [China’s data].

The whole interview is good: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china

[DieselDaisy]

It tells you a lot about the Australian diet that, stockpiling, the Australians have went on a mass bog roll spree. 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I think I have said it before, but all philosophers can just go straight and fuck themselves. 

You can't really believe that.  For a man whoose all about reason and logic you must know the contribution that philosophers have made in that sphere.  Not to mention like, theatre and stuff like that.  And everyone loves a good film or a play or what have you.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

You can't really believe that.  For a man whoose all about reason and logic you must know the contribution that philosophers have made in that sphere. 

In an ocean of bad philosophers there have been a few who have almost inadvertently stumbled upon something profound and valuable. See, the problem with philosophy is that it is just people thinking about stuff. Sitting there alone and trying to come up with knowledge from just thinking about things. That is extremely hard. And most who attempt naturally end up just producing nonsense or trivialities. There have been 1000s of thinkers throughout history but out of this a remarkably few ending up with something so interesting that it is preserved in literature, and even out of that most is shown to have very little value to our modern world. Some of it is just blatantly ridiculous yet we as a society hang onto it because, apparently, it is important to know what thinking mistakes people did in ancient times. Don't get me wrong, some of those who have managed to come upon some significant contribution to our knowledge were brilliant geniuses, especially since they had to do this on their own and while overcoming all the cognitive errors that affect us all. That's really impressive. But most philosophers are simply unknown to us because what they managed to think out, what they ended up producing from all their pondering and theorizing, had so little relevance to the real world that they are now completely forgotten. 

Pondering about stuff and hoping to reach some epiphany by no other means than thinking hard has been entirely substituted by science as a process to obtain knowledge. And hooray to that.

[DieselDaisy]

Up to a late point in history, scientists were philosophers (and philosophers were scientists). The disciplines were intertwined. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Up to a late point in history, scientists were philosophers (and philosophers were scientists). The disciplines were intertwined. 

People weren't really scientists until the scientific method was developed. Ironically, it was developed by philosophers who immediately made their own discipline entirely irrelevant. Hahaha! Basically, science is an evolved form of philosophy where the drawbacks of trying to figure out things by yourself (cognitive errors, no stringent rules for experimental work, etc) have been fixed by a peer-review process, clear hypothesis testing, and protocols on experimental design. It has ended the limitation that our creation of knowledge had to rely on brilliant geniuses, science is now about a collective effort from normal people where we together figure things out, and where we together are much smarter than individually. And this is extremely important, because no single person could ever have figured out the structure of DNA by thinking really hard nor the size of the latest exo-planet that we discovered. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by SoulMonster

[Amir]

 

[Len Cnut]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

People weren't really scientists until the scientific method was developed. Ironically, it was developed by philosophers who immediately made their own discipline entirely irrelevant. Hahaha! Basically, science is an evolved form of philosophy where the drawbacks of trying to figure out things by yourself (cognitive errors, no stringent rules for experimental work, etc) have been fixed by a peer-review process, clear hypothesis testing, and protocols on experimental design. It has ended the limitation that our creation of knowledge had to rely on brilliant geniuses, science is now about a collective effort from normal people where we together figure things out, and where we together are much smarter than individually. And this is extremely important, because no single person could ever have figured out the structure of DNA by thinking really hard nor the size of the latest exo-planet that we discovered. 

Or did they just illustrate the power of their discipline?  I agree that every, or even most, philosophers aren't as valuable as the big boys but I think its dangerous to devalue thinking like that.  I think all the time man, too much perhaps even...because without thinking what is there in life?  Everything around us is there to be figured out, I think philosophy is invaluable, its helped to contextualise so much, which is not to say that the nuts and bolts part that science covers isn't valuable because it is immensely valuable.  But philosophy to me is kinda like the soul.  I know that sounds like a load of airy fairy bollocks but I think there's something to be said for the collective conciousness of man too.  Isn't the beauty of science is that its kinda figuring out the world for us, the mechanics of it?  What good are those mechanics to us if there isn't a focus on the furtherance of us as something more than just...a bunch of chemicals reacting with each other (though I guess thats what humans essentially are). 

[action]

23 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

In an ocean of bad philosophers there have been a few who have almost inadvertently stumbled upon something profound and valuable. See, the problem with philosophy is that it is just people thinking about stuff. Sitting there alone and trying to come up with knowledge from just thinking about things. That is extremely hard. And most who attempt naturally end up just producing nonsense or trivialities. There have been 1000s of thinkers throughout history but out of this a remarkably few ending up with something so interesting that it is preserved in literature, and even out of that most is shown to have very little value to our modern world. Some of it is just blatantly ridiculous yet we as a society hang onto it because, apparently, it is important to know what thinking mistakes people did in ancient times. Don't get me wrong, some of those who have managed to come upon some significant contribution to our knowledge were brilliant geniuses, especially since they had to do this on their own and while overcoming all the cognitive errors that affect us all. That's really impressive. But most philosophers are simply unknown to us because what they managed to think out, what they ended up producing from all their pondering and theorizing, had so little relevance to the real world that they are now completely forgotten. 

Pondering about stuff and hoping to reach some epiphany by no other means than thinking hard has been entirely substituted by science as a process to obtain knowledge. And hooray to that.

cogito ergo sum

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Or did they just illustrate the power of their discipline?  I agree that every, or even most, philosophers aren't as valuable as the big boys but I think its dangerous to devalue thinking like that.  I think all the time man, too much perhaps even...because without thinking what is there in life?

I didn't mean to devalue thinking. I am a huge fan of thinking. But I devalue philosophy as a method to obtain concrete knowledge about our world. I would argue that it is entirely obsolete today and wasn't that much to speak of before the scientific method was developed, either. Our brains are simply not evolved to deal with very hard, complex stuff. To tackle that we need a concerted, peer-reviewed based approach with stringent rules for experimental design that overcomes the flaws of our minds.

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 What good are those mechanics to us if there isn't a focus on the furtherance of us as something more than just...a bunch of chemicals reacting with each other (though I guess thats what humans essentially are). 

Yes, that is exactly what it is. And every philosopher who tries to tell you otherwise can go straight fuck himself  

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, action said:

cogito ergo sum

People who tend to idolize philosophers also tend to be infatuated by platitudes written in a dead language.

[Len Cnut]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I didn't mean to devalue thinking. I am a huge fan of thinking. But I devalue philosophy as a method to obtain concrete knowledge about our world. I would argue that it is entirely obsolete today and wasn't that much to speak of before the scientific method was developed, either. Our brains are simply not evolved to deal with very hard, complex stuff. To tackle that we need a concerted, peer-reviewed based approach with stringent rules for experimental design that overcomes the flaws of our minds.

I agree but surely that is testament to the genius of people like, say Plato for example.  That motherfucker, without the benefit of science etc, helped figure out aspects of human behaviour and human consciousness and contextualise and rationalise aspects of our collective actions that are like...source material even today.  I keep going back to theatre cuz its something I know a bit about but like...in Republic and all these writings he makes sense of these concepts and ideas and what we respond to as people and put together a framework about that shit that is still applicable today.  To me thats astonishing.  Perhaps its not about the concrete but about the malleable and ever-evolving, kinda like science and its approach, though I understand its not quite the same thing but science, to my limited thinking, isn't really about concrete, its more about feeding our growing and expanding understanding (though yeah, based on for-the-moment notions of concrete facts I suppose), its the same with philosophy.  Science can explain why a thing happens but it takes it takes philosophy surely to work out what it means to us. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

I agree but surely that is testament to the genius of people like, say Plato for example.  That motherfucker, without the benefit of science etc, helped figure out aspects of human behaviour and human consciousness and contextualise and rationalise aspects of our collective actions that are like...source material even today.

It's been so long since I studied philosophy so I can't discuss Plato specifically, but as I said, some philosophers were brilliant geniuses. But that wasn't because they were philosophers, that was because they were brilliant, and geniuses.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Yes, that is exactly what it is. And every philosopher who tries to tell you otherwise can go straight fuck himself  

They generally don't   But the way I see it is, OK, as I said, we're just a bunch of chemicals reacting with each other.  So...whats the point in life then?  Fuck all.  So you live for the moment.  Which is a philosophical stance.  Past is gone, futures uncertain, all we have is the now. 

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Science can explain why a thing happens but it takes it takes philosophy surely to work out what it means to us. 

But philosophy can't. I mean, there is no clear answer to that question. I would argue that it is a meaningless question. But maybe it will be clearer to me if you can give an example where philosophy has told us what something means to us?

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

They generally don't   But the way I see it is, OK, as I said, we're just a bunch of chemicals reacting with each other.  So...whats the point in life then?  Fuck all.  So you live for the moment.  Which is a philosophical stance.  Past is gone, futures uncertain, all we have is the now. 

Point of life? That's a question that presumes some intelligent designer has created the universe with a point/purpose. Because otherwise there wouldn't be a point. And I find no reason to assume this is the case. I find it much more likely that we are the result of the indifferent process of evolution, and that there is no point to our existence. We happen to be evolved. With no meaning or purpose or point. We are here. And we have to make the best out of that. Or not. 

You might argue that that is a philosophical stance, but I would say I just follow the evidence. It is very anti-philosophy, but maybe there is a breed of philosophers who are anti-philosophy. If so, count me in!

[Len Cnut]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

But philosophy can't. I mean, there is no clear answer to that question. I would argue that it is a meaningless question. But maybe it will be clearer to me if you can give an example where philosophy has told us what something means to us?

Its not really dictatorial in that way but it helped to define stuff.  Philsophers, through logic and such, were some of the first to stand up against the tyrannical aspects of organized religion, to put that shit down in writing, it has helped in documenting human morality which, yes, you could argue evolves anyway as a natural by-product of evolving survival instincts but its not as free-wheeling as that either, people document it, write it down, work it out, shape and define it.  I don't think science and philosophy are in competition with each other.  I'm not convinced at all by people who think we should meld the two somehow, I think thats dangerous but I think they exist alongside each other quite comfortably and, at times, inform each other.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Point of life? That's a question that presumes some intelligent designer has created the universe with a point/purpose. Because otherwise there wouldn't be a point. And I find no reason to assume this is the case. I find it much more likely that we are the result of the indifferent process of evolution, and that there is no point to our existence. We happen to be evolved. With no meaning or purpose or point. We are here. And we have to make the best out of that. Or not. 

You might argue that that is a philosophical stance, but I would say I just follow the evidence. It is very anti-philosophy, but maybe there is a breed of philosophers who are anti-philosophy. If so, count me in!

Thats entirely a philsophical stance.  You're given a bunch of evidence and then you develop a philosophical stance, 'we're here so we might as well make the best of it'.  Humans are kinda prone to philosophy, its a default setting, philosophy is basically the study of thought as well as the history of documented human thought.  It appears your overall argument is that, by and large in philosophy, there are a few shining lights in a sea of absolute bollocks or lesser thinkers...but isn't that the same with any field?

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Its not really dictatorial in that way but it helped to define stuff.  Philsophers, through logic and such, were some of the first to stand up against the tyrannical aspects of organized religion, to put that shit down in writing, it has helped in documenting human morality which, yes, you could argue evolves anyway as a natural by-product of evolving survival instincts but its not as free-wheeling as that either, people document it, write it down, work it out, shape and define it.  I don't think science and philosophy are in competition with each other.  I'm not convinced at all by people who think we should meld the two somehow, I think thats dangerous but I think they exist alongside each other quite comfortably and, at times, inform each other.

What has modern philosophy really done for us? What world problems has modern philosophy fixed? How many jobs has it created? How many lives has it saved? To me it is entirely obsolete as a discipline for creating knowledge. It had a function back when we didn't have the scientific method, because we had nothing else so had to do with philosophy with all its weaknesses, but now it has become completely obsolete.

No one turns to philosophy to find a cure for covid-19, and those answers we do turn to philosophy for could just as well be asked to religion, and are, in my opinion, questions that either can't be answered (and don't let some philosopher tell you otherwise!) or shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Thats entirely a philsophical stance.  You're given a bunch of evidence and then you develop a philosophical stance, 'we're here so we might as well make the best of it'.  Humans are kinda prone to philosophy, its a default setting, philosophy is basically the study of thought as well as the history of documented human thought.  It appears your overall argument is that, by and large in philosophy, there are a few shining lights in a sea of absolute bollocks or lesser thinkers...but isn't that the same with any field?

We are prone to thinking and pondering, yes. And some of us are good at it, and some are bad, and the rest of us are just okay. And some like to think that the way they do the everyday, mundane task of thinking is so special they deserve a great name for it to make them seem special.

My overall argument is that philosophy is a dramatically overhyped discipline and that as far as helping us understand the world it is entirely valueless. 

 

[Dazey]

58 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Up to a late point in history, scientists were philosophers (and philosophers were scientists). The disciplines were intertwined. 

Then somebody invented the wheel.  

[Len Cnut]

Quote

What has modern philosophy really done for us? What world problems has modern philosophy fixed?

Quote

How many lives has it saved?

How could you possibly quantify something like that, thats like asking how many people did a piece of music inspire.  Philosophy has shaped the way people think, think of all the world leaders that study that shit, the position phiosophy holds in the development of political theory, how many lives has it saved?  Probably innumerable, just as the misinterpretation of certain philosophies has probably helped lead to the slaughter of innumerable people. 

Quote

or shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

I don't think human beings can take that as an answer to anything, 'don't ask'.  Always ask. 

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

We are prone to thinking and pondering, yes. And some of us are good at it, and some are bad, and the rest of us are just okay. And some like to think that the way they do the everyday, mundane task of thinking is so special they deserve a great name for it to make them seem special.

My overall argument is that philosophy is a dramatically overhyped discipline and that as far as helping us understand the world it is entirely valueless. 

 

I guess we just disagree

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What has modern philosophy really done for us?

Sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health...................................

Oh, hang on! Actually that was the Romans.  

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

How could you possibly quantify something like that, thats like asking how many people did a piece of music inspire.  Philosophy has shaped the way people think, think of all the world leaders that study that shit, the position phiosophy holds in the development of political theory, how many lives has it saved?  Probably innumerable, just as the misinterpretation of certain philosophies has probably helped lead to the slaughter of innumerable people. 

Thinking has saved lives, yes, but has modern philosophy? I am not discounting the fact that some people might be so enamoured by some modern philosopher that that gives them a reason to live, I was more thinking about what outcomes of modern philosophy has resulted in things or thoughts that save lives? And that aren't just the result of thinking?

Edited March 6, 2020 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

21 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't think human beings can take that as an answer to anything, 'don't ask'.  Always ask. 

Some questions are just plain meaningless or moronic. Like, "what colors are unicorns"? Or, "why are we here"? Both of them presupposes something that we have no reason to believe exist, unicorns or some creator. And such questions shouldn't be asked before we have answered the questions they rely on, which are, "do unicorns exist?" and "do a creator exist?"

So I disagree, some questions really shouldn't be asked, at least not yet. And that is not being critical about questions in general, I love inquiry as much as anyone. It just makes no sense. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by SoulMonster