Unless you can refute the below cited sources (which I doubt even I could despite teaching at the graduate and undergraduate level), I will assume you have just replied because of cognitive dissonance or lack of awareness of preconceived dogmas of how the dynamics of knowledge and linguistics work one with the other:

1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_electricity

2-https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10728-012-0231-2

Fun fact, the disconnect between true academic knowledge discoveries which are bound to a very strict code of ethics, do not apply to the common working man. This creates paradoxes everywhere, especially at the fundamental level and english, being a language not regulated by a linguistic body like French is by the Académie Française. It becomes even more interesting when looking at very old languages that still are able to function like arabic which is 3000 years old and has morphed into common domestic tongues for the most part but is regulated by the Majma' al-Lugha al-'Arabiyya as a theological unified language in Cairo and Chinese which is 1800 years old and regulated by the Guójiā Yǔyán Wénzì Gōngzuò Wěiyuánhuì (National language commission, or 国家语言文字工作委员会 ) and has had a modernist revision which gave us mandarin or "Simplified" chinese, building onto older "Traditional" Chinese.

Haha, i agree, and thank you for the correction, my memory is not what it used to be, the montreal protocol did fix the ozone layer problem, the kyoto protocol adressed different issues, my error. Hopefully common sense will shift regarding the assumption that nuclear energy is bad, in my view, it is the only way to sustain humankind as we move past the recent start of the fifth industrial revolution. Humanists like Marx, Keynes and Rifkin seem to agree that the hopeful (and paradoxially very unlikely) sixth will be the death of work but I still have to see how things advance before I start believing into it.

China has shown a lot of promise thus far with their carbon reduction and development of small scale nuclear reactors, and hopefully someone will fix the fission theory someday. And concerning the simpler times, things are strange indeed in the future we live.

At times when we cannot understand the causality of a problem, it is better to acknowledge what we know, and more importantly, what we do not know rather than to create narratives from ignorance. I hope that my words will find you in a tone of compassion, not as an attempt to be classist or make you think that your grasp of reality is not valid.

Rest, and relax, math is not the issue here, the problem is ignorance. What you have just posted a tribalistic fallacy believing that things are simple, us vs them and the system being akin to big brother, this is a normal human behavior that some describe as Projective Identification. Nature is more complex than we think and so is a reality in which over 8 000 000 000 exist, and all pitch in to the pool of what the future will always carry back to us. Wether positive or negative.

Thank you for your reply. I’m new to Lemmy, and while replies like yours are why I’m still falling in love with it (since no platform has felt as representative of the human experience as Reddit before Helen Pao) it is a genuine pleasure to be met with careful intellectual consideration rather than misguided reductionism.

To address your point: yes, it is true that there are alternative ways to describe the practice of human abstraction of the natural realm, or "Science" which is a word that will be met by scrutiny under any ethics review for a university paper but works perfectly well in the common and fun daily discussions of any intellectually curious human.

Karl Popper is the one who perfected this for us, owing to the parallel contributions of two Jinns of knowledge who shook human and natural disciplines to their foundational assumptions: Einstein and Freud . Each published groundbreaking works using profoundly different methodologies. Popper, perhaps unintentionally—and arguably by mistake—brought this tension into sharp focus, setting in motion the philosophical move that ultimately negated Freud’s claim to scientific status and is now an (imo highly slanderous) general point of view that psychoanalysis has no merit and should therefore be discarded. By extension, this helped solidify a framework in which only certain forms of inquiry were deemed truly “scientific.” This, in turn, is why naturalistic physical abstraction and the echoes of scientism are now “painting the walls white” in every reflection of what we understand our world to be.

I was initially drawn into this because I am male and a lover of all scientific knowledge—knowledge acquired through hypothesis synthesis, verification via empirically and statistically supported evidence, and peer review. I also practice and teach at a Canadian university, though I’d prefer not to leave identifying details online. My husband (a brilliant art historian and big advocate member of the LGBTQ+ community and reform of logically outdated concepts such as race, gender, work and others), had the insight to engage me in a careful, sustained dialogue debating and reflecting on every facet of my materialist worldview. Through this, it became easier to understand why societal mental health is in its current state, and why humans seem (at least to my eyes) less self-aware than in prior eras. It had also a profound effect in allowing me to understand so much of myself and only got better as I became more and more nuanced in how I abstracted upon thoughts. But it also kept being a friction point on linguistics and academic nomenclature and yes, I do still believe that the abuse of language often made by calling academic disciplines "Science" is why "common sense" and popular points of views have done such a disservice to "human sciences" (despite them not using the scientific method).

This dialogue brought me to realize that the natural sciences are merely the tip of the iceberg, and that humanistic discourse plunges into far deeper waters. The journey has been mentally taxing, if I may share my lived experience, and I now feel a certain intellectual jealousy toward my husband's discipline. I’ve come to believe that the humanities, scientism, and, by extension, the common abuse of language (such as treating “Science” as a monolithic entity) do a profound disservice to the second half of what it means to see the world as a human. Human and Natural sciences operate in a dichotomy after all and this is why the world can be interpreted as; There is everything outside of you, and then there is everything inside of you. The interior world remains a profound puzzle, one that still demands enormous focus. In my view, significant reforms in scientific methodology are urgently needed, especially as the dominant model has been a systemic impediment to disciplines like psychology and anthropology. And if I can pique your curiosity; below is a good paper on the issue if you happen to be tied to academic practice and if you are looking for a good challenge, natural sciences (in my eyes as I now get older and wiser) are total child's play compared to how more robust and taxing humanities can be from a logical standpoint.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368879558_Hoskins_1_Emerson_in_the_Digital_Age_The_Transcendent_Potential_of_Human_Nature

Your point reminds me of the logic behind certain religious psychologies that see this world not as an end in itself, but as a proving ground or a purgatorial space. Its morality is sometimes inverted for a higher, otherworldly purpose.

Take public execution in medieval Christian Europe. While a spectacle of deterrence, some theologians (like Nicholas of Cusa aka who I picture rubbing my rod at night) grappled with a darker rationale: that the intense physical pain of burning could serve as a form of accelerated penance. The idea was that this suffering might pay the temporal debt of sin before death, potentially sparing the soul a longer, more severe punishment in the afterlife. The executioner, in this context, was performing an act of supposed spiritual charity, which is actually why executioners were often clergy or faith oriented men.

This mirrors,the core doctrine of Frankism, an 18th-century Jewish heretical movement. Frankists believed in 'redemption through sin.' Their goal was at times personal regret, but a cosmological acquisition of a higher knowledge. The pleasure or suffering of the sinner was incidental to this divine path to regret and penance.

We see a third variant in groups like ISIS. When they stoned Muslims for adultery, it was framed as enacting divine law to purify the community and offer the sinner ritual atonement. When they cut the throats of Western captives, the logic switched entirely to theater of terror, a spectacle for global distancing (stay in your country, as a result of the frequent invasions of countries from west asia), but also because in Islam, the act of cutting through the neck artery is seen as a quick and painless death. It causes death quickly because oxygen output runs out very fast and is why it is the mandatory way of making meat halal, part of it is to use a quick, simple and relatively painless death.

The unifying, and strangely rational, thread is this: when reality is viewed through an eschatological or cosmological lens, worldly concepts of pleasure, pain, and even morality become secondary. Acts are judged not by their immediate human cost, but by their function in a grand narrative of spiritual war, purification, or redemption. It's a logic that operates on a plane completely separate from humanist rationale because humans are not the end all be all.

Couldn't they also be a mathematician? The Pointcarré recurrence theorem is a good example of infinite rate in a fixed dimensional space. Also, that quote really oversimplifies environmental engineering, the ozone layer has been fixed by the kyoto convention because every person with the simplest understanding of the carbon cycle can understand why the earth has been able to sustain ressource consumption for all animals and can still do so for a very long time still, infinitely or not.

I advise you do and it may get a bit more difficult to follow but your comment is partly right yes. The only aspect of it that differs is that it is a form of acquiring knowledge, because knowledge of god means knowledge of the sins. Through sinning you acquire understanding of why sins are wrong and the more you sin, the more valid your faith is unlike the faith of someone who has never sinned and therefore has no innate understanding of why sinning is wrong. It is a very strange cult but it is the only one that explains logically why powerful entities choose to commit things like the ones epstein did and there is a lot of goddamn powerful maniacs that have been proven to be true frankist and believe the nonsense it is.

This is when daddy marx reels you into his pleasure house by telling you about how he predicted all this shit in 1848 and had advocated for the dictatorship by the proletiariat (the working class is in power, no conflictions between power and politics by allowing lobbyism), capitalism has always been doomed and the reagan bullshit about the trinkle down economics has always been known by econimists as nothing more than a self-contradicting distraction whilst we robbed foreign nations to sustain an unsustainable system.

The only logical explanation I have found about it is by learning about Frankism from Professor Jiang and his youtube channel Predictive history.