MORCOism

MORCOism

"MORCOism" is a new philosophical current, based on the open discussion of subjects, spurred on by the enjoyment of MORning COffee (MOR.CO.), among persons, for which the minimum requirement is their mutual appreciation.

The essence of "philosophy", as it was embodied by Socrates, is precisely the approach through the search for truth, in other words, in order to enable people to live their lives more wisely. The very word "philosophy" is derived from ancient Greek and it is of course a compound word, with the first component “philo-” meaning "love" (in ancient Greek the verb “φιλώ” pronounced as philό means love) and the second component “sophy” meaning “wisdom” (in Greek the word is “σοφία”, pronounced as sophίa) meaning the reasonable/successful management of knowledge.

Already from the end of the 5th century B.C., the great philosopher, Socrates, laid the foundations of such debates – of philosophical and not rhetorical/forensic hue – with two famous phrases (recorded by Plato in his Dialogues):

·     “... (for a long time) it seemed brilliant to know the cause of everything, why it is created, why it disappears and why it exists. I kept going back and forth, as I was examining such issues...”, Plato’s ‘Phaedo’. He, therefore, sets out the basic principles of philosophical search.

·  “... these (means the orators), therefore, with their art succeed in convincing, not with documentation (translating the word “διδάσκοντες” which means “teaching”) but by building (translating the word “ποιούντες” which means “making”) their expressed opinion”, Plato’s ‘Theaetetus’. He sets out, here, the essential difference between, on the one hand, the exploratory hue of philosophy and, on the other hand, the practice of the orators, who build the opinion which they provide.

Therefore, based on the above, philosophical search takes place in debates when the participants – experts or not – are investigating views on issues posed and not when they are rhetorical, that is, when, in the Socratic sense, they build (with the appropriate arguments) the view which they at times want to formulate.

In MORCOism we are taught by Socrates not so much his personal views on philosophical or other issues – otherwise we ourselves are not philosophers – but his approach, the methodology of the management of opinions raised in an open discussion with experts and non-experts. This is Socrates' greatest contribution to the world's philosophical thought.

When the MORCOists meet to enjoy their morning coffee, what they really share is their mutual appreciation, the kindness of everyone who speaks and the respect to the opinions of others.

The MORCOists perform in-depth analyses of issues that are put on the table and while they have a philosophical disposition – under the Socratic exploratory concept – they do not seek from any participant any philosophical background, no specialised opinion if such an opinion may not exist. The mere aim is to seek an exploratory disposition and respect for the ideas and opinions of others.

MORCOism has nothing to do with an academic exercise or an intelligence contest, nor does it aim to confuse non-philosophical members with "deep" and dark thoughts. 

For the MORCOists, this seems to be the original philosophy. And this is an experiential finding which is provided through the experience of MORCOistic debates.

Every MORCOist has the right to issue his/her opinion on a subject. Another participant in the debate may submit a contrary opinion, respecting, always, the right of others to have, each, their own opinion. The comments and reviews that will be heard relate to the subject and are not addressed to persons. For the MORCOists, the zero tolerance policy for humiliating, offensive or abusive language or behaviour against others is spontaneously applicable. Therefore, MORCOists constitute a civilised and polite society of people.

In this context, some base axes of this philosophical current are shown, such as:

·    The the debate is open and there is mutual appreciation/respect: Although participants in such debates feel passionate about their ideas, some may not think in the same way as others, but in this way, they can create triggers for discussion. Whatever is included in the agenda, there are no personal attacks.

·      The MORCOists make up discussion groups, not treatment groups: We all have different life experiences that have influenced our perceptions, opinions and beliefs, and sometimes we may also be able to discuss issues that cause strong emotions. Although some of us are skilled scientists and some are working as advisors, everyone in his/her field, the purpose of the group is to discuss the issues of the day, as thoroughly as possible. It's not about discussing personal issues. There is, of course, no shortage of moments when exclamations are heard showing that the team is having a good time.

The discussions of the MORCOists are therefore open to comments and issues. Our philosophical society and mentality are reflected in our debates.

Survival of the United Kingdom - The Scottish issue

Survival of the United Kingdom

- The Scottish issue

As the BrExit issue seems closer than ever before, the sovereignty of the UK, in the old sense, is no more of practical reality in a complex and inter-dependent world. 

Neither the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 nor the Brexit referendum of 2016 could have brought back the old nation-state. 

Whatever happens, Scotland, remains a nation, a distinct society and increasingly a self-governing community. It remains without a state because statehood itself no longer means what it once did but its future is unknown.

Presidential impeachment in the US

Presidential impeachment in the US

Regarding the presidential impeachment, some questions are raised which may well become especially important for Mr. Trump's presidency.

In this context, there are some issues that would have to be explored corresponding to questions, such as:

• Do high crimes and misdemeanors require actual violations of the law?
• Can “impulsive, ignorant incompetence” serve as valid grounds for impeachment — or is the 25th Amendment, which allows the replacement of a president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the proper remedy for that sort of presidential incapacity?
• Is it ever constitutionally legitimate to impeach a president: 

* for negligence and mismanagement?

* for firing qualified officers or appointing bad ones?

* for failure to adequately staff the executive branch?

* for “private” transgressions, unrelated to the exercise of       his office?

* for misconduct that occurred before taking office?

* for misuse of authorities — like the pardon power — the     Constitution clearly leaves to the president’s discretion?* for conduct unbecoming the office?

According to common sense, the answer to most of such questions is “no.” However, in most of such cases, common sense is wrong. The category of impeachable offenses is much broader than is popularly understood.

Impeachment wasn’t meant to be done lightly, but neither were Americans meant to avoid it when it becomes necessary. 

In science, we know what we think we know

In science, we know what we think we know

In any question that its answer is based on – to consolidate this documentation – let’s say: the maximum universally accepted scientific knowledge, there should be no absolutes and certainty that it is properly answered, as this knowledge depends on the extent to which it has proceeded to its acquisition at the given time when the question arises.

Let us see, however, for example, a first, of prime importance question: Is the Earth flat? If anyone answered yes, the majority would have thought that the answer was wrong. But how do we know it is wrong? Is it not true that for thousands of years people thought they knew that the Earth is flat? So something made us change our minds. What else was that? Science was the reason for changing our opinion. And not only that, but it is also responsible for the breadth of our knowledge on the subject, namely what we think we know about this issue and ultimately about what we think we can know.

So, what is the way of acquisition of scientific knowledge? But what's more than research methods. When we refer to research methods we mean the organized, documented and systematic process of examining a subject.

Obviously even this quasi-rational way of obtaining knowledge can create uncertainties. One might even say, so what? Is our perception of our universe not governed, essentially (more strongly in the subatomic microcosm), by uncertainty in the sense of the Heisenberg’s Principle (e.g. location and velocity impossible to be precisely measured at the same time)?

Nevertheless, there are a few other ways for acquiring knowledge, such as:

• The empirical (or informal) observation, in which knowledge is acquired by chance or atypical (i.e. without a deliberate and systematic process of examining a subject). The problem with empirical (or informal) observation is that the lack of  thoroughness and/or process of evaluating the observations leads to increased uncertainty.
• Selective observation, in which the observer's model/pattern is adopted. Equally we would say that the observer "sees" what he wants to see or makes the assumption that there is what he has perceived/experienced/observed. The extreme scenario of this case is the overgeneralisation, i.e. the generalised (cognitive) conclusions based, however, on a very limited number of observations.
• The imposed knowledge, which, over time, during human presence, comes mainly from the authorities and powers. In this way, the acquired knowledge and the formed "beliefs" were imposed/enforced by the power circles of each era/society. These circles defined/define what is true and what is not.

Therefore, on the basis of the above, one could ask the legitimate question: "What do scientists mean when they claim that they know?" Let us look for example. What can scientists mean when they say they know what's going on inside an atom or what happened in the first few minutes after the birth of the universe?

What they mean is that they have in mind a model of an atom or have electronically developed a model of the primary universe or have generally attempted to standardise the relevant research subject and have come up with a model that corresponds to the experimental data or observations.

Such models do not, of course, constitute a physical representation of the actual research, but they are mental standards described/supported by groups of mathematical equations.

Let us remember the standardisation of atoms, molecules, represented by small elastic spheres, etc.

This intellectual representation is only part of the model, as what makes this model to be scientific is the way in which these spheres move in space and bounce colliding with each other, to be described by various natural laws, translated into mathematical equations; in the aforementioned example, let us say, from Newton's kinematic laws. Even more so, by applying these mathematically expressed laws, it can become predictable what will happen to the pressure of a gas if it is compressed in half of its volume etc. If one does the experiment of this example, the result (doubling of pressure), which will be measured, fits almost perfectly with the predictions of the model. Well, this makes it a good model. Zero uncertainty, then? The answer is no, of course not.

Why not, then? But, because the model of an atom as a perfectly elastic sphere of very small size, may fit well to the calculation of changes in the pressure of a gas, as mentioned above, but if it has to describe how an atom emits or absorbs light, there will immediately be a requirement for a model of an atom which must consist of at least two components, namely: an extremely small central nucleus (which, it is true, can, in turn, itself be considered as an elastic small sphere) surrounded by a cloud of electrons.

The scientific models are representations of a reality, not necessarily the "true" reality. This, of course, regardless of how well these models fit the experimental data or observations or even further how accurate the (under appropriate conditions) forecasts are. Scientific models should therefore be considered as approaches (of some level of precision or correspondingly of uncertainty) and as support for imagination rather than real truth.

In this sense, when scientists say they know that the nucleus of each atom is made up of particles called protons and neutrons, what they should say is that the nucleus of each atom, under certain conditions, behaves as if it consists of protons and neutrons. Most scientists regard this wording as given, while others may ignore the importance of the distinction it advocates.

In the context of the finding we are examining here, namely that in science we think we know what we (anyway) know, it is the fact that many people – I hope there are not scientists among them – consider that the role of scientists is to perform experiments to confirm the accuracy of their (theoretical) models, that is to achieve even more accuracy, even more decimals.... Nothing could be further from the truth!

The reason for carrying out experiments, which evaluate in advance unaudited predictions of models, is to find out where the power of the models is limited. Let us again take an example from the field of physics, where the hidden hope of the researchers is to discover disruptions (requested data which the models cannot accurately predict or explain in detail) in their models, precisely because, these disruptions will highlight areas where a new cognitive approach is required, thus new models are needed, so that progress can be made. For example, Einstein's gravitational model (general theory of relativity) explains what Newton's model does, but also explains some delicate issues concerning planetary orbits and the bending of light. In this sense the new model (the Einstein’s one) is better than the oldest (the Newton's one), especially because it produces correct predictions for the universe in general, while the old cannot do it. But since we here compare these two great models, developed by those two major scientists, let us clarify that in calculating the movement of a spacecraft e.g. from Earth to the Moon either using Newton's laws or the general theory of relativity equations (in a more complex way) the result will be the same.

Here is one last example, regarding the review of the scientific knowledge which we currently have about the structure of matter. What in science we think we know, is included in the so-called ‘The Standard Model of particle physics’, where the existence of 4 elementary particles of matter in two pairs (electron and proton, upper & lower quarks), which, for unknown reasons, are repeated in two additional generations. The existence of only 3 interactions (gravitational, electroweak and strong), plus the Higgs field, is also adopted. So this package explains what is happening on earth and the operation of the stars.

However, we do not know issues such as the origins of the universe, the way that stars and planets arose, etc., although there is documentation of the existence of the universe (14 billion years ago) from a grain where energies were greater than it can experimentally be achieved and which through the Big Bang inflated to gradually emerge what we perceive today as universe.

To enable scientists to understand where the universe came from, it is obvious that they must go even beyond the Standard Model, subverting what we think we know.

Is reinforced concrete, as a construction material, flawless or has it got its disadvantages?

Is reinforced concrete, as a construction material, flawless or has it got its disadvantages?

As is well known, reinforced concrete (commonly: béton armé) is a combination of concrete (a mixture of cement and aggregates) reinforced by steel rods.

This combination was devised precisely to be exploited in an optimum way, but also at the same time, under loading, the compressive strength of the concrete with the tensile strength of steel.

It is given and really has been proven that according to the construction experience to date, reinforced concrete is an economical construction material, so it is very popular. It is widely used in many kinds of constructions worldwide. 

However, along with its many advantages, reinforced concrete shows some disadvantages, possibly unknown and/or simply not been realised by the general public, although one might say that the consequences of some of them are being experienced in our daily lives. 

Because the aim of this text is mainly to highlight the disadvantages of this reliable material – so reliable that even for outside our planet constructions there are concepts and relevant studies to use it with a little different composition is true (e.g. adding a regolith simulation, molten pure sulfur and glass fibers) for shielding against radiation – I choose below to settle them before the advantages. 

Some main disadvantages of reinforced concrete 

• Its tensile strength is approximately 1/10 of its compressive strength
• The influence of the production process (mixing, casting and curing) of reinforced concrete during the construction on the final resistance
• The relatively high cost of the casting forms
• Regarding tall structures (e.g. multi-storied buildings) the static required height of reinforced concrete columns is greater compared to the corresponding metal columns
• Reinforced concrete undergoes shrinkage (physical property of concrete), causing cracking and ultimately reducing the strength 

Some main advantages of reinforced concrete 

• Reinforced concrete has a high compressive strength compared to other building materials
• Due to the provided reinforcement (from the steel bars), reinforced concrete can also withstand a satisfactory tensile stress
• Adequate fire and environmental impact
• Reinforced concrete constructions are more durable than any other, where other materials have been used
• Reinforced concrete, as a fluid material, at the beginning of the production, can be moulded in an economical way and of course using any type/shape of forms
• The maintenance cost of reinforced concrete is very low
• For difficult and big structures, such as foundations, dams, port works, etc. reinforced concrete is the most economical construction material
• Even in cases of complex structures, their components which are of reinforced concrete act with minimum deflection
• As reinforced concrete can be moulded into any type/shape of form required, it is widely used in precast structural components. It provides rigid members with minimum apparent deflection
• Compared to metal, reinforced concrete structures require less skilled labour force