The progressive war on science

Sort:
Elroch
kleelof wrote:
mcris wrote:

 Science is Knowledge (whereas Religion is (blindly) Belief). How can Knowledge be blamed? Sometimes it can be wrongfully applied, ok.

Yes, another one of the great superstitions of science; knowledge is good.

Ridiculous: knowledge enables informed decisions. Knowledge has saved your life on many occasions. Of course knowledge can be misused, like muscles can be misused to do violence. This does not make muscles bad.

The beliefe in science is just as riddled with superstitions and lies as any religion.

Nonsense.

People believe science is the answer to everything. Yet, its application is often more detrimental than the problem was.

Some people believe a lot of nonsense. Scientists don't believe science is the answer to everything. It is the route to the answers to all questions about the _general_ _behaviour_ of the natural world (even the parts relating to humans, which some people forget are natural as well). 

That is its realm.

The goal of science is to overcome nature and the things in nature that threaten our health and well being.

No it is not. This is an error well worth flagging.

Science is about knowledge: _technology_ and _engineering_ are about using that knowledge. This includes fields such as medicine, which is an application of scientific knowledge.

How can this be right? How can it be right to continue finding ways to keep an ever growing and dangerous population of humans alive to consume and destroy nature?

You seem to be discussing policy issues and confusing them with scientific knowledge.

Or perhaps your point is that it is evil to have the knowledge to be able to grow more food, because someone might use it? This seems ridiculous. Even in the cases of the most dangerous technologies arising from science (eg nuclear bombs) these are emphatically the result of government policy, not science working in isolation. And of course, nuclear bombs are a technology, not science.

Asking how can science be blamed is about like asking how religion can be blamed for all the things people like to blame it for. When you look at science zealots and religious zealots, you will see, they are much more alike than different.

Except they are not. I have worked quite a few years in a scientific research in the public and private sectors, and I can assure you it is a mixture of being an academic researcher, a commercial consultant, and a source of information for governments to make informed policy decisions, and none of them is at all like being a zealot.

If this was intended to be ironic, it did a great job! Otherwise, not so great. Wink Oh, and the 2+2=4 cartoon is really neat!

kleelof
Elroch wrote:
kleelof wrote:
mcris wrote:

 Science is Knowledge (whereas Religion is (blindly) Belief). How can Knowledge be blamed? Sometimes it can be wrongfully applied, ok.

Yes, another one of the great superstitions of science; knowledge is good.

Ridiculous: knowledge enables informed decisions. Knowledge has saved your life on many occasions.

The beliefe in science is just as riddled with superstitions and lies as any religion.

Nonsense.

People believe science is the answer to everything. Yet, its application is often more detrimental than the problem was.

Some people believe a lot of nonsense. Scientists don't believe science is the answer to everything. It is the answer to all questions about the general _behaviour_ of the natural world (even the ones we haven't answered yet, and the parts heavily influenced by humans, which some people forget are natural as well). 

That is its realm.

The goal of science is to overcome nature and the things in nature that threaten our health and well being.

No it is not. This is an error well worth flagging.

Science is about knowledge: _technology_ and _engineering_ are about using that knowledge. This includes fields such as medicine, which is an application of scientific knowledge.

How can this be right? How can it be right to continue finding ways to keep an ever growing and dangerous population of humans alive to consume and destroy nature?

You seem to be discussing policy issues and confusing them with scientific knowledge.

Or perhaps your point is that it is evil to have the knowledge to be able to grow more food, because someone might use it? This seems ridiculous. Even in the cases of the most dangerous technologies arising from science (eg nuclear bombs) these are emphatically the result of government policy, not science working in isolation. And of course, nuclear bombs are a technology, not science.

Asking how can science be blamed is about like asking how religion can be blamed for all the things people like to blame it for. When you look at science zealots and religious zealots, you will see, they are much more alike than different.

Except they are not. I have worked quite a few years in a scientific research in the public and private sectors, and I can assure you it is a mixture of being an academic researcher, a commercial consultant, and a source of information for governments to make informed policy decisions, and none of them is at all like being a zealot.

If this was intended to be ironic, it did a great job! Otherwise, not so great. 

Nope, not ironic at all. 100% The truth.

I uderstand about people who think so highly about science. It really is no different than the religious zealots out there; ready to point out why their belief is the right one. And, that's OK. We're all human and are prone to this problem.

How do you know knowledge is so great? Just because it has done a few useful things? Because it makes you feel like you have something when you have it?

There is absolutely NO PROOF that more knowledge makes the world a better place. 

Think about splitting the atom. 2 Of science's biggest creations are based on splitting the atom (atomic bomb and atomic energy) and both of them have caused more harm to humans and the Earth than any benefits have been derrived.

History is full of this; vaccines to cure that hurt, medicines that do nothing to cure you, chemicals that pollute The Earth, technology that distracts to the point that this knowledge people talk so highly of cannot even be consumed and processed to a useful level by an ever growing number of young people.

Yeah. I won't lie. I like some of the things science has produced. But, like so many things out there, it is dangerous in the hands of humans.

Anarchos61
AaronGo wrote:

Liberals never let facts stand in their way.

Why single out Liberals? Lots of people have axes to grind, right, left, whatever- and it's pretty human to seek out evidence that supports whatever you happen to believe. There's even a term for it, "confirmation bias", and scientific methodology is specifically structured to negate it. Of course, lots of other influences can distort the objectivity of the scientific endeavor, such as who controls the funding, but the method usually wins out in the end.

Elroch

Yes, Sean, kleelof is being inaccurate. Science is objective knowledge about the real world.  I like to make the analogy of a muscle and the things you can do with it.

As well as being technology developed in response to government policy, the atom bomb turns out to be a poor example for another reason. It has only been used twice, and historians generally agree that more deaths would have occurred if the bomb had not been dropped: the Japanese had a firm no surrender policy. So it was the lesser evil, in a situation where there was no superior option.

Anarchos61
kleelof wrote:
mcris wrote:
AaronGo wrote:
kleelof wrote:

People believe science is the answer to everything.

The problem with science is that if enough people repeat it, then it will be considered true.  For a decade, Gore (who runs the carbon exchange market) has been screaming about global warming.  It has been proven false many times.  Personally, I blame soccer for the lack of truth in science. 

You people are soooo far from what is Science. Without IT, you couldn't write and play chess on this website because Internet would not exist! And yes, global warming is real, see on Wikipedia (or do you think it is liberal?)

Science,like Christianity, has produced some useful things. The problem really is that there are so many very destructive and dangerous things that have been created in the name of science. 

In the name of science? A wonderful medicine can also be a poison and the technology that makes it possible to explore the universe can also destroy a city. The positive outcomes tend, on the whole, to be in the name of science while the negative ones represent misuse of power, greed, corruption and just plain stupidity. 

Anarchos61
SeanHarper15 wrote:

You could argue we are better off with knowledge and science when an earth ending asteroid is on a dead centered path with the equator of our planet and we have the technology and science to divert it..... Or would you rather the human race and all the wonders of our planet be erased?

Actually I think we might be stuffed on that one, science or no science! We should certainly have more people looking for the damn things, but I don't think anyone has worked out what to do if they knew one was heading straight for us!

Iluvsmetuna

I don't know if all-knowing science has figured out what an appendix is for yet.

Iluvsmetuna

Ah! Elroch is already well into the hijack phase of the thread.

Elroch

Stalking again, tunaluvvvver?

It's a shame that the people who think the world was great before the Enlightenment can't be sent there. Smile

Iluvsmetuna

You're the effin stalker!

told you before to bug off but you couldnt stop your nag nag nag

RonaldJosephCote

            Why is Google building an ARMY of robots??   ( I know the answer, I just wanted to throw this in the thread)

Feufollet

Modern medicine IS bad for your health and well being.

The more educated you are, the more you will find all sorts of ways to stay healthy and pray you never land in a hospital or a doctor's office EVER....keep those "meds" and those "injections" away from me - I'm NOT SWALLOWNG. YIKES.

Best thing I've ever done for my health.

Feufollet
kleelof wrote:

Science should be questioned every step of the way. More damage has been done to The Earth and humans through science than all the religious zealots have done over the millenia.

The author of this article does not do much to convince. He even supports fracking which has TONS of evidence that it is not safe for the environment.

All the unsolvable catastrophic, sword of damocles doomsday problems were/are caused by scientists monkeying around with the laws of nature - "engineering" short-sighted solutions....especially, the ones in the chemical industry...corporations, "researchers" and politicians (all in that stew pot of capitalism)- THANK YOU for our world!

JamieDelarosa

"Knowledge is good." - Emil Faber

kleelof

Can you prove it?

Elroch

First, one would need to define "good". But if good is defined with respect to the person or entity that has the knowledge, it seems obvious that an informed decision always has an advantage over an ininformed one, so can be a better decision.

To flip the question, ignorance is dangerous, because it causes greater uncertainty and thus makes it more difficult to avoid unwanted consequences.

There is also the type of information that increases options. If a new option is introduced, this is of advantage. The time it could appear to be a disadvantage is if someone made a bad decision as a result of new information, but this involves not using the information optimally, or having been deceived - if false information is acted on, this can be detrimental. The latter does not apply to objective, reliable information.

Kronsteeen

I lost you after 'is always has'.

Elroch
Kronsteeen wrote:

I lost you after 'is always has'.

I had corrected the typo before I read this a few minutes after posting. No excuse now!

Kronsteeen

Well go back so we are not so ininformed lol.

Kronsteeen

So the pubs are 24 hr. Now?