Science is not a perfect institution
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
Communist China has used science for no better purpose. Perhaps even worse. It has ruined its ecology with science --- to get food and employment for its vast population.leopold99 said:
I think the problem is in science --- and in its approach to world. Of course another part of the problem is the institution of science with its politics and exttreme religion like power.
Science carries all the negative baggages of the exploitatie religion. Like the antibodies to a virus tend to be like the virus in order to beat it.
Of course, without using the fruits of the scientific method, maoist china would have had large scale population die backs. And without the use of scientifically created methods of birth control, they would wreak even more damage to their ecosystem by overpopulation.
Well, just to confuse things, there is the scientific method and the results of that that are often also called Science. The first is what you do to make the second. The first is a system, a way of doing things that gets things done, and sets up agreed things that have been observed.Buddha1 said:
Now, use of the scientific method does tend to marginalise "arts" and stuff, but that is perfectly normal. After all, trying to use art to make your car work better wont work, anymore than using science to paint a picture doesnt work very well either.
I would say that the method is mostly independent of the results found. You use the method, and follow it where it leads. But as has been said before, there are things like teh supernatural that just are not available to the scientific method.
I thought that too, but surely, for some people that is not enough. They say you should go through a particular 'standardised' process to have your 'observations' qualified as science. To be able to go through that procudure, you need to be trained in it and have a degree in it. Then you must be selected by some institution.leopold99 said:
Thus it practically takes away the power of the individual to observe, discover and invent, because the power now lies solely with the institution of science.
Religion had done that earlier to people. It made 'god' and 'spirituality' inaccessible to individuals. Individuals lost the power to relate to god on their own. They had to enroll themselves as members of the church in order to access god. And believe/ be trained in the dogma of religion. Man lost his personal connection with god, and thus believed only what was presented to him as the word of god.
What on earth do you mean
"Without science there would not have been overpopulation."
How? Because more people would have died?
Certainly not because "more people would have been born"!
What the fuck has science got to do with overpopulation? Its a method of understanding things, and actually, it goes against natural human tendencies (like yours buddha) to make irrational illogical emotional assumptions etc.
Its the fucking "low standard of living hoards" that keep over producing, to either support themselves, or to replace the ones that die: so they have 8 kids and if 5 die thats ok.
Western civilisation cares more for its children (you might say spoils them if your nasty) than any other culture.
On the other hand, its the high living standard, highly educated, not only in the world but in each society, that have LESS children, producing a "dysgenic" effect.
Do you want me to start pulling out statistics?
PEOPLE run institutions. PEOPLE have motives, like greed, competitiveness, ruthlessness, disregard for safety, etc.
So your criticism is with SOME of the scientific INSTITUTIONS - the greedy careless ones. The ones trying to patent genes and gene testing for example.
""Thus it practically takes away the power of the individual to observe, discover and invent, because the power now lies solely with the institution of science.""
Ever consider, if you had something constructive you'd like to discover, that you could discover it through science? HAve you or your family ever been vaccinated?
What, like its impossible for anyone to belong to that institution? There are more scientists than priests, and thank "god" for that, at least they safe some lives.
The thing about religion is that its personal, everyone can have different views (well except they fight most wars over those differing views).
Religion is personal. Science isn't. Science is about understanding things that are fact, that affect more than the individual.
Most importantly buddha, exactly WHAT are you doing, or GOING to do, about your concerns about SOME of the scientific institutions - anything constructive?
When I finish my studies I'd love to work in a hospital - you won't see me working in a corrupt scientific institution, I'm not in it for the money.
"Without science there would not have been overpopulation."
How? Because more people would have died?
Certainly not because "more people would have been born"!
What the fuck has science got to do with overpopulation? Its a method of understanding things, and actually, it goes against natural human tendencies (like yours buddha) to make irrational illogical emotional assumptions etc.
Its the fucking "low standard of living hoards" that keep over producing, to either support themselves, or to replace the ones that die: so they have 8 kids and if 5 die thats ok.
Western civilisation cares more for its children (you might say spoils them if your nasty) than any other culture.
On the other hand, its the high living standard, highly educated, not only in the world but in each society, that have LESS children, producing a "dysgenic" effect.
Do you want me to start pulling out statistics?
PEOPLE run institutions. PEOPLE have motives, like greed, competitiveness, ruthlessness, disregard for safety, etc.
So your criticism is with SOME of the scientific INSTITUTIONS - the greedy careless ones. The ones trying to patent genes and gene testing for example.
""Thus it practically takes away the power of the individual to observe, discover and invent, because the power now lies solely with the institution of science.""
Ever consider, if you had something constructive you'd like to discover, that you could discover it through science? HAve you or your family ever been vaccinated?
What, like its impossible for anyone to belong to that institution? There are more scientists than priests, and thank "god" for that, at least they safe some lives.
The thing about religion is that its personal, everyone can have different views (well except they fight most wars over those differing views).
Religion is personal. Science isn't. Science is about understanding things that are fact, that affect more than the individual.
Most importantly buddha, exactly WHAT are you doing, or GOING to do, about your concerns about SOME of the scientific institutions - anything constructive?
When I finish my studies I'd love to work in a hospital - you won't see me working in a corrupt scientific institution, I'm not in it for the money.
i hope so Huwy, but be warned. this culture thingy can be extremely sneaky, and befo you knows it its got ya by the short n curlies. dont believe for an instat it is a kind of sra shackle affiar with nobody knowin whata going on. the DO!......there is much mush effort to mind-control thepeople. so rather tan defy tese insights, YO find out abou them. wecan give you pointers---soz if i sound patronizing----and you check em out, rathe than dismissing them outright. oncew you click about their ways and means of social control, you can really begin exploring bhind the facade
GUTHRIE says :"At times thoug [Lockhart] gets confused to my mind about exactly what science does/is [ie] he makes he sme mistake Buddha1 and yoursel do, which is confuse the scientific method and its fruits with some kind of monstrous world viewpoint. Indeed, he seems to go as far as suggest that science is culturally determined...."
me)))))))well let me summarize briely how isee the development of science:
it begins wit an agreement with the Church that it will focus on material forces, and
Chruch will deal with 'spiritual' issues
in post-Galilean science, the 'spirutal' ideas of te Church are abandoned, and we enter a mechancial understading of reality
now tis i'm gonna say is what ifeel to be a CRUCIAl point, so please listen...challenge, whatever:
te cCurch had alREADY created a dogma which psychologically splits 'spirit' from matter........yes? (please see te chart i presented in philosophy forums titled 'The eVOLUTION OF dUALISM')...ie., the church had equated the concept of'spirit' with the male, ascetisim, clarity, order, truth.....and teir mindset regarding matter can be understood by their mythological motif of the 'Devil' being at te centre of matter, as 'Prince of the World....right? hence pagansm heretics who actually, or were tortured to claim they had spiritual experience WITh Nature were deemed demonic....SO, do you see how teCurch had crewated a schism between their concept of 'spirit' and matter?....and from that skewed dogma science emerges..!! so from the very beginnings the SHARED premise between Church and science was false
then as said, science even dispenses with the fals notion of spirit and believes in th sole reality of MATTER. we are still wit tat mindset. and it ha stripped meaning out of everyone's lives. yes, the Church was oppressive, as teir ideology would see to that. but can you not see that materialistic sciencefurthes this degradation by mechanicalizing reality?...and thar this IDEOLOGY is culturally determined? in fact if one cannot cope with it, tis very culture judges them to be 'mentally ill'!
me)))))))well let me summarize briely how isee the development of science:
it begins wit an agreement with the Church that it will focus on material forces, and
Chruch will deal with 'spiritual' issues
in post-Galilean science, the 'spirutal' ideas of te Church are abandoned, and we enter a mechancial understading of reality
now tis i'm gonna say is what ifeel to be a CRUCIAl point, so please listen...challenge, whatever:
te cCurch had alREADY created a dogma which psychologically splits 'spirit' from matter........yes? (please see te chart i presented in philosophy forums titled 'The eVOLUTION OF dUALISM')...ie., the church had equated the concept of'spirit' with the male, ascetisim, clarity, order, truth.....and teir mindset regarding matter can be understood by their mythological motif of the 'Devil' being at te centre of matter, as 'Prince of the World....right? hence pagansm heretics who actually, or were tortured to claim they had spiritual experience WITh Nature were deemed demonic....SO, do you see how teCurch had crewated a schism between their concept of 'spirit' and matter?....and from that skewed dogma science emerges..!! so from the very beginnings the SHARED premise between Church and science was false
then as said, science even dispenses with the fals notion of spirit and believes in th sole reality of MATTER. we are still wit tat mindset. and it ha stripped meaning out of everyone's lives. yes, the Church was oppressive, as teir ideology would see to that. but can you not see that materialistic sciencefurthes this degradation by mechanicalizing reality?...and thar this IDEOLOGY is culturally determined? in fact if one cannot cope with it, tis very culture judges them to be 'mentally ill'!
Buddha1 said:
What I see as a good example of what you are referring to here is when "Science", that is organized activity of a group of people with credentials in something scientific who serving some particular organization, decide to conduct their activities along the lines of the influence of social pressures (economic/religious/political) to come up with certain results or apparent indications that society wishes them to come up with, do so, instead of starting with facts and following them where they logically lead.
That's a big sentence, but I think it's clear enough.
People may look for certain answers using valid scientific methods, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's rational for them to be looking for the answers they have in mind. Some hypothesis's, however scientific the methods of attempting to verify them are, still may have no good reason to be pursued, except due to unscientific influences. The hypothesis themselves may be wholly founded upon an socio/political agenda, and not the pursuit of the truth at all.
In other words, what "truths", or hypothesis's scientists decided to pursue may have no scientific reason to be considered in the first place, however "scientifically" they pursue them after arbitrarily accepting them (arbitrary from a scientific standpoint). They may accept them in the first place only because there is an unscientific socio/political influence to have scientists work on them and possibly only to find something to apparently coroborrate with science certain social desires and purposes.
I would give an example or two, but any example I can think of would only cause this to turn into a debate on them and not just the possibility of what I'm trying to indicate.
What I'm saying is that it's possible to have a hypothesis with no good reason to consider it and then pursue it with scientific rigour. It's like, it's possible to do stupid things very well. In other words, it's entirely possible for scientists to be pretentious.
Last edited:
what a stupid quote
having fun bagging scientists while still using the internet, electricity, clean water, and safe in the knowledge that western medicine will cure you of most illnesses?
how many times do people have to tell you buddha that morality is a human characteristic, and has nothing to do with science?
having fun bagging scientists while still using the internet, electricity, clean water, and safe in the knowledge that western medicine will cure you of most illnesses?
how many times do people have to tell you buddha that morality is a human characteristic, and has nothing to do with science?
I hardly think thats "raising awareness" buddha.
Take the greedy japanese whalers who are harpooning australian whales in the southern ocean, in the name of "scientific research".
Its fucking disgraceful, and they are ramming the greenpeace boats.
If I had a missile I would shoot those whaling japs out of our waters.
I'm going to sign as many petitions as it takes to get them kicked back to the land of small penis.
If you even care about anything other than bitching on the internet buddha, why dont you do something constructive?
E.g. care about the environment, theres a whole range of courses in "environmental science" - its not just a subject its a whole FIELD.
care about animals? become a vet, an animal rights campaigner, etc. Join the wilderness society.
But if your going to just sit there and make vague "criticisms" of "science" - because you pretend to reject modern western society and its values (which you rely on), it won't achieve anything, and i'll be forced to resume pointing out the stupidity of the bullshit you spout on this forum.
I think I'll start by pointing out what a scam eastern medicine is.
Take the greedy japanese whalers who are harpooning australian whales in the southern ocean, in the name of "scientific research".
Its fucking disgraceful, and they are ramming the greenpeace boats.
If I had a missile I would shoot those whaling japs out of our waters.
I'm going to sign as many petitions as it takes to get them kicked back to the land of small penis.
If you even care about anything other than bitching on the internet buddha, why dont you do something constructive?
E.g. care about the environment, theres a whole range of courses in "environmental science" - its not just a subject its a whole FIELD.
care about animals? become a vet, an animal rights campaigner, etc. Join the wilderness society.
But if your going to just sit there and make vague "criticisms" of "science" - because you pretend to reject modern western society and its values (which you rely on), it won't achieve anything, and i'll be forced to resume pointing out the stupidity of the bullshit you spout on this forum.
I think I'll start by pointing out what a scam eastern medicine is.
I think there are enough evidences from all around on this thread now, including scientists that clearly point out that not everything is well with our 'science'. Western or Eastern.Huwy said:
As for using the things given by science, there is no other way left for us to do. We live in a society which has been made highly dependant on technology --- there is no escape. But I do try to limit the harm they cause (e.g. I don't use air-conditioners).
And while, science may cure some of the diseases that were incurable before, it has given us more diseases than we ever would have without the technology which has ruined our environment. It has made our lives much hell than it was ever before.
The quote is well in place. One day science and technology will make our planet lifeless too! Unless we change the concept of science with something which flows with nature not seeks to exploit it.
The rest of your post is pure bullshit.Huwy said:
I'll respond to this statement, because it seeks to advice foolishly.
So you think the only way to help our environment is to do a 'course'. And that the common man has no business talking about environment or doing something about it at one's own level.
If you missed another such post given by a similar fool with a similar advice --- to raise awareness, and to challenge those who hold, represent or support 'power' (that is destroying our environment in the first place) is doing something positive for the issue.
I'm sure, if you look at it from the 'science's' point of view. But as we have found out science is not perfect.Huwy said:
Although if you want to discuss the problems with East, start another thread on it.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Huwy, keep up the good work. Someone needs to counter the nonsense Bhudda1 is pushing. I still have him on ignore as part of my blood pressure mitigation program. It is encouraging to see someone using well reasoned and original arguments to address his ill thought out hypotheses.