Science is not a perfect institution

[DaleSpam]

dalespam....you have strange ideas. you welcome nulear industry??....what are we gonna do with the waste? much of it is used in teirwars such as Depleted Uranium. have you any idea the damage that has done to pople, the environment??? it is unspeakable!

who do you think lives near and on the toxic waste of your favourite technology. in this instance am not just speaking about nuclear waste, but the waste from general technology. who lives near and on it....?

You missed the whole point of my post in the context of the current thread. The point is that science, or the scientific method, is nothing more nor less than a specific method for obtaining knowledge about how things work.

The scientific knowledge that is used to produce nuclear waste is the same knowledge that is used to cure cancer in radiation therapy. The scientific knowledge itself is neither good nor evil, it is completely amoral. Only the uses of that knowledge can be classified as good or evil, and one single piece of knowledge can have both evil and good uses. I would not get rid of the knowledge required to produce nuclear waste because then I would have to get rid of the knowledge required to treat cancer. They are the same knowledge.

You can no more blame the scientific method for the nuclear waste in your backyard than you can blame Prometheus for the arsonist burning your house down.

-Dale

 

[DaleSpam]

"Science is getting away from nature and working against it!"

On the contrary, science is simply a method for gaining knowledge about nature.

-Dale

 

[Buddha1]

If you want to call your reality scientific then indeed you have to adhere to the scientific method.

...and unless your reality can be termed scientific it is not considered reality at all.

The corollary to this is that even if unreal things are termed scientific they become reality --- automatically!

 

[Buddha1]

Did you really misunderstand my post that badly, or are you deliberately responding to a parody of my point rather than my actual point?

I don't know if Deundy understood your point, but he has made an extremely valid point --- that is not unrelated with what you were saying.

Science, thinks it is God becuase it can control physical aspects of nature, but is complelely mindless of the immense harm it causes to nature.

A person who communes with the plants may not have miraculous results in terms of agricultural output, but it will be totally in tandem with what nature can afford. Science can only fulfill our greed, which can only happen at the cost of nature. And in the final analysis, we are not distinct from the nature taht we survive in. In the end it will all get to us.

 

[heb11v1]

a thought

"Science, thinks it is God"
I didn't know an inanimate subject of study could think.

 

[Buddha1]

I would not get rid of the knowledge required to produce nuclear waste because then I would have to get rid of the knowledge required to treat cancer. They are the same knowledge.

Yet, that nuclear and other wastes produce a thousand times more cancer and other cases that would normally occur amongst humans if the nuclear and other technologies was not there.

In the end we are stuck with nuclear waste and a large number of cancer cases. The majority in the world lives in non-rich so-called under devloped world who cannot afford the costly cancer treatments. And not that such treatments are not bereft of serous side-effects which take out the meaning from life.

 

[Buddha1]

Everyone already knows this. That's why scientists are constantly checking and reevaluating ideas; we know that we might be wrong.

The trouble is the common man does not know this. He is looking for a 'god' which by exposing organised religion as a farce, has been taken away from him. The society presents Science as 'god' to the common man, and he is more than willing to bow before it.

So he places blind faith in science --- and just like religion, science too has its feats to overawe him. So anything that is put forth to him in the name of science is accepted without as much as a wink. He assumes that the scientific methodolgy is foolproof and there is no room for mistakes or fraud.

Of course the ultimate gainers are those that control science, for they get immense power out of it.

If you're willing to ignore all this, you are ignoring an important reality with far reaching consequences, even when what you're saying is true.

 

[heb11v1]

Buddha1:

Out of emmense curiousity I must ask, what defines a "common man."

I wouldn't define myself as anything extraordinary, but I have a hard time swallowing some aspects of "organized" religion for three main reasons:
1. Those "organizing" such religions are only human, and can easily make mistakes when representing the gospel.
2. The Bibles used in many churches/other meeting assemblies were translated by humans, most of which were satisfying their own agendas.
3. The God I have come to know in my own life, doesn't seem to be the kind to support such an organized state of being. Sure He doesn't advocate total chaos, He, too, doesn't seem to work in such predictable ways as: sing 2 hymns, pray, mingle and meet new people, take the offering, listen to the sermon, sing once more and collect the souls.

I don't mean an once of disrespect, I'm just wondering, who are these common men?

 

[Buddha1]

Buddha1:

Out of emmense curiousity I must ask, what defines a "common man."

I wouldn't define myself as anything extraordinary, but I have a hard time swallowing some aspects of "organized" religion for three main reasons:
1. Those "organizing" such religions are only human, and can easily make mistakes when representing the gospel.
2. The Bibles used in many churches/other meeting assemblies were translated by humans, most of which were satisfying their own agendas.
3. The God I have come to know in my own life, doesn't seem to be the kind to support such an organized state of being. Sure He doesn't advocate total chaos, He, too, doesn't seem to work in such predictable ways as: sing 2 hymns, pray, mingle and meet new people, take the offering, listen to the sermon, sing once more and collect the souls.

I don't mean an once of disrespect, I'm just wondering, who are these common men?

Can you tell me what is the relevance of discussing religion here?

Does the fact that I oppose science mean that I'm supporting religion? Or are you trying to make it sound like a fight between science and religion --- in which case do you really think this world is divided between those believing in either science or religion (or may be both)? Just like you view sexuality.....perhaps......

Common man refers to a layman --- the ordinary man on the street --- the majority who is not an 'intellectual', who is involved in his day to day existence rather than worrying about larger affairs.

 

[mountainhare]

Hmm, morons are arguing against science via the internet, using a computer. Oh the irony!

 

[duendy]

You missed the whole point of my post in the context of the current thread. The point is that science, or the scientific method, is nothing more nor less than a specific method for obtaining knowledge about how things work.
me)))))))you cannot separate the ontological worldview of science from its actions. 'science' isn't a pure floating 'thing' ---it is creatd by a mindset. its rise was a eaction to religious indoctrination, but has become exactly what it claimed to supercede. like 'God'........it's VIEW of 'God'. THAT's te utter danger of it!

The scientific knowledge that is used to produce nuclear waste is the same knowledge that is used to cure cancer in radiation therapy. The scientific knowledge itself is neither good nor evil, it is completely amoral. Only the uses of that knowledge can be classified as good or evil, and one single piece of knowledge can have both evil and good uses. I would not get rid of the knowledge required to produce nuclear waste because then I would have to get rid of the knowledge required to treat cancer. They are the same knowledge.

me))))))you are really naive. you imagin 'it' --ie., 'science' is amoral (which i dont agree with)? but rrr the people who apply it are IMMORAL. what tey claim to 'cure' theycreate. itis an industry. fr example we have such.....te same players--big players behind the cancer-PRODUCING induastries like nuclear waste, pesticieds ettc...got their faces in te 'cancer industry'.....also. dig how it works?.....you see , when 'God' was dsmissed and all pretence of --at least--the GESTURE of care for fellowman, then soul was REALLY lost---wasn't it?


You can no more blame the scientific method for the nuclear waste in your backyard than you can blame Prometheus for the arsonist burning your house down.

me)))))RUBBISH

-Dale

wwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[lixluke]

Science is in no way an exploitation of nature, but an understanding of nature.

 

[duendy]

Science is in no way an exploitation of nature, but an understanding of nature.

i notice that all you advocates of 'science' seem to imagine that there is this abstract entity you deem 'science' floating about that is not in conjuntion with people USING it

can you not understand that if thepremise of 'science'--the prevailing accepted, and ENFORCED, science being MATERIAlist science--is that matter/energy is 'dumb and mute and blind'--ie not sentient/without FEELING that then there is gonna be fuckin disaster? which is what HAs happened, IS happening, and will continue to do so till a much broader understanding of reality is understood?

 

[RoyLennigan]

science is an ideal, or a method that is different to anyone, regardless of whether or not they use it. you can't take a label and say it is destructive, or wrong. in hundreds of years i will bet that we will still have science, but it will be extremely different.

the real debate here should be about influence that scientific research has. it seems to me that most research comes out of universities or very respectable labs and that most actual evidence supporting scientific theories is accurate enough to be called true. but, then human involvement takes over and interpretation is made. abstracts are written and the evidence is simplified into something it is not. i think there is something wrong with the way science currently works. but there is also something wrong with the way humanity works at present.

my definition of 'something wrong' here is that we do not have our priorities straight. from the way society has developed over the millenia, it is easy to see that humans will only survive communally (at this point). to advance our species we must work together. but to work together we must rid oursevles of the instinct to dominate over others, making the individual more powerful. this is the hard part since that instinct has developed over billions of years and is well-established in our dna as well as our culture.

scientific theory, as it is developed by people who know it best, cannot leave the hands of those people properly as-is. in the current state of society, scientific theories are so widely interpretable, that most of the time they become fiction or almost complete conjecture in the hands of the layman, or anyone who doesnt specify in that certain study.

the big problem here lies in language. language is too interpretable, it relies on too many metaphors. in fact, language itself is just a metaphor. you learn a word by associating it with an experience and everyone's experience is going to be different. so, obviously, everyone's interpretation is going to be different. in order to relay exact fact, one must have an exact language. math is an extremely good language for exactness, the only really specific language we have developed. but there is still different interpretation of mathematical theories, though a lot less.

 

[DaleSpam]

Yet, that nuclear and other wastes produce a thousand times more cancer and other cases that would normally occur amongst humans if the nuclear and other technologies was not there.

Not even close Buddha. Thyroid cancer is the main cancer associated with nuclear waste and it is a very uncommon cancer. In fact, the most common form of cancer is skin cancer ( http://www.medicinenet.com/cancer_causes/article.htm ) and skin cancer is predominantly caused by sunlight. Nuclear waste is much more carcinogenic than sunlight, but sunlight causes much more cancer than nuclear waste because it is much more widespread. Your 1000x more cancer assertion is ludicrous. However, I am not interested in a counting argument here. Something that is morally or ethically wrong does not become right simply because more people benefit than are harmed (or vice versa).

My point remains that knowledge by itself is neither good nor evil, and science is simply a method to obtain knowledge. What is done with that knowledge is the resposibility of the individuals who do it. An individual with knowledge is more powerful than one without, but this increased power can be used for greater good or greater ill. That makes the individual good or evil, not the knowledge. You are trying to blame Prometheus for the arsonist.

-Dale

 

[DaleSpam]

The trouble is the common man does not know this. He is looking for a 'god' which by exposing organised religion as a farce, has been taken away from him. The society presents Science as 'god' to the common man, and he is more than willing to bow before it.

So he places blind faith in science --- and just like religion, science too has its feats to overawe him. So anything that is put forth to him in the name of science is accepted without as much as a wink. He assumes that the scientific methodolgy is foolproof and there is no room for mistakes or fraud.

Less than one hour later.

Can you tell me what is the relevance of discussing religion here?

It doesn't seem fair, reasonable, or even self-consistent for you to bring religion up and then dismiss it as irrelevant when someone else responds in kind.

-Dale

 

[Buddha1]

Less than one hour later.

It doesn't seem fair, reasonable, or even self-consistent for you to bring religion up and then dismiss it as irrelevant when someone else responds in kind.

-Dale

Are you really incapable of differentiating between the contexts.

The poster I responded to was trying to make the whole issue like it was one of relgion vs science --- and as if I was speaking from the religion's side, while I was trying to equate science with religion. There is a whole world of difference between the two.

 

[duendy]

Roy says: The real debate here should be about influence scientific research has

me))))there is much to learn about te'poitics' of scientific research----how it is funded, by whom, who peer reviews accepted research ...etc. tis will show us/you just how connctd at thehip are science and state

But i don't know i i have quoted R.D.Laings description of te origins of science...? here it is agin. tell me you'll reponses to this in detail if possible:
To make it possible for scientists to describe nature mathematically, Galileo postulated that they should restrict themselves to studying the essential properties of material bodies - shapes, numbers, and movement - which could be measured and quantified. Other properties, like color, sound, taste, or smell, were merely subjective mental projections which should be excluded from the domain of science. Galileo's strategy of directing the scientist's attention to the quantifiable properties of matter has proved extremely successful throughout modern science, but it has also exacted a heavy toll, as the psychiatrist R.D.Laing emphatically reminds us: 'Out go sight, sound, taste, touch and smell and along with them has since gone aesthetics and ethical sensibility, values, quality, form; all feeling, motives, intentions, soul, consciousness, spirit. Experience as such is cast out of the realm of scientific discourse.' According to Laing, hardly anything has changes our world more during the past four hundred years than the obsession of scientists with measurement and quantification" (( The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture, by Fritjof Capra, ps. 39-40)

 

[DaleSpam]

you cannot separate the ontological worldview of science from its actions. 'science' isn't a pure floating 'thing' ---it is creatd by a mindset. its rise was a eaction to religious indoctrination, but has become exactly what it claimed to supercede. like 'God'........it's VIEW of 'God'. THAT's te utter danger of it!

I am not separating science from its actions. Here are the actions of science:

The scientific method
1) Define the question
2) Gather information and resources
3) Form hypothesis
4) Plan experiment
5) Do experiment and collect data
6) Analyze data
7) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
8) Communicate results

I have no idea what led you to believe that science is a reaction to religious indoctrination or that science claims to have superceded God. Science is a method to obtain knowledge. It was developed to allow us a consistent and systematic way to learn and predict things about the world around us, and it has been enormously successful in doing so. Many of the world's top scientists have been and are devoutly religious. Even more have believed in the existence of God without adhering to the tenents of any particular religion. These religious scientists (myself included) see no incompatibility between belief in God and use of the scientific method to learn about the world He created.

you are really naive.

And you are really immature, or at least your writing is. You barely write on a middle-school level and, as a result, your posts are very confusing. In the absence of coherent arguments please try to at least write coherent sentences. If you are in middle-school perhaps you should try to spend more time on your posts. It will go a long way towards enhancing your credibility.

RUBBISH

Case in point.

-Dale

 

[duendy]

ami in middle school indeed! no ...but am probably old enuf to be yer daddy. so respec!
have you read my post beforeyours? tell me what you think. do NOT begin the ad hominem game or i may ignore your attitude. okay?