Science, good or bad?

[Freethinker]

With Embryonic Stem Cell Research as the current line in the sand, it seems that every time Science finds a new area of research and advancement, some group of people want to claim Science and the things it finds are bad and wrong. We have seen it since the concept of science first appeared. From vivisection, anesthetics, cleanliness, germs, vaccinations, blood transfusions, solar system, evolution, birth control, in vitro and now of course embyonic stem cells, Science has been under attack by those wishing to maintain some antiquated status quo.

 

Is Science a good or bad thing? Have the facts and results improved or harmed society/ the human race? Are we better off by accepting the tihngs Science has discovered? Or would the human race be better off without the knowledge and facts?

 

Or would the world/ humans be better off not having gained factual knowledge of our physical nature? Would we be better off in ignorance?

[Tim_Lou]

one thing special about human is that we have knowledge, a very board knowledge.

the nature gives us the ability to discover and thats the advantages of us.

we are out-standing from other organism because of this.

so, stop doing discovery is simply deny the advantage of human races and will lead to an extinction of humans similar to dinosaur.

 

: )

[alexander]

Simply this:

Stupidity does not drive a society, never the less is it a any smaller part of it than that of smartness(and this inclides science and tech...), stupidity is like a weight holding a baloon suspended in midair, there seems to be more of it, but it is a lot less dense than everyone thinks it is...

 

For my point of view I'll say this, I think that science has always been rejected, the only people that respected it was ancient Egyptians, for whom, the wise man was always useful. But scientists, throughout the ages have lost their touch, most died before finding out that their works have been fenomenal, some proved things that were not even discovered, some declared things that still do not exist. But without scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and so on, the world would not be where it is now, we would still be living in caves and hunting, fishing and fighting over who deserves a bigger bone to this day... Think about it, where would we be now, if we were not able to evolve?

[sundog]

Science in itself can be a very good thing. There are BIG problems though. Like the way we handle our discoveries and knowledge. We often try to run before we can walk. i.e. we identify benefits and uses of a new discovery and implement them before we fully understand or are even aware of the implications. For example DDT, Thalidomide, Nuclear waste and bombs etc.

 

Also, most of our knowledge of science has only been around for a relatively very short time. The benefits we have gained, have come all too quickly and allowed our numbers to grow at an astounding rate. Our presence in large numbers has made quite an impact on life on Earth. As I understand it, it has been estimated that since 1970, approximately 30% of biodiversity has been lost. Partly, if not largely, due to the effects of mankind.

 

I see ethical issues involved with our rate of benefits. Let's take medicine as one example-

 

Would you deny you son, daughter or other loved one, LIFE SAVING treatment?

Of course not!

 

What if it meant a few animals suffered a little discomfort?

Probably still no question, it means saving a loved one.

 

How about if it meant some animals actually die?

You may still go ahead but feel a little uncomfortable.

 

Now, what if it meant a complete species became extinct? Or MANY species?

Hmmm...

 

As I look a the big picture, this is what I see happening. OK, saving ones life does not directly relate to extinction of species. But in effect, trying to cure all ills and saving every human life you can, is ONE FACTION that has led to our boom in numbers. Thus the impact on biodiversity.

 

I am IN NO WAY saying we should refrain from using medical facilities. I am merely trying to point out that we have gained so much benefit through knowledge, in such a small time, it has had an effect on all life.

 

So if science had progressed very slowly, or we had dealt with the knowledge more carefully, then it would not have had such a negative effect. We have certainly had much benefit from science and it may even save the 'entire planet' one day.

 

There's much one can say, and many ways of looking at this topic, but I'll leave it at that for now.

 

Let's have some more views on it.

 

 

sundog

[Tormod]

Sundog, a good argument but I would also point out one important question when it comes to the "life saving treatment" issue.

 

The question is: "Will it work?"

 

Scientists, or more importantly the marketing departments in big science laboratories, often tend to use the "this will save lives" argument but as in any other walk of life (like, say, in business) you would always ask for some indication of expected "return on investment" (ROI).

 

When someone wants to kill animals or try out toxins in nature or anything harmful at all they must always ask if the end result will really work. WILL this help save the person(s) in question?

 

As for the stem cell debate, I for one am very much in favor of allowing stem cell production for research and medical use. But there is still much we don't know.

 

So to respond to Freethinker's post I'd say science isn't good or bad. Science is a tool, a process. However, people's intentions when using science or calling upon scientific evidence as pillars of truth, may be more or less valid. When a shampoo manufacturer states that some stupid, unnecessary effect (like "works with the molecules inside your hair to produce a long lasting shine") is "scientifically" proven but offer no evidence for this (and even after having tested the shampoo on animals who suffered or died) - that is a misuse of the term "scientific".

 

They could as well have written "We spent a billion dollars on testing this and it will work but the side effects, if you experience them, may lead to hair loss and scalp problems" which would be more honest, more likely, and more understandable. But it wouldn't sell more shampoo.

 

Have science changed human nature? I think the answer to that one is that without science, we would not be human. Science did not start a few millenia ago - when farming was adopted tens of thousands of years ago that was science, too (finding crops that yielded the best results in the different types of ground available, year after year).

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

One of the problems is NOT with SCIENCE itself, but with the funding sources and the media. Often when research is being done, info is "leaked" in order to drum up business or given misleading headlines to sell advertising in the media.

 

As noted here, there were two studies released RE low carb vs low fat diets. Same studies, yet look at the headlines:

 

Low-carb Diet More Effective Than Low-fat Diet, According To New Study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040518073128.htm

 

Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040518/HLOWCARB18/TPHealth/

 

At last, scientific proof that the Atkins diet works

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8126-1114710,00.html

 

Atkins and low-cal diets equal out after a year

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/173727_atkins18.html

 

Low - carb not a slimmer diet

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-05-17-low-carb_x.htm

 

More distressing than the totally opposite claims made by each media source is how some sources totally ignored what was said in the details of the study report. Notice how these two headlines completely contradict each other. Even though they are about the SAME REPORT.

 

Study casts doubt on benefits of Atkins diet

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999116/

 

Scientists endorse Atkins diet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3722221.stm

 

Research into the studies finds:

 

Of Stern's one-year study, Keith-Thomas Ayoob, associate professor of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, notes: "[O]n the low-carb diet, the weight began rebounding after six months. As such, if you want to do a study that maximizes results on a low-carb diet, keep the study short."

 

Even Frederick F. Samaha, author of the second study and chief of cardiology at the VA Medical Center in Philadelphia, agrees the low-carbohydrate diet may not have continued success after one year.

 

"Patients on the low fat diet continued to slowly lose weight while the low-carb group gained a little weight," notes Samaha. "The low-carbohydrate diet may not be as sustainable."

 

Further details show:

 

Yale University nutritionist Dr. David Katz states: "Remember that over the years, we have seen these kinds of benefits, rapid weight loss and improvements to cholesterol on all carbohydrate diets, too. Rice diets and grapefruit diets — all diets work and no diets work."

 

This is typical of what happens with Scientific research when it gets dumped out of the lab and into the media. Lots of mis-information and confusion. Headlines that are inaccurate and often plain wrong. Add to this the Corporate Machine pressure. Wanting a high ROI ASAP.

 

So how often is the "problems with science" not actually with SCIENCE, but with the community that surrounds science, the media and the public's ignorance?

[Tim_Lou]

well, yes, science is troubling....

 

but thats the way it is!

 

there are troubles about singers, actors.

there are troubles about politics.

there are troubles about living, jobs...

there are troubles about playing, having fun...

 

thats the way it is lol.....

(what a troublesome world!!!!)

[Freethinker]

What's your trouble Tim? lol

[sanctus]

I liked very much what sundog said, I also already asked how many dead dogs are equivalent to one saved human life. My answer to this is none. Does this mean I don't want to use the medicaments found through the sacrifice of a couple of thousands dogs (or any other animal)? Not at all, I just don't want help mantain such a kind of research. It would be worse not using these medicaments. then that would mean that they died for nothing.

[bumab]

...I'd say science isn't good or bad. Science is a tool, a process.

 

I'd have to agree, neither good nor bad, simply a new way of looking at the universe. Perhaps a better (or different, anyway) question would be: Has science made people happier? Are we more content and happy now, knowing what we do, then 600 years ago or 6000 or 60,000 years ago?

 

It's not an easy question. When you think about it superficially- of course, I'm happy my grandparents are still alive, due to medical science, at 70. But that's really only because I know medical science could keep them alive for this "long, full life." 300 years ago, a long full life would have been to 55 or so. Not knowing it was possible to live past that, I would most likely be just as happy as now.

 

Science brings this possibility of more food, but it is only percieved as good in contrast to the knowledge that without science, there would be less. For example, the Native Americans were supposedly very content in their system of living, but when the scientific Europeans came along, suddenly things weren't good enough. Those that survived lived longer, sure, but were their lives any better?

 

I don't know the answer to my question. Has science made people happier, or has it only made people more aware of how "bad off they are," and then filled that void. A lot of times I wonder if science is just making people happier and more content by creating crisis to solve.

 

That sounds like I'm against science.... hmmm, it's not supposed to. But I do like to keep teh scientific part of humanity in perspective, I guess. And yeah, I support stem cell research as well.

[Tormod]

I don't know the answer to my question. Has science made people happier, or has it only made people more aware of how "bad off they are," and then filled that void.

 

There is no final answer to that question because it is a philosophical issue. However, that science exists at all is at least evidence of humanity's attempts to classify their understanding of nature into definable categories so that things can be studied.

[bumab]

There is no final answer to that question because it is a philosophical issue. However, that science exists at all is at least evidence of humanity's attempts to classify their understanding of nature into definable categories so that things can be studied.

 

True... I'll just answer the question :)

 

So- science good or bad? Neither, such descriptors do not apply.

[motherengine]

Is Science a good or bad thing? Have the facts and results improved or harmed society/ the human race? Are we better off by accepting the tihngs Science has discovered? Or would the human race be better off without the knowledge and facts?

 

Or would the world/ humans be better off not having gained factual knowledge of our physical nature? Would we be better off in ignorance?

 

science is not good or bad. the motivations of individuals may be destructive and abusive but science is a system that has existed, as kubrick and clarke so beautifully expressed, since the 'dawn of man' and though given initially violent aspects in the film tool making has given rise to some very interesting developments. personally i believe humans are both better off and worse off for applied science. ignorance (as you are defining it here) is a universal impossibilty. i think human technology has evolved out of sinc with human maturity but then who knows what is to come.

[motherengine]

For my point of view I'll say this, I think that science has always been rejected, the only people that respected it was ancient Egyptians, for whom, the wise man was always useful.

 

you are forgetting the greeks and the aztecs and oriential cultures....etc.

[Fishteacher73]

Unless superstition is the backbone of a society (mideval europe), they will usually embrace new thought. Societies grow and prosper from sound engineering and planning and good leaders recognize this. Only when a society is faltering does it seem to embrace more mystic ideals and exert a backlash against science. This speeds the decline.

 

Without science we would still be banging rocks together and praying for rain. There would be no agriculture, no refined materials, no archetecture, no art, no explaration/navigation, etc. Science has moved us up from nomadic hunter/gatherers focused on sustinance.

 

True, science has brought about some bad things. Nukes are not the best thing humans have evere done, but without science we still would beat each other in the head w/ rocks. Polution is an issue, but we are much more effecient and our land use in agriculture is better, and we are slowly rectifying the "black spots" of science with science. If we are to condemn science, there would be no solutions to our problems.

 

Science in terms of humanity is essential to what we are; without it we would be little more than hairless apes.

 

Science is good.

[alexander]

you are forgetting the greeks and the aztecs and oriential cultures

oh i was missing a ton of others too, but only naming those will take the space of that entire reply, if not more, but i think that just one example let you have the gist of it...

 

Nukes are not the best thing humans

on the contrary, the idea behind a nuke is one of the greatest discoveries out there, but what made it wrong is the beleif in that a stronger weapon will result in world peace, its like hippos that before fighting compare the sizes of their mouths. I think that nukes were a good intention that was put to a bad use by the politics...

[Crim]

I agree with mother engine, it is not the science, but the applications of science. These people that decry the scientific advances may seem to be directly knocking science itself, but really, they are decrying the opening of another avenue to which "wicked man" can avail itself. It's not the science itself, it is the science meshed in with society, and the thought of potential changes in the paradigm of that society. Some are fine with change, some are not. Some need solidarity with their fellow citizens, some do not. Science is a tool, and like any tool....

 

As far as our own maturity and development of technology/science, I truly don't believe that there is a -significant- mismatch between science and maturity/social development. Social stuff can improve, but it is not as huge a gap as you might think... insignificant. My theory is that social development and maturity is directly linked to technological and scientific ability. Where I can see the link is that in order to understand higher scientific concepts, our ways of doing things and looking at things needs to change. And it does... slowly. As a level 0 species (in terms of energy), our maturity is not too high or too low. We have the ability to blow ourselves up, but in the grand scheme of all things very large, that is all. Nature is insulated from us. The only things truly at risk, are ourselves. If nature links development of maturity with scientific advance, when we do come up with something in the magnitude of gravitational effects rivaling black holes, we won't take much bigger things with us. To understand the higher concepts, we will require different perceptions, which will in turn affect our reasons for doing things (not likely to involve ROI).

 

So, if the above has any semblance of truth, it means that relatively, our scientific success on the grand scale equals our current world and domestic affairs....