Science, good or bad?

[lindagarrette]

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.

 

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

 

Science is good.

You seem to be including everything progressive in the category of science. That's one way to look at it but usually there are other fields that contribute as well. I think the progress of humans is because of individuals, not fields of study. Most people are content to do the same things over and over and are not really interested in learning more than what's required to survive. Then there are a few who lead the pack with ideas and acceptance of the new and different. That's Nietzsche's concept of the "Uberman" (superior being), without whom we would be still cavemen. The Uberman can be an artist or a philospher, an inventor, a politician, good or evil, just outstanding in some way. Willing to take a chance, make a difference.

[Fishteacher73]

I am not saying that science is the only factor in any of these studies, but without an understanding of the science, at least through trial and error found working solutions, of any of these disciplines they really could not have amounted to much. While early on, there really was not the unifying sciences that we have today, and it may have been more of an innate understanding of these principles. But if one does not embrace and utilize the laws of naute, failure is the only option. Possibly an appreciation of the sciences would be more an apt view than an understanding of science.

 

As well as I am sure that many of these other disciplines have been used to further science as well. These other disciplines are illustrations of science in action and work very well at illustrating where any oversights have occured, thus giving us a better grasp upon the principles.

[Morphyous]

Since the first men to discover the properties of fire, realised that meat tasted better cooked and That metal exuded from some rocks when heated, man has pondered and sought answers to questions and solutions to problems. Science is too fundamental to man to be bad. If science hadn't existed someone would have invented it. :)

[motherengine]

since everyone seems to be in agreement here i will sacrifice myself as devil's advocate and suggest that human use of the scientific method is the worst thing that has ever happen to the natural world: progress makes things more complicated than they need to be for survival and creates an unhealthy divide between humanity and the rest of nature. technology affords comfort on one hand and the inevitability of a viral epidemic on the other. synthetic drugs, television, pollution, nuclear proliferation, new and improved ethical problems every day, justification for human arrogance matched only in religious fanaticism, plastic surgery addictions, internet child pornography. yes human beings are still here and flourishing and now even more f***ed up than ever before. a cancerous tumor, given the required ability of consciousness, would speak of its destruction of the body it inhabits as progress and as a 'good' thing as well. thoughts?

[bumab]

That's more the use of science- does the use of the scientific method make science bad? Does the use of knives for stabbing make knives bad? No...

 

So are you saying scientific method is inherently bad because it led to all those bad things, or was the use it was put towards the inherently bad thing (thus "corrupting" science), because people used it and people are bad (or something like that)?

[Queso]

It's just one of those things that.. "if it falls into the wrong hands..." kind of thing. and everybody has their different opinions on who actually HAS the wrong hands.

[Fishteacher73]

Although humans have moved out of the law of the jungle (for the most part) we have used the instincts and drive for personal gain (power is more the object now instead of off-spring). Yet we still have the internal drives to out compete others. I think it is this drive that causes individuals to hijack ideals and systems for their own benifit. Pretty much social Darwinism; but just as Darwinism is not an accurate picture of what is actually going on in the evolutionary realm (its Punctuated Equilibrium now) the same cross-over of concept I think applies. We now have social punctuated equlibrium. This implies that individual shifts to gain the best edge at the moment but with no real regards to how this might impact any future events. Look at communism, captialism, religion, etc. these are all systems that individuals have mis-used for their own gain without any real concern about the effects rippling out from their actions. Science has been used in this manner as well. I think those that abuse are not the same that use and expand it. Just as Marx or Adam Smith did not come up with social systems to be abused, others took the reigns for their own gain.

[alxian]

who actually HAS the wrong hands?

 

he who would put his own betterment before that of the species.

 

those who would destroy the species without its consent.

 

those seeking profits for alterations and change that is essential to the survival/growth of the species.

 

i'd have a hard time distinguishing between all those criteria with something like stem cell research since the benefits are incalculable, but a few voices raise a few weak concerns and the technology is virtually shelved.. its not who has the dirty hands its who decides, and that for now is the gov't and heads of religions of man. neither in my opinion being authorities on the subject but both are well meaning and unwilling to take the blame should the tech not pan out or .. lead to disasters.. like a disease free utopia of self regenerating godlike creatures vaguely resembling man. .

[bumab]

It's just one of those things that.. "if it falls into the wrong hands..." kind of thing. and everybody has their different opinions on who actually HAS the wrong hands.

 

that's not true... isn't it always "everybody but me?" :(

[motherengine]

I think those that abuse are not the same that use and expand it. Just as Marx or Adam Smith did not come up with social systems to be abused, others took the reigns for their own gain.

 

from what i understand albert einstein was involved in the manhattan project.

[alxian]

science should not be restricted only strict controls need to be laid down for its exploitation.

[beccareb]

I cannot believe that science is a bad thing when many people I know (including myself) would have died a long time ago if it was not for scientific research.

[Tormod]

from what i understand albert einstein was involved in the manhattan project.

 

No, he was not for national security reasons. But wihtout his theories the bomb would probably never had been made.

[bumab]

We now have social punctuated equlibrium. This implies that individual shifts to gain the best edge at the moment but with no real regards to how this might impact any future events. Look at communism, captialism, religion, etc. these are all systems that individuals have mis-used for their own gain without any real concern about the effects rippling out from their actions. Science has been used in this manner as well. I think those that abuse are not the same that use and expand it. Just as Marx or Adam Smith did not come up with social systems to be abused, others took the reigns for their own gain.

 

That's an interesting idea. I've heard of social Darwinism, read some, etc. etc. but not social punctuated equlibrium. Know of any good sources on this?

[Fishteacher73]

That's an interesting idea. I've heard of social Darwinism, read some, etc. etc. but not social punctuated equlibrium. Know of any good sources on this?

 

I really do not know...I just really extrapolated that idea myself...there may be other concurring ideas out there, I really do not know. Just took the concept of social darwinism and updated it to the current ideas of evolution, al a social punctuated equilibrium.

[C1ay]

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.

 

This reminds me so much about a paper I read elsewhere titled, "The Law of Accelerating Returns". It begins,

 

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light."

 

More here (warning, very, very long article)....

 

IMO science is good and man made obstacles to science are generally not.

 

One example that comes to mind is embryonic stem cell research. It is currently a hotly debated topic as to whether or not it should be allowed or funded. Guess what. Someone, somewhere is going to do this research no matter who or how many object. If this someone, somewhere happens to have some experiment gone awry that threatens the human race would anyone else even have the knowledge to deal with it? Not if no one else at least tries to do enough research to learn their way around the topic. No one will learn with man made obstacles to prevent it.

 

IMO, mankind better do what he can to learn the most that technology has to give because technology is going to move forward whether we are ready for it or not.

[bumab]

Guess what. Someone, somewhere is going to do this research no matter who or how many object...

 

IMO, mankind better do what he can to learn the most that technology has to give because technology is going to move forward whether we are ready for it or not.

 

That would not be an acceptable argument from a moral point of view, however, which is most of what the opposition is basing thier thougts on. Whether or not the research is going to be done does not make the research OK. That is, although something evil might be inevitable, that doesn't make doing evil to prevent it ok. Bad is bad.

 

An analogy is this: Knowing Hitler was going to create all that misery, and kill all those innocent people- would it be OK to go into his preschool and kill him as a 5 year old? (presuming he was a normal kid).

 

I hate to use Hitler, it's so cliche, but that's the first thing to came to mind.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying that's my opinion as far as stem cell research, but that's the argument you would hear back.