Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 204 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#20891 - 04/25/07 10:29 AM Is Science the answer?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
I am responding to a quote by redwener in another thread and thought it might generate some debate.

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Science, through its objectivity, has the potential to unify humanity. Ignorance has the potential to destroy it.


This is where science clearly steps over into the realm of faith. This is Scientism. What evidence do you have that science will unite all humanity? What evidence do you have that, in real terms, science is all that objective? To say that it is interested in objective knowledge is certainly not the same as saying it is always objective in its application. It is clearly not. Especially when you get close to the societal issues affecting humanity. It becomes a minefield of subjective belief.

Take for example the thread I started on the Narcissism test. Its veracity was immediately (and rightly so) questioned. How do you actually get at any of these issues? If we are creating a society of people that are obsessed with self and have become praise junkies, then we have an issue. Even from an evolutionary point of view, all kinds of mechanisms such as guilt, maternal/paternal drives, the need for intimate contact with others and so on, have arisen so that we can have cohesive groups that afford a better chance of survival. In a modern society it is essential that we cultivate people who are not self obsessed and are more willing to look outwards to their social responsibilities than working so they can have the latest ipod. Otherwise where do all the future scientists, philanthropists and politicians, who are willing to put themselves out for the greater good, come from.

If we have a world of scientists who are interested in personal wealth and acclaim more than the pure social good that can be achieved, then we have a real problem. We no longer have a science that will go where the issues are or even where the greater good can be done – we end up with a science that goes where there is the greatest funding and the greatest chance of getting your face on Newsweek.

Some have a concern that science has already reached this place and is therefore losing its overall objectivity as it becomes a more political and financial beast and dare I say it, prone to the curse of the modern day cult of celebrity.

Putting all of this aside, there is still the question of the prevailing paradigm that changes on an ongoing basis. For example, our understanding of the brain is going through faster changes than the H151 virus. And yet with each iteration, we think we have a good enough understanding to be prescriptive about human behaviour. We are currently seeing research that is blowing apart ideas of neurology that have been with us for the last 30 years or so. And more importantly we are going back to previous understandings in some areas – ideas that have been discarded.

So how do we know that any particular scientific thought system is correct or reliable for making proclamation about human behaviour – and it is in the realm of human behaviour that we face most problems as a species. Is the discipline of science going to solve these issues? Or are these things so very complex that they are more like art than science? Could it even be that framing humanity in scientific reductionist terms could actually exacerbate our problems? We are not robots and we do not behave in logical ways and like QT we are not entirely predictable. Unlike QT we may not even be predictable at macro levels. Managing ourselves in those terms may not get at the issues.

It surprises me when people put science on a pedestal and see it as the answer to all our problems. To say it somehow has the power to unite all humanity surprises me more. Science is in the hands of subjective people with the same needs and drives as the rest of us – they also play with things that have massive potential to destroy us or wreak havoc on whole nations. Or does science want to disown things like the motor car? Has science any more ability to see the long term effects of what it does than anyone else – did it have any idea that the car would pollute the planet until the car actually did start to pollute the planet? And if it did, what was done? Science is a mixed bag. It is best not to forget this and not get too carried away.

History tells us that we have continually seen solutions to our problems and that if those solutions are uncritically adopted then those very solutions have caused further problems. Scientism will not serve us well, but a proper understanding of what science can and cannot do will serve us greatly.

The saying ‘who polices the police’ is apt – ‘who performs objective research on science and scientists’ or do we just have faith that they will ‘unite all humanity’ and solve our problems.

Blacknad.

Top
.
#20893 - 04/25/07 10:41 AM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Blacknad]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
That's very good Blacknad. I especially liked:

"Even from an evolutionary point of view, all kinds of mechanisms such as guilt, maternal/paternal drives, the need for intimate contact with others and so on, have arisen so that we can have cohesive groups that afford a better chance of survival."

And:

"a proper understanding of what science can and cannot do will serve us greatly."

Top
#20904 - 04/25/07 03:03 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: terrytnewzealand]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I agree with you Blacknad, but I think it depends on how one interprets the original message to which you're responding.

"Science, through its objectivity, has the potential to unify humanity. Ignorance has the potential to destroy it."

I think science is important. I think it's something we need to understand well. While I appreciate the attempted objectivity of science, I don't think that that is its greatest virtue. I'm convinced that science has the potential to help us avoid a 'lot' of needless suffering, but clearly science is not the only thing we need.

Most of what we as individuals know is not logical or scientific. Some of what we 'know' is bound to be false. Science is useful for helping us extricate ourselves from that - it doesn't guarantee that we can figure out mistakes, it only provides a potential method for recovery.

Science doesn't - and can't, using fallibilism - guarantee Truth.

But a thing - an opinion or an idea - doesn't have to be scientific or logical to be useful or desirable. But it's important to know what science is, how it works, what its limitations are (to reiterate what you said), but ALSO to understand that other kinds of 'knowledge' are also subject to error - and the errors in those kinds of knowledge cannot always be overturned so easily as those of science.



Top
#20907 - 04/25/07 03:50 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Wow, Right on; to all of this.

As I've said in many threads "Science is just a tool."

Getting cooperation to use the tool is a whole 'nother story.

re: ‘who performs objective research on science and scientists,’ Social Scientist could go a long way to helping scientist and politicians to cooperate.

In the end it is the politicians who have to cooperate if we're going to use science to say-- save the Earth from an impending asteroid hit (or GW, or....).

That would be politicians with support from religions and similar social institutions, I suppose.

What a wonderful thread, Blacknad.

~samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#20908 - 04/25/07 03:51 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Thanks Terry - I was expecting more critiscism though - come on - let's have a healthy punch up over this smile

TFF, I agree with you completely - your words are very balanced.

And your last point - I presume you are talking about religion, amongst other things - I agree completely. Dogmas that are based upon nothing more than things like tradition and a subjective interpretation of ancient writings are notoriously stubborn in reacting to new knowledge and this is (just one) of their weaknesses. Scientific knowledge it much more fluid and this is its great strength - and the fact that it relieves much suffering when at it's best, i.e. it has a definable and demonstrable benefit.

I would try to balance this with the damage that I think SOME technology has done to society. It centres mainly around television and satellite and other forms of entertainment that I think have had an adverse effect upon social cohesion. People are less likely now to have strong links to their local community and even their families - to the point that we now have to pay experts to talk to us when we have problems, which was a role traditionally filled by friends and family. Incidentally studies have shown that people recover from trauma as quickly by spending quality time with family as they do by engaging mental health workers.

This whole problem is partially caused by a preoccupation with technology and gadgetry. We simply spend more time in front of a screen that face to face with real humans. Technology is both a blessing and a curse - there are more positive benefits than you can count, but we also live in an unhappier age than we did 40 years ago if depression, suicide, crime, drug abuse figures are to be believed, and one of the abiding themes of modern society seems to be loneliness and a desire for meaningful, intimate contact with others. We also have a tremendous drive to get the latest gadget and have replaced the old class system with one based upon the fashion you can afford and the products you own - this is partially driven by technological innovation.

With TV, I remember a study showed that when it was introduced into a tribal group their young females started to experience eating disorders for the first time within six months. So it opened up the world to them but also brought problems - blessing and curse.

I would ask: Who is going to grapple with these issues and provide solutions? Who is going to understand the different impacts that science is having upon society (for ill and for good)?

For example, science has had a reductionist effect upon the individual - it tells us that we are no more valuable than anything else - it tells us that we will be extinct like everything else - it tells us that we are just a bunch of evolutionary driven desires and that beauty, love, justice, mercy, evil, good, and so on are just illusionary and are simply human constructs - it tells me that the deep and seemingly noble love I feel for my daughter is no more than hormones and proteins pushing my behaviour and that the idea of a central me that is in control is simply illusory.

The upshot of this is that people are left in the position where they are prone to existential angst and nihilism. The scientific view has stripped us of real meaning – if everything I do will be forgotten and is irrelevant then what is the point?

Now this may be true, (though I suspect not) and ‘the truth shall set you free’. But what do we replace this with? When we strip away meaning and leave some (obviously not all) to think that hedonism and the serving of self is the only meaningful response, are we surprised if people become more inward looking and clamour after short term highs, living for the moment and the next PS3 game that will distract me from this hard and crappy life for the next few hours? I’m overplaying it slightly here smile

If scientific progress is not to inflict immense harm on us and the global psyche then we must engage our best minds to think about how we deal with the fallout from knew knowledge, and construct a new and meaningful narrative that will bring us together instead of allowing the age of the individual to continue to grow.

The problem may be that there is no profit in it.

I may be wrong.

It seems that the strength of religion is that it does try to grapple with these issues and has mainly sought after values that bring cohesion to society such as self-sacrifice, loving your neighbour, putting other's needs before your own etc. And it often uses such terms as love, charity, mercy, responsibility, duty, stewardship, forgiveness, honesty and so on. These things have been seen as concepts that help make 'good and docile little citizens, but I think that we now understand their value in the breach.

What does the modern education system do whilst it tells children that they are just a vessel for their selfish genes? How does it engender a caring and compassionate persona?

In England our children are stabbing each other to death at an alarming rate and the expulsion of children under five years of age from school is at an all time record because they are uncontrollable – drug use in under-tens is almost the norm.

What is the solution and what part can science play? It is an honest question. Science has some of our very best minds - how do we engage them in these issues that are not as super-sexy as working with particle accelerators, but just as needed. This is the problem maybe, our genius is engaged elsewhere and we are left with the dense politician to sort society.

Blacknad.

Top
#20910 - 04/25/07 04:11 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Blacknad]
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
Originally Posted By: Blacknad

"This is where science clearly steps over into the realm of faith. This is Scientism"


Woaaa back..."Scientism?" What hell is Scientism? I hope you are not suggesting that it is some sort of new religion.
I further hope that you are not suggesting that Goverments should place their faith in scientists to rule a country, a panacea for solving all our intractable problems. That word Scientism sounds very much like it.
Science, is able to give us the ultimate truth upon the working of physical property on this earth. Whether it be a manmade machine, or the use and final effects of a particular proccess producing a hostile enviroment.
Science may be an ongoing truth, able to predict the future, of any human process.
But that does not mean it should ever be classed as 'Scientism the ultimate answer". There are too many interactive processes that affect each other going on, to allow science to rule. The societal issues/ills affecting humanity can only be lessened, even cured by good Goverment acting upon feedback from the people. Science should be used in an advisory capacity by goverments only. Were Science to rule it would go the same way as Religion, downwards, maybe even quicker, since it holds the most complicated facts and processes of knowlege that just cannot be combined for the good of mankind, due to the way we pass laws, and rule.
Science is the ultimate truth. There maybe many ways to to achieve a certain project. But there is only one way which is the best way, in terms of efficaciousness towards the human being and our future.
Science should not govern, any more than religion should.
Goverment should be in the hands of the elected, who take note of the changes that happen around them, and act accordingly even use science where benifits are possible.
May write more later, but got to go out now.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.
.
_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
#20912 - 04/25/07 04:24 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Mike Kremer]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
What is Scientism? It is something to be avoided -that's the way I took it.
re: "This is where science clearly steps over into the realm of faith. This is Scientism."

I like science and rely on it as a tool, but statements such as "Science is the ultimate truth," seem to elevate science beyond the status of tool, up to the status of a belief system, Scientism.
Saying, "Science is the ultimate truth," makes people who see ultimate truth elswhere, recoil against science.

At most, I would say 'Science seeks ultimate truth.'

~SA
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#20914 - 04/25/07 05:14 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: samwik]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Originally Posted By: samwik
At most, I would say 'Science seeks ultimate truth.'


Samwick,

Totally agree, and it does a very good job of it too. Again, it is about making science work for us, and not letting science become an all encompassing dogma.

Religion fails most when it becomes powerful and monolithic. Science will be no different. It is a tool to improve our lot and understand our universe and even possibly the nature of existence. It is not THE truth. Again, it has it's subjectivity, it's corruption, and all sorts of pressures that keep it from delivering ultimate objective answers.

Science is never value-free.

Blacknad.

Top
#20915 - 04/25/07 05:15 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Blacknad]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Blacknad. I guess I should be honoured that your making such a meal of my two sentences grin

Your paragraph, above, about narcissism, seems misplaced here. It looks like a reply that belongs in the thread that you mentioned. However, my post in that thread, together with this one, serves as an adequate response.

Blacknad: "Scientific knowledge it much more fluid and this is its great strength..."

That, of course is very true. It's "fluidity" derives from the famous "scientific method" (though it's obviously not famous enough). The truths of science, although provisional and subject to frequent fine tuning, are universal. Because of this my statement was: "Science, through its objectivity, has the potential to unify humanity"

It isn't my intention to imply that other factors aren't involved. That much might be clear from reading my other posts. My intention is to contrast the unifying aspect of science with the divisive effects of religious dogmatism. As you said -

Blacknad: "Dogmas that are based upon nothing more than things like tradition and a subjective interpretation of ancient writings are notoriously stubborn in reacting to new knowledge and this is (just one) of their weaknesses."

Exactly. "Notoriously stubborn" because such dogma is not derived from anything like the scientific method but rather, it is claimed, derives from a "divine" source. Furthermore, and more seriously, such dogmas represent a dangerous ignorance that often finds itself in conflict with the equally dangerous ignorance of other dogmas! Because of this, my statement was: "Ignorance has the potential to destroy it [humanity].

Blacknad: "What evidence do you have that, in real terms, science is all that objective?"

Are you serious?

Blacknad: "This is where science clearly steps over into the realm of faith. This is Scientism."

Am I to take it that I struck a nerve, Blacknad? This does appear to be an extraordinarily defensive posture. No, it's not scientism, and no, I don't take offence,

From Wiki:

"Scientism is a term often used today as a pejorative to describe someone of holding the view that science has primacy over all other interpretations of life such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations...Today, the term is often used against vocal critics of religion"

_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#20916 - 04/25/07 05:19 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Mike Kremer]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
Woaaa back..."Scientism?" What the hell is Scientism?


Now that's more like it.

I think we all kind of know each other well enough now to have a spirited and lively debate without it degenerating into nastiness.

Cheers Mike - you go boy! smile

Blacknad.

Top
#20918 - 04/25/07 05:28 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: redewenur]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Blacknad: "What evidence do you have that, in real terms, science is all that objective?"

Are you serious?


Red,

Yes I am serious. Peer review IMO is flawed. The idea that nothing can be taken seriously until it is peer reviewed - and what gets peer reviewed is not straightforward - if you disagree with the consensus you will find it harder to get your work 'out there'.

How is this objective? This is often about editors of scientific publications and their reputations and own predilections.

You only need to look here to see what kind of reception you will get if you don't agree with certain people's take on things. How many anti-anthropomorphic global warming people have left in disgust at their treatment? How are scientists any more objective than anyone else when it comes to such matters?

In some cases 'peer review' has more to do with 'peer pressure' than anything else.

You cannot confuse the objective methodology of science with its overall subjective application within society.

Now I really do expect a kicking. Is telling scientists that peer review is flawed the same as running into a mosque and telling the Iman's that Mohammad was a pervert? Which one am I more likely to come out alive from?

Blacknad.


Edited by Blacknad (04/25/07 09:16 PM)

Top
#20919 - 04/25/07 05:46 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Blacknad]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Scientism is the veneer of science, without the substance. It's something that has the appearance of science, uses scientific jargon, some parody of its methods, but is not science.

I'm not sure I agree with blacknad's use of the term there. (Not saying I disagree, just that I'm not sure.) I don't think the phenomenon he's talking about is scientism, so much as a misunderstanding of science.

Science,imo, is a necessary thing for human progress. It's not absolutely necessary, but it's necessary in the sense that its proper application can save us a lot of heartache. However, science is not sufficient for human progress. Other things are needed - drive, imagination, courage, balance, values, a sense of 'oughtness.'


Top
#20920 - 04/25/07 05:46 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Blacknad]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Yes, we're confronted with politics and human nature. The point, however, is that the scientific method, per se, is objective. Dogma? Well, that's a non-starter in the objectivity race.

I stand by my original statements.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#20921 - 04/25/07 06:18 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Blacknad]
Canuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/16/07
Posts: 203
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Wow - great post Blacknad. Yes a kicking might be headed your way. Not from me though.

I think the scientific method can be objective and usually is, I just don't think science is always objective. But I think the loss of objectivity has more to do with political decisions being made while the science is still ongoing.

You bring up climate change as an example. I truly do think this has left the science field entirely, and is almost a wholly political discussion now. Why? Because politicians are making decisions based on it. Canada just announced we'll be banning incandescent light bulbs by 2012 (why bother worrying about the mercury in the fluorescent ones). We have the IPCC allowing bureaucrats to wordsmith the final documents. People are ostracized for asking questions on the assumptions surrounding the CO2/temperature relationship, or even the basic question of how average global temperatures are estimated.

When things like this are occurring, it's evidence to me that the scientific method has left the building. Once the politicos start using the science in their election platforms, the topic becomes politicized, and objectivity is a thing of the past.

So to sum up - the scientific method can be objective, if the topic at hand is far enough removed from the political process.

Although there's always the bias introduced by the never-ending quest for funding dollars......

Top
#20925 - 04/25/07 07:24 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Canuck]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Originally Posted By: Canuck
Although there's always the bias introduced by the never-ending quest for funding dollars......


Good post Canuck,

I think your last sentence is key to the debate. Science cannot separate itself from the frailty of human nature - but it is often touted as something that is objective and strangely the only human endeavor that is trustworthy. As we have seen here - 'Science is ultimate truth'.

The use of the phrase Scientism is not about attacking science. It is about the philosophical position that is clearly held by some that science is superior to all other methods of improving human experience. Or even that it is the only viable method of enacting change.

All I am saying is that science is incredibly powerful and important, but currently it has no real involvement in sorting out the societal woes that currently beset us and may in fact have contributed to them in some way.

I am not a religious nut who cannot accept the validity of modern scientific knowledge such as evolutionary theory. I love SAGG because it attracts some great and interesting people and I enjoy the discourse, but mainly because I love science - it's triumphs and it's massive potential excites me.

I just think it should clearly understand both it's strengths and weaknesses. This can only serve us well and will also serve science because it sometimes suffers with slightly poor PR. I don't want anything to stand in the way of what it can deliver.

Blacknad.


Top
#20926 - 04/25/07 07:44 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: redewenur]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Originally Posted By: redewenur
From Wiki:
"Scientism is a term often used today as a pejorative to describe someone of holding the view that science has primacy over all other interpretations of life such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations...Today, the term is often used against vocal critics of religion"


Red,

This is exactly what I mean by scientism. The last bit about religion, well, I don't really have a big problem with scientists attacking religion. Religion has much to answer for and it will not help itself if it doesn't take criticism on the chin and respond positively to it. It must make itself open to a reasoned critique.

I will of course try to defend the idea of God and the spiritual and a universe that to me seems designed, and that is only fair - but I will defend anyones right to give religion a verbal going over.

Thank you all for some great responses. TFF, I keep going back to your first post - it is so well balanced.

I'd love to invite you all round to my house for a cuppa and a good ol' debate smile

Blacknad.

Top
#20927 - 04/25/07 08:03 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Blacknad]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Blacknad, of course your comments are influenced by your position as a defender of your faith, and your use of term the 'scientism' is appropriate rhetoric. I can understand that. I don't intend to give religion "a verbal going over". You are quite aware of it's failings, not least of which is the generation of violence in thought, word, and deed throughout the world.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#20934 - 04/25/07 11:02 PM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: redewenur]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"In some cases 'peer review' has more to do with 'peer pressure' than anything else."
That could be true. I'm willing to accept that peer review is flawed. I'm not sure that it's quite so bad as you think. However, there is no perfect system. There are VASTLY more deserving papers that are available for publishing than there are reputable journals in which to publish them. But journals don't get to be reputable by publishing any crap that comes along. And, yes, there is probably a lot of subjectivity to the process - but without it, fellow scientists would waste a lot of time trying to figure out what makes sense and what doesn't.
There are people who demonstrate repeatedly that they don't even understand the basics - and then whine about how they can't get published - guys like Dembski, for example.

Behe, I notice, has most of his publications in an Italian journal - supposedly a good one, but apparently their peer review is a little less stringent than Science or Nature. Nothing to prevent these guys from publishing in lesser journals or in coming up with their own journals - surely they could get funding for such a project. But real scientists wouldn't buy into it. They'd continue to keep Science and Nature and Cell on their shelves - and eventually the ID mag would disappear as people realized it was just a vanity press with no new developments in actual science.

"I just think it should clearly understand both it's strengths and weaknesses. "

Entirely greed.


Edited by TheFallibleFiend (04/25/07 11:05 PM)

Top
#20942 - 04/26/07 04:11 AM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: Blacknad]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Blacknad wrote:

"Thanks Terry - I was expecting more critiscism though - come on - let's have a healthy punch up over this".

It's because I agree with 99% of what you say.

The only argument I have with you is:

"The scientific view has stripped us of real meaning – if everything I do will be forgotten and is irrelevant then what is the point?"

You answer thatt yourself:

"we must engage our best minds to think about how we deal with the fallout from new knowledge, and construct a new and meaningful narrative that will bring us together."

A new religion?

Top
#20950 - 04/26/07 09:57 AM Re: Is Science the answer? [Re: terrytnewzealand]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
I'll try to write more later, but one quick observation.

The objectivity/subjectivity thing started out comparing science and religion. Comparing different ways of knowing is very interesting to me and I think it is important to the topic.

This thread seems to have shifted to the object/subjectivity of the PROCESS of science itself, and not the CONCEPT of science as a way of knowing anymore. I've seen lots of discussion about the process of science and would rather avoid that road. smile

Later....
~~samwik

_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.