Notices
Results 1 to 99 of 99
Like Tree14Likes
  • 3 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By pmb
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By DaBOB
  • 1 Post By DaBOB
  • 1 Post By DaBOB

Thread: Is scientific progress an evil?

  1. #1 Is scientific progress an evil? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,157
    .


    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 10:15 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,523
    Do weapons of mass destruction actually keep the peace? I mean the use of such force is likely to be met with equal retaliation.

    If your country had enemies and then developed a weapon that could destroy nations without fear of a counter attack, would you recommend its use?


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Scientific progress?

    Vaccines.
    Antibiotics.
    Prosthetic limbs.
    Hurricane prediction.
    Clean power generation.
    Computers.
    Telecommunications.

    It's not all Dr Strangelove and James Bond movie villains, you know.

    Unjustified interference with people's lives by spying was probably done best by the East Germans a few decades ago. They didn't need any fancy electronic gizmos, just the evil, political commitment to do it. And I don't think the Burmese or North Korean governments go in for technical sophistication much either.

    This is not a question about science or engineering at all - it's about political power and the willingness to use any tool that comes to hand for gaining and exerting social controls.
    pyoko, Daedalus and ccoale427 like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Just had some dental work done, saved a whacked tooth - took about an hour under local anesthetic, cost three week's pay, didn't hurt much at all, is antibiotic protected against infection, will last me for many years.

    Yeah, nuclear weapons are a menace. But science in general? Very much appreciated, thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    It is not the fault of science when man turns a creation into a weapon.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    ``Whatever create scientists they create a weapon``-somebodies expression.
    Do you think science brings to humans more advantages or disadvantages?
    I see two strong tendencies during technical progress:
    1)Weapons becomes more and more destructive.
    2)Unjustified control of some people over other people is growing more and more.
    I mean different all pervasive spying technologies, electronic bracelets, etc.
    Did we already passed the peak of optimal development level?
    What is it we shouldnt know?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Adelady makes a good point..

    But isn't it the responsibility of science to make sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands? or used for the wrong reasons?

    Scientists seem to all beleive they are helping the development of man. Even though the scientific fact is that knowledge will be used for evil deeds.

    How can a scientist work on ways to manipulate forces without knowing that the science they discover will help develop technology which will be used to do harm/control/exploit?

    If they genuinely beleive that the things they discover will only be used for good, then they are naive.

    Do individual scientists have a moral responsibilty to not aid immoral activety? even if it means certain advancements in knowledge do not get added to the body of knowledge?

    The motive for a scientist to share findings is... recognition, personal reward. If the scientist knows the knowledge shared will be used for evil, then the act of sharing it must be evil? the selfish desire for recognition is evil.
    If a scientist isn't aware that his findings will be used for evil, then they are stupid/extremely naive and unable to learn from the experiences of others.

    Einstein told the americans about his A bomb technology becuase he feared the germans would use it against the jews... then he regreted sharing it when he saw the Hiroshima experiments carried out by america.

    This is a complicated issue in my mind and I don't know how it would be possible to prevent science being used to do evil things... Except to only let the most morrally, ethically, conscious and aware people practise science. Anybody that's in it for personal recognition would have to be banned from scientific practise... which would be a tall order.
    But educating all scientists in morality and ethics would be a big step... the problem is, what morallity does science preach? there's no god, theres no reason to life except to survive, evolution is survival of the fittest... which all promotes dog eat dog mentallity and self serving philosophies... doesn't it?

    The other way to look at it is... nothing is evil, it's all for the greater good in the long run... which seems like wishful thinking to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Perhaps the best approach would be to expand our scientific approach.

    There are too many people in the 'hard' sciences and who are not scientists at all who dismiss psychology, sociology and anthropology as unscientific. I'd think we would benefit greatly from a better understanding of individual and group behaviour. With that understanding we might come up with better education, social, policy and decision making processes that could avoid some of the errors we've identified from the past.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Perhaps the best approach would be to expand our scientific approach.

    There are too many people in the 'hard' sciences and who are not scientists at all who dismiss psychology, sociology and anthropology as unscientific. I'd think we would benefit greatly from a better understanding of individual and group behaviour. With that understanding we might come up with better education, social, policy and decision making processes that could avoid some of the errors we've identified from the past.
    I completely agree. Anybody who thinks the study od matter or the universe is 'harder' or in some way more important or rellevant than the study of human thinking and behaviour is deluded surely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Not deluded. But a lot of people are much more comfortable with the science of objects and things outside themselves.

    Dealing with a lot of statistical dissection of the way people behave and think (especially if this means you have to rethink your view of yourself) makes some people very uncomfortable.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Not deluded. But a lot of people are much more comfortable with the science of objects and things outside themselves.

    Dealing with a lot of statistical dissection of the way people behave and think (especially if this means you have to rethink your view of yourself) makes some people very uncomfortable.
    How very diplomatic of you!
    I would say deluded for sure... But then I would say most of us usually are deluded in one way or another.

    In another thread people are telling me I can learn more about my nature by studying available 'data' than I can from meditating and reflecting on my own behaviour and reactions.

    Because it doesn't involve data, apparently that means it's not science! becuase science doesn't mean knowledge... it means recording data and not having an opinion of your own, no matter how well informed that opinion is. Who knew?
    warthog213 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    We may be talking at cross purposes here - I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're getting at. But I would not include meditation or unassisted self-reflection / introspection as a path to truth or scientifically valid conclusions.

    When I say we may need to examine or rethink things about ourselves, I'm talking about those 'oh,dear' and 'uh, oh' moments that come when we read something like Bob Altemeyer's work http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf on authoritarianism. Maybe because we recognise something in someone we know, or in ourselves, in what he talks about. Similar uncomfortable insights sometimes come when we read material on sexism or racism or class distinction. I'm a nice person, I'm not a nasty ...... whatever.

    At which point, we all get up on stage and sing "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" AVENUE Q - 'Everybody's a Little Racist,' Broadway Cast - YouTube and feel a bit better about ourselves.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    We may be talking at cross purposes here - I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're getting at. But I would not include meditation or unassisted self-reflection / introspection as a path to truth or scientifically valid conclusions.

    When I say we may need to examine or rethink things about ourselves, I'm talking about those 'oh,dear' and 'uh, oh' moments that come when we read something like Bob Altemeyer's work http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf on authoritarianism. Maybe because we recognise something in someone we know, or in ourselves, in what he talks about. Similar uncomfortable insights sometimes come when we read material on sexism or racism or class distinction. I'm a nice person, I'm not a nasty ...... whatever.

    At which point, we all get up on stage and sing "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" AVENUE Q - 'Everybody's a Little Racist,' Broadway Cast - YouTube and feel a bit better about ourselves.
    I would certainly class meditation (prolonged thinking in the dictionary) as a means to understand and gain knowledge on ourselves.. and since it's knowledge, it's also science. I've had enough of the scientifically valid process crap for the minute. It might apply to some things, but i fail to see how it applies to understanding ourselves... anyway growing up through life is a series of scientific proccesses for some of us. we come up with concepts, we explore them, we test them, we analyse results, we discard out dated ideas and replae them with newer ones. The cycle goes on. Whats unscientific about it?

    Whatever indeed, I doubt any of us are perfect... some people are certainly nice though, and niceness, whether natural or not is just as common as nastiness.

    Nice, nasty, good bad... they don't even exist. Only in a relative sense.
    That doesn't mean we have to be two face 'double thinking' hypercrits. The fact is, some of us are more conscious of some things whilst others are more conscious of others... is there such a thing as right and wrong?

    I will have a look at that paper, it's an interesting subject... I've spent a fair bit of my time analysing the concept of authority, I can't garentee I will have a 'oh dear' or uh oh' moment but will shall see.

    The fact is that we all have our own authority, we are the only true authority in our lives... Some people are too quick to surrender there own authority to others... Nature, evolution, whatever... gave us free will to choose for ourselves.
    warthog213 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Just to cut in here for a moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I would certainly class meditation (prolonged thinking in the dictionary) as a means to understand and gain knowledge on ourselves.. and since it's knowledge, it's also science.
    Mediation can assist in achieving a state of relaxation and peace of mind whereby introspection in that state is possible, but that isn't "science" per se since the any results and insights gained are applied on a personal level. Sure, you may share your insights with others, but it isn't the same experience for them, not to mention that these insights are also subjected to all forms of bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    anyway growing up through life is a series of scientific proccesses for some of us. we come up with concepts, we explore them, we test them, we analyse results, we discard out dated ideas and replae them with newer ones. The cycle goes on.

    Whats unscientific about it?
    Because it isn't subjected to the rigorous process of falsification by others for verification. After our conversation in the violence thread, I was under the impression that you are interested in various science subjects and disciplines, but what you have said here is pretty disappointing to witness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Listen, I am interested in a variety of science, in pretty much everything not just this very clearly defined word 'science' all knowledge interests me... I was extremely tired yesterday, and bored and kind of frusrated with some of the comments I read, in the violence thread mainly.

    Meditation is not science fine. No problem, I don't know why I was arguing anyway. I just got sick of hearing stuff like 'scientificly valid' objective assesment etc.

    I'd be interested to hear what comments in this thread cuase you the most disapointment?

    Also, How would we go about answering the question of if science is evil, in a scientific way? I figured in more of an opinion thread... and I attempted to give my insights/thoughts on the subject in an impartial way, as much as possible to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Perhaps the best approach would be to expand our scientific approach.

    There are too many people in the 'hard' sciences and who are not scientists at all who dismiss psychology, sociology and anthropology as unscientific. I'd think we would benefit greatly from a better understanding of individual and group behaviour. With that understanding we might come up with better education, social, policy and decision making processes that could avoid some of the errors we've identified from the past.
    I am very glad you brought up this topic. I became very popular in my company because I taught electronics or let me say the flow of electic current on hand of the behavor of the family structure. The students were very happy because they told me that they had some concrete evedence of what they learnt in the science class. I asked them what was different and they said, the fact that they could relate atoms and electrons to the family structure. I can tell you some of my colleges did not think my approach was not scientific but they allowed me because the passing grade of the students were very good.

    I have mentained that science is not our disabling problem on our planet since science has its place in the scheme of things. You could say now that we have found science what are we going to do with it. We could be way past where we are now if we could use the past to help pave the way for the future.

    People go to the universities today to learn how to cheat, to kill, to deceive. They are taught that the sky is the limit. You get people on the forum who want to deform instead of inform. Some of the scientists are taking over the universe and blocking out self knowledge of the universe and since we can't catch up to them they are free to do what they want.

    Social order goes together with science or anyother thing, there has to be virture in the source, virture is finer than matter as we know it. If you mention the spirit on many forums you are thrown off. On some of them they leave out so many aspects of life because science says this and science says that, not admisable by science. It was as if science is the gate keeper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Wise words Mother/father
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    We may be talking at cross purposes here - I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're getting at. But I would not include meditation or unassisted self-reflection / introspection as a path to truth or scientifically valid conclusions.

    When I say we may need to examine or rethink things about ourselves, I'm talking about those 'oh,dear' and 'uh, oh' moments that come when we read something like Bob Altemeyer's work http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf on authoritarianism. Maybe because we recognise something in someone we know, or in ourselves, in what he talks about. Similar uncomfortable insights sometimes come when we read material on sexism or racism or class distinction. I'm a nice person, I'm not a nasty ...... whatever.

    At which point, we all get up on stage and sing "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" AVENUE Q - 'Everybody's a Little Racist,' Broadway Cast - YouTube and feel a bit better about ourselves.
    I would certainly class meditation (prolonged thinking in the dictionary) as a means to understand and gain knowledge on ourselves.. and since it's knowledge, it's also science. I've had enough of the scientifically valid process crap for the minute. It might apply to some things, but i fail to see how it applies to understanding ourselves... anyway growing up through life is a series of scientific proccesses for some of us. we come up with concepts, we explore them, we test them, we analyse results, we discard out dated ideas and replae them with newer ones. The cycle goes on. Whats unscientific about it?

    Whatever indeed, I doubt any of us are perfect... some people are certainly nice though, and niceness, whether natural or not is just as common as nastiness.

    Nice, nasty, good bad... they don't even exist. Only in a relative sense.
    That doesn't mean we have to be two face 'double thinking' hypercrits. The fact is, some of us are more conscious of some things whilst others are more conscious of others... is there such a thing as right and wrong?

    I will have a look at that paper, it's an interesting subject... I've spent a fair bit of my time analysing the concept of authority, I can't garentee I will have a 'oh dear' or uh oh' moment but will shall see.

    The fact is that we all have our own authority, we are the only true authority in our lives... Some people are too quick to surrender there own authority to others... Nature, evolution, whatever... gave us free will to choose for ourselves.
    I give my 100 to that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I'd be interested to hear what comments in this thread cuase you the most disapointment?
    Particularly the portion of your previous post that I have quoted and replied to.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Also, How would we go about answering the question of if science is evil, in a scientific way?
    I'm not sure that we can do it in a "scientific way". I have written something in a different thread similar to what I am about to say here.

    An evaluation of "good/bad" requires the use of a value system, one that the scientific method; that is used to evaluate various science related subjects isn't suited for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Well scooby... Knowledge is science. Science means 'knowledge', I was correct there.

    The process of gaining knowledge does not have to conform to you'r ideas or what is science or not, to be legitimate.

    Other than that I have already explained how I was feeling yesterday (I reflect on that, and I analyse that, I learn from that- it can't be translated into data by me and it can't be accurately interpreted or scrutinised by others perhaps, but I still learn from it).

    As you say it's difficult to evaluate 'good/evil', though the science of ethics, philosophy and maybe psychology can help us with that.

    The fact is the comments i made which you were disapointed with were made in slight frustation in response to other comments and they should be taken in context.

    But... I do not take them back, I stand by them. I still think it's unrealistic to expect to be able to learn more about yourself by studying data on others, rather than using the age old method of introspective contemplation... at least that is the case for me, know thyself, the answers are within. blah blah blah.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I still think it's unrealistic to expect to be able to learn more about yourself by studying data on others
    On the contrary. I find it really enlightening to discover that my thoughts or feelings about something are quite usual - or not - among people generally. Or are different for men and women, or people 30 years younger or older than I am.

    And I can't "know" some things about myself without others to validate or contradict or qualify my view. Am I a good or bad mother, wife, daughter, friend, worker? It doesn't matter that I think that I'm wonderful or inadequate or kind or selfish or right or wrong. The only way to know if I am right or wrong in my judgements about myself is what my children, husband, parents, friends and co-workers would say about me.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I still think it's unrealistic to expect to be able to learn more about yourself by studying data on others
    On the contrary. I find it really enlightening to discover that my thoughts or feelings about something are quite usual - or not - among people generally. Or are different for men and women, or people 30 years younger or older than I am.

    And I can't "know" some things about myself without others to validate or contradict or qualify my view. Am I a good or bad mother, wife, daughter, friend, worker? It doesn't matter that I think that I'm wonderful or inadequate or kind or selfish or right or wrong. The only way to know if I am right or wrong in my judgements about myself is what my children, husband, parents, friends and co-workers would say about me.
    There is always a side of ones self observed by other people, if they are not there our validation would be gone. We are all connected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I still think it's unrealistic to expect to be able to learn more about yourself by studying data on others
    On the contrary. I find it really enlightening to discover that my thoughts or feelings about something are quite usual - or not - among people generally. Or are different for men and women, or people 30 years younger or older than I am.

    And I can't "know" some things about myself without others to validate or contradict or qualify my view. Am I a good or bad mother, wife, daughter, friend, worker? It doesn't matter that I think that I'm wonderful or inadequate or kind or selfish or right or wrong. The only way to know if I am right or wrong in my judgements about myself is what my children, husband, parents, friends and co-workers would say about me.
    Well I think I had a confused idea of what data meant or something....

    Yes we can learn a lot about ourselves from others... you don't need them to give you a quantifiable set of verbal data necesarily, but you can gauge what they think of you.. it's still your reflection and meditation that gives you understanding from the 'feedback' you get from others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    [QUOTE=question for you;346415]
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Because it doesn't involve data, apparently that means it's not science!
    I dont like your way of saying it but you are correct at the moment.
    We are scientists but not scientific things. (yet)

    My guess sounds wild...who cares!
    whenever didnt I sound wild?

    Mind is a "rush hour effect" at a spot
    where much neuroactivity is going on!
    Somewhere between the eyes and the spine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,157
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 10:17 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    &)Vaccines.
    Very controvertial subjetc, especially in the long terms.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    2)Antibiotics.
    I do not know a medic that is not afraid at the level of resistance various bacterias has reached.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    3)Prosthetic limbs.
    Well that one is ok
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    4)Hurricane prediction.
    What ? A sociaty structure to handle huricane does not need further prediction that 1 hour (a line of sight)
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    5)Clean power generation.
    A horse is hardly a progress, nor clean. what do you need power for ?
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Computers.
    Telecommunications.
    What@What ?

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This is not a question about science or engineering at all - it's about political power and the willingness to use any tool that comes to hand for gaining and exerting social controls.
    It is also completely depending on what a progress mean.
    I don't thing having your child saved by a vaccine, is worth if the increased pressure on resources would lead your country to get him mutilated in a war.
    OK the causation is far fetched. But having no respect for the value of the fragility of life and the incredibly complicated balance life (in general) is is NOT progress. And it could be scientifically measured.

    I am regularly dumbfounded at reading the word progress, as if anyone had the same notion of it. Who fixed the goal, and who decide what an improvement is ?
    All Adelady point can very well be measure, and only point 1 (slightly) and 3 (more surely) would scores has improvement.
    Point 4) is quite emblematic. What about stopping to build breakable/non resilient infrastructure ? Isn't it more simple that launching satellite ?
    It is time to change. Stop the bigger/faster/more paradigm. Let's try progress.

    BTW I am a space freak, I am trying to do science and logic. Just saying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    BTW I am a space freak, I am trying to do science and logic. Just saying.
    So am I...Whats your first language?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Very controvertial subjetc, especially in the long terms.
    I can't imagine why you think this. The only people who create controversy are ignorant imams in some countries creating fuss about our last, really crucial effort to banish polio from the face of the earth as we've already done with small pox, and other uneducated people behaving badly in advanced societies who refuse to move beyond the attitudes of a couple of centuries ago.

    As far as pressure on resources goes, what you want is a lower birth rate. The only thing that's ever been known to bring down birth rates is certainty that your existing children will survive. Why do you think that most of the world now has a birth rate near 2 children per women? It's only because vaccines (and other health services, but not much of that in many countries) ensure children's survival to adulthood.

    What ? A sociaty structure to handle huricane does not need further prediction that 1 hour (a line of sight)
    What?! Hurricanes are now predicted in plenty of time for people to get out of harm's way in a very precise location. Do you really think that the death toll in New Jersey - New York from Hurricane Sandy would have been lower if people had waited until the last minute and then tried to run away in front of it? One hour? Probably thousands of people would have been killed on the roads. (Where I live I will never face hurricanes, but I know the advantages of getting out early - long before you see or hear the real threat around here, a bushfire. If embers are falling on your roof from fire 10 or more kms away, it's already too late to get out. )

    Better infrastructure needs to be decided, planned for, regulated - and enforced - decades before the threat arrives if you're talking about roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, airports as well as commercial and domestic buildings. And you certainly need more than an hour's notice if you're to get aircraft away from affected airports and railway rolling stock to higher ground.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    6
    In my own perspective science advancement is not evil lets say it only have the good and bad effect (everything does right), it's up to the people how they'll use it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    63
    raphaelemch ,

    The point is:

    "In this recent 50 years it is the first time that human being is able to commit a global suicide."

    The question is:

    Isnt this ability devilish?

    Answering this question makes different points of view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    mostly, scientific inquiry is neither good nor evil.

    But it is folly to expect that scientist are any different from the population at large.
    Some are really good people, some ain't.
    Some are single-mindedly pursuing their individual course of inquiry to the exclusion of all else.

    The los alamos guys knew that what they were developing would be a weapon of mass destruction.
    Were they evil?
    One said that the jewish scientist there wanted to perfect the weapon for use against germany--revenge?
    Unfortunately, germany had capitulated before their revenge toy was functional, so the japanese got it instead.

    many vaccines, and much of medicine do not irradicate a disease, they simply control it until the germs find a workable mutation.
    and
    slowly
    we are in a battle that with those weapons, we ultimately cannot win.
    until we come up with specific antibiotics for specific diseases?

    basic research remains underfunded, while purposeful science (science with an agenda) is better funded

    without scientific advances(and some damned good engeneering), we would all be a lot more ignorant, and living a more primitive existance.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Very controvertial subjetc, especially in the long terms.
    I can't imagine why you think this.
    That's because I read the newspaper. In France for example GlaxoSmithKline has been condemned in courts for 'faulty' Hepatitis B vaccine.
    Most of the controversy will never desapear, because you propose to replace a natural risk by another one (demonstrably much lower). This is an ethical problem because the second one must be forced upon you. I am afraid that nor you, nor me can decide which one is OK.
    It will always be a matter of personal choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The only people who create controversy are ignorant imams in some countries...
    In some forums too. We are on the philosophical branch, but you'll have to find someone else to talk about/with ignorant people that abide blindly to scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    creating fuss about our last, really crucial effort to banish polio from the face of the earth as we've already done with small pox, and other uneducated people behaving badly in advanced societies who refuse to move beyond the attitudes of a couple of centuries ago.
    There you go. Education is a much better vaccine. It does not figure in your list. You take it for granted. I don't, it is a fragile system difficult to maintain).
    I personally think that producing vaccine through a corporate system motivated by greed is a ticking bomb, but maybe I have got the wrong education, or behave badly and/or belong to a retarded society.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    As far as pressure on resources goes, what you want is a lower birth rate.
    No, I want less competition on resources. I thank you for thinking that I don't intend to reach my goal by organizing a competition between sibling until only a few can survive. That much is already taken care of by nature.
    But I don't like suffering in general, so your supposition is correct anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The only thing that's ever been known to bring down birth rates is certainty that your existing children will survive. Why do you think that most of the world now has a birth rate near 2 children per women?
    I have tree sister, ALL my generation is like that (one of my step brother have 8 sibling). My generation had greater chance of survival comfort, were are all born at the top of our civilization (arround 1970).
    I am afraid this assertion is way to simple, I don't even think that its negative may be prove right (you do more to increase chance of survival (like in a casino))

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It's only because vaccines (and other health services, but not much of that in many countries) ensure children's survival to adulthood.
    Not ensure, but increase. I don't know who you are trying to convince, me or yourself ? I have never said that it was inefficient I rate it to 1. All that I say is IMHO BTW

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    What ? A society structure to handle hurricane does not need further prediction that 1 hour (a line of sight)
    What?! Hurricanes are now predicted in plenty of time for people to get out of harm's way in a very precise location. Do you really think that the death toll in New Jersey - New York from Hurricane Sandy would have been lower if people had waited until the last minute and then tried to run away in front of it?
    Adelady, please. My english is bad, but I never said that. But I'll rephrase anyway:
    You can have not only 100% chance of survival, but a total 1000$ of damaged (instead of Billions) just by formatting all your society to sustains those things like it was a heavy breeze. (That mean an entirely different building mechanics than skyskraper, hanging sign/cable, a few refuge here and there, etc...).
    We have gone through this before, but 500 years ago, how many % of native american would have died in a similar storm, and how much damage their infrastructure will have sustain ? I bet they were resilient because adapted (more like selected) to the local condition.
    I don't think we can go back there, I like my computer, but I do think we can learn scientifically from some very simple logic and observation. I call that science. Maybe I am wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Better infrastructure needs to be decided, planned for, regulated - and enforced - decades before the threat arrives if you're talking about roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, airports as well as commercial and domestic buildings. And you certainly need more than an hour's notice if you're to get aircraft away from affected airports and railway rolling stock to higher ground.
    Bingo ! And strangely, none of your very pertinent points is ever addressed. Those threats are known since aeon (not hours ago), some gods are named by them.
    I think we are in an era PRECEDING any really measurable scientific civilization, because all those premises are NEVER addressed nor at political, nor at scientific level (well yes, but no). Not seriously anyway. We are in the intelligent delusional age IMHO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Very controvertial subjetc, especially in the long terms.
    I can't imagine why you think this. The only people who create controversy are ignorant imams in some countries creating fuss about our last, really crucial effort to banish polio from the face of the earth as we've already done with small pox, and other uneducated people behaving badly in advanced societies who refuse to move beyond the attitudes of a couple of centuries ago. .
    That's a tad rad lady.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Ya think? Back in the 18th century when smallpox prevention was done by inoculation, people had justifiable fears about the process, but even then inoculation was a better option than risking the disease.

    Open Collections Program: Contagion, The Boston Smallpox Epidemic, 1721

    The religious debate was also important. Mather, who had lost his wife and three youngest children in a measles epidemic, argued that inoculation was a gift from God.

    Those opposed to inoculation argued that epidemic diseases afflicted the people for a divine reason, and that to attempt to prevent them was to oppose God’s will.

    Others argued that inoculation, with its roots in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, was a heathen practice not suitable for Christians.
    These arguments from centuries ago are very little different from the current, modern arguments.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman WisdomSeeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    13
    I think people should seek wisdom/knowledge from cradle to the grave, as my religion teaches me. And no, I don't believe scientific progress is bad, but it makes people ignorant. They start to believe science has the answer to everything but forget who gave them the brains for this science.

    On another note, one could say that the latest gadgets such as the tv and cellphones, and Ipods etc etc have made sloths out of people. And children are now spoiled and rude. These things we can live without, but they don't have to be bad. One could use these to actually learn. That's not what we see happening today. Just go to schools, kids are dumber, and shorter because of lack of sleep because they're up all night on these gadgets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    These arguments from centuries ago are very little different from the current, modern arguments.
    Exactly, hardly new, hardly a progress, but somewhat good. Can we more or less agree on that ?

    The long term argument expressed by Sculptor also point a measurable property of any progress, that make it a 'better/more worth diging into'.
    Progress should not be of the 'back fired' or the 'pendulum' type, the more you push, the more hardly it punish you in the end.

    Inventing a atomic bomb. Is it risky ? (welll...)
    Inventing antibiotics. Is it risky ? (knowing a little about the Darwin selection theory)
    Inventing prosthetic. Is it risky ? (Some day they could trust all the gold medals, and it IS a risk)

    Anyway, I can grade them. Is it not (one of some) valid scientific way(s) to classify progress ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    ``Whatever create scientists they create a weapon``-somebodies expression.
    Do you think science brings to humans more advantages or disadvantages?
    I see two strong tendencies during technical progress:
    1)Weapons becomes more and more destructive.
    2)Unjustified control of some people over other people is growing more and more.
    I mean different all pervasive spying technologies, electronic bracelets, etc.
    Did we already passed the peak of optimal development level?
    Science created the possibility for one the following things, to maybe happen.
    If any of the following things do happen perhaps scientific progress would be an evil?


    A lone insane terrorist one day releases a biological weapon, and kills everyone on Earth.

    A chemical gets released into the environment, and stops/changes human fetus development, and the chemical gets in everyone (like the chemicals that already make birds unable to reproduce, and make frogs have 2 heads. Or a chemical like the one, that is even in wild polar bears.)

    Genetically engineered lifeforms, or other scientific biological creations (will in some way be harmful to the web of life), and these genes/creations cause something unknown to science, and they alter DNA and a chain of events happens, and human and other species end.

    A science made "super" germ, biological material, or biological weapon, gets accidently released, and kills everyone on Earth.

    Scientists create a substance, that they think is safe, and they put it everywhere in the world (and its like asbestos, but this science made chemical/material, kills everyone it touches 30 years after contact, and no one knows its dangerous, and everyone on Earth touches it.)

    Scientists do something "like" collide particles at high speeds, or try to create a small star on Earth, and something unexpected happens, and kills everyone on Earth.

    Something "like" the overuse of antibiotics, creates an unexpected "super" germ, and it kills everyone on Earth.

    (or)

    Christians who desire a huge nuclear/biological weapons war, to fulfill the book of Revelation, get into power in many areas. At the same time Jews and Muslims are fighting. Then some one in the group sets off a nuclear weapon, and the Muslims are outgunned. The Muslims then do a biological weapons Jihad, and kill everyone on Earth.

    A group of Adolf Hitler like space traveling alien animals, notices our scientific society created atmosphere by telescope, or notice our radio waves. They then come to Earth, or send a probe to Earth, to kill everyone.


    Is scientific progress an evil? Not yet.




    Science has also caused us to live longer, and produce more food. And this has caused huge population growth.
    While science has created ways to release huge amounts of carbon, to cause the greenhouse effect, and make Earth warmer.
    Global warming could stop deep ocean currents, and America and Europe would be covered in ice.
    At the same time, global warming causes "traditional" crops to no longer grow, in areas that are (not) covered in ice.
    And in the process of all the above events, huge riots and wars happen, and billions of people die, and the very few survivors that are left, live in a "Mad Max" like world.
    Without science we all would have lived as hunter gathers, and I am sure we would have been (very) happy.


    But at some point a huge asteroid will hit Earth, and end the human species.
    And science has given humans the ability, to one day stop that killer asteroid.
    And science has also given humans the ability, to one day spread our species through out our galaxy, and then out of our galaxy.

    You posed a very interesting question.

    Lets just hope that in the end, science is (not) an evil. And it protects Humans from those huge asteroids. And one day it allows humans to spread across our galaxy, and one day leave it.
    Last edited by chad; December 18th, 2012 at 12:44 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by WisdomSeeker View Post
    Just go to schools, kids are dumber, and shorter because of lack of sleep because they're up all night on these gadgets.
    Do you have any statistics to back that up?
    Shorter??? I am above average in height, or used to be, but all the young kids I meet look like a bunch of basketball players. Even most of the girls, teenage or older, are taller than I am, or so it seems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    ~The last time I went to the super market, a customer leaped over the cashier's counter and started bludgening the cashiere to death with a 2l bottle of Pepsi. Someone standing in line exclaimed "oh my god, that bottle of pepsi is a real problem" someone else said "yeah, the behavior is normal, but the evil might just be that bottle of Pepsi, 2l might just be too much". Then I went to a hardware store. A customer was looking at a hammer, as if wondering, then turned around and crush the skull of someone looking at nails.~

    In this example, the problem isnt so much whichever object is used which can be useful in a sane context, but the behaviour.

    Science isnt as much of a problem as the society we live in, which has gradually evolved from barbaric feudal hierarchies, and still has some way to go before it becomes civilized. Understanding the root causes of our societies insane behavior and rearranging our organisation to improve the well being of all, will help.

    Of course in the meantime science, tech, understanding and new inventions is doing a lot to improve our quality of life, i know i wouldnt want to live prior to the invention of toilet paper
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Science has overall been a good thing, and some of it still is. Here are specific things which I think aren't beneficial:
    -Nukes/weapon technology of all kinds
    -Although I use the data from it often, animal experimentation, and the technology of factory farming (pollution)
    -Information technology for entertainment. Although info tech allows people to be far more productive, the entertainment aspect is kind of warping people (specifically, me. I get internet withdraw.) Addictions of all kinds generally make people not care about much else, so that might eventually outweigh the increased productiveness once the next generation matures.
    The problem of advanced technology is how we use it, but history shows that people will use technology however they like, and create technology only to make so much money that its more of a collection than a bank account.
    Once we get to a certain point, new advancements won't be too harmful. For example, no one will ever need a super computer for entertainment, but they will need it for predicting hurricanes.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    750
    I think science - as the most consistently successful method of developing knowledge - is neither good nor evil but I think that it does throw the consequences of our choices into our laps as ethical dilemmas because, in the presence of knowledge ignorance loses it's power to excuse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    ", in the presence of knowledge ignorance loses it's power to excuse. "
    ....as does blind faith.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    750
    Lynx Fox I agree. In my view blind faith is a form of ignorance that presents itself as knowledge and often willfully resists becoming more knowledgeable by methods like science.

    The use of science to build more powerful tools (rather than more abstract knowledge) - the tools of war, defensive and offensive, but also (as an example) to enhance the exploitation of finite resources, that may have far reaching consequence probably deserves some real consideration as to whether the contribution is, on balance (and over the longer term), good or bad. A lot of ethical issues arise and part of that is about the choices regarding the use of knowhow derived by science. Who chooses? More often than not it isn't the scientists, who have the dilemmas that are common to being human - the responsibility for providing for family, the agreements and obligations that come from being an employed and/or part of an organisation, institution, state.

    There was mention of personal responsibility and personal choices, but I don't agree it can be as simple as refusing to contribute to some project that they personally find objectionable; clearly not everyone has the strength of character and conviction to sacrifice their lives and liberty, and perhaps destroy their family and friends with them. They can be subject to very strong pressure, moral and legal, to be contributing members of a team. They may have clear legal obligations to contribute to a nation's security and defense by working on the projects they are assigned to and face severe personal consequences for refusal - akin to that of a soldier required to do their duty and perform acts that they may find objectionable.

    I expect it would be seriously criminal for a scientist working in a classified area to go on strike, walk out or otherwise refuse to contribute - a form of dereliction of duty at the least. To deliberately undermine or sabotage an objectionable project may take it into the realm of treason.

    It isn't down to the ethical nature of science but of the ethical standards of the society and organisations within science is being done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Very controvertial subjetc, especially in the long terms.
    I can't imagine why you think this. The only people who create controversy are ignorant imams in some countries creating fuss about our last, really crucial effort to banish polio from the face of the earth as we've already done with small pox, and other uneducated people behaving badly in advanced societies who refuse to move beyond the attitudes of a couple of centuries ago.

    As far as pressure on resources goes, what you want is a lower birth rate. The only thing that's ever been known to bring down birth rates is certainty that your existing children will survive. Why do you think that most of the world now has a birth rate near 2 children per women? It's only because vaccines (and other health services, but not much of that in many countries) ensure children's survival to adulthood.

    What ? A sociaty structure to handle huricane does not need further prediction that 1 hour (a line of sight)
    What?! Hurricanes are now predicted in plenty of time for people to get out of harm's way in a very precise location. Do you really think that the death toll in New Jersey - New York from Hurricane Sandy would have been lower if people had waited until the last minute and then tried to run away in front of it? One hour? Probably thousands of people would have been killed on the roads. (Where I live I will never face hurricanes, but I know the advantages of getting out early - long before you see or hear the real threat around here, a bushfire. If embers are falling on your roof from fire 10 or more kms away, it's already too late to get out. )

    Better infrastructure needs to be decided, planned for, regulated - and enforced - decades before the threat arrives if you're talking about roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, airports as well as commercial and domestic buildings. And you certainly need more than an hour's notice if you're to get aircraft away from affected airports and railway rolling stock to higher ground.
    Well said!
    Is there anywhere outside the secret shelves within insurance libraries a theory of threats?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    The only way towards anything resembling peace is with more science. If we have virtually unlimited energy, transportation to the stars, and virtually limitless resources, there would be less crap to fight about. Of course, we need to stamp out religion-based conflict, too.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Insurance? Threats? Well, I'd think that the coursework for any civil engineering degree in the world would have excellent stuff. As would architecture. And the governments of different coutries would have lots

    Remember that roads, bridges, railways and just about everything else are built to withstand specified threats. The unsealed road in the backwoods might be built to once in 10 year threat standards - whatever threats exist in that area - flood, ice, snow depth, length of heatwave, fire, whatever - whereas the six lane highway a few kms away might be built to once in 100 yr standards and the bridges on that same road to double that standard.

    When it comes to buildings, everyone needs to know why areas subject to storms, hurricanes, earthquake, high winds, floodwaters need higher or lower standards for tying down roofs or foundations of a certain height or strength. And how to strengthen inadequate structures or to tear them down if they are found to be at higher risk. This process is certainly going on further down Australia's east coast as we realise that tropical hurricanes are getting bigger and running on slightly different courses.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    The only way towards anything resembling peace is with more science.
    Well I agree.
    But then this should be at least placed into a frame of reference where this assertion is verifiable.
    You must define peace. Example "a society NOT based only on war/appropriation/wining and elimination of the concurrence paradigm".
    And really I have not a lot of arguments that indicate that science has ever been a positive factor toward that goal.
    And I really can understand those that say otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    If we have virtually unlimited energy, transportation to the stars, and virtually limitless resources, there would be less crap to fight about. Of course, we need to stamp out religion-based conflict, too.
    That is not science, but technology, some application of science. I have often played with that idea: someone build the matter<->energy<->matter "easy converter". Put some E=mC2 in a box, and change it into another kind of E=mC2. Do not break any conservation law, do it gently. The guy is a genius, so he is generous and set the patent free.

    So what ? Total chaos, at best.

    That is not science, that is technocopian'ism, that is refusing to use actual scientific method to apply it to our current and past KNOWN experiments and variables.

    There is something to be learned into the "conservation of everything" law. You should not temper too much with it, because it create incredible ebbs an flows into reality that always try to get back to their previous sate anyway. So why bother ? I cannot see a lot of respect for balance, for cycle, even from people used to do that every day, at equation level, in a scientific and mathematical way.

    I am still looking for a scientific approach of progress, not a progressive approach of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    750
    Pyoko - so instead of a simple way to use something abundant that can be just dug up and turned into useful energy that will give wealth and power beyond all previous imagination but comes with serious world changing problems if used to excess... we need simple ways to to use stuff that's abundant to give us wealth and power beyond all previous imagination! But that don't come with any planet changing catches? Sorry, but I think that's not really addressing the heart of our problems and won't deliver our hopes for permanent prosperity, security and peace. As with coal, the new energy source will be used to build the machines of war and domination, because the urge that appears to be an absolute need to do so isn't in the technology but within people and the structures of social organisation.

    Whilst I think that better technology is important - even essential - to our long term future, it's the better incorporation of knowledge and ethics into our societal structures that's the key element. Science gives us the foresight to see the consequences of our collective choices as well as tools to make wealth and prosperity. That knowledge deprives us of the innocence of ignorance and loads us up with the burden of responsibility. Individually our choices are narrowed by our imperfect natures and the power differentials between individual and group, whether that's an organisation or a mob, a family or tribe or nation. Our natures aren't readily changed but our societal organisations and structures can be. It's in the organisation, both in the noun and verb senses, that long term solutions have to be developed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Good and evil are relative terms.

    I beleive they can be best sumized as follows:

    Good= that which aids the unfoldment and development of life on Earth.
    Evil= that which retards or reverses the development and unfolding of life on Earth.

    Therefor science and the pursuit of knowledge is neither good or evil. It can be used for good and evil. Analysing whether an aspect of scientific development is ultimately good or for evil is I imagine going to be difficult.

    Any peice of science can probably be used for good and for evil... it's not the fault of the science (the truth of reality as known by man)... it's down to the individual and all the contributing factors which decide if a peice of knowledge is used for good or for evil.

    At this point, if we eradicted science... a lot of evil would be done to a lot of life forms. It might possibly lead to a greater good, it's impossible to tell. The best bet I reckon is to keep pursuing science, but do it responsibly and use it for the good of all.

    it really comes down to the old altruism verses selfishness thing, science teaches us altruism is the greater good. Though aspects of science may be used to convince people that something is for the greater good when it is really for evil. Though these aspects of science might be true, the beleifs they are used to create are pseudoscientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Good and evil are relative terms.

    I beleive they can be best sumized as follows:

    Good= that which aids the unfoldment and development of life on Earth.
    Evil= that which retards or reverses the development and unfolding of life on Earth.

    Therefor science and the pursuit of knowledge is neither good or evil. It can be used for good and evil. Analysing whether an aspect of scientific development is ultimately good or for evil is I imagine going to be difficult.

    Any peice of science can probably be used for good and for evil... it's not the fault of the science (the truth of reality as known by man)... it's down to the individual and all the contributing factors which decide if a peice of knowledge is used for good or for evil.

    At this point, if we eradicted science... a lot of evil would be done to a lot of life forms. It might possibly lead to a greater good, it's impossible to tell. The best bet I reckon is to keep pursuing science, but do it responsibly and use it for the good of all.

    it really comes down to the old altruism verses selfishness thing, science teaches us altruism is the greater good. Though aspects of science may be used to convince people that something is for the greater good when it is really for evil. Though these aspects of science might be true, the beleifs they are used to create are pseudoscientific.
    If something is evil to use in a certain way, it is evil to create without precautions. Also, its evil to create only harmful things, like atom bombs. It's not down to the individual, it's down to smallish groups, and then on another level the individual.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    If something is evil to use in a certain way, it is evil to create without precautions. Also, its evil to create only harmful things, like atom bombs. It's not down to the individual, it's down to smallish groups, and then on another level the individual.
    If I invented something that I envisioned could be used for great harm... I would sacrifice any personal gain and just keep it secret from the nutters. I am a skeptical person. A lot of people have a lot of faith in the societies they belong to, or at least beleive them to be a lesser evil than other societies which may represent a threat.
    I'm more of a Human family society guy than a nationalist society guy.

    With atom bombs.. einstein and others probably had various reasons for looking into it. Energy production and just good old wanting to understand played a big part I imagine. Ofcourse once it was realised how much energy could be liberated by splitting atoms, the idea of the atom bomb was born.

    Einstein gave the details to the USA because he was scared that Hitler might discover it, being a Jew, this is understandable. He didn't seem to think that america could misuse the information. I beleive he expressed regret after Hiroshima.

    It would have been extremely naive of Einstein to think it wouldn't be used for harm, one can only speculate as to his exact motives and reasonings. However, he was a scientist not a politician or leader, his job was to discover.

    He was a jew, he gave his support to the people who were on his side, the Americans.

    It is all a great shame but where does the blame lie? Is it Einsteins fault? is it the American militaries fault? is it whoever made Hitler so mad who is at fault? Is it the fault of christianity? is it the fault of Judaism? is it a little bit of all of them?

    I don't know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    The very first pieces of technology was dangerous. Sharp stones and sticks can be used to kill. If we stopped ourselves there already we would still be living in caves.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    ``Whatever create scientists they create a weapon``-somebodies expression.
    Do you think science brings to humans more advantages or disadvantages?
    I see two strong tendencies during technical progress:
    1)Weapons becomes more and more destructive.
    2)Unjustified control of some people over other people is growing more and more.
    I mean different all pervasive spying technologies, electronic bracelets, etc.
    did we already passed the peak of optimal development level?
    Is science progress good or evil, hu? Let's see

    1) June 2000 - diagnosed with Acute Myloid Leukemia. If scientists never did research to treat victims then there's a 100% chance I'd have died in July 2000. So I owe my very existance to scientific pgrogress.

    2) ~ 2003 - defecated blood. Scare the bloody crap out of me. Science helped me find out why and fixed the problem.

    3) 2004 - Herniated disk. Pain beyond imagination. Unable to walk. HAd to crawl to and from bathroom on the floor. Science allowed me to walk again and has helped reduced the pain from extreme to moderate. Soon (hopefully at least) I'll be on better medication to reduce the pain to mild.

    4) 2004 - MRSA staph infection from back surgery. If not for science and antibiotics I'd have died shortly after I got the infection.

    4) ~2008 - Vomitting for days until it became foamy. Gall bladder attack. Science diagnosed and fixed me.

    5) 2009 - Retina tears. If not for science I'd be blind on my left eye now.

    6) 2010 - Cataract develops in right eye. Science fixed it. I see clearly now.

    7) 2010 - Retina detaches in right eye. I started to become blind in that eye. Science fixed it best it could. But I now see pretty good in that eye now, although I have significant vision loss in that eye. Continued scientific progress will help people like me in the future fully recover from such surgery.

    etc. etc. etc.

    So yes. Science is good, not evil. It's what actions people do with that science uncovers is what is good or evil. Do not confuse the two.
    Last edited by pmb; December 17th, 2012 at 08:45 PM.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    If you've ever seen the hole in the floor that passes for a french toilet you would be saying bring on the science and quickly.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    [QUOTE=question for you;377294]
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    It would have been extremely naive of Einstein to think it wouldn't be used for harm, one can only speculate as to his exact motives and reasonings. However, he was a scientist not a politician or leader, his job was to discover.

    He was a jew, he gave his support to the people who were on his side, the Americans.

    It is all a great shame but where does the blame lie? Is it Einsteins fault? is it the American militaries fault? is it whoever made Hitler so mad who is at fault? Is it the fault of christianity? is it the fault of Judaism? is it a little bit of all of them?

    I don't know.
    It was the fault of first the government for funding the development of the atom bomb, then the designers, then the president who decided to deploy it. I have nothing against Einstein, exept that he didn't require some contract to be signed or something.
    It doesn't matter if someone's job is to discover. This often warps people's thinking (would many laymen stick something in an animal's brain?) Everyone should act ethically. After all, the point of science is to improve quality of life, not kill it.
    Science is definetly good as a whole, but there are certain forms of progress which are negative. Scientists are usually driven by want, whether that want is to improve people's lives (and so join the elevated people like Einstein, who are famous/almost loved) or simply show off their intelligence.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    scientific progress is not evil if you ask the question why scientific progress. and every time we should repeat this question before using amenties provided by science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19
    We ourselves are a result of scientific progress, further studies of ourselves and surroundings helps us modify behavior and lifestyles. The more science and technology are misused the more science is progressed to make further observations and studies. 'Evil' is another evaluated concept in which science can explain to help modify how we live. Science is not really an 'evil' itself just because some of its discoveries are misconstrued or misused.

    Regardless of how science is used through worldly devastation, science is not the reason alone for why these devestations persist. Don't shoot the messenger for which science essentially represents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    science itself is not evil..


    but..whatever man creates..man corrupts..
    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    What a silly topic. Science is neither good nor evil.

    A gun is evil to a man being robbed, and good to the man bringing home a meal for his family.
    NNet likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What a silly topic. Science is neither good nor evil.

    A gun is evil to a man being robbed, and good to the man bringing home a meal for his family.
    is that the same man?
    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by NMSquirrel View Post
    but..whatever man creates..man corrupts..
    What a nice puppet performance again
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    ``Whatever create scientists they create a weapon``-somebodies expression.
    Do you think science brings to humans more advantages or disadvantages?
    I see two strong tendencies during technical progress:
    1)Weapons becomes more and more destructive.
    2)Unjustified control of some people over other people is growing more and more.
    I mean different all pervasive spying technologies, electronic bracelets, etc.
    Did we already passed the peak of optimal development level?
    I love your question and its one I had to ask myself several times before I finally learned the answer....
    Its a perfect balance of a scale in which it gets upset at times and tips in one direction or the other from time to time....
    Its never truely perfectly balanced but instead tips back and fourth resulting an illusion that its balanced.... Basicly you'll have the rich tipping the scales more often towards the evil side of things and then us working people to push the scales back into balance.... Now proof of this fact is that that someone rich sets production of lets say "cannons" Now a scientist probably invented the cannon more than likely but because the scientist is employeed by the rich man he has to submit to the rich mans will.... The Iphone 4, first a scientist had at some point played a major role in making them.... The rich man sees an opportunity to drain more people of their incomes and so he advertises all the fantastic uses for them thus draining the life out of the economy....
    People will do what ever the rich man says no matter if its evil or good, they must earn a living thus implying that man himself is generally evil regardless of how he may view himself.... Just some food for your thoughts....
    (warthog) an ugly little animal in Africa that is hunted, killed and eaten by lions.

    Sorry i'm no scientist so don't expect me to use those terms which scientist use
    to explain things.... I am only an observer of things....

    Every dream i've dreamed isn't the life I live in....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by NMSquirrel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What a silly topic. Science is neither good nor evil.

    A gun is evil to a man being robbed, and good to the man bringing home a meal for his family.
    is that the same man?
    Sure. I think we've all changed our perspective in light of new evidence.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    After all, the point of science is to improve quality of life
    No it isn't The point of science is to learn how the things are.

    Scientists are usually driven by want, whether that want is to improve people's lives (and so join the elevated people like Einstein, who are famous/almost loved) or simply show off their intelligence.
    Again, no. Scientists are usually driven by the need to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by warthog213 View Post
    Now a scientist probably invented the cannon more than likely but because the scientist is employeed by the rich man he has to submit to the rich mans will.... The Iphone 4, first a scientist had at some point played a major role in making them.
    There's a vast difference between a scientist and a technologist. One discovers principles, the other invents things.
    Don't confuse the two.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman A rose by any other name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    It is not the fault of science when man turns a creation into a weapon.
    Agreed that Science is not at fault but the Scientist & Engineers that come up with the idea and then bring them into life after all it was Scientist & Engineers that gave life to the 1st atomic weapons. IMO you can't fully remove the blame Science/scientist have to take some of the responsibility for the things they bring into the world. That said do I think Science is Evil? No not at all but maybe we can consider it as a double edged sword one side it provides great benefit to mankind yet on the other side it could give us the power to bring all most all life to a end?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by A rose by any other name View Post
    Agreed that Science is not at fault but the Scientist & Engineers that come up with the idea and then bring them into life after all it was Scientist & Engineers that gave life to the 1st atomic weapons.
    Um, not really. Surely it's as much the politicians and others in charge that make the requests - "Can you build such and such a device?"

    IMO you can't fully remove the blame Science/scientist have to take some of the responsibility for the things they bring into the world.
    Of course, having blamed the politicians that doesn't absolve the technologists: they could refuse - after all they (and the scientists who do the principles) have a far better idea of how a weapon will work and what it will do.

    Overall I'd say it was basic human nature to turn everything into a blessing and a curse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman A rose by any other name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by A rose by any other name View Post
    Agreed that Science is not at fault but the Scientist & Engineers that come up with the idea and then bring them into life after all it was Scientist & Engineers that gave life to the 1st atomic weapons.
    Um, not really. Surely it's as much the politicians and others in charge that make the requests - "Can you build such and such a device?"

    IMO you can't fully remove the blame Science/scientist have to take some of the responsibility for the things they bring into the world.
    Of course, having blamed the politicians that doesn't absolve the technologists: they could refuse - after all they (and the scientists who do the principles) have a far better idea of how a weapon will work and what it will do.

    Overall I'd say it was basic human nature to turn everything into a blessing and a curse.
    that's a good point but with out the Scientist & Engineers the Politicians would not have a bomb in the 1st place with out scientist & Engineers the Politicians are just hot air. That said I suspect that Scientist would of always split the atom it always was going to happen even if this Science could end most life today I do not consider Science to be evil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by A rose by any other name View Post
    That said I suspect that Scientist would of always split
    Well of course they would. That's how you find out more about how the universe works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by A rose by any other name View Post
    That said I suspect that Scientist would of always split
    Well of course they would. That's how you find out more about how the universe works.
    No, no, no.... You've got it all wrong. You split the atom, not the scientist.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman A rose by any other name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by A rose by any other name View Post
    That said I suspect that Scientist would of always split
    Well of course they would. That's how you find out more about how the universe works.
    Myself I am glade that they did but IMO sadly the last 50-60 years we have wasted that time with some what pointless inventions that lack of any real progress. Is it just me or where we making more progress in the cold war days?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    We possibly made more visible progress during the Cold War (after all budgets were less limited and military stuff gets publicity). Plus there are/ were numerous fallouts from military to civilian applications.
    But, in general, the more we know the more learn so I'd say that we're still progressing and accelerating, tech-wise at least.
    Science-wise: who'd'a thunk we'd have actually got this close (possibly) to the Higgs by now? (I remember talking to Ron Shaw 15-20 or so years ago and he didn't, at that time, express any expectation that we'd be on its trail so soon). Or sequenced the human genome?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Science and technology are different. Science is a higher standard of philosophy, not only pursuing knowledge but testing, recording, creating, and building on it. Technology may or may not utilize science. It seems often, science is used for it's application in making tools of technology, but not in the understanding of morals or ethics of technology. Science can address all of these, but people with the power to work the tools often aren't scientists. The people making the technology, it would seem, often aren't philosophers.

    Imagine if anthropologists were in charge of military technology, rather than governments (say the anthropologists loaned the technology out to people/organizations). Things would be different. (I'm not implying this is feasible, or good, just a thought experiment)

    The use of "progress" is entirely relative. What is technology progressing? What is the ultimate goal? Civilization, freedom, love, life? It seems a lot of technology relies on fuels from the bottom of the fuel line, dead animal matter. Is this some kind of progression? The grass is probably laughing at us. Then again, it's probably too wise to care.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    If you've ever seen the hole in the floor that passes for a french toilet you would be saying bring on the science and quickly.
    You know how much of a pain it is to squat on those western seat toilets? Think I'm sitting on that nasty thing?

    If you've ever seen a person who can't hold a squat and passes for average fitness you'd be saying bring on the science.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    If you've ever seen the hole in the floor that passes for a french toilet you would be saying bring on the science and quickly.
    You know how much of a pain it is to squat on those western seat toilets? Think I'm sitting on that nasty thing?

    If you've ever seen a person who can't hold a squat and passes for average fitness you'd be saying bring on the science.
    I'm a licensed plumber here where I am and I have no idea what you two are going on about. You may need to post commode pictures or something.
    Unless you weigh 300+ pounds, the toilets here take no effort to sit on.
    They are like chairs.
    People keep magazine racks next to them so you can kick back and have a read.
    They call it the throne.


    (Not to be confused with this one: http://www.trendir.com/archives/herbeau-toilet.jpg )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Science and technology are different.
    I stated that in post #64, and reiterated it in post #71 (by implication at least).

    Science is a higher standard of philosophy
    "Higher standard of philosophy" than what? Technology tends to be more of a praxis than a philosophy.

    Technology may or may not utilize science.
    I'd be surprised if there's a technology that doesn't use science. Even if it's only empirical.

    It seems often, science is used for it's application in making tools of technology, but not in the understanding of morals or ethics of technology.
    Maybe because the "sciences of morals and ethics" are still in their infancy?

    Science can address all of these, but people with the power to work the tools often aren't scientists. The people making the technology, it would seem, often aren't philosophers.
    Well duh. You yourself said it: science isn't technology. And technology isn't philosophy. Are you suggesting that we train scientists and then have them as machine operators? Train philsophers and employ them as machine operators?

    Imagine if anthropologists were in charge of military technology, rather than governments (say the anthropologists loaned the technology out to people/organizations). Things would be different. (I'm not implying this is feasible, or good, just a thought experiment)
    Because anthropologists know so much about budgetary constraints, politics etc? Governments are "in charge" of military technology only as far as holding the purse strings, and deciding which of the current "threats" to address.

    What is the ultimate goal?
    Is there an ultimate goal?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I know you mentioned the distinction between science and technology already, but I felt like doing it in my own words.

    By higher standard of philosophy I mean what I said. If philosophy is the compulsion (or love) to obtain knowledge (generally regarding nature, what else do we know), then science is the testing, recording, and building of that knowledge and it's relationship to nature.

    Yes, it would seem that technology always uses science, but it doesn't use all aspects of science. People pick and choose. The reason I chose anthropologists is because in my experience they do a lot of work in the fields of moral and ethical science. This borders on philosophy, and I personally wouldn't care if that's what you called it. It's just harder to get grants when you say "I'm doing a work in philosophy", than when you say "I'm doing work in science."

    Of course, relative to the potential I'm sure all human endeavours are in their infancy. I wonder, shall the infant survive it's curiosities?

    I'm not suggesting anything practically speaking. The world can keep on going how it's going. I'm not wise enough to chose it's proper direction.

    My question on goal was supposed to inspire the question you asked. : )

    Neverfly, see below...

    squat_bruce.jpg

    Nice throne by the way. Tops those crazy Japanese ones, even if it doesn't have a butt washing button.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    I'd be surprised if there's a technology that doesn't use science. Even if it's only empirical.
    That depends of what you called "science". If a meter and basic math is science, then of course technology is ALL about science.
    Anyway, many technologies if not most, still must use prototype, because even the simple aerodynamics is very hardly computation'able. Even when equations exists, they are not solvable (all economics science is based on unsolvable equations). The next very significant progress will be major step in chaotic mathematics, to solve those funny behaving equations.

    Meanwhile, it is testing, measuring. Ask the rats. You may call it science. I don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    What is the ultimate goal?
    Is there an ultimate goal?
    Very interesting subject, because you need one, to measure progress against.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    That depends of what you called "science". If a meter and basic math is science, then of course technology is ALL about science.
    Anyway, many technologies if not most, still must use prototype, because even the simple aerodynamics is very hardly computation'able. Even when equations exists, they are not solvable (all economics science is based on unsolvable equations). The next very significant progress will be major step in chaotic mathematics, to solve those funny behaving equations.
    Meanwhile, it is testing, measuring. Ask the rats. You may call it science. I don't.
    Um, economics isn't a technology, nor is it a science (although it may be one day).
    Regardless, with technology even if the entire thing as a whole isn't rigorously scientific there is science involved at many stages.

    Very interesting subject, because you need one, to measure progress against.
    Or you could simply say "things are generally improving" and call that progress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    If you've ever seen the hole in the floor that passes for a french toilet you would be saying bring on the science and quickly.
    You know how much of a pain it is to squat on those western seat toilets? Think I'm sitting on that nasty thing?

    If you've ever seen a person who can't hold a squat and passes for average fitness you'd be saying bring on the science.

    OMG...here i am thinking about what knowledge was lost due to technology (not to say how easy it would be to get that knowledge back or not)..
    and then you two bring up this...

    has technology made us loose the ability to 'cop a squat'?..

    lol..me..im to old to squat..gotta sit on something..
    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Or you could simply say "things are generally improving" and call that progress.
    You've replaced progress with improvement. It's still a value judgement that essentially relies on a frame of reference, or a scale. Improving towards what?

    NWSquirrel,

    Contrary to what I was told would happen, this crap-shoot seemed to have no effect on how I was received by women (or men for that matter). The roaches took a little getting used to.

    toilet.jpg
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    You've replaced progress with improvement. It's still a value judgement that essentially relies on a frame of reference, or a scale. Improving towards what?
    Er no. Improving as in being an improvement over what we had previously.
    Take a look at these varying definitions of progress:

    Progress (history)
    In historiography and the philosophy of history, progress (from Latin progressus, "an advance") is the idea that the world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life, etc.

    Social progress is the idea that societies can or do improve in terms of their social, political, and economic structures.

    Scientific progress
    is the idea that science increases its problem solving ability through the application of some scientific method.

    In historiography, the Idea of Progress is the theory that advances in technology, science, and social organization inevitably produce an improvement in the human condition.

    (All varying Wiki definitions)
    Which one of those even mentions "towards a goal"?

    Progress is measured against what we have/ had.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    You've replaced progress with improvement. It's still a value judgement that essentially relies on a frame of reference, or a scale. Improving towards what?
    Er no. Improving as in being an improvement over what we had previously
    Progress is measured against what we have/ had.
    You're going to have to do better than that. I suspect if you use your own reasoning, rather than a quote/paraphrase, it will become clear. Also, if I wanted to have a discussion with the writers of wikipedia, I'd go there myself. (unfortunately my time has been set aside for others, such as the elusive Homer and his eastern associate Kong zi, as well as Arthur C. Clarke, Jack Turner, my special someone, and, of course, you)

    "Being an improvement over what we had previously." Yes, if something is designated an improvement on something that happened previously by some conscious being then to that being that something is improving.

    Does this mean that anything that comes after something previous to itself is improvement? No. I think the word designating this phenomena is change (though change can be observed in any direction with regard to time, so maybe evolution or transgression is better).

    Let me guide you.

    Let's look at the ideas of objectivity versus subjectivity. If no one was around to designate something an improvement does the improvement still exist? In other words, is improvement an objective phenomena? Can this be demonstrated? I won't go any further yet, for, as I said before, I imagine your own reasoning will suffice here.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    You're going to have to do better than that. I suspect if you use your own reasoning, rather than a quote/paraphrase, it will become clear. Also, if I wanted to have a discussion with the writers of wikipedia, I'd go there myself.
    Oh my. I used someone else's words to show that any view of progress I presented couldn't be written off as merely mine. Unlike you, of course, who has presented nothing to support your contention that progress must be "towards" something.

    "Being an improvement over what we had previously." Yes, if something is designated an improvement on something that happened previously by some conscious being then to that being that something is improving.
    Ah, at last. An improvement is progress, no? It's a step "higher"?

    Does this mean that anything that comes after something previous to itself is improvement? No. I think the word designating this phenomena is change (though change can be observed in any direction with regard to time, so maybe evolution or transgression is better).
    Ooh, and a diversion. A non-sequitur one at that. How did we switch from "improvement (note that word) over what we had" to simply "anything following"?

    Let me guide you.
    I'd rather you didn't since you seem to unsure of what point exactly you're trying make.

    Let's look at the ideas of objectivity versus subjectivity. If no one was around to designate something an improvement does the improvement still exist? In other words, is improvement an objective phenomena? Can this be demonstrated? I won't go any further yet, for, as I said before, I imagine your own reasoning will suffice here.
    And another side route...
    A) since it appears (I won't go looking into statistics just yet) that (Western civilisation at least) thinks we've made progress - e.g. improved rthings through science - then does "objective" matter?
    B) pick an objective measure, then we'll talk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I'm done here.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Thank you for whatever contribution you think you've made.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    (All varying Wiki definitions)
    Which one of those even mentions "towards a goal"?

    Progress is measured against what we have/ had.
    You should pay more attention to what DaBob explained. In philosophy, word usage is important so to define progress try to use the definition of progress or maybe this one.

    A change is not a progress, it is a change. The mathematical operation is != (different).
    A progress need a grid of evaluation as to measure a increase or > (greater than)

    The grid of evaluation in the case of improvement is already partly known, it is a sub specialization of progress (progress is even more vague).

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    In historiography and the philosophy of history, progress (from Latin progressus, "an advance") is the idea that the world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life, etc.
    No it is not the definition of progress (it is histography or history). The only thing that has progressed factually is science, but very few since 40 years. That is also the only thing that could NOT decrease (but just be abused by wishful thinker).

    Democracy factually regressed since 3000 years (the only time were it really exist at large scale). What you call a democracy it a mockery of representative government (an actual aristocracy) a old old meme (5000 year)
    Liberty and quality of life are likewise very debatable, you should never use them to define progress, it is the other way round.

    Modernization is very funny, to be modern just have to be now/present. A useless buzz-word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    You should pay more attention to what DaBob explained.
    Really?

    In philosophy, word usage is important so to define progress try to use the definition of progress or maybe this one.
    Oh yeah:
    Development or growth: students who show progress.
    Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress.

    Or:

    2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
    3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress.

    A change is not a progress, it is a change. The mathematical operation is != (different).
    So what? I haven't disputed that.

    A progress need a grid of evaluation as to measure a increase or > (greater than)
    Er yes. Did I not say that? Oh wait:
    Me - Progress is measured against what we have/ had.

    In
    historiography and the philosophy of history, progress (from Latin progressus, "an advance") is the idea that the world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life, etc.
    No it is not the definition of progress (it is histography or history).
    Oops, I gave progress as defined BY historiography. Try reading, please.

    Democracy factually regressed since 3000 years (the only time were it really exist at large scale). What you call a democracy it a mockery of representative government (an actual aristocracy) a old old meme (5000 year)
    Liberty and quality of life are likewise very debatable, you should never use them to define progress, it is the other way round.
    Right, because science is tied in to democracy. Ho hum...

    SCIENCE progress (or not) is the topic of discussion here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    You should pay more attention to what DaBob explained.
    Really?
    Make your mind. You want to make a discussion or what ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    historiography and the philosophy of history, progress (from Latin progressus, "an advance") is the idea that the world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life, etc.
    No it is not the definition of progress (it is histography or history).
    Oops, I gave progress as defined BY historiography. Try reading, please.
    That is because I have read it, and read a conclusion, not a definition. It is not a grid of lecture. "Can become" means nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Right, because science is tied in to democracy. Ho hum...
    What ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    SCIENCE progress (or not) is the topic of discussion here.
    No, science progresses, it is its business model (and quite a lousy one since 40 year IMHO)

    The OP is about the quantity of suppose evil. It is the topic of discussion, minds you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Make your mind. You want to make a discussion or what ?
    My mind is made up. YOU assumed (incorrectly) that I wasn't reading DaBob's posts.

    That is because I have read it, and read a conclusion, not a definition. It is not a grid of lecture. "Can become" means nothing.
    Keep trying. It states that IN historiography progress is defined as "the idea that world can become..." but zero mention of an ultimate goal (which is the reason WHY I posted it).

    No, science progresses
    Then you agree with me.

    The OP is about the quantity of suppose evil. It is the topic of discussion, minds you.
    And DaBob diverted it into "IS science progressing?" (by claiming that progression requires an ultimate goal against which to measure any supposed progression).

    Clearly you need to actually read what has been written.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Make your mind. You want to make a discussion or what ?
    My mind is made up. YOU assumed (incorrectly) that I wasn't reading DaBob's posts.
    Ho you read it all right, you just do not understand it, or maybe you don't want to, that is why I use the word "explained".
    You assume a lot, that is not a reading deficit, it is an attention one. Stay tuned...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Keep trying. It states that IN historiography progress is defined as "the idea that world can become..." but zero mention of an ultimate goal (which is the reason WHY I posted it).
    You can repeat it all you want it still is not a valid definition of a progress grid of lecture. It is an idea... a belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    No, science progresses
    Then you agree with me.
    No I agree with a dictionary. And you sometime also do. You take offence when people signal your errors. Like making mistaking conclusion for definition (see above)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    The OP is about the quantity of suppose evil. It is the topic of discussion, minds you.
    And DaBob diverted it into "IS science progressing?" (by claiming that progression requires an ultimate goal against which to measure any supposed progression).

    Clearly you need to actually read what has been written.
    But I am, and I forgive you for writing errors. We are all human after all.

    I just happen to find very pertinent to be able to assert what progress science have done and especially WHEN. Because people tend to relate is to war period and bomb invention...

    You can dismiss half of the sentence of the OP if you want to, and you will speak of the evilness of something undefined. I don't find that very rational.

    I'll give you an hint, a little more accurate that "thrones" technology/improvement:
    The example is "information" technology: your "smart" phone. Once you'll have asserted what progress is have undergone, I'll make this statement:
    Whatever it is, it is good for some (yourself probably, and Apple/Samsung), bad for other (those war children "protecting" mine, and the sweat chop slaves, not counting the environment).

    So, to settle the debate (lol), just never mix technology with science. There are NOT the same thing. Science is neutral. Technology progress has to be asserted/measured very very carefully. That was the point of DaBOB, and every body here speak about technology, not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    No I agree with a dictionary. And you sometime also do.
    Um wrong. Since I stated (in post #78 - prior to resorting to any dictionary) which "definition" I was using.

    You take offence when people signal your errors. Like making mistaking conclusion for definition (see above)
    Ah, assumptions. Again.

    I just happen to find very pertinent to be able to assert what progress science have done and especially WHEN. Because people tend to relate is to war period and bomb invention...
    Huh?

    You can dismiss half of the sentence of the OP if you want to, and you will speak of the evilness of something undefined. I don't find that very rational.
    Yes, speaking of rational if you check you'll find that I didn't "dismiss half of the sentence". I have actually pointed out that I have been addressing the point raised by DaBob: that is - what is progress?

    I'll give you an hint, a little more accurate that "thrones" technology/improvement:
    The example is "information" technology: your "smart" phone. Once you'll have asserted what progress is have undergone, I'll make this statement:
    Whatever it is, it is good for some (yourself probably, and Apple/Samsung), bad for other (those war children "protecting" mine, and the sweat chop slaves, not counting the environment).
    How is this related? It's not science.

    So, to settle the debate (lol), just never mix technology with science. There are NOT the same thing.
    If you also bother to check I was the first one in this thread to point that out.

    That was the point of DaBOB
    No it wasn't:
    - My question on goal was supposed to inspire the question you asked. : )

    He "inspired" me to ask what the ultimate goal of science was. (Supposedly).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman Vlado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    15
    I personally think that science is helping man kind, all since it started. And also, you can't blame the science for making weapons of mass destruction, It's the fault of the ones that wants to use that weapon. Science did many wonderful things, not just creating ultra dangerous weapons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    You take offence when people signal your errors.
    Ah, assumptions. Again.
    a valid one though..
    IOW..been there,done that..with you..
    (speaking of which see kudo's thread)
    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I am still looking for a scientific approach of progress, not a progressive approach of science.
    A scientific approach to progress may yield a science of progress. It would be very interesting to study how things progress. Unfortunately someone is going to apply it not as a reference, but as a prescription for engineering progress, and do so before it is fully understood. It would be their own idea of how things should progress, reinforced by the short term mentality of a consenting public. Of course, if it was a viable science, it would predict that such behavior does not work.
    Last edited by Daedalus; January 16th, 2013 at 04:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Daedalus View Post
    A scientific approach to progress may yield a science of progress. It would be very interesting to study how things progress. Unfortunately someone is going to apply it not as a reference, but as a prescription for engineering progress, and do so before it is fully understood. It would be their own idea of how things should progress, reinforced by the short term mentality of a consenting public. Of course, if it was a viable science, it would predict that such behavior would not work.
    Yes, I think that it is already happening, some call that "agenda", to drive progress in some kind of direction.
    That's why progress, or evilness should be asserted with more basic non-emotional criteria. I'll start with:
    -complexity
    -efficiency
    -cost
    -the ones yet to be discovered

    I do think there are "evilness" in science (like in any other discipline) but more like the counterpart of its "beneficial" aspect. I've never believed in win/win, I am more a conservation of everything guy. So probably some amount of evilness would be needed to have a some amount of benefice. If the whole sum of it is neutral, there are some sub dimensions that are questionable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    66
    I think scale is a consideration. A great deal of the evil effects are associated with excess. It is easier to repair several small failures (providing they don't happen at the same time) than one big disaster. The OP asked if we have already passed optimal development. If it appears that way. it's because of improper integration due to excesses. When a goal for progress is envisioned, and starts to sequester resources from other endeavors the system becomes unbalanced. Do we know what the ultimate goal for progress is? I hope not. Choosing a direction , and being able to make course adjustments as needed would be manageable.

    I don't think science progresses. It has no preferred direction. It grows. It integrates and cross references, it strives for internal consistency. We can feed it and harvest it. It does not make choices. We do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3
    I wish people could stop blaming science or religion for everything thats wrong. The biggest problem is our nature, for we want MORE. Simple
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I think words like transgression (usually carrying a negative tone) or badness are more appropriate than evil, which is an idea primarily associated with religious practices that many cultures of the past did not practice, acknowledge, or even know about and possibly still don't. Transgression seems especially applicable when talking about a perceived excess. I don't think many scientist are worried that their transgressions will find them in Hell. And if they do, well...

    I think we all understand what you mean, and I don't mean to start another topic. I'm merely pointing it out. You're welcome to disagree and I don't particularly mind either way.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Confucius say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ligte View Post
    I wish people could stop blaming science or religion for everything thats wrong. The biggest problem is our nature, for we want MORE. Simple
    I think you may be close the heart of the matter.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. scientific and social progress comment
    By Joshua Stone in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 25th, 2011, 07:53 PM
  2. The nature of true scientific progress and example study
    By Joshua Stone in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2010, 10:15 PM
  3. Which Way is Progress?
    By Golkarian in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 27th, 2008, 06:17 AM
  4. Is PROGRESS an illusion?
    By charles brough in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2007, 08:41 PM
  5. Real scientific research in progress.
    By (In)Sanity in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 5th, 2004, 09:17 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •