Science - Good And Bad?

[Arnold Layne]

OK, I think most folks here know that I am fairly anti-science. In the same way (and with pretty much the same sort of passion) as many folks are anti-religious. So I figured we should have a debate about it. I hope it can be kept clean and decent, with a full respect for all parties and a complete lack of venom, otherwise its just a waste of time. I hope too that I come with an open mind, albeit a mind full of concerns, objections and questions. Who knows, maybe it'll convince me to change my world-view, although that would be a tough challenge!

I should state right up front that I am probably barking mad. I accept that fully and without demur. I have never been able to grasp the sciences at school. Anything beyond the very simplest of Arithmetic is a complete mystery to me, I think I may be a mathematical dyslexic, if such a thing exists. But things mystical, religious, philosophical, metaphysical and arty-farty, these my mind finds to be meat and drink.

Philosophically, I do not believe in splitting things down to understand them via analysis of their many parts. I believe in looking at "wholes", and allowing their existence to fill the mind with awe and wander and - dare one say it? - Worship. I see the Sublime (in the true sense of the word) in everything.

I think the Industrial Revolution was the single greatest tragedy ever to befall the human race, or for that matter, the whole planet. It has given rise to that which E M Forster called "The Machine" in his famous essay "The Machine Stops" published 1909 (readilly available as an E text, google it). In fact, I really ought to re-read it.

So here's my starter question. I have heard, and that from many folks, that I confuse "good science" with "bad science". Now what I don't understand is how the two are known. What exactly is "good", what exactly is "bad"? Who or what is the arbiter of this moral gradation of Science?

Let the debate commence :wink:

[water]

i dont beleive in good or bad science it is just science. science produces facts and information. and if werent for the industrial revolution we would not have cars and computers cds credit cards and also a bit of science needed to make the things i mentioned.

maybe the term good/bad science is used in the sense that wat u do with the science. for example bombs = bad

computers = good

[MU]

agenda-free good science is good science and worthy. we would not have life-saving medicines, computers, the internet and lots of other positive things without science.

there is no good version of religion though, sorry no offense arnold.

what did asimov say?...

"It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much confidence in non-scientists being wrong."

or summink like that. anyway, its a statement i agree with.

Edited March 19, 2007 by MU

[Guest zigzagzoot]

Well im not quite sure i know what you mean but this is my answer in the way i interpreted your question! I believe good science is science in which people try to develop or maintain something which will benefit people/beings in a good way. For example scientist's trying to find a cure for aids or cancer. Bad science is where people try to develop something that will cause destruction or devastation to people/beings. For example splitting the atom and making nuclear bombs!! But I beleive sometimes even good science has its bad sides i.e testing new drugs on animals!! See in the long run we may benefit but at the same time these poor animals are suffering!! Anyway hope i am along the right kind of lines for this debate.

[grobag]

I'm no athiest, but I do not embrace any religions. In short I do not have faith.

Don't get me wrong I've looked into them through travelling, even met the Dali Lama, but for me there just can't be an omnipotent being.

I do however believe in evolution to an extent, but would be more inclined to lean towards an extra-terrestrial guiding hand than towards a 'god'.

I also believe that without a bottom up approach to study we would be in a very different situation than we are now. Natural Philosophy, or the newer term of Physics appeals to me and can explain a lot. Yeah we all make mistakes but an understanding of the complexities doesn't come cheap.

Sorry but I believe Newton/Leibnitz/Einstein/Darwin over Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha/Shiva.

Let battle commence.

[Guest zigzagzoot]

Arnold what weed ya smoking? Seems to be very thought provoking

I dont think anyone specifically says what is right or wrong when it comes to science, but some things just seem neccessary to upkeep the well being of the human race. So i believe its society that controls the way science has become or the way we use science!! Can i just ask do you use plastic pots? Plastic is synthetic(man made) If we didnt have science or the industrial revolution we would be growing in the ground with no Hps to get our buds thriving!!

Edited March 19, 2007 by zigzagzoot

[Arnold Layne]

I do hope we don't have a battle Gro, or anyone. I'm not about battling, just exploring.

Water - what is a fact? Is there any such thing? I don't think so, ultimately. All is perception and interpretation. Good and bad - what are they, how are they defined? I don't see much good in computers, they are just useful. Is useful the same as good?

MU - no offence taken. But is anyone or anything agenda free? Is it possible? I don't know if there is a truly good religion. Religion is a man made thing, and edifice to control, or a myth to use in spiritual exploration.

Zig, so do you think good is defined by physical well-being? Is it good to heal? After all, we're all bound to die, so healing is in the end impossible. And in a world of huge over-population, can we really construe healing as simply good? Of course it is good - if goodness is measured by individual physical comfort. But should it be so measured? And as you say, the good so often rides on the back of the bad.

I'm not sure I have faith either Gro. I don't really know what is meant by it. Fidelity to the inner vision, yes, I hope so. But faith implies creeds and dogmas, and these are of limited use and value, sometimes none.

[Lizard]

science at least tries to look for the real answers ( some of the time when it's not being used to prove some political agenda ), it's not always right but in it's purest form it is a reasonably honest attempt to work out how the world around us works .

Religion (all religion) is just fantasy pure and simple, it's an invented fairy tale that neatly encompasses all answers maybe partly in an attempt to prevent people asking awkward questions, it's a very closed minded way to look at the world.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Lizard

[Arnold Layne]

Arnold what weed ya smoking? Seems to be very thought provoking

I dont think anyone specifically says what is right or wrong when it comes to science, but some things just seem neccessary to upkeep the well being of the human race. So i believe its society that controls the way science has become or the way we use science!! Can i just ask do you use plastic pots? Plastic is synthetic(man made) If we didnt have science or the industrial revolution we would be growing in the ground with no Hps to get our buds thriving!!

No weed at all at the mo.

Do you think science has led to human wellbeing? Our planet seems consumed in the toxicity of science; pollution and its disease bearing nature is all around us. So one could say that the wellbeing you desire from science is needed because science has done so much to create its very lack. Science is thus both cause and cure. But can it truly cure, if it creates the problem?

Yes I do use plastic pots. But I don't think they are good. Just useful. One day I hope to switch enmtirely to outdoor growing.

Lizard - have yopu actually studied all religions, studied them enough to make such an evaluation? I think you may perhaps be correct. But what has Religion got to do with this debate? Why is everyone raising it here? I stand with Jesus here, religion is something to be freed from.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Arnold Layne

[grobag]

I do hope we don't have a battle Gro, or anyone. I'm not about battling, just exploring.

I'm not sure I have faith either Gro. I don't really know what is meant by it. Fidelity to the inner vision, yes, I hope so. But faith implies creeds and dogmas, and these are of limited use and value, sometimes none.

Aww, now you've got me thinking, 'tis too early for thoughts like that.

Edit: What is concidered science? Surely the moment any tool or fire was utilised we're talking science. I studied Social Science as my degree and that's a different ball game again.

Edited March 19, 2007 by grobag

[landsker]

Nice topic, allthough one must wonder, as does zigzagzoot, just what is Mr Layne been toking, and can the rest of us have some.

This debate might take some time, but here is a picture, and it illustrates how science allows the human race to build bridges.

The "art" of building bridges, is actually a science, the stones all must be cut to a set angle and size. Wonderful results and bridges serve an immense purpose within our lives.

As for religion, are we to debate religion or faith.

I have faith in many things, including the competence of scientists and engineers who build bridges.

As for religion, let us not forget the roots, origins and early practices of the abrahamic religions, which included, but were not limited to:

Human Sacrifice, Slavery, bigotry and the ritual torture and killing of those who refused to "accept the faith".

Now then, what was I smoking,,,,

Edited March 19, 2007 by landsker

[Guest zigzagzoot]

I hear what ya saying arnold. But just because death is inevitable doesnt mean we cant cheat it to prolong our lives. I know that cancer is a major killer but look at the people who have died from it theyre not all old and grey ready to die! Some kids get cancer, is it fair that we should not try to find a cure and let them die painfully just because they would have died later in lfe anyway?! I believe it is our responsibility to help prolong these lifes by ways of science. So i still stay unmoved on science is good when it comes to our wellbeing .

[Blayz'd]

I too think that there is just science. Let's take for instance a man who was developing a way to take the energy out of the surrounding layer of atmosphere. I forget his name, apparently he was on the verge of testing radio waves as the message came that Marconi had just done it. A right clever chap anyway. His vision was free energy for everyone on the planet, via way of these towers that could pull the energy out of the sky in some way. From what I've read and seen I believe he was onto a winner with it. However, he realised that what he was doing could be turned into a weapon of immeasurable proportions with very little thought. So he had to destroy the idea and all research in case this happened. I think Einstein had the same sort of thing half way through one of his projects too. Now, what this man was trying to do was good. Free energy, to anyone, anywhere. The good science. If someone turned it into a weapon it would then be bad science. However, either way, it's still just science.

I like science. It intrigues me.

What exactly is your problem with it Arnold? Is it that you don't agree with the changes brought and the situation we now find ourselves in through the use of modern science?

I believe science is a good thing. I like to understand how things work. It's human nature to wonder... how does that work? Or why does it do that? Then we set off to find an explanation. Whether you use any tools or not the process is still science. I take it that you grow plants? This is also science.

Thoughts?

Sorted, let's try it without all the spelling mistakes.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Blayz'd

[Guest zigzagzoot]

Blayzd made some good points there. I agree with what he said and how he looked at science. Although people may not intentionally set out to do good or bad science. It isnt until they come to a conclusion that it can then be decided to be good or bad!!

[Arnold Layne]

I don't pretend to have all the answers folks, I'm just asking questions because it seems to me the modern world just accepts "Science" without so much as a pause. It has become the biggest religion of all, replete with a priestly caste and reams of dogma and disciples marked by sheepishly blind faith.

Aww, now you've got me thinking, 'tis too early for thoughts like that.

Edit: What is concidered science? Surely the moment any tool or fire was utilised we're talking science. I studied Social Science as my degree and that's a different ball game again.

Never to early to think Gro

Indeed - what is Science? I studied Theology, so I suppose if you move the parameters so far, this too is a science? But that would be absurd. To equate Science with knowledge certainly shortens the debate. But I am thinking of Science as in the rapid development of the traditional sciences and technologies - Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc etc. After all, one does not study French in a "Laboratory" or Art with "Test tubes". But I agree, there's need for a tighter definition. Maybe what I'm really after is the so-called "Scientific Methodology"?

Nice topic, allthough one must wonder, as does zigzagzoot, just what is Mr Layne been toking, and can the rest of us have some.

This debate might take some time, but here is a picture, and it illustrates how science allows the human race to build bridges.

The "art" of building bridges, is actually a science, the stones all must be cut to a set angle and size. Wonderful results and bridges serve an immense purpose within our lives.

As for religion, are we to debate religion or faith.

I have faith in many things, including the competence of scientists and engineers who build bridges.

As for religion, let us not forget the roots, origins and early practices of the abrahamic religions, which included, but were not limited to:

Human Sacrifice, Slavery, bigotry and the ritual torture and killing of those who refused to "accept the faith".

Now then, what was I smoking,,,,

I am smoking nowt M8, for at least the next 6 weeks- maybe that's the problem, although I doubt it.

But yet again, you raise religion. Why is everyone banging on about Religion? I stand in no particular religious stream, and acknowledge no creed. I may have studied them and at one point trusted them, but not now.

I hear what ya saying arnold. But just because death is inevitable doesnt mean we cant cheat it to prolong our lives. I know that cancer is a major killer but look at the people who have died from it theyre not all old and grey ready to die! Some kids get cancer, is it fair that we should not try to find a cure and let them die painfully just because they would have died later in lfe anyway?! I believe it is our responsibility to help prolong these lifes by ways of science. So i still stay unmoved on science is good when it comes to our wellbeing .

But what is the cost of all this life saving, in a finite world rife with starvation and over-population?

What exactly is your problem with it Arnold? Is it that you don't agree with the changes brought and the situation we now find ourselves in through the use of modern science?

My problems are many. But chief amongst them: Too much certainty. There is no certainty, all is passing and transient. Todays "Scientific fact" is tomorrows "Scientific fantasy disproved". This false certainty is the fruit of human arrogance, its just the same as the terrible arrogance expressed in organised religion. As they used to say after the Reformation "Todays Presbyter is yesterdays Priest writ large". So too with the new age we live in - today's Scientist is just yesterday's Pope writ large. Moreover, Science is becoming far too manipulative, just like bad religion - watch "The Trap".