Science - Good And Bad?

[forest dog]

What is wrong with incomprehension? Indeed, can a human mind expect to grasp and "comprehend" everything - surely this is an absurdity?

As I previously mentioned comprehension is fundamentaly inherant in humans as a species. Understanding how things work is what has driven us to become so sucessful as a species. If we didnt have our ability to figure things out then we would basically be chimpanzese. Simple as that really.

[herman herb]

IMO Good science has all the answers........It's just not in the interests of many powerful organisations for us to know them.

HH

[Arnold Layne]

Understanding how things work is what has driven us to become so sucessful as a species.

Are we successful? We have taken ourselves to the brink of destroying the planet we belong to, we have horrific weaponry which we use upon each other, we exploit, pollute, poison and murder each other daily......

Is this sucess? Is the reality we currently inhabit success?

Maybe in an alternative universe we are successful (echoes of Marcus Chown)? I am not sure about this one though....

I like this from E E Cummings - "Listen, there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go"

If only we could. Or maybe we can.

[forest dog]

I'm only talking about success as a species and in that we are plainly the most successful on the planet with the possible exceptions of some micro species. Quite possibly we are too successful which is what has lead to the problems you mention Arnold.

[Squaggles]

I think humanity is just an experiment . We were created by a 'higher power' and put on the Earth to see how we would do . We are now coming to the end of our time and humanity has been a failure . We have ended up almost destroying the planet and I think it's back to the drawing board for the 'higher power' . Oh well , everybody makes mistakes .

Maybe there are thousand of planets out there occupied by different lifeforms , hopefully some of them have done a better job than we have here on earth .

[kilgore trout]

if success is defined by ability to reproduce and increase in numbers, then we are succesful at present, but maybe only like when a preditor moves into a new area and has great fun scoffing new prey, but when that prey is gone, the preditor will soon starve to death, so is only a temporary success, maybe soon our resources will be all eaten up.

success implies a goal and that implies meaning in life, nature has none of that

anyhow, all the technologies that made us successful, and will help us to survive, if we use them wisely, werent invented by men in white coats, but by people understanding the processes of nature over thousands of years

Edited March 19, 2007 by kilgore trout

[Muppet]

From that guy: Well no, he should believe in himself essentially.

Does the Dalai Lama have a 'self' ?

Good thread, but sadly too busy at work to play properly.

[Boojum]

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 :doh:

I'll read the whole tread in a bit, when I've more time. But I want to address one point now. Good science and bad science is not a moral gradation - it's got nothing whatsoever to do with morality, and this is one of the mistakes you make, I think. As I said in the thread a while back, science at its most basic is discovery by observation. Good science is observing something and using that observation, without being influenced by your own preconceptions, to prove or disprove a theory. Hypothesis - hot water burns you. Experiment - pour hot water on yourself. Result - you get burned. Conclusion - the hypothesis is correct. That is good science, science following the correct methodology.

Bad science is science that does not folloc proper scientific technique - no moral judgement, purely a judgement of the manner in which it is conducted. All the bullshit about cannabis causing mental illness is bad science, because at no point has any research thus far proven the hypothesis, because no research has been conducted even remotely within the bounds of proper scientific technique.

Science is not about morality - perhaps that is why you object to it so much (just like, if I may say, religion is not about fact, which is why I object to it so much, belief and fact are opposite sides of a coin and never the twain shall meet).

Sorry, I don't normally post without reading the entire thread, I may be giving an argument that's already been given, but I wanted to give my perception of the difference between good and bad science. That's a poor term really (though I think it's one that I brought to a previous discussion). There's only science and non-science. Just seem that nowadays most 'science' is actually non-science. At it's most basic level, science is merely the desire to discover, and you do that by observation and practical experimentation. No moral dimension. So it can't be evil, it just is. It's one of the most basic of things that make us human, our curiosity. Once upon a time our questions were answered by holy men, based on belief. Perhaps that's your objection to science, because it leaves no room for belief ?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think science has all the answers (but actually, really complex theoretical physics and mathematics gets to a point where the numbers run out and it becomes philosophy - there is a meeting of science and philosophy. Not belief, but philosophy. Quantum physics bears striking parallels with the teachings of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching)

Sorry, going way off the point I wanted to make now. I think what offends you about science is the reductionist view, that everything can be reduced to numbers. But go deep enough and even the numbers run out, and you're back into the realm of philosophy again (what is Shrodingers Cat if not a philosophical idea ?). One can be a scientist (ie want to explain the world as far as possible by observation and experimentation) without being a reductionists. There are Christian scientists (no, I don't mean that lot, I mean scientists who are Christians), and Muslim ones (much of our moder mathematical and scientific thought comes from Muslim scholars, much of the rest of it comes from Hindu scholars). Soulless science is an abomonation, we are not numbers. Soulless scientists are probably the majority nowdays. But that doesn't make all science wrong any more than Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers make Islam wrong.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Boojum

[Arnold Layne]

Once upon a time our questions were answered by holy men, based on belief. Perhaps that's your objection to science, because it leaves no room for belief ?

I am not sure what belief is, TBH. But you carry on.....

Don't get me wrong, I don't think science has all the answers (but actually, really complex theoretical physics and mathematics gets to a point where the numbers run out and it becomes philosophy - there is a meeting of science and philosophy. Not belief, but philosophy. Quantum physics bears striking parallels with the teachings of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching)

Sorry, going way off the point I wanted to make now. I think what offends you about science is the reductionist view, that everything can be reduced to numbers. But go deep enough and even the numbers run out, and you're back into the realm of philosophy again (what is Shrodingers Cat if not a philosophical idea ?). One can be a scientist (ie want to explain the world as far as possible by observation and experimentation) without being a reductionists. There are Christian scientists (no, I don't mean that lot, I mean scientists who are Christians), and Muslim ones (much of our moder mathematical and scientific thought comes from Muslim scholars, much of the rest of it comes from Hindu scholars). Soulless science is an abomonation, we are not numbers. Soulless scientists are probably the majority nowdays. But that doesn't make all science wrong any more than Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers make Islam wrong.

Now we're getting somewhere.... yes, and yes and yes. Its is soulless science that irks me, thankyou for clarifying my vision.

[Father McPot]

Science is touchy because as we have it in our reigns, it can/could easily get out of hand.

I have similar interests, Arnie, apart from I'm not as bad as you at Maths(from what I gathered)

I have began to stumble on a few truths of nature in the past year or two and quite frankly they scare me, they are things that no numbers can make sense of. I'm not going to try and explain it because:

A. It's too difficult

B. It's too profound

Bottomline(imo): There are some things in life that science will never be able to explain.

One thing I've discovered: As we go forward in time, we have began to find more things about the past. The further we get from the past, the more we seem to know about it.

Perhaps that's your objection to science, because it leaves no room for belief ?

Belief is the death of thought and all that...

Edited March 19, 2007 by Father McPot

[Boojum]

I used to be a soulless scientist, when I was at university I thought science had the answers. I believed Dawkins and his Selfish Gene nonsense. It nearly killed me, I realise now that it was one of the major root causes of my suicidal depression, because I was trying intellectually to believe something that I knew emotionally wasn't true. I think that's belief, it's a product of emotion (not base, surface emotion, but deep emotion, emotion from the core of your self. From you soul, if you like). And that's the kind of thing I don't think science is ever going to be able to explain. Science can tell you what endorphins are released when you fall in love, but it will never be ableto break love down into its constituent parts. That kind of thing is outside science.

I heard a quote which I think nails it a while back. I don't know who said it, and it was a while ago so I'm paraphrasing. It was about the romance of the Mountains of the Moon in Africa and it was something like this "Scientists could grind the mountains of the moon to dust and analyse every particle, but they will never discover where the romance of them comes from."

I guess good science is realising that while it can explain a lot, it can't explain everything.

And even one of the most apparently soulless scientists, the father of the atomic bomb J Robert Oppenheimer was interviewed in 1965, and when talking about the detonation of the first bomb at Trinity said

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed... A few people cried... Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the prince that he should do his duty, and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form, and says, "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.

Edited to add science can tell us why solid water (ice) floats when all other solids are denser than their liquid form and so sink. But it can't tell us what it means to be human. That's the job of philosophy (or religion - hell, I'm not anti religion, even if I appear so, I'm anti organised religion which is a different thing, I think)

Edited March 19, 2007 by Boojum

[kilgore trout]

good use of science is just like good use of the intellect:

never believe your theories are the TRUTH.

dont cling onto theories that the facts contradict, no matter how comforting they are.

science, like the intellect, is a tool, it is not where ya gonna find god.

science, like the intellect, will make your life easier, but it will not make you happy.

think i may have paraphrased someone there, D.T. Suzuki, i think (sounds all just like buddhism, anyhow)

Edited March 19, 2007 by kilgore trout

[cf]

Good science, bad science like Arnie said its all perception and interpretation.

Boojums miserable mate says in the play "For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" so everything is interpretation.

..and are we to trust our perception?

When we look at the world with a 'scientific' eye ,a supposedly rational one, we are using our five senses to make an objective 'picture'.we cant 'see' 'hear' or 'feel' these things that are rationally undetectable but are never the less there like beauty or love.

to think we can comprehend the universe with our limited scientific capabilities is conceited......something more metaphysical might be of more use

Once upon a time there was an elephant and four blind men. They were not born blind and they have seen most of the things of this world but an elephant. One day they met an Elephant. The first blind man, feeling of the tusk cried, an elephant is very like a spear! The second took the trunk and immediately screamed; an elephant is just like a snake! The third touched the broad and sturdy side of the elephant. He declared an elephant looks like a wall! The fourth seized the tail and claimed an elephant is like a rope.

[Blayz'd]

I knew this one would be good. Everyone seems quite knowledgeable and there are varying comments giving different aspects. I like that people here are willing to give their opinion in a decent mannar when it may disagree with someone else. Great stuff.

There also seems to be differing opinions on what science is. I believe science is about knowledge, about finding out new things, thinking of new things. This starts with sheer speculation, ideas and theories. It ends with an experiment which proves the theory right or wrong. Everything in and about this process is science.IMHO.

On the matter of the universe. I watched an interesting documentary which has come up with the best theory of why the big bang occurred. As all things with theory in their name you have to take it with a pinch of salt but I found it quite interesting. Here's a link for those interested.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...allel+universes

Some of you might have seen this but if you haven't you should. This is one of the greatest scientists I've read about. He's not your typical stereotype scientist either. He is also a nobel prize winner I believe. For some reason I find this man and his views extremely interesting. Worth checking out and pondering over with a nice big J.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...9&q=feynman

[squirrel]

Science is not in itself bad or good. It's a tool. Our best tool. It's looking at the world and working out how it works. It turned us from naked apes huddling together for warmth and hiding from the sabre tooth tiger and the storm, to demi-gods who ate the sabre-tooth tiger and made the lightning sit up and do tricks, who became so powerful that no animal could ever threaten us again. It gave us the power to blow up the world, and just enough wisdom not to do it - so far, anyway. B)

The industrial revolution was ugly and exploitative while it was happening, but without it most of us would be peasants, condemned to a life of hard physical labour and dead of old age by forty. No centrally heated houses, no haute cuisine, no holidays in the sun, and if you want a new shirt it will take you a year to make it. If you are hankering for a perfect pastoral world, I'm afraid it's a myth, never existed.

And I note that even the chief science-hater appears to be communicating via computer... B)