111

We should build more advanced weapons; in the interest of scientific curiosity.

Our aim should be to attempt to build a weapon that can blow up the entire planet.

Hypothetically of course. In the interest of scientific curiosity.

111

Weapons are glorious. I agree with SamCDKey, but not her sarcasm.

Should science belong to the military industrial complex?? No. Should it be a benefit to humanity? YES.

Weapons are glorious. I agree with SamCDKey, but not her sarcasm.

You are now crowned as the Grand Pooh-bah and given full autonomy to build massive weapons of destruction in the pursuit of scientific interest.

I am honoured.

I adopt the Tarkin Doctrine as official Science Policy.

We should build more advanced weapons; in the interest of scientific curiosity.

Our aim should be to attempt to build a weapon that can blow up the entire planet.

Hypothetically of course. In the interest of scientific curiosity.
Building better logical arguments is in the interest of advanced intellectual curiosity.

But comedy is a respectable second-best.

Building better logical arguments is in the interest of advanced intellectual curiosity.

logical arguments are a poor recourse against illogical minds.

logical arguments are a poor recourse against illogical minds.
Surely, you jest?

Surely, you jest?

Hence, the realm of sarcasm (and emoticons).:poke:

Hence, the realm of sarcasm (and emoticons).:poke:
So, you need emoticons to appreciate my point?

/snarkasm off

We should build more advanced weapons; in the interest of scientific curiosity.

Our aim should be to attempt to build a weapon that can blow up the entire planet.

Hypothetically of course. In the interest of scientific curiosity.

Waste of money, plain and simple...

The Golden Age of the 60K is long gone, but there are still a good 15,ooo jim-dandy fusion spark~o~matics left in the Ol' " Finale Rack ".

I mean - blowing up the entire planet is kinda like hiding the evidence of the crime of human existence.

I think it far more apropos end to leave some tantalizing tidbits lying around for whatever survives the Long Dark and crawls outta the new primordial ooze to try it's hand at world dominion to discover by just laying waste to the works of man in a nice, toasty nuclear holocaust.
(well... and plus killing about everything else on the surface of the old mudball... but hey - it's not like it extinctions never happened before... :rolleyes: )

You know - just to instill the googly-eyed mutie sumbitches of the far-flung future with a little humility when they think of the Mad Gods who came before them smashing the cradle of life as though it were just some readily replaceable setup...

However, if the proposal was to devise a giant rocket engine which burned the polar ice caps as fuel and hurled the Earth into the Sun... I could get behind that effort - in spite of the aforementioned.

It's got style, you know.
:cool:

Should science belong to the military industrial complex?? No. Should it be a benefit to humanity? YES.

Benefit humanity? Does that include those who want to kill you, too?

Benefit humanity? Does that include benefitting rapists, murderers and psychopaths, too?

Sometimes people have a too-optimistic view of "humanity" ....because that includes all of those mentioned, and many more of similar intentions. So if you want to help "humanity", ......?

Baron Max

Bone marrow transplants came straight from pure science.

111

Bone marrow transplants came straight from pure science.

Humans in the Stone Age used to crack open large bones and eat the marrow. See? They "transplanted" marrow long before there was anything of a "science" in the world. :D

Baron Max

Humans in the Stone Age used to crack open large bones and eat the marrow. See? They "transplanted" marrow long before there was anything of a "science" in the world. :D

Baron Max

Shut up troll.

Anybody who things feeding starving kids is better than science should be pimpslapped.

Anybody who things feeding starving kids is better than science should be pimpslapped.

:spank:

Benefit humanity? Does that include benefitting rapists, murderers and psychopaths, too?
You speak of such people as if you are any better than them. Who should it benefit? Only the do gooders that are productive members of the collective standard? Perhaps it should benefit only cool skill.

Baron has a tendency to only focus on the bad...

Of course it would probably benefit the bad members of our society, but they are a smaller percentage of the rest of the population.

Baron has a tendency to only focus on the bad...

No, I don't "focus" on the bad, but too many people around here seem to leave them out of discussions ....focusing only on the "good". I.e., "Everyone should love everyone else" ...which essentially deprives all of the evil-doers of the world any of their pleasures! :D

Of course it would probably benefit the bad members of our society, but they are a smaller percentage of the rest of the population.

Would you be so casual about that if your parents or wife or child was a victim of such evil people? See? When one so casually makes remarks about the "percentage" of evil-doers, what they're basically saying is that we should all be willing to gamble our lives and the lives of our loved ones on the low percentages. Hmm?

Baron Max

Please tell me what is hypocritical about using a computer to say that Science should not go unchecked and "progress", simply for the sake of "progress", without a clearly defined direction and goal is impotent at best and dangerous at worst?
No one in the other thread (Click (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63881)) suggested that science be abandoned. the thread was about whether or not manned space exploration and colonization of space is a worthwhile endeavor.
You flew off the handle and started a ridiculous rampage of straw-men, running on the assumption the people were advocating stopping all scientific research and exploration altogether.

As I said in the other thread, in my opinion, Nuclear energy is not a fair exchange for Nuclear weaponry.

Movement, without direction is not progress, it is simply movement. The results of that movement can lead you to a great discovery, or right off the edge of a cliff.
Science, simply for the sake of science, is simply movement without direction.

You could end up with the cure for cancer, or you could end up with the Atom Bomb.

Should science belong to the military industrial complex?? No. Should it be a benefit to humanity? YES.
EXACTLY.

The goal of science should be the betterment of mankind, NOT the advancement of science.

And please tell me how I am a hypocrite.

What exactly do I benefit from that was a direct result of manned exploration of space and could not have been done without it?

I think that the goal of science should be the advancement of knowledge and any benefits to mankind arising as side effects are well and good.

I think that the goal of science should be the advancement of knowledge and any benefits to mankind arising as side effects are well and good.

Define knowledge.

Rather than define it, an example would be that now we know why the sky is blue. Our early hominid ancestors did not know. Know we also know that the earth is spherical not flat. I like having this knowledge.

Would you be so casual about that if your parents or wife or child was a victim of such evil people? See? When one so casually makes remarks about the "percentage" of evil-doers, what they're basically saying is that we should all be willing to gamble our lives and the lives of our loved ones on the low percentages. Hmm?
Baron Max

Id hardly say we were gambling with our lives for science that benefits the very low percentage of 'evil-doers' as you call them. Again you overlook all the good science can create.

"Benefit humanity? Does that include those who want to kill you, too?

Benefit humanity? Does that include benefitting rapists, murderers and psychopaths, too?

Sometimes people have a too-optimistic view of "humanity" ....because that includes all of those mentioned, and many more of similar intentions. So if you want to help "humanity", ......? "

Just saying but humanity is a concept used to talk about the "spirit" of that which we call human the internal conflicts(including psychological, as you mentioned) and all other factors taht contribute to this being. Also, although you tell Genji that he should not be optimistic when viewing sed creature I would like to point out that you should, if I may say so, not be quite so negetive either. <- Run on sentence.

111

111

111

111

You said

"but Science, solely for the sake of Science is hardly a noble endeavor."

Science has never been about practical goals. Industrial science is a recent invention. The gathering of knowledge is, for most people, quite a noble endeavor.


From 1860 onwards scientists started to leave their ivory tower and use their pure scientific approach on practical problems in society. In the sense that this movement became structural.

And especially for taking the ignorant position that pure science was somehow useless and even wrong.
Discuss, debate, and rant on...
i believe penicillan was discovered while investigating something else.
the transistor was discovered while looking for a vacuum tube substitute.
in short there are numerous "inventions" that wasn't invented at all, they were discovered while investigating something else.

another good point is mendeleev and the periodic table.
gaps in the table led to the discovery of some elements.
moreover mendeleev was able to predict those elements properties.

hmmm . . .
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63881

"but Science, solely for the sake of Science is hardly a noble endeavor."
I'm aware of what I said, and I stand by it so far.
You may convince me otherwise, but have not done so yet.

Science has never been about practical goals. Industrial science is a recent invention.
Science didn't have to be about practical goals until AFTER the emergence of industrial science.
Now, it is necessary.
I see it as not a whole lot different than "free market" capitalism.
If you let the profiteers set the rules, the rules will benefit the profiteers.

The gathering of knowledge is, for most people, quite a noble endeavor.
Please clarify.
Are you saying that the gatherer of knowledge judges his own actions to be noble, or are you saying that most people see the actions of the gatherers of knowledge as noble or somethign else entirely?

You implied it. What exactly do you think science does?
No, you assumed it.
There is a difference, and you should recognize that and accept accountability for your own actions and assumptions.

[QUOTE=superluminal;1319660]Really? See your quote above.

Weren't you? Really?
I've already answered that.

It has nothing to do with fairness or exchanges. Human inquiry will discover what there is to discover, no way to stop it. Blaming science for the failings of humans and politicians is unfair and frankly rediculous.
I am not blaming science for the failings of human beings, I am blaming human beings for the failings of science, and suggesting that humans be more responsible.

You absolutely do not understand the scientific enterprise.
You think so?

Yes. And as I said, this is not the fault of the curiosity of humans. Think about it. If you discover fire, how do you propose to keep that a secret or control how other clever proto politicians or warriors use it?
You don't.
Which is exactly why humans need to excersize a little wisdom and restraint when it comes to scientific endeavor, rather than simply praising knowledge and science as Gods.
Science does not have ethics - humans need to.

When the first trials of Oppenheimers little toy were setting to go underway, there were a few scientists and other people with questions regarding the possibility of it starting a chain reaction in the atmosphere and buring all the oxygen on the planet and destroying all life.
Oppenheimer opposed such a viewpoint, openly discounted it and assuredly argued against it.
Afterward, he was asked in an interview how he knew that there would be no such chain reactions, he replied, "I didn't".
He was hoping for the best, and feared that the detractors were right.

The two are in no way mutually exclusive.
They can be, and we have to be the sober judges of such.

Can you not see the folly of you position? All of you that denounce pure research?
Science didn't have to be about practical goals until AFTER the emergence of industrial science.

How can you ever tell what will be useful and what won't? Do you have some technological magic ball that lets you see the usefulness of a particular scientific discovery 100 years after its discovery and decades long investigation?
Obviously, no one can be certain.
That does not mean it is wise to trudge on ahead blindly, and hope it works out OK.

I'll bet, even without my help, you can think of dozens of current technological tools that originated from the pure curiosity of some scientist. If you can't I suggest you study a bit of the history of scientific discovery and technological development and see just how fateful the process is.
I'm sure I can as well.
That's really not my point.

I ask again...
And please tell me how I am a hypocrite.

What exactly do I benefit from that was a direct result of manned exploration of space and could not have been done without it?

Sometimes it takes hundreds of years and a series of other "useless" discoveries to yield something that is of limitless value to humans...

Well it was still useful wasnt it? Or maybe we should just forget useful knowledge?

111

111

Dont get mad.
If you werent clear thats your fault not mine.

Do you think we would be where we are today if no one practiced science because of the fear they would create something horrible? Its a matter of perspective.

How can you ever tell what will be useful and what won't?

No one can, because no one can predict the future. But all knowledge is useful, its just how you use it.

111

But how can such knowledge be useful?

What we are discussing superluminal is the justification of science for sciences sake so there's no point in asking me how it is useful. I specifically gave a non-useful example to illustrate how I would still be happy with this knowledge alone.

Weren't we perfectly happy thanking the sky faries for the nice blue sky and living on a comfy flat earth?

Apparently not. We spent a lot of our time coming up with better and better theories to try and explain things like why some stars wander (planets) and others don't. Sky gazing (or astronomy) was in fact, the very first science.

111

I sawr this documentary called, Iraq 4 Sale.

The private organization was hired to service the military. They charged the government a hundred dollars per load of clothes watched, and it cost them not even a dollar to wash the clothes useing the worst machines. They were so bad that the clothes came out ditier than they were before the wash.
When the soldiers started washing their clothes in the sink, they got in trouble because each load that the soldiers wash themselves is profit lost from the company. They company wants to wash as many loads as they can to make more money for each load. So the soliders were ordered to stop washing their own clothes.


Then there were the huge trucks upwards of a hundred thousad dollars. Whenver the slightest thing happened to the truck, the soldiers were ordered to destroy it instead of repeair it. If it had a slight problem with the engine. Even a flat tire that was easy to fix. The hundred thousand dollar truck was destroyed.

Some of them were used for delivery. They would use these huge trucks to deliver one tiny package just to get the money for the delivery. Sometimes if there were no deliveries, the trucks would be sent out empty. HAHAHAHA!!!!

The they discussed the destrucion of brand new equipment. They would get barnd new equipmen, and then send it directly to the dumpsters for destruction. Then they can claim insurance or whatever.

Then there were the SUV cars for lease. Instead of buying the cars for $80,000, they actyally leased it over the years which allowed the car company to get paid over $200,000, and get the car back after only 3 years. Not to mention the cars were never really used because they were so far out in the desert, and everybody lived in the same facility where they worked. So they sat there all the time. HAHAHAHA!!!!

I think your in the wrong in the head buddy.

Hmm the research of science is critical for the continuation of the human species, any money spent is money well spent if applied to right area. The colonization of space shouldnt be undertaken yet because NASA is underfunded and yes there are more important issues such as children starving. The only research that should cost money should be the location of all meteors because they provide a direct threat, this is common sense.

I suppose I just don't get how people can compartmentalize Science and knowledge into "useful" and "useless". How can one define what knowledge is useful or useless? Surely science by its very definition is useful no matter what, even if the knowledge yielded is not immediately apparent.

How can one define what knowledge is useful or useless?

It's only simple matter of perspective. Do you actually think that a poor farmer in Indonesia, who can barely raise enough food for his family, would think that exploring the galaxy was "useful"? ...in any way?

I think that one might not be able to define "useful/useless", but most people would know or judge particular aspects of science for themselves ...from their own perspective.

Surely science by its very definition is useful no matter what, ....

Not to the little old farmer in Indonesia who can barely feed his family. Or to the man in New York City who is just trying to sell some illegal drugs to a bunch of foolish kids. Or to the .........

Perspective, gentlemen, perspective.

Baron Max

It's only simple matter of perspective. Do you actually think that a poor farmer in Indonesia, who can barely raise enough food for his family, would think that exploring the galaxy was "useful"?...in any way?
Baron Max

Of course he wouldnt. But just because something is not useful to a particular individual, or even a group of individuals, this will only degrade the AMOUNT/DEGREE of the usefulness of whatever breakthrough were talking about.

Unless it is a COMPLETELY WORTHLESS idea where nothing productive can come from it (maybe even harm? but even that has usefulness to evil people), I cant see any major breakthrough NOT being useful in some way. (Morals aside)

Define knowledge.
Knowing what is actually means.