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.
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! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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) 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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. 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?
