Is Science a value system?

More to the point, that's the way of the anti science brigade.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's based on statistics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually, for me he had a lot to say. very informative, in my opinion.
i was curious as to why i had to join a membership , just to read that so called study. due to dan, i now know why.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol! Paranoid much? Why DID you have to join a membership? Why is that even relevant? And be careful, "we" might recruit you next. "We" might even be bugging your phone! "We're" everywhere!

 

actually no, it has nothing to do with paranoia, that's just your attempt at manipulation, because you knew yourself that was a crap article. you just didn't think anyone smart enough to catch that was reading.
also, it's from experience. anything that requires paid membership, usually is a scam on information.

great question, ask the site why, because i have no clue.

if you mean the mentally disabled that ridicules science,probably only because they can not grasp such things, then yes i agree.

 

Reported for insulting..

 

Gee MR you are touchy [ and paranoid to boot]...reporting all and sundry, while you sit back in all your hypocrisy insulting science and scientists and the overwhelming benefits that society has gained.

 

Yes I see what you mean, but I don't lay the downside of such things at the door of science. I've always felt one should distinguish science from technology. Maybe that is a way of understanding your underlying point. Technology can be developed for good or ill, certainly, but it is not really science, it is the application of science.

But I still contend that science, i.e. the acquisition of knowledge about the physical world, as opposed to its application, has intrinsic value, for the reason I gave in my earlier post. You could argue I suppose that that value is due to the potential for exploitation, in principle, at some time in the future, which we hope for as a result of having found scientific knowledge useful in the past, in ways we could not have predicted at the time. So there is a presumption of future utility, leading to an act of faith, if you like.

But I think there is more to it that that, even. It seems to me there are plenty of examples in which science has given us a different picture of ourselves, our place in the universe and our responsibilities towards our world, and even towards each other, and this too is of value to the human race. This might be thought to be getting towards moral territory. I gave you previously the example of the interdependence of living things and the effect this has had on human society. Another example might be the genetic understanding that people of different skin colour are practically indistinguishable genetically, compared to the differences between us and our closest relatives and ancestors in the animal kingdom. And so on.

In short: the more we know, the wiser we become. And wisdom is good.

 

why did you feel insulted from that ?
were you actually referring to yourself on that comment ?
i thought it was just a sarcastic response. i had no idea you were actually referring to yourself.
funny.

 

MR , please tell me that what there saying is not true ....

But if it is come clean

We ALL make mistakes , no worries

river

 

Here's an interesting paper on the subject of this thread, entitled 'Six Signs of Scientism' by Susan Haack, an important philosopher of science and logic.

http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Haack, Six Signs of Scientism.pdf

 

Will read

 

I still stand by my thesis. That science in itself is not some way of bettering oneself or the world. It only has value that individuals put into it. A body of facts about the natural world is simply that--an inventory of things and processes that exist. And there is nothing in our knowledge about reality that advises or recommends us towards certain behaviors over others. It's the old is/ought distinction. What IS is the purview of science. What OUGHT is otoh the domain of morality and values and philosophy, which is what WE decide to do not what the world tells us to do. It thus becomes crucial for us to be wary of how people are using science for some moral agenda of theirs. Is altering our dna genetically to achieve some sort of ideal human advisable? Is the unquestioned transmission of private data thru wireless technology really a good thing? These are questions we have to consider, instead of just blindly throwing our allegiance behind scientific advances as if they were all good in themselves. There are many cautionary tales about the relentless affect of blind scientism, and it's notable that most superheroes are always depicted as opposing some "mad scientist" bent on global power. We need to bear in mind it is WE who use science, and that can be for good or ill depending on how we use it.

 

Technological advancement is a use we make of our knowledge of engineering and science. Generally that use seems to filter thru society's natural selective sieve as good things. But I still question the need to be on the phone all the time. Don't own a cellphone yet, and I live quite well without it.

It's a faith in science, as well as a faith we have in our decendents to use that knowledge to humanity's benefit. But I still see the knowledge itself as exploitable for good OR evil. Research into viruses can lead to cures, or deadly biological weaponry. We have faith in humanity to use the knowledge well. But that's a moral assumption we make about humanity as a whole. Many, perhaps those who have suffered under fascist regimes, are not as optimistic.

I see that as a philosophical conclusion supportive of a moral vision we have of humanity. Others might use evolution's "survival of the fittest" as a sort of moral imperative for self-advancement at the expense of others. But that's philosophy too, and not something inherent to the science itself. I'm not saying the value of fragile interconnectivity of all living things isn't a good value. I conclude it myself. I simply suggest it is a moral projection based on our values, values which are subjective though integral to who we are as persons.

 

As long as we are willing to pay the price of wisdom, which means making alot of mistakes, and often at the expense of others.

 

Stop being so overly pretentious and dramatic MR.
Knowledge is science, as I have explained to you before.
And without it, we would still be swinging in the trees.
To claim science/knowledge does not benefit humanity, is ignorant and dumb to the nth degree.

 

Science has helped rid the world of many scourges, such as the ruling overall might of the church.
It has revealed reality over myth, and given us on Earth a truer perspective of ourselves.
Try living in a world without science and we would be back in the dark ages.


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1311/1311.0508.pdf


Again, I must repost the following narrated by the greatest educator of our time......



For any of what I said not to be true, for anything of what Sagan has said about Astronomy/Cosmology not to be true, for any person to so glibly remark that science has not benefited human kind, one would have to be six foot under!

 

Well you can take that view, that the knowledge itself is morally neutral and that we derive moral conclusions and benefits from it, in a separate and further step. But it would not be possible to take these further steps without the knowledge that science brings us.

This discussion reminds me very much of the ambiguous depiction of knowledge and morality in Genesis.

(I agree about mobile phones by the way, though I do now carry one, due to the fragile health of some members of my family.)

 

Is Science a value system?

It would appear from numerous responses, that, at least as far as sciforums.com is concerned, Science is a Value System!

It would appear that the perceptions and beliefs of someone who has zero to very little actual education in any True Science Discipline, possibly any Discipline, for that matter - should have those perceptions/beliefs of and on Science as holding more "Value" than most other Posters.

So..."then" and "than" are interchangeable words...
So..."there" and "their" are interchangeable words...

So...Magical Realist, as far as sciforums.com is concerned...Science evidently IS a Value System...
...if one Values Personal Attacks, Ad Hominem Attacks and Childish Arguing...in lieu of intelligent discussion

 

To my very dearest friend dmoe......
As someone who now visits infrequently, there is no legitimate argument against the fact that science has, does and will always benefit mankind.
No one of any substance has disgreed with that. No one of any substance and logic can disgree with that. To try and do so with manufactured derived philosophical claptrap, is just plain dumb.
I'm sure without your excessive baggage and agenda, that you basically agree with those facts. Because facts is what they are.
In essence this thread is not about "valued judgments" that may or may not occur outside of science. It is about a small group of apparent individuals in some sort of jealous rage and a few "would be's if they could be's" along with our friendly neighbourhood God Botherers, spreading their propaganda and poison, and trying to derail science and its many worthwhile discplines and obvious greater good it has done for humanity
Without science in its many forms and disciplines, dmoe, you and I would still be swinging in the trees.


"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know".
Bertrand Russell

You have fun now dmoe, and do try and digest that which is staring you in the face everyday, and swallow that pride, face reality, discard your useless agenda, and you'll be a better man for it. Alrighty?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!