Is Science a value system?

I suggest you stop your bluffing and continued philosophical rubbish and answer the questions.
What is your agenda?
What drives you to express such an outrageous and patently untrue statement, that science does not benefit humanity?.
What drives you to continue to infest with plainly philosophical statements against the loads of evidence that quite a few have offered?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reported for insulting..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you have been doing nothing but insulting science, and everyone's else's intelligence by your obtuse ignoring of evidence and continued philosophical rants.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then report me for "insulting science." lol!

 

Naaa, I'll let you stew in your own juice.
Remember, as I say to all anti science trolls, in their many vain efforts to denigrate the discipline, these types of forums are the only outlet you have.
Your nonsensical claims and dreams will never be tolerated anywhere else.

 

Yep. And it also includes Maxwell's Equations describing the laws of electromagnetism. Said equations being why you are able to buy a computer to complain about how understanding the universe doesn't have value.

 

Perhaps because the reason is irrelevant in the context of the question posted...

 

Ever helpful, I'll try to bring Kittamaru up to speed. Here's MR's original post in this thread (highlighting by me):

Are values embedded within science and implicit in scientific practice? What justifies our confidence that these values, assuming that they exist, are the ones best suited to serve as the compass that gives history and 'progress' their meaning, direction and goal?

Paddoboy, the board's most outspoken defender of scientism, stoutly rose to the challenge:

If I was going to nit-pick, I could point out that some of that seems to be historically simplistic and inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

MR replied by saying:

MR clearly intended his reference to astronomy as a reference to pure research that doesn't have any obvious technology pay-off in making human lives easier and more comfortable. (Assuming that's the proper direction of progress.) Star surveys have revealed that most of the stars in the Sun's vicinity are M-class red dwarfs, knowledge that doesn't seem to be necessary to prevent humanity from plunging into a new 'dark-age'.

So all of this arguing about GPS satellites and weather forcasting looks like a textbook example of
(to steal Kittamaru's words) "a non sequitur at best, but seems more likely to be a case of ignoratio elenchi..."

 

Right. Earth is a planet. So your computer resides in the universe and on a planet and it works the way it works because that's how the universe works.

But I think you know all of that and this dense act is just that: an act, for trolling.

 

When has paddoboy, or anyone else for that matter, ever advocated/defended scientism? I've asked that several times before but received no answer because we all already know what the answer is.

That's the same trolling/flaming defamation that is driving MR here.

 

Except I responded to a specific question that had been posted, namely:

He asked me to support my claim. I did so, in post 312. At which point, he responded:

To which I responded

He asked a question. I answered. He responded with something completely out of left field. Thus, my response.

In the words of Captain Jack Sparrow:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

On hardly has to embrace scientism to see that historically astronomy has advanced human knowledge greatly.
Astronomy -> Kepler's Laws -> Universal gravitation -> Space programs -> weather satellites
Astronomy -> Kepler's Laws -> Universal gravitation -> General Relativity -> GPS clock synchronization
Astronomy -> Kepler's Laws -> Universal gravitation -> General Relativity -> Cosmology -> A general sense of scale of space and time -> A bucket of cold water in parochial reasoning
Astronomy -> Spectroscopy -> Quantum Physics -> Lasers -> CDs/DVDs/BlueRay discs
Astronomy -> Spectroscopy -> Stellar Surveys -> Hertzsprung–Russell diagram -> stellar physics -> fate of the sun -> an empirical basis for ending human sacrifices to bring back the sun

Cataloging stars is a lot like cataloging beetles or cataloging war casualties. Theres a lot of them and individually they don't seem important to the grand scheme of things but by knowing about many of them one may discover general laws and commonalities. And the latter has a chance to impact our daily lives because everything does seem to be connected in our universe.

Since none of us knows the future, how can be one be so certain of the lack of future utility of continued astronomical "pure research?" That seems to me to be an entrenched antipathy towards knowledge rather than a well-reasoned argument against "pure research."

 

Brings to mind Faraday's "What good is a new-born baby?"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I totally agree about your examples and the argument you make for the practical benefits of astronomy. I think there are also benefits in terms giving mankind a more enlightened outlook and even in terms of appreciating the beauty of the universe. Not all benefits need to be Gradgrindian material things, in my view.

However at the outset, the argument seemed to be whether scientific knowledge itself is a moral good, or whether such things as the above should be seen as morally good applications of knowledge that is in itself morally neutral. That seems to me at least an arguable viewpoint and I think what Yazata is trying to do is to get back to that philosophical debate.

Personally, I have always felt that knowledge is a moral good in itself. But that may be because I went to a good and ancient university at an impressionable age, and its culture has left its mark.

 

They use Maxwell's equations to make computers? I was unaware of that. I thought the first computer was mechanical anyway---Charles Babbage's Differential Engine?

 

Thanks..That provides the context for what I meant. Unfortunately your clarification hasn't seemed to have averted the nonstop infomercial about how satellites are making our lives so much better. God bless the satellites! I couldn't get thru my day without them! lol!

 

Agreed. There is certainly a legitimate argument to be had about the value of "pure research", but while MR has specifically chosen a "pure research" area as a main example, he's improperly used it to support his idiotic claim that ALL science is useless. Since HE chose the example, he certainly recognizes the distinction.

 

Imagine that: criticizing the value of science while being totally ignorant of it. Maybe you should learn some science before trying to decide if it has value?

It was, but since that has nothing to do with the previous sentences, it must be trolling.

 

Again, you should learn some science before criticizing it. You almost certainly use satellites many times a day, even without knowing it. If you do any of the following:

-Read/watch any news.
-Watch TV
-Use a cell phone.
-Check a weather report.
-Use the internet.

Or, indirectly:
-Eat.
-Get deliveries.

 

Show me where I have defended scientism, or admit you are a liar.

I'm objecting to the inane claim in this thread by ignorant people, who claim science has not benefited mankind.
I reiterate my claim, that science in the main was responsible for revealing the reality of the situation that we as a human race occupy On Earth, and the Earth itself.
I reiterate that science/knowledge was also a prime requisite in removing the dominant power of the church.
I also reiterate that science is knowledge, and knowledge benefits humanity in the main.
I'll certainly live and survive with the tag that you and a few others may like to put on me as a "science cheer leader"...Far better than being a fanatical anti science God Botherer or a an anti science troll.

And by the way, the subject of this thread, as I said before, is a disguise for more of the usual attacks on science that the proposer is noted for.
Science in the main, answers only to the questions of how things are, not how they ought to be. It does not say what is good and what is bad.
The kind of life we lead depends on the goals we set. Science gives us knowledge, but does not direct our free will. That knowledge though, shows direction and the path and methodology we should take.

Let me make it quite clear, for anyone to claim that science does not benefit humanity is inane, stupid and quite obviously false, and such a claimant should have a long hard look at themselves, and their associated agendas, and the reasons they so fanatically and stupidly push such a concept.