Science Has No Value

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by BeHereNow, Mar 1, 2008.

  1. BeHereNow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    473
    Science has no value.

    Using science, we can not even prove it exists, and if it does not exist, it has value equal (maybe al little less) to a castrated IPU. I say a little less because castrated IPUs are rare indeed.

    But I can show a high probability that science exists, so let us proceed on the unproven belief that science exists.

    If it does exist, it must exist as it has been described, particularly by those involved in it (if there is an “it”), and by those who have attempted to observe it from the outside.

    I mean “must exist” in the sense that if this is not true, than anything is possible, and I do not mean to discuss anything, rather something. Those who believe that science might exist other than the believers themselves proclaim, will have to argue with the believers. I will only warn that their faith is strong.

    The real value that is totaling lacking in this questionable endeavor of science, is a defined set of morals or ethics. Among human beings, ethics and morals are referred to as values, because (no surprise here), they have value. Value to human life.

    Of course science, as it is proposed, has internal values.
    For example it is considered unfair to steal the intellectual content of a colleague.
    But science has no expectations of how to deal with outsiders.

    Cadavers have a certain usefulness to science, and science had no guidelines as to how these cadavers are to be obtained. One man’s child is another man’s cadaver.

    It is fortunate that those outside of this belief system of science, impose their values on it.
    It is fortunate that most scientists accept these imposed moral and ethical values that are absent from science itself.

    If we can imagine a science left to its own devices, we can imagine reasons to make it illegal.
    After all, a valueless endeavor, is, without value.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    science has a lot of value because without it we wouldn't even have computers.

    sure you can: i see science, therefore it exists.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Sure it does. All of the time those scientists come up with allot of stuff that can't be seen or proven , like atoms. They can tell the public anything and the people wouldn't know much about whatever they said. Baffel others with BS is what they can do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Oh dear, who baffled you into believing I could read your messaage and that your PC was capable of transmitting it. You are not going to die of smallpox because you cannot see what causes it. More bafflement. The list is virtually endless.

    I suggest you are talking about religion ,with an absentee god, angels and all sorts of other entities which cannot be seen. As Mark Twain rightly said, when man has solved a problem, god slips in by the backdoor to take the credit.
     
  8. zarlok Banned Banned

    Messages:
    116
    Your posts have no value.
     
  9. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Obviously not to you. Shall I quote scripture ? How about

    "nd thine eyes shall deceive thee because thou comrehendest not the word of the Most Holy."

    Eugenics 1.13

    Or how about

    "And verily all shall be humbled before the throne of Zarlok because he speaketh the truth which none will hear."


    Paul to the Etruscans
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2008
  10. BeHereNow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    473
    I have been told, by one who more of these things than I do, : BeHereNow, you seem to think that Science deals with "proof". It doesn't.


    And by another: Scientific theories cannot be proven true.. . . we accept them as "true beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is the language of the law, not the language of science. . . .We casually refer to them as "truth" when speaking to laymen, but that is just dumbing down the language for laymen.

    And by another:
    Yes - there is no "proof" - only a very high probability.
     
  11. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    beherenow

    No shit.

    Now ask something a little better.
     
  12. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    I don't know about you but I'd sooner be somewhere else,so I'm off. CU
     
  13. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    THanks man!
     
  14. Turduckin A Fowl Trinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Science not only has no value, science destroys values. According to the extreme fundamentalists of the movement, values themselves have no value if they are based on anything other than Science;

    From a philosophy of reality and reason

    The underlying conceit of those who value only those ethical principles derived through a belief in the efficacy of reason is this: that all facts are material, and all facts are knowable and will be known. Therefore there is no reason (oxymoron intended) to rely on anything other than reason to make ethical judgements.

    After all, if you can prove that you possess more facts than I do, then reason dictates that your judgement should prevail. Your anthropologist should be able to walk into my sacred burial ground and study the bones of my ancesters unfettered by any ethics based on what is considered to be pixies and fairy dust. How is that any different, in the end, then what any zealot does?
     
  15. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Incorrect.
    Science provides us with nothing but value:

    Which is exactly the point. Without science not only could you not have made your post, more than likely you also would not have fashioned such an inept line of thought.
    Your mistake is twofold: Firstly, you make the illicit assumption that there is some sort of objective 'Truth' that it is the goal of science to reveal. Secondly, you make the illicit assumption that the methodology of the scientific method requires "proof".
     
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    How is life in a cave, anyway? Does lightning still frighten you?
     
  17. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553

    What have you got against reason ? Are you into crystals, tarot or some other superstitious nonsense ? Reason is all that sets us apart from the other animals. Why abandon it ? What are you afraid of ?

    Making ethical judgement is not a question of who has the most facts; it's a matter of interpretation. All the facts in the world cannot justify child abuse, desecrating cemeteries and other such behaviour. Can I suggest that you think about what you read rather than passively accept it, as you appear to have done. What you quoted is an appeal to the emotions, nothing more.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2008
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I think he is saying that reason without ethics is also fascism.
     
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    who said ethics had to come from a fair tale and a bunch of old (mostly) men who died 2000 years or more ago?

    I would rather relie on prinicple based ethics to make MY decisions
     
  20. Turduckin A Fowl Trinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Thanks for responding.

    I have nothing against reason per se. I do have a problem with what appears to be a worship of reason above all other mental faculties.... or the use of reason to the exclusion of mature, balanced emotion (and, on occassion, intuition). I use reason all the time (not as often or as well as I could) but I also try to accept how I (or another) feel about something without having to justify the feeling rationally.

    Crystals - no.
    Tarot - no.
    some other superstitious nonsense - IYHO - probably.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    An ethical judgement as 'a matter of interpretation'? Interpretation of what? Of facts? I would like to understand what you mean.

    Maybe facts can't justify desecrating cemetaries, but scientists did file a lawsuit to try to prevent kennewick man from being repatriated. I know the facts in this case are complicated, but I think it serves as a somewhat poor example that scientists are capable of bending other ethical considerations to the pursuit of knowledge.

    I'm glad you chose to characterize it as such. I pulled that quote as an example of a class of argument that I'm on about. I generally don't passively accept anything (at least not consciously, or unless I'm really tired.) I just generally feel that the subjective get's short shrift. I'm not anti-science, but I do think that BeHereNow has a point about science not having any intrinsic or derivable ethics, and I have my doubts as to how any ethical system can derive solely through the use of reason.
     
  21. Turduckin A Fowl Trinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    I guess I'm asking that IF my ethics were based on superstitious beliefs in the spirit world, would someone like you (with principle-based ethics-whatever that means) tend to dismiss them?
     
  22. Turduckin A Fowl Trinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Yeah - I tend to bloviate... I'm working on that.
     
  23. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    just for refference, ethics is something i have studied in a formal sence as part of my degree

    Now on to the post

    Would I automatically dismiss someone who takes there ethics from a religion?
    no probably not, "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not commit adultery" are good philosophes in and of themselves because they follow the principles I follow. ie Autonomie, Non-malfecance, benificance and Justice (in the sence of social justice not legal justice)

    "Love one another as i have loved you" or "treat one another as you would want to be treated" are brillant example of all 4 principles so it wouldnt even cross my mind to contritict them

    HOWEVER when something comes along that DOES breach my principles and is ONLY based on some book rather than guiding living principles then i will fight against it

    I dont generally do this in a formal sence (ie the principle of justice says .... which means we should do....) i tend to do it in a more practical sence (see the long dead CP threads i have been involved in, sorry cant give links)

    For instance the issue of homosexuality

    My principles of justice says that "everyone should be treated equally"
    Non Malfecance says to "DO NO HARM"
    Benificence "to benifit the lives you touch"
    Authonimy "everyone has the right to make there own choices in life"

    So when a christan (or anyother religion) comes along and says homosexuality should be banned because its a sin well that doesnt sit right and is something i should campaine against. When a goverment says that homosexual realtionships dont have the same rights as hedrosexual ones again it dosnt sit right because we are all equal and all have the same rights to make our own choices and be surported in those without any descrimination.

    Principle based ethics isnt a list of do's and don't's, its a method of working out what a corect ethical direction is for a set circumstance unlike religion which IS a list of do this, dont do that.

    I hope this has helped

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page