Science is not a perfect institution

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Buddha1, Nov 28, 2005.

  1. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Since the original thread to discuss the issue is now discussing a sub-issue "mental illness", I've decided to create a new thread to continue the original discussion.

    I'm saying that Science is not a perfect human institution. It has many flaws in it --- just like any other human institutions. And being a human institution it is subject to all the drawbacks that human beings are capable of.

    Therefore, we should not accept with closed eyes whatever those in charge of this human institution tell us in the name of "science". Even the common man should have the right to question the 'results' and show how they could be wrong.

    "Science is getting away from nature and working against it!"

    My other contention is that Science represents the exploitation of nature, and hence it is a harmful human institution. At least it has become as such. If we want to save our species as well as mother earth, we have to change 'science' as we know it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Pretty much untrue. And it's fairly clear that you haven't spent much (any?) time around real scientists. It appears that you are simply parroting what the majority of "anti-science" people like Duendy keep repeating.

    Science isn't like that at all. Science is a never-ending quest for truth and facts. It constantly polices itself, looking for misconceptions and discarding that which has been superseded by new evidence.

    Science itself is also completely neutral. It's what is DONE with scientific discoveries that you are really complaining about, whether you realize it or not. For example (one often used), science led to the discovery of gunpowder. Other individuals decided to use guns to provide food or to kill each other. That was not a decision made by science.

    Science has also made many discoveries that treat illnesses or prevent them. It's up to others to decided if they will be used or not.

    And most of the things that you would blame on science were actually the result of political decisions. Pretty much anything, from a kitchen spoon on up can be used for either good or evil. Science does not make that determination - ordinary people and governments do.

    So you are attempting to place blame entirely in the wrong place.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Perhaps we are looking at different things when we say science. Can you give me your definition of science?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    The definition of science is the use of the scientific method (hypothesis, test, conclusion). Light's definition may not be exactly that, but that is mine and based on my definition I agree with Light 100%.

    I like nukes better than the gunpowder example because it is more dramatic. My dad and I once had an argument, he lamented the fact that science had developed the knowledge that led to the creation of nukes. I pointed out that more lives had been saved and benefitted through the various medical and industrial applications (radiation implants, radiation therapy, proton beam therapy, PET, SPECT, nuclear energy, etc.) than had been killed and harmed through war and accident (Hiroshima, TMI, Chernobyl, etc.). Not to mention the reduction in lives lost in war. I would not close "Pandora's box".

    Fear ignorance and fight evil, not knowledge.

    -Dale
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2005
  8. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    dalespam....you have strange ideas. you welcome nulear industry??....what are we gonna do with the waste? much of it is used in teirwars such as Depleted Uranium. have you any idea the damage that has done to pople, the environment??? it is unspeakable!

    who do you think lives near and on the toxic waste of your favourite technology. in this instance am not just speaking about nuclear waste, but the waste from general technology. who lives near and on it....?
     
  9. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    When in doubt, look at wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
    'Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) is most commonly defined as the investigation or study of nature through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding out the truth. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

    Most scientists feel that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well. This article concentrates on the more specific definition.
    '
     
  10. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    if say i decided to sit near a tree, and fely a communion with tree. i go to a scientismist and they say 'poppy cock! you whacko tree huggin woo woo!!. you cant commune with TREES. cause our scientific method tells us so."

    person slunks off, IF shamed. which is the purpose of indoctrination. why else do you think army recruts are humiliated, have hair shaved off, given numbers, and shouted at in the negative..??
     
  11. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    meant to say 'for the FORMER it is fascim'....alaways get my latters and formers mixed up
     
  12. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Well, I didn't understand a word you said.
     
  13. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Everyone already knows this. That's why scientists are constantly checking and reevaluating ideas; we know that we might be wrong.
    Anyone and everyone is free to question scientific results. That's why scientific results are published in journals. So that, you know, everyone can look at the results and decide for themselves what to think. Scientists don't say "I'm right and you're just going to have to take my word for it and accept it." That's how religion often works.

    Scientists always present reasons and experimental evidence for others to examine to back up their claims.

    It seems to me that you are complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.
     
  14. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    let me try and answer and also help po spuriousmonkey out who cant understand me

    we have religion. let us takeJudaic Christian religion. they have a dogma which states THE author-ity is 'God' who has written a book called the Bible. so all experience has to be sanctioned VIA that doctrine. if it aint it was of the 'Devil'...ANY communion wit Nature with aid of 'magical plants' was deemed demonic. right?

    we have science. I a focusing on the prevailing mterialsitic science, which in its fundamental mode is termed SCIENTISM. and it statea that any expereicne not measured and us verified via its scientific method cannot be authentic...TILL....TILL....TILL! i IS verified. get my emphasis? thewy keep it as a dcotrine via their criteria for measurement through teir precious scientific measuring stick they aplly tat o ALL experience. efen expereince of communihg with Nature via 'magical plants'. NOW it is not of te 'Devil'--as that is 'supersitious'--what science supposedly rebelled against. no...NOW it is 'distortion' of reality....!DIG?? they believe tewy have the MEASURE OF reality and only via their scientific method can reality be autenticated. so a game is being played which maintanis an oppressive indoctrination goin strong. as te preevious indoctrination did.
     
  15. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    If you want to call your reality scientific then indeed you have to adhere to the scientific method.
     
  16. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    duendy: you seem to be complaining about the way many people don’t believe in things that can’t be empirically verified. Any scientist would admit that there are things outside the realm of science that can’t be verified scientifically. Whether people choose to believe in things that can’t be empirically verified is a personal choice. Part of the reason that so many people stick to science as a means of discovering truth is that it has such great predictive power. If you make a decision based on scientific evidence, there is a good chance that things will turn out the way you want/expect them to. If you make a decision based on some guy’s statement that he communes with trees, there’s a good chance that things won’t work out the way you were expecting, which could have disastrous consequences. Suppose you need advice on how to plant your crops. You will starve if your crops don’t grow. A scientist offers you advice on how to plant the crop and explains to you why he’s offering the advice, backing it up with experimental evidence. Then someone else offers you different advice based on what he learned while ‘communing’ with the plants. Whose advice do you think it would be safer to take?
     
  17. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    haha...are you being real?? you are imagining that we had to wait for science to know how to grow food? peoples were doing justthat fine for millenia way before 'science' came long. ....must rush will get bck later
     
  18. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    ...you see it is EXACTLY that superior anD ARROGANT ATTITUDE, WHERE MATERIalist scientists ad adherents ASSUME the universe and peoples were awaiting for their shit. it is just NOT so

    even not so long ago, we used to actually do age old organic growing and coppicing etc. rten know-it-all Science wit power of te State, vice versa TELLS farmers they must use pesticides and all manner of things which leeches goodness out of soil, spoils plants. affects health of people workin it and living near, anilamls, wildlife, wildflowes , meadows, anceint woods--all gone, at an unpredcidented reates post WW2.......THAt is the ignorance and opression of Science&State, when it pushes its version of 'reality/truth' on othes peoples, species and Nature
    And IF sciene is stuttin bout saying its top for predictin and control. what about the current dramatic worry abou te weather? is tere any coherent scientific plan as to what to do??....well?
     
  19. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    You completely missed his point.
     
  20. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    this is all the cause of ignorant use of scientific theories. It is not the direct cause of science, rather the misuse of science.
     
  21. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Did you really misunderstand my post that badly, or are you deliberately responding to a parody of my point rather than my actual point?
     
  22. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    ...read it as i found it....
     
  23. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Then maybe you could point out the part where I said that people had to wait for science before they could grow food? Because I never said that.
     

Share This Page