Is Science a value system?

[krash661]

I don't think the fact of germs causing illness is necessarily valuable in itself. What makes that fact of value is the use of practices like medicine and hygene make of it. Without that knowing I'm sick because of a germ doesn't really benefit me at all.

do you even listen to yourself ?

 

[paddoboy]

You tell me. How has any of that knowledge benefited mankind? Once again, it's simply facts. And facts are value-neutral until someone gives them value.

Facts are "value neutral"?.......You mean like your claim that astronomy/cosmology/ and space endeavours have not advanced/benefited mankind?
Tell me, what [in your opinion] has benefited mankind? I'm listening.

 

[krash661]

I think that MR's right, that some people here on Sciforums do appear to me to have fallen prey to scientism. The way that MR was personally attacked for starting a blasphemous thread like this one speaks to it. Science is a pursuit where the relevant values are truth and falsity, yet somehow good and evil have found their way into the conversation. MR is perceived as being anti-Science, as if that was analogous to being anti-Christ. People seem to suppose that science is what gives meaning to personal and social life, that it's the compass that allows us to distinguish beteeen right and wrong, and that it offers humanity the promise of some kind of future apotheosis akin to salvation.

Here's how I defined 'scientism' in an earlier post:

"I would define 'scientism' as the idea that the only legitimate intellectual methods in all realms of life are the methods employed by the natural sciences. In other words, all other areas of intellectual life should model themselves on the natural sciences and are only intellectually respectable to the extent that they do so.

MR seems to have been using the word 'scientism' in another closely related sense, to refer to the idea that many people have entertained since the 18th century that science can and should be what give direction and meaning to individual and social life. It was the fundamental doctrine of faith in the so-called 'Age of Reason' that if the rest of human life could only be organized on the same basis as Newtonian physics, then the Earth could be transformed into a paradise. Religious 'obscurantism' and political 'old regimes' would finally be swept aside and replaced by utopian social engineering. It was this vision and this program that motivated the 19th century development of the so-called 'social sciences'."

MR seems to me to be questioning whether science has made contemporary life any more meaningful, whether people are any more happy, satisfied or fulfilled, than was typical in ancient Greece. We know more, true. (At least as a culture, perhaps not individually.) We have many more 'modern conveniences' that few of us would want to give up. (The 'desert island' argument.) But are modern conveniences, is making life ever-easier, really what gives 'progress' its direction? Is it humanity's goal?

If we talk to scientific researchers, they will often talk about knowledge for its own sake as their motivation. I feel that very strongly myself. Unfortunately, much of the knowledge that science produces doesn't seem tremendously inspiring. That seems to have been MR's point about astronomy. Most of the stars in the Sun's vicinity are relatively small and dim M-class stars. While that might be very significant knowledge to specialists, it isn't going to change the life of anyone down at the supermarket. In science-fiction, it's often imagined that very old alien races near the end of their journeys possess the 'secrets of the universe'. (Which typically turn out to be answers to philosophical questions, not strictly scientific ones.) This kind of vision transforms science into a form of gnosis, where the goal is attaining knowledge of the cosmic mysteries, knowledge which is presumed to be transformative, somehow.

Is saying these kind of things "anti-science"? Perhaps it only seems that way if people have an exaggerated and unrealistic idea of what science is and of the role that it plays in human life.

was this suppose to mean something ?

 

[Magical Realist]

MR seems to me to be questioning whether science has made contemporary life any more meaningful, whether people are any more happier, satisfied or fulfilled, than was typical in ancient Greece. We know more, true. (At least as a culture, perhaps not individually.) We have many more 'modern conveniences' that few of us would want to give up. (The 'desert island' argument.) But are modern conveniences, is making life ever-easier, really what gives 'progress' its direction? Is it humanity's goal?

We have to take into account how science has made us more dependent on technology and so creates an illusion of necessity. Yet prior to the cellphone, and the PC, and the TV, and even the car, people were not wallowing in misery for the lack of these things. The world and life in it was as happily accepted as ours is today. There was no question that it took you 3 hours to ride into town, or you had to wait to have live conversations with people, or you entertained yourself with books and crafts. Only by becoming dependent on modern conveniences, and getting used to the repose they grant us, is a misery generated when they are lacking. It's like a drug. Without ever trying it, you are fine without it. But once you try it, life becomes a quest for getting more and more of it, without even questioning whether it's necessary or good for you.

 

[paddoboy]

We have to take into account how science has made us more dependent on technology and so creates an illusion of necessity.

An illusion of necessity?? Now that's a cop out if I ever heard one!
In essence when we do depend on some technology, it is because its "benefiting" us. Without it, life is harder, not impossible, but harder. That's what benefiting is all about.

Yet prior to the cellphone, and the PC, and the TV, and even the car, people were not wallowing in misery for the lack of these things. The world and life in it was as happily accepted as ours is today.

Sure they were. But then along came cellphones, PC's and TV's and voila! They proved beneficial to our well being and necessity. In fact at least with regards to mobile phones, it has been found to have saved many a human life.


Really MR, as I have been saying, you are doing nothing but invoking silly philosophical anti science propaganda by claiming science has not benefited human kind, especially with the astronomical/cosmological sciences.
To write off all the many benefits with a few clicks of a keyboard on your computer, is absolutely ridiculous, and Ironic and hypocritical to boot, since the keyboard on the computer you are using, to communicate in direct and real time to anywhere in the world, is another benefit of science.

 

[paddoboy]

But I'm now not clear what exactly you are arguing. You seem to be trying to drive a wedge of some kind between the acquisition of knowledge and the exploitation of that knowledge. Humans are curious about their world and this enquiring curiosity is the basic intelligence that has driven the progress of the human race, isn't it? I would venture to suggest that the moment we stop seeing intrinsic value in knowing things is the moment we are doomed to intellectual stasis and stupidity.

Well put.

 

[C C]

MR seems to me to be questioning whether science has made contemporary life any more meaningful, whether people are any more happier, satisfied or fulfilled, than was typical in ancient Greece. We know more, true. (At least as a culture, perhaps not individually.) We have many more 'modern conveniences' that few of us would want to give up. (The 'desert island' argument.) But are modern conveniences, is making life ever-easier, really what gives 'progress' its direction? Is it humanity's goal?

We have to take into account how science has made us more dependent on technology and so creates an illusion of necessity. Yet prior to the cellphone, and the PC, and the TV, and even the car, people were not wallowing in misery for the lack of these things. The world and life in it was as happily accepted as ours is today. There was no question that it took you 3 hours to ride into town, or you had to wait to have live conversations with people, or you entertained yourself with books and crafts. Only by becoming dependent on modern conveniences, and getting used to the repose they grant us, is a misery generated when they are lacking. It's like a drug. Without ever trying it, you are fine without it. But once you try it, life becomes a quest for getting more and more of it, without even questioning whether it's necessary or good for you.

Since there seem to be pockets of happiness in any era, the final determination might be whether or not we destroy ourselves eventually as the result of ceaseless sci-tech progress. If our extinction is via transition into posthuman robots and artilects rather than artificially-produced catastrophes, then I suppose that end-result might be mitigated as "sci-tech was still great for the proliferation of intelligence in general across outer space, albeit no longer of the human or baseline human variety".

In contrast, surely it's safe to say that people would have at least been around a few more thousand years minus Western civilization of the last 600 years arising, dominating, and infecting the rest of the world. I mean (despite paranoid fears of asteroid-impacts, gamma-ray bursts and mega-gigantic volcanic outbreaks being imminent), it is stretching credulity with "6K Biblio-Revelational guy on the street holding a sign crazyism" to believe after surviving for hundreds of thousands of years that this particular branch of bipedal primate would coincidentally be slated for natural eradication at this time over the next few centuries.

(Then again, in the course of its increasing Earth-orbit distance, over billions of years... The Moon just happens "appearance-wise" to those on the ground, during the age of humans(+), to be the same size of the sun. Enabling perfect eclipses, etc. Talk about boggling coincidences, and the Wolf Clan shamans getting to opportunistically chastise their tribe for not sacrificing reliably to the gods as the Dark Dragon in the sky devours the life-giving sun.)

 

[Russ_Watters]

I think that MR's right....

I don't think you've been paying enough attention to the thread. You don't seem to know what has happened here:

.... MR is perceived as being anti-Science...

MR is anti-science.

People seem to suppose that science is what gives meaning to personal and social life, that it's the compass that allows us to distinguish beteeen right and wrong, and that it offers humanity the promise of some kind of future apotheosis akin to salvation.

No one has ever made such a claim here, that I've seen (in any thread MR has every tried the same schtick): please provide a quote where someone said something like that if you really believe what you just said.

MR seems to have been using the word 'scientism' in another closely related sense, to refer to the idea that many people have entertained since the 18th century that science can and should be what give direction and meaning to individual and social life. It was the fundamental doctrine of faith in the so-called 'Age of Reason' that if the rest of human life could only be organized on the same basis as Newtonian physics, then the Earth could be transformed into a paradise.

Please provide an academic/historical reference to support this claim. I've studied the history of science and I've never heard anything anywhere close to that ever be suggested.

MR seems to me to be questioning whether science has made contemporary life any more meaningful...

No, he's questioned whether it is objectively better, not "meaningful". Science doesn't/doesn't claim to provide "meaning".

....whether people are any more happy, satisfied or fulfilled, than was typical in ancient Greece.

No one has claimed they are and MR didn't claim they aren't. That isn't part of the conversation -- I have no idea where you are getitng it.

I feel that very strongly myself. Unfortunately, much of the knowledge that science produces doesn't seem tremendously inspiring. That seems to have been MR's point about astronomy.

No, clearly you have it backwards. Astronomy is "inspiring" to people who study it, but what MR was criticising about it is that it isn't useful.

Is saying these kind of things "anti-science"?

No, it just doesn't seem you've been following the discussion very closely.

Perhaps it only seems that way if people have an exaggerated and unrealistic idea of what science is and of the role that it plays in human life.

Again: no one has ever made such a suggestion except MR himself. This is all in your/his head. It isn't real.

 

[paddoboy]

MR seems to me to be questioning whether science has made contemporary life any more meaningful, whether people are any more happy, satisfied or fulfilled, than was typical in ancient Greece. We know more, true. (At least as a culture, perhaps not individually.) We have many more 'modern conveniences' that few of us would want to give up. (The 'desert island' argument.) But are modern conveniences, is making life ever-easier, really what gives 'progress' its direction? Is it humanity's goal?

Yep, they all make life easier and in so doing, are benefiting us. And really, as science is knowledge, I would say that the more knowledge that human kind can harness, the more beneficial that knowledge will be to his well being and survival.
The earth/solar system has a "use by date" science/cosmology has revealed that to us. Quite beneficial in itself. But science and cosmology continue probing, advancing modernising, progressing, achieving and knowing, and quite possibly, the fate that so far dictates that all life will eventually become extinct, could be dramatically extended for human kind...Stellar travel, achieving all that is possible to achieve and allowed for by the laws of physics and GR, could see us extending our species "use by date" quite dramatically, and possibly beyond what the average person can envisage.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yep, they all make life easier and in so doing, are benefiting us. And really, as science is knowledge, I would say that the more knowledge that human kind can harness, the more beneficial that knowledge will be to his well being and survival.

Well I'd better get going reading all the phone books of all the cities in the U.S. Afterall, knowledge itself is always "to my wellbeing and survival." lol!

 

[Magical Realist]

In fact at least with regards to mobile phones, it has been found to have saved many a human life.

"Long-term use of both mobile and cordless phones is associated with an increased risk for glioma, the most common type of brain tumor, the latest research on the subject concludes.

The new study shows that the risk for glioma was tripled among those using a wireless phone for more than 25 years and that the risk was also greater for those who had started using mobile or cordless phones before age 20 years.

"Doctors should be very concerned by this and discuss precautions with their patients," study author Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Such precautions, he said, include using hands-free phones with the "loud speaker" feature and text messaging instead of phoning.

The study was published online October 28 in Pathophysiology."===http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834888

Yep, they all make life easier and in so doing, are benefiting us

Annual Global Road Crash Statistics

• Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
• An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.
• More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.
• Road traffic crashes rank as the 9th leading cause of death and account for 2.2% of all deaths globally.
• Road crashes are the leading cause of death among young people ages 15-29, and the s

Cardiovascular disease

• CVDs are the number one cause of death globally: more people die annually from CVDs than from any other cause (1).
• An estimated 17.3 million people died from CVDs in 2008, representing 30% of all global deaths(1). Of these deaths, an estimated 7.3 million were due to coronary heart disease and 6.2 million were due to stroke (2).
• Low- and middle-income countries are disproportionally affected: over 80% of CVD deaths take place in low- and middle-income countries and occur almost equally in men and women (1).
• The number of people who die from CVDs, mainly from heart disease and stroke, will increase to reach 23.3. million by 2030 (1,3). CVDs are projected to remain the single leading cause of death (3).
• Most cardiovascular diseases can be prevented by addressing risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diet and obesity, physical inactivity, high blood pressure, diabetes and raised lipids.

Effects of TV watching

(Health.com) -- "No one ever claimed that watching TV was healthy, but doctors are only now discovering just how bad it can be.

Evidence from a spate of recent studies suggests that the more TV you watch, the more likely you are to develop a host of health problems and to die at an earlier age.

In a new analysis published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers combined data from eight such studies and found that for every additional two hours people spend glued to the tube on a typical day, their risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases by 20% and their risk of heart disease increases by 15%.

And for every additional three hours the study participants spent in front of the TV, their risk of dying from any cause during the respective studies jumped 13%, on average."===http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/14/tv.watching.unhealthy/

 

[krash661]

"Long-term use of both mobile and cordless phones is associated with an increased risk for glioma, the most common type of brain tumor, the latest research on the subject concludes.

The new study shows that the risk for glioma was tripled among those using a wireless phone for more than 25 years and that the risk was also greater for those who had started using mobile or cordless phones before age 20 years.

"Doctors should be very concerned by this and discuss precautions with their patients," study author Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Such precautions, he said, include using hands-free phones with the "loud speaker" feature and text messaging instead of phoning.

The study was published online October 28 in Pathophysiology."===http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834888

Annual Global Road Crash Statistics

• Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
• An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.
• More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.
• Road traffic crashes rank as the 9th leading cause of death and account for 2.2% of all deaths globally.
• Road crashes are the leading cause of death among young people ages 15-29, and the second leading cause of death worldwide among young people ages 5-14.

the fact that i have to join a membership, just to read it speaks volumes.
can you give the title of the paper so i can actually read it. i'm sure i can without signing up for memberships, since this is an accurate, important study.

 

[paddoboy]

Well I'd better get going reading all the phone books of all the cities in the U.S. Afterall, knowledge itself is always "to my wellbeing and survival." lol!

Is that your best shot?

 

[paddoboy]

"Long-term use of both mobile and cordless phones is associated with an increased risk for glioma, the most common type of brain tumor, the latest research on the subject concludes.

The new study shows that the risk for glioma was tripled among those using a wireless phone for more than 25 years and that the risk was also greater for those who had started using mobile or cordless phones before age 20 years.

"Doctors should be very concerned by this and discuss precautions with their patients," study author Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Such precautions, he said, include using hands-free phones with the "loud speaker" feature and text messaging instead of phoning.

The study was published online October 28 in Pathophysiology."===http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834888




Annual Global Road Crash Statistics

• Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
• An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.
• More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.
• Road traffic crashes rank as the 9th leading cause of death and account for 2.2% of all deaths globally.
• Road crashes are the leading cause of death among young people ages 15-29, and the s

Cardiovascular disease

• CVDs are the number one cause of death globally: more people die annually from CVDs than from any other cause (1).
• An estimated 17.3 million people died from CVDs in 2008, representing 30% of all global deaths(1). Of these deaths, an estimated 7.3 million were due to coronary heart disease and 6.2 million were due to stroke (2).
• Low- and middle-income countries are disproportionally affected: over 80% of CVD deaths take place in low- and middle-income countries and occur almost equally in men and women (1).
• The number of people who die from CVDs, mainly from heart disease and stroke, will increase to reach 23.3. million by 2030 (1,3). CVDs are projected to remain the single leading cause of death (3).
• Most cardiovascular diseases can be prevented by addressing risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diet and obesity, physical inactivity, high blood pressure, diabetes and raised lipids.

Effects of TV watching

(Health.com) -- "No one ever claimed that watching TV was healthy, but doctors are only now discovering just how bad it can be.

Evidence from a spate of recent studies suggests that the more TV you watch, the more likely you are to develop a host of health problems and to die at an earlier age.

In a new analysis published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers combined data from eight such studies and found that for every additional two hours people spend glued to the tube on a typical day, their risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases by 20% and their risk of heart disease increases by 15%.

And for every additional three hours the study participants spent in front of the TV, their risk of dying from any cause during the respective studies jumped 13%, on average."===http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/14/tv.watching.unhealthy/

Unproven studies...
But if you find them relative, why do you persist in doing what you are doing on a science forum. I'm sure also typing on your keyboard all the philosophical claptrap that you have, you maybe in line for RSI [repetitive strain injury]
Perhaps after being shown conclusively that science has, is and will always benefit mankind, you are now resorting to scraping the bottom of the cesspool.

 

[danshawen]

Give it up krash661; you're beating a dead horse. This one specializes in garbage topic postings with the intent to load up sites like BoardReader with spam on certain topics areas. The whole thread belongs in Cesspool, ASAP.

Unfortunately, this was bound to happen as our discussion topic areas of interest became more popular. It attracts folks like these. Magical Realist is not the only one of them here. They have actually tried to recruit me.

 

[paddoboy]

"Long-term use of both mobile and cordless phones is associated with an increased risk for glioma, the most common type of brain tumor, the latest research on the subject concludes.

The new study shows that the risk for glioma was tripled among those using a wireless phone for more than 25 years and that the risk was also greater for those who had started using mobile or cordless phones before age 20 years.

"Doctors should be very concerned by this and discuss precautions with their patients," study author Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Such precautions, he said, include using hands-free phones with the "loud speaker" feature and text messaging instead of phoning.

The study was published online October 28 in Pathophysiology."===http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834888




Annual Global Road Crash Statistics

• Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
• An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.
• More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.
• Road traffic crashes rank as the 9th leading cause of death and account for 2.2% of all deaths globally.
• Road crashes are the leading cause of death among young people ages 15-29, and the s

Cardiovascular disease

• CVDs are the number one cause of death globally: more people die annually from CVDs than from any other cause (1).
• An estimated 17.3 million people died from CVDs in 2008, representing 30% of all global deaths(1). Of these deaths, an estimated 7.3 million were due to coronary heart disease and 6.2 million were due to stroke (2).
• Low- and middle-income countries are disproportionally affected: over 80% of CVD deaths take place in low- and middle-income countries and occur almost equally in men and women (1).
• The number of people who die from CVDs, mainly from heart disease and stroke, will increase to reach 23.3. million by 2030 (1,3). CVDs are projected to remain the single leading cause of death (3).
• Most cardiovascular diseases can be prevented by addressing risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diet and obesity, physical inactivity, high blood pressure, diabetes and raised lipids.

Effects of TV watching

(Health.com) -- "No one ever claimed that watching TV was healthy, but doctors are only now discovering just how bad it can be.

Evidence from a spate of recent studies suggests that the more TV you watch, the more likely you are to develop a host of health problems and to die at an earlier age.

In a new analysis published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers combined data from eight such studies and found that for every additional two hours people spend glued to the tube on a typical day, their risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases by 20% and their risk of heart disease increases by 15%.

And for every additional three hours the study participants spent in front of the TV, their risk of dying from any cause during the respective studies jumped 13%, on average."===http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/14/tv.watching.unhealthy/

In actual fact, taking all that you have scraped from the bottom of the barrel, that we can include the chances of walking out the front and being hit by a bus, or eating/over eating some food and getting a stomach bug, or picking up a tick from your front lawn after mowing, or drowning in the bathtub while bathing, or tripping while walking down some steps...In essence MR, if you wish to avoid all you have listed as evils of science and shortening lifespans, and all that I have mentioned, the only way would be to be dead...

 

[paddoboy]

They have actually tried to recruit me.

Tell us more.

 

[rpenner]

The article seems to be "Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009" by Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001

 

[Magical Realist]

It attracts folks like these.

When you have nothing to say, best to just ad hom and demonize. That's the way of scientism evidently.

 

[krash661]

Cardiovascular disease

• CVDs are the number one cause of death globally: more people die annually from CVDs than from any other cause (1).
• An estimated 17.3 million people died from CVDs in 2008, representing 30% of all global deaths(1). Of these deaths, an estimated 7.3 million were due to coronary heart disease and 6.2 million were due to stroke (2).
• Low- and middle-income countries are disproportionally affected: over 80% of CVD deaths take place in low- and middle-income countries and occur almost equally in men and women (1).
• The number of people who die from CVDs, mainly from heart disease and stroke, will increase to reach 23.3. million by 2030 (1,3). CVDs are projected to remain the single leading cause of death (3).
• Most cardiovascular diseases can be prevented by addressing risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diet and obesity, physical inactivity, high blood pressure, diabetes and raised lipids.

Effects of TV watching

(Health.com) -- "No one ever claimed that watching TV was healthy, but doctors are only now discovering just how bad it can be.

Evidence from a spate of recent studies suggests that the more TV you watch, the more likely you are to develop a host of health problems and to die at an earlier age.

In a new analysis published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers combined data from eight such studies and found that for every additional two hours people spend glued to the tube on a typical day, their risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases by 20% and their risk of heart disease increases by 15%.

And for every additional three hours the study participants spent in front of the TV, their risk of dying from any cause during the respective studies jumped 13%, on average."===http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/14/tv.watching.unhealthy/

i noticed you left out the rest of the article. was it intentional for a reason ?
since it states that watching t.v is not physically harmful itself. but being inactive is the harmful aspect. it never stated that science is the harmful aspect.
i'm just curious.

in the end, everything is bad for your health, including health itself. but what are the odds this is not known by you.