Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

Bells said:
Really?

Are you sure?

Because your posts in this thread have been nothing but "gripe" about "science". You seem to blame science for everything.
Click to expand...
no not really. I blame the human condition, human nature and a serious lack in wisdom ( vision).
I mean how could an ignorant prehistoric man know that the stick he just picked up to kill his neighbor would lead to the bombing of Hiroshima and potentially the extinction of the human race due to climate change...?

But his immaturity of intellect does not change the fact that it is the science of his actions that enables his unwise actions and his avarice and insecurities that drives them.

So...uhm... what happened to the science of "sustainability and environmental symbiosis" ?


Or the science of enabling "recycling" what we manufacture as an included science in that manufacturing?

....well I guess it is better late than never hey?
 
Last edited:
Bells said:
Only to those who are anti-science to begin with.
Click to expand...
oh come on... there are way too many examples of scientists standing up and claiming "something to be perfectly safe","we know what we are doing" and then being proved totally wrong in the subsequent disaster. CFC's is a classic example. Thalidomide another, Lithium, Nuclear power stations another ( Chernobyl, Fukushima etc) the list is endless...

Just look at the history of illicit drug manufacture, aka heroin, Morphine, and other opioids. Massive opioid problem in the world due to what exactly?
Human addiction to escapism enabled by a science that facilitates it. Perhaps...
 
Last edited:
Bells said:
What? Genetic degradation? Do you mean genetic erosion?
Click to expand...
No I meant genetic degradation but now that you mention it, genetic erosion can go next to it...thanks..
Example:
Gene editing is the latest disaster waiting to happen...

Have you seen the images of what happens when cloning fails? ( no, I wont post them here, as to me, they are way too traumatic)...and now we have some nutter, biophysicist He Jiankui, attempting gene editing on viable human fetuses with out any consideration to how those children will live with the conditions he may be installing.(Nov -2018)
Do you think he is the only one playing around with unethical backyard gene editing?
Of course he isn't.
The human fascination with Eugenics is alive and well...

Did you watch any of the "Black Mirror" series streaming on NetFlix?
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
lol ....but of course marketing departments employ science to set strategy yes?
Otherwise known as big data, data theft, data mining, and thorough analysis methodology and a total invasion of consumer privacy..:p

You only have to google GOOGLE to see what I mean... (chuckle)
Click to expand...
That's a rather loose definition of "science" you have there.

Any knowledge can be used for nefarious purposes by any number of people.
 
Quantum Quack said:
no not really. I blame the human condition, human nature and a serious lack in wisdom ( vision).
I mean how could an ignorant prehistoric man know that the stick he just picked up to kill his neighbor would lead to the bombing of Hiroshima and potentially the extinction of the human race due to climate change...?

But his immaturity of intellect does not change the fact that it is the science of his actions that enables his unwise actions and his avarice and insecurities that drives them.

So...uhm... what happened to the science of "sustainability and environmental symbiosis" ?


Or the science of enabling "recycling" what we manufacture as an included science in that manufacturing?

....well I guess it is better late than never hey?
Click to expand...


I don't think that ignorance comes into play for unforeseen future events, if there isn't sufficient knowledge to determine the potential of those unforeseen events. People who have anti-science views, usually refuse to learn current information that is available to them, or they deny the validity of it. These types are probably who the article is referring to. An example would be creationists who deny evolution, yet try to come across as understanding evolution but in many cases, they don't.
 
billvon said:
Uh . . . YOU said so. Are you losing track of the thread here?
Click to expand...
nope... I was discussing distinction not blame... re: Meiosis failure and cloning.
I am unsure what you are trying to discuss...
Perhaps you could enlighten us all about how Meiosis failure and artificial cloning are somehow related.
 
Last edited:
There's ample evidence that people have this love hate relationship with science which sometimes gets a little out of control...
I am currently viewing the movie Resident Evil - The Final Chapter.... and well as with most apocalyptic and other fiction tends to portray - the end of the world is always due to the abuse of power enabled by science.
Introducing the T-Virus - Armageddon!
 
gmilam said:
That's a rather loose definition of "science" you have there.

Any knowledge can be used for nefarious purposes by any number of people.
Click to expand...

and we know it but we still get out there and discover new ways we can abuse and be abused...

Say for example, there is a scientist working on a super virus based on the Variola (small pox) virus, that is 300% more deadly and about 600% more efficient, with the altruistic intent to ultimately create a super vaccine, that will make antibiotics obsolete. Boosting the auto immune system to overwhelm bacterial infections more rapidly.

He knows that eventually his discoveries will find their way into the wrong hands. With out realizing that there is no such thing as "right" hands either, he continues to research his deadly, yet altruistically motivated, ambition.
​
Should we be concerned?
He obviously knows what he is doing... or does he?
Why would we trust him?

btw an interesting related read if you have the time:
Hiroshima Syndrome.
https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/before-the-beginning.html

Several weeks before America dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Albert Einstein begged our government to reconsider. He reminded them of his famous 1939 telegram about atomic energy, where he said, "We scientists who released this immense power have an overwhelming responsibility in this world life-and-death struggle to harness the atom for the benefit of mankind and not for humanity's destruction."​
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Perhaps you could enlighten us all about how Meiosis failure and artificial cloning are somehow related.
Click to expand...
Both attempt to alter the genome of offspring. Both can result in horrible errors. Have you seen what happens when meiosis fails? I won't post pictures here, they are far too traumatic.
 
billvon said:
Both attempt to alter the genome of offspring. Both can result in horrible errors. Have you seen what happens when meiosis fails? I won't post pictures here, they are far too traumatic.
Click to expand...
Which litigation for compensation in court would be successful:
Against natural meiosis failure or artificially induced meiosis failure?
 
billvon said:
I won't post pictures here, they are far too traumatic.
Click to expand...
I am glad that you recognize that posting images of artificially induced meiosis failure is not appropriate.
It just a shame that the pictures exist in the first place... don't you think?
Of course I am referring to animals, including humans and not plants.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
I am glad that you recognize that posting images of artificially induced meiosis failure is not appropriate.
It just a shame that the pictures exist in the first place... don't you think?
Click to expand...
Given that they've been happening since humanity could take pictures - not really. Such things are part of life. There's no shame in them, even if they're disturbing.
Which litigation for compensation in court would be successful:
Against natural meiosis failure or artificially induced meiosis failure?
Click to expand...
Are you really arguing that morality should be decided by personal injury lawyers? Because if that's true, every medical advance mankind has ever made is immoral.
 
billvon said:
Given that they've been happening since humanity could take pictures - not really. Such things are part of life. There's no shame in them, even if they're disturbing.

Are you really arguing that morality should be decided by personal injury lawyers? Because if that's true, every medical advance mankind has ever made is immoral.
Click to expand...
I guess what you are saying and implying is an attitude endemic in the scientific fields. It is little wonder that science has a credibility problem and that anti-science sentiment is as prevalent as it is.
I might add all court derived decisions are morally founded. All. Unless you can coherently argue otherwise?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top