Lavis Knight

The tone of this thread is becoming less than civil. Refrain from non constructive posts or this thread will be locked.

-Lavis

doubtingt

These two statments contradict each other.
You claim that the knowledge produced by science has destructive effects, and doubt that science informs us about reality. Well, if science did not inform us about reality, then we wouldn't be able to use that knowledge to affect the world, whether with good or bad intention and effect.
The fact that knowledge from science can and is implemented in technology and other actions to manipulate the world around us (for better and worse) is prima-fascia evidence that it informs us of reality. OTherwise these science-informed actions would be utterly random and no more likely to yeild effects on the world than waiving a dead chicken over your head is to cause or to prevent an airline crash.

As to the destructive effect of science, science never has nor ever could cause harmful or positive effects. All science is capable of doing is yeilding a more accurate understanding of the world. How we implement and utilize that knowledge and towards what goals and effects is the product of social and personal values, ideologies, etc.. Science provides the ability to make a sharper blade, but whether we actually make the blade, how we make it, the by-products of the method we choose, and whether it is used to save lives in surgery or kill someone has nothing to do with science.

If the intolerant and pro-violence ethics inherent to the Bible inspire someone to pick up a rock a kill someone is that nature's fault for producing the rock?
No more so than it would be science's fault if he used an instrument produced with scientific knowledge. It's the person's fault and anyone who encouraged or fueled his psychological disposition towards wanting to hurt someone.

Alludium Fozdex

How so? You have yet to support this assertion.
Mathematics is a tool, nothing more. And what do "the crows" have to do with anything?

Mathematics produces a model of reality; it cannot produce reality itself.

Theophage

I think by mentioning the crows, the Dollar is saying that mathematics is "natural" and therefore okay, whereas science is unnatural and dangerous.

Schneibster

Here there be technophobia. Note that phobias are not merely fears, but irrational ones, or else normal fears magnified and expressed in an irrational fashion.

Nuclear weapons were not invented by science; they were invented by the US military. Pollution was not invented by science; it was invented (if you can use such a term for such a phenomenon) by greedy industrialists. The list goes on. And on. And on.

The problem is not science. It's unwise use of the knowledge science gives us. And that's politics. I would say that putting a bunch of politicians in charge of science would be like putting a bunch of industrialists in charge of deciding whether pollution is harmful or not. And any scientist co-opted into such a venture would quickly become a politician. Not to mention, we've had precisely that (I mean both of them- industrialists deeming pollution unharmful and a bunch of politicians in charge of what science gets done) for quite a while, and things don't seem to have worked out very well so far.

The biggest problem we have is that most people don't understand either what science is, or what it's good for. I find it particularly amusing to read posts made by a person using a computer, transmitted across the Internet, and stored on a forum server, advocating "stopping science from ruining the world." I like irony.

Keith&Co.

You've yet to prove this.

Science provides vaccines that save the user. That's even more clear to the viewer.
Science produces better weapons, but science also produces better defensive systems. A wash, eventually.
The scientific method contributed to changing bandages, changing bedding, washing hands, brushing teeth. Lightning rods, grounded electrical systems, insulation...

How would you measure the better of science versus the badder?

To me, it appears that science is our only hope.
What has math, without science, done for us?

GenesisNemesis

You're a nihilist, you should be proud that science is destroying the world.

Kermit

Science is also open to all if they have the ability and the dedication, just as math is. Being open to all has nothing to do with usefulness.

The difference between a pure mathematical model and a scientific mathematical model is that the scientific model has been linked to reality and tested. a = b * c * c is a math formula. E = M * C * C is a scientific formula (which means that units of measurement are specified and there is a connection to the real world). Pure math has no correspondence to anything real; it is an intellectual exercise. A pure mathematical model tells us nothing about the world until (and unless) it is interpreted.

(See”Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age” by Duncan J. Watts for a description accessible to the lay reader about building mathematical models that help explain our networked world.)


Impossible, but even if new, useful knowledge could be produced in this way, would we not be in exactly the same position we are in now? New understanding could be used in good and in bad ways, just as new scientific findings are now. However, if the new math discoveries are not in any way useful then they will not contribute to progress.

figuer

The premise of the OP is mistaken: The scientific method is not responsible for any 'damage', since it is simply a system for acquiring knowledge. Any 'damage' done is the result of particular applications of technology.

The Dollar

Like saying my brain isn't responsible for kicking the dog it was my foot. My brain kicked a simulation of the dog in my brain. It was my foot that accomplished the act of kicking the dog. But the foot and the brain are wired together just like the scientific method and the resulting self-destructive technologies. Quite rightly you've stated the scinetific method is a system for acquiring knowledge but it cannot know in advance the consequences of such rapid knowledge acquisation with which it is capable. All that can be said is that science is devoting more and more time to solve the problems that have resulted from its own past applications. The dog is being kicked and it only appears to be a foot kicking, actually it is a brain.