Gar

I'm arguing with my friend. She is a rather extreme Greeny, very pro environment, suspicious of genetic engineering, into "natural" stuff, etc.

She's complaining about the new environmental science teacher being an idiot. Apparently he said that science will eventually cure all social ills, and she disagreed. I pointed out that "science" could mean any kind of science, e.g. social science, political science, not only natural science.

Anyway, I'm rambling. The point is that I argued that pure science contributes a lot to social advancement. It produces technology, which can raise living standards, prolong life, facilitate communication, etc.

Now this is not a particularly strong belief of mine since this was the first time I really thought about it. What do you all think? Does science cause social advancement?

Hugo Holbling

Sorry to be critical, Gar, but i think you need to be more specific. What do you mean by "pure science"? Do you think social advancement is contingent upon social? Also, measuring such advancement is a tricky thing and causative links are difficult to prove.

Perhaps you could provide a few more details as to whether the teacher's argument was really that definitive (i.e. all social ills) and in what terms your friend disagreed?

'Tis the penchant of the philosopher to be so difficult!

braces_for_impact

I do not think that science can cure all social ills, but I do think it can go a long way towards evening the odds, so to speak.

In my opinion, "natural" does not always mean better. Some things are indeed synthetic and can perform far better than their natural counterparts. Science is not a magic wand to wave at problems. It is a tool, and like any tool may be used for good or ill.

Socially, I think science can teach us much, certainly more than dogma, be it religious or 'green' in origin. Critical thinking, alongside as much information as possible, correctly applied to doing the most good with the least harm is the moral obligation of anyone wishing to correct social ills.

Oxymoron

What is the metric of "social advancement"? How do we gauge how advanced we are?

We need to be careful here, because one way of measuring advancement might be technological level, which is directly related to scientific development, so we end up with a circular construction.

On that topic, I think it is important to separate science and technology: the latter may well allow us to communicate efficiently, for example, which can certainly have socially advantageous benefits. So indirectly, science advances us. However if we restrict ourselves to pure scientific knowledge, the landscape changes.

Science is a way of informing us about the world we live in. The scientific method is a highly tuned refinement of our own cognitive learning and modelling system. It teaches us that the only useful hypotheses we can make about the universe are testable ones. This could be the most important lesson of all: the scientific method is at the heart of our modus operandi, as applicable to the way we feel about ourselves as it is to atoms, cells and galaxies.

monkey mind

I'm pretty skeptical that science can eventually solve all of humanities problems but I suppose it's good to keep that high ideal in mind. Can science ever cure ignorance? or just plain jackass behaviour?

As far as does science actually help society to advance, IMO it provides the opportunity to advance but what we do with that opportunity relies on many different factors.

Materially, we're certainly better off with scientific advancement.

AnthonyAdams45

I am not sure that the unqualified extension of life is a good thing, nor that living standards are always improved by scientific inquiry. Without some notion of what the goal is, whether or not were advancing on it remamins in question.

What may really be at issue between you and your friend is her notion of what counts as a desirable world. If by definition, he ideal world has no technology, then scientific advances, insofar as they rely upon or encourage technology, are a bad thing.

Gar

I didn't really mean it as a pointed question. I just wanted to get the opinions of some of you philosophical types.

I'm really more interested in the historical aspect, but its good to get a few different perspectives.

Hugo Holbling

Ah... okay then! I suppose it's a question of intersubjective agreement as to what constitutes progress. If such agreement doesn't exist between you and your friend, you'll remain opposed. The key word is intersubjective, methinks!

fando

Well, I won't answer that vague question about progress directly, but I wanted to say something about how we communicate with others on subjects related to Science.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time to discuss subjects which aren't well formulated. If you have a discussion with a person who despises the idea of genetically modified foods on that subject, it's crazy to end up arguing about the merits of Science in general. You won't get anywhere because the scope of the new subject is too large. Instead, it will be much more fruitful to keep the discussion near the topic. If you're trying to convince your friend not to be so polarized about genetic engineering, then talk about science and ethics. The last thing you want is to end up arguing over silly things such as whether or not Cosmology is relevant in the agenda of social progressivism.

Starboy

Gar, please point out to your friend that everything on the planet including man and the works of man is natural. What she is observing is nature in action. What she seeks will not happen until humanity has run its course. She will get what she wants eventually, but unless we discover practical interstellar space travel no one will be alive to enjoy it.

Starboy