The Relevance Of Science

[Roller]

I guess I can't help but notice a wide range of opinions on this forum with regards to scientific method and theory. Some people feel that science is a hugely important tool in aiding human knowledge, others feel that it is narrow-minded and actually holding back future developments. This argument seems to crop up in nearly every thread in the Philosophy and Extended Discussion boards, so I decided to start a thread for debate on the issue. I've been thinking a lot about it lately, but I'll leave my opinion until a little later. So, what do you think? Is science good or bad for human development? Does it promote or supress new ideas? Do you agree with its concepts, or if not, what else would you propose? Hopefully we get some useful debate out of this...

[ExoByte]

Science definatly aids our development, and it definatly brings forth new ideas. Science is powerful, but unfortunatly a lot of that scientific research goes into finding new ways to kill other people. Science brings forth new ideas. Unfortunatly, this thread will be moved to the Religion forum. Why? Because of the topic. What truely holds back the new ideas, is religion. The church, ect. Because of the Church's refusal to accept science, they have held back the development of science. If not for the Church, we could likely be exploring new worlds by now. But again, Science definatly brings forth new ideas, advances us... but too much of that money for scientific research is going towards weaponry, and arms. Too much of that money is being used to find more effective ways of taking someones life. So yes Science advances us, but their must be changes if we are to advance faster.

[Adagio molto]

I think it is very reliable, I mean, I'm on a computer right now! But I think that most of humanity is ignorant of it's present potential, thus letting a lot of good go to waste. Or should we turn a cold shoulder on technology, because it isn't "human"? Are humans crossing a fine line between human and God that shouldn't be crossed? I've been pondering this stuff ever since reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. It's sooo good.

[Koji]

So, what do you think? Is science good or bad for human development? [/b] Without science, I believe our development would stagnate. It takes science to know science. In order to expand our knowledge, we need knowledge. Science is certainly the key, so without it I doubt we would really go anywhere. What we understand of the past, present, and future would be nothing without science. In fact, we would be nothing without it given the time. Science offers survival, but it also offers death, rather double-edged no? Does it promote or supress new ideas?[/b] Both. Scientists are stubborn. If an idea is not aligned with the current concepts it is "wrong". Few seem quick to welcome new ideas, or improvements on old ones. Yet, science also brings new ideas as we grasp new concepts, or new ways to look at concepts. I think it is wise to look outside the box and give a chance to topics that are not unproven. I suppose my standpoint is: until proven or unproven, it remains on the table. Though, sometimes I am quite close-minded, I am always willing to listen if new evidence is presented to a topic. I also believe that ideas have a tendency to misdirect other scientists. When something is well established, it seems many researchers jump on board and have a strange inability to follow their own path. I believe that too impedes science. If something is said to be unsolvable, then others trying to solve it blow it up to a proportion it is not. That, in my opinion, is why some things remain where they are, whether it is math or some more abstract idea. It is because someone indicated that it cannot be solved and therefore many agreed, which made it hard to move on from that point. In the end, I find it generally relevant and reliable. I do believe there are problems but there are problems with everything it seems.

[Keeper]

Science is cool (I actually wish to go inot a scientific disipline [if you count mechatronics as a scientific disapline and not a enginering one ]) however, not all scientific theories are correct, and many have been disproven. I think all scientific theories should reguleraly be re-evaluated, as should all things.

[Howie]

Of coarse it is relevant. Nothing is constant (reliable) It is ever changing the more we know. The more we know the more relevant it becomes.

[wasup]

Yeah, absolutely. Science is used for understanding ourselves, our external environment, and used for manipulation to innovate. The "scientific method" is maybe what you should be critical about. The scientific method you think may be holding us back. But we have been using science since the dawn of time, and without it where would we be? We would be in the stone age. We observed that moving stuff really fast makes hot things which makes fire. All these "stone age" inventions and everything else came from a process of observation and experimentation/repitition. Science helped us get where we are.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I think the scientific method is not only acceptable but essential to our understanding of how the universe works (or our perception thereof). I think the scientific community is the catalyst that can corrode the tool. Every step of the scientific process (save "stating the problem" and "performing the experiment") is open to subjectivity. Subjectivity is open to bias. Bias is open to fallacy. Two scientists can use the same scientific method and come up with different theories. The "peers/admirers" of each scientist, regardless of whether or not they have done the work themselves, are likely to side with whichever scientist they most respect. This, then, turns a legitimate scientific inquiry into a game of "my daddy can beat up your daddy" by way of competing theories. I have no problem with the scientific method, though. It's just when questioning what's accepted by a mainstream scientific community where the pissing contests begin and things often come down to not what you know, but what you believe.

[Indecent Exposure]

Science is extremly imprtant to us yet it has aided us and helped destroy us we had through science created atomic bombs yet we have also engineered ways of prolonging life, saving life at times the problem lies is that horrible region where we begin to reply soley on science to teach us everything. science teachs figures, facts, equations its cold it doesnt teach us love, morals, compassion. equality, freedom diffrent very imprtant virtues to find a blaance is imprtant and like exobyte said religion has supressed scientific advancement in certain states in the US, evolution is not even taught in schools but elts not turn this to religion nice thread though =D Imran

[OneRyt]

I stated something to this effect on a thread a little while ago, and people scoffed at me. lol Science eventually becomes obsolete. There is a time for abstract thinking, and a time for logical thinking.

[Keeper]

Science is a part of being human, One. It will not go away well we are still like this, and we are going to be like this for a long, long time. Science is when the great minds of the past said "I wonder what will happen when I plant the crops in that season? All the other plants did well then, so what about this one? Ahh! It did not do well. I now know not to do that, because it hurt the plant. Why did it hurt the plant ...?" you see?

[Indecent Exposure]

Keeper i really dont understand the relevance of your post Imran

[slimslowslider]

I like the method - but the practice and practitioners are often suspect. Much of science is driven (funded) by warmongers and profiteers. Also there is a tendancy for scientists to gather around and be influeced by, the most popular current ideas and paradigms, which can create inertia and shortsightedness. "Everyone searching for the lost keys under the same streetlamp"

[Keeper]

Keeper i really dont understand the relevance of your post Imran [/b] it was in response to One's post

[Howie]

Science is a part of being human, One. It will not go away well we are still like this, and we are going to be like this for a long, long time. Science is when the great minds of the past said "I wonder what will happen when I plant the crops in that season? All the other plants did well then, so what about this one? Ahh! It did not do well. I now know not to do that, because it hurt the plant. Why did it hurt the plant ...?" you see? [/b] It sounds like survival of the fittest to me. Science is best analyzed through a very stable and controlled environment. Also rigorous effort. Best outcomes for science experiments is not necessarily trial by error. More so to make the minimal amount of mistakes possible for an end result. Though errors are inevitable when treading into new territory.

[Keeper]

I said the OLD scientists

[Roller]

So most people so far have said that scientific mehtod is relevant, but there tends to be flaws in the wider scientific community, such as biases and clinging to old paradigms. I think that while biases certainly exist in the scientific world, they are a greater problem with politicians and beraucrats who try to adopt scientific evidence: they can pick and choose studies/evidence to fit their ideals. Clinging to old paradigms isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think it is a vital part of scientific method, as it acts as a guard against pseudoscience and bad theories. If a new theory is proposed and met with strong opposition then it will be all the stronger for it - the act of standing up to counter-claims etc serves as further proof of the validity of the theory. If the theory does not stand up to the counter-claims then it is obviously in need of re-examination or dismissal. I think that science is the only true way of gaining knowledge, but the biggest problem it faces is not the scientific method or the scientific community, but the way in which it is incoperated into the wider community and used or misused by coorperations. As a matter of interest, what does everyone think about new-age theories? Many of them seem to be quite incompatible with scientific method, yet new-age theories seem to generate a lot of interest in the general population - for example, fortune-telling and psychic readings have become a billion-dollar industry.

[juroara]

only time can tell roller. as science advances a lot of things that were once science fiction became science fact - look at hypnotism. becuase of new and serious studies of it, hypnotism is taken a lot more seriously. I think one role of science is not to turn a blinds eye on new-age theories, but to continue looking at it from all angles and even to have no point of view of what they are investigating. Lets say spirits are real, but science doesn't care to study spirit and ghost experiences because they believe every one is a delusion or hallucination - even when they have no documentation of what is happening in the human brain at the time it prove its a hallucination. And lets say, spirits aren't real and science doesn't persue the matter any further even when there are millions of accounts of spirit and ghost experiences. What happens when science calls everyone one of those accounts 'wishfull thinking' when it doesnt care to investigate these experiences? I mean its kinda like a crime scene, you still need to find out the truth even if you believe you know what happened. Maybe ghosts aren't real, but maybe the experiences are neither wishfull thinking or hallucinations but something else? Like a mirage, which would mean millions of people aren't randomnly dellusional but experiencing something very real and very much apart of earths natural phenomenon. Anyways, thats just a what-if example.

[The Blue Meanie]

As a matter of interest, what does everyone think about new-age theories? Many of them seem to be quite incompatible with scientific method, yet new-age theories seem to generate a lot of interest in the general population - for example, fortune-telling and psychic readings have become a billion-dollar industry.[/b] I think they're a load of crap, to be honest. It's not that they're incompatible wit hthe scientific method because they ARE compatible. The scientific method is compatible with anything, because it's a method of discerning the veracity of a theory. That is, to say that something is incompatable with the scientific method is like saying that something is incompatable with logic, or incompatable with maths.

[Wicked]

I firmly believe that science is the Number One strength of humanity, being by far the primary offspring of Intelligence, which is the only thing that separates Man from Animal. The path of scientific and technological advancement is the only path we should take. Once we'll finally manage to put the spiritual mumbo-jumbo aside, and leave religion and other things we make up when we can't fully understand things greater than ourselves behind, I believe we will finally get on the track to trascend into a transhuman state of existance (or something like that).

[Neruo]

What a silly poll. Science tries to be the closest thing to absolute truth. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Most of the time 'science' (scientists) are doing the best they can. Was the poll directed to the ideological perfect science, or the temporarily science of people that used to think smoking wasn't bad at all and that the earth revolved around the sun. - My vision: The ideological, perfect, getting-as-close-to-absolute-truth-as-possible science, I of course like that. How science actually goes down, is pretty good most of the time. However sometimes science has some weak points, like stubbornness, or people lying about results for fame or money. However, as long as science stays alert, and is always capable of looking at itself critically, then science rocks balls.

[Roller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Neuro")</div> What a silly poll.[/b] Not really, I was simply trying to find out different people&#39;s opinions on science. Maybe I&#39;ve been baiting the discussion a little bit, but I most certainly do think science is relevant and in fact the only way to ever gain objective knowledge. The poll wasn&#39;t really directed at anyone or anything, but I was curious too see if many people did disagree with scientific method and practice, and if so then why.

[Neruo]

Not really, I was simply trying to find out different people's opinions on science. Maybe I've been baiting the discussion a little bit, but I most certainly do think science is relevant and in fact the only way to ever gain objective knowledge. The poll wasn't really directed at anyone or anything, but I was curious too see if many people did disagree with scientific method and practice, and if so then why. [/b] I think science is extremely relevant. But relevant to what? To a 'higher' goal? To economics? To mankind as a whole? I think that in the way you meant your poll, I would agree that it is improtant, it is important because I as a human see knowledge as improtant.