Why do people have such a problem with science?

[Cleobulus]

I look at the Prince Charles thread, where he makes yet another uninformed opinion about science and its influence on public policy and/or personal conduct of people, and I see a bunch of people jump on his bandwagon, as if he had something intelligent to say.

I hate to insult the guy, but he blamed Galileo for helping to create a "mindset" that lead to objectifying nature and leading to crass materialism. Uhm, Galileo didn't start this, indeed, the basis for this mindset predates him by quite a few years. Allow me to quote from what could be the "source" for lack of a better term:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Emphasis is entirely mine, and this particular verse HAS been used as justification, over the centuries, for people to exploit the resources of the Earth in its fullest. After all, God gave us Earth to use as WE see fit.

Indeed, this idea was so persuasive, so needed, that religious authorities have fought, tooth and nail to preserve this special dominion that Man has over Nature. Man was considered above nature, God's chosen species as it were.

Of course, what Galileo and the naturalists and scientists that came after him did was knock down this pillar that Man erected for itself. Instead of Humans being above nature, to dominate it, instead we are a part of nature, and subject to its laws, all of its laws. This is perhaps the greatest achievement of science, because a lot of our social progress in not only human rights, enlightenment values, etc. not only follow this, but developed with it.

This is the mindset shift, and it is a good thing, overall, but only after centuries of darkness, exploitation of other humans, etc. that we are able to move beyond the petty materialism of the past, and think of ourselves as part of this world, with true concern for all of its inhabitants, not just ourselves, because we are not removed from them. Frankly, I don't think this journey is over yet, but still ongoing, the forces of ignorance are everywhere.

This is why I don't understand the blaming of science for this, or even the need to claim science is incomplete. Its a methodology for discovery, nothing more, nothing less, and the one thing people must realize is that its the most reliable method we have in figuring out how the world works. Why demonize that when nothing else works with any reliability, it makes no sense.

What I find amusing is that science gets blamed for something religion did long ago, objectifying nature. Oh, there were, and are, some religions that try not to do this, but most of these are Modern religious movements that were created partly as a reaction against the obvious destruction wreaked upon the Earth by Humans. But when it comes to the main religions, the ones with the largest adherents, well, they aren't exactly friendly with nature, are they? A few still demand animal sacrifices of a sort(Kosher, Halal butchery), and others even take official stances on whether other animals have souls(Catholic and many Protestant denominations say no).

What I most strongly object to is the idea that the West is suffering a "crisis of the soul" as it were. To be honest, this is nonsense, I believe what we are seeing here is a reactionary result of people with old mindsets of materialism, of human "uniqueness" being challenged in the most fundamental ways. We are on the mountain of discovery, ready to venture onto the next highest peak, the question is, will we instead lower our sights and say its impossible because of fear and superstition?

[UndertheOcean]

1. Most people are stupid anyway (by most I mean 95%) , who cares.

[Cleobulus]

2. I don't believe that, and you shouldn't either...

people are ignorant, not stupid, and frankly I blame it on the effectiveness of the purveyors of ignorance, and the ineffectiveness of scientists in countering them. We need to fight them on their terms, and not pull any punches.

As far as to why I care, because if we don't win, nothing less than the survival of the Human species is at stake. We are entering a dangerous time.

[UndertheOcean]

6. Whether the Human species survives or not is of no consequence to the Universe

[Cleobulus]

7. Yeah, but I would hope my fellow humans would care about it...

for our own sake.

[UndertheOcean]

8. I think for our sake we need to evolve a little more.

We don't deserve survival in our current state , we should go the way of the Neanderthal ,all we can hope for is being the ancestors of a superior species.

[Cleobulus]

9. If you truly feel that way, please, you go first. n/t

[UndertheOcean]

10. All of us are going , :) dust to dust and all , so I won't be lonely

[liberal_at_heart]

154. I have to agree with Undertheocean and I also agree with you.

We are star dust and we are part of the universe but being part of the universe we must understand our impermanence. Animals eat each other, during ice ages some species become extinct while others thrive, black holes eat planets, and stars burn out. It is the nature of things. Nothing is permanent but it is not lost. It becomes something else. When our species is gone another will prosper. I would imagine alot of species would prosper if we were gone. To wish that our species could go on forever is against nature and I'm sorry to say a little arrogant. For us to prosper the dinasaurs had to die out. We could never have competed with them. And many species cannot compete with us. When we are gone another species will get to shine.

[Chulanowa]

15. See, even here, severe ignorance about evolution

<morbo> EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! </morbo>

[UndertheOcean]

17. explain thyself

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. An animal doesn't say "I choose to evolve today"

or "I sure would be better if I could breathe underwater. I think I'll evolve some gills."

By the time you are born, you're part in "evolving" is done. As far as evolution is concerned, the only thing that matters is if you will pass on your genes. For humans to "evolve" as you put it, there would have to be some quality that gives some a big reproductive advantage over others--either the others die out before they can reproduce, nobody will reproduce with them or they physically can't reproduce.

[UndertheOcean]

23. "An animal doesn't say "I choose to evolve today""

where did I say that ?

What you described in your post above is exactly my understanding of Natural Selection and Evolution ... I don't understand how you inferred that I meant otherwise ?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. How do you see humans "evolving" more for "our" sake?

[UndertheOcean]

27. "our" was meant figuratively , a label of our collective species and its descendants

(not sure I am using "figuratively" right)

[Chulanowa]

37. "We need to evolve a little more?"

It's not like the brightness / contrast knob on your TV. Evolution is not some sort of "quest to perfection" nor are those species that have gone extinct "inferior" to those that survived. I see this a lot on DU (and everywhere else, for that matter) the assumption that evolution is some sort of "progress" to a wonderful end result. Or more annoyingly, that "evolution" and "enlightenment" are one and the same, as seems to be a subtext of what you said.

As if the neanderthals were backwards, terrible creatures who deserved extinction for some reason. I see a lot of anti-Neanderthal bigotry (is that even the right word for an extinct hominid? I think so) expressed here, with the logic that they're extinct so they must have been somehow "defective" or "bad." I frankly think a neanderthal would be insulted to be compared to Rush Limbaugh. (Or any of us, really; I imagine Neanderthals looking at us and going "Oooooh, you poor little dumb ugly things..." like we're mentally handicapped pugs or something)

That's not the case at all, for any of it. Evolution is not steady progress towards an end result. It's not even steady or "progress."

Evolution is simply the changes in the population of a given organism in response to selective pressures of its environment. it's not forward, it's not backward, and it's sure as hell not some sort of spiritual quest nor enlightenment lottery.

Ditch the woo-woo and crystals, and pick up some Darwin. Or Dawkins even, if you can stand having your woo laughed at in between solid information.

[guitar man]

76. +1

"The *so easy a caveman can do it* thing was bad enough, but the next SOB that compares Rush Limbaugh to me is going down!!"

:D

[Bert]

114. Ok, I will stand in for her

How about the term social evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution but is a recognized term. It means that societies that behave in a benevolent and rational way can better utilize the dormant abilities of a society that go wasted than a fascist or even unregulated captitalist culture like ours. Basically, we can have exponential growth in our education levels in one generation if we act in an enlightened way. It is hard to point out indiviual cultures that would adhere to this standard becuase it is a bit sci-fi(can think of many short sci-fi stories that play with this concept) but we have had limited examples of our own, the educational and social as well as economic boom following WWII. I would say that some countries in northern europe are far ahead of us in educating their populace and producing societies that do not promote religious intolerance as well as allowing people a few vices and regulating them, such as cannabis and prostitution. As a result they have lower levels of addiction, prostitues are not more abundanat but they are more safe, they have fewer prisons and less of a millitary as well as more indiviual rights, all while maintaining a higher standard of living for the majority if you cut out the top two percent and for the most part being tolerant of others.

This is the type of evolution our co-poster was pointing out(at least I hope and guess so), social evolution and not physical evolution. The nice thing is that it can act exponentially and acheive huge results in a short time, even by our own limited measure of time. As far as physical evolution, yes I have a basic understanding of it and would suggest anyone who wants to really learn the basics of it google videos of 'richard dawkins how evolution works'. As far as religious nutters blaming materialism on science I dont know where to start except to say that this world should make a choice, science or religion. All who choose religion can take one half, and all who choose science the other half. I think it goes without saying which side will prosper. And I think religion is a disease, one that can afflict even the intelligent, case in point scientists who are devoutly religious. This just makes it all the more insidious and worthy of eradication. And I love the irony or those religious nutters using devices made thorugh science to espouse religion and denigrate science. They love faith based stuff unless it is actually needed. Case in point faith healing, at least they put their asses where their mouth is, pity it is usually the children of these nutters who pay the price for their ignorance and evil disregard for facts, logic, and science.

[Tumbulu]

168. You are being rude and give anyone reading your post the impression

that you think that you are smarter than the person who you replied to.

This is one of the attitudes that makes non scientists hate scientists and then this leads to dismissing science.

Where dow the poster talk about crystals and so called "woo-woo"?

[NeedleCast]

45. I'm glad someone caught that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Hey, atheists, if God doesn't exist then why did 9-11 happen?

How can anyone believe in evolution when it's just a theory (a geuss).

[SidDithers]

113. Trolling is a art...nt

Sid

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. Implying I should correct "a" to "an."

Implying implications.

[Bert]

167. No other explanation is possible

I think it can be taken as a given that humans didnt crawl whole made from the mud. All life on Earth has a common origin. The fossil evidence alone is overwhelming. Even the travesty that is creationism doesnen't disuput this, it merely tries to imply that there is some divine purpose behine this. Good luck testing such an idea however. And if you dont believe in evolution how do you explain the age of the earth, the diversity of life, do you dispute that all life on earth has a common origin? How do you explain the fossil evidence? Do you also believe the sun revolves around the earth? And it is not a guess, it is indisputable fact that has been analyzed to death. To dispute evolution is to dispute the scientific method, good luck with that. If you dont believe in the scientific method I suggest you stop using everything based on the scientific method. I may even come visit you in your cave.

[Ignis]

156. A bit harsh, but your point is valid.

If anything, the stressors in our evolution are likely to be related to environmental crashes and other large-scale catastrophic changes.

Right about now would be a good time to grow oil-breathing gills. :D

[Richard Steele]

186. KUDOS for the excellent Morbo reference. nm

[Trillo]

52. It's refreshing to see your idea expressed here on DU.

The same argument can be applied to colonizing other planets for the sake of survival.

[Silent3]

108. What does "deserve" have to do with it?

"Mother Nature" caused far more damage to this planet when "she" slammed an asteroid into the planet 65 million years ago, not only killing off the dinosaurs but something like 75% of all species.

To the earliest life on Earth, free oxygen was a deadly poison. The first cyanobacteria poisoned the planet, not only killing off most other life with their oxygen pollution, but putting the whole planet into a deep freeze via reverse greenhouse effect, taking too much carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. There have been many other pre-human extinction events, great and small.

In the future, there's nothing to stop "Mother Nature" from someday slamming an asteroid into the planet so large it would boil the oceans and melt the surface into lava. If the melting goes deep enough all life down to the last subterranean bacterium would be sterilized.

If an asteroid doesn't get us, the expanding, ever-hotter sun will bake the planet to death, then eventually the sun will expand until it swallows what's left of the earth whole.

The only thing that makes humans different than uncaring nature is that we at least have a chance, even if we don't always live up to it, to avert disaster. Jellyfish and wombats aren't saintly guardians of nature through any moral decision of their own to protect life. They just don't have the means to cause as much harm as we do.

For all of the tired old "Woe is humanity!" rhetoric, humans are the best bet currently for preserving the life of this planet by spreading it out to multiple worlds so that life can go on even when disaster inevitably strikes this planet. We humans also have a better chance than dolphins or ferns of extending the life of this planet as well, if we someday help divert a large incoming asteroid or comet.

I'm all for chiding my fellow humans for not doing a better job of protecting the environment, for our own sake as well as other life on this planet, but there's absolutely no sensible context in which to judge humans as more or less deserving of anything, compared to other life or the uncaring inanimate forces of nature.

[Confusious]

155. Nice post +100

So sick of the "we are a disease" crowd around here.

If they would take or read a little astronomy, they would figure out that we're pikers in causing destruction, and that we are the best hope for life from earth to continue.

Albeit not a very bright one at this point.

[opihimoimoi]

28. Whaaa...are we not the Masters of Le Universe? Destined to spread French everywhere?

[UndertheOcean]

29. Non .

[fishbulb703]

58. Absolutely wrong. We are the Universe, of course we care if we survive or not. You are promoting

objectification of existence. And being, in most respects, the most sophisticated arrangement of universe, we should be all the more concerned with surviving and understanding ourselves.

[FiveGoodMen]

70. "We are the Universe"

Really?

That's us the Hubble has been taking pictures of all this time?

[fishbulb703]

72. Yup. Where do you think all those elements come from? nt

[FiveGoodMen]

73. Wait, wait ... don't tell me...

When people die, they explode across the night sky and their matter eventually becomes the distant stars.

Is that it?

[fishbulb703]

75. No, when stars die they explode and their matter eventually becomes distant humans. :D

[FiveGoodMen]

79. ...which hardly makes us the universe

No more than the hairs in my shower drain can claim to be me.

[fishbulb703]

83. So the universe is stars? What separates us from the universe?

An on edit: If the hairs in your shower could think and talk, then yes they probably would claim to be you.

[FiveGoodMen]

84. "If the hairs in your shower could think and talk, then yes they probably would claim to be you"

And they'd still be wrong.

What separates us from the stars is a minimum of a little over 90 million miles -- thank goodness.

[fishbulb703]

85. Uh, distance along field lines.... so that makes us not the universe and the universe is stars?

What about comets? They are ice and rock. I can ingest ice right now and make it a part of me. I don't understand your point.

[FiveGoodMen]

90. You are not everything. Everything is not you.

My car is made from the same sort of materials as yours is.

Is your car really my car?

We are not all one.

The universe is not all one.

[fishbulb703]

93. That doesn't make sense. The universe is necessarily "all". Choose a new word. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

95. The UNIVERSE is all.

YOU are a teeny, tiny, itty, bitty, little, microscopic, insignificant, minuscule, ephemeral, soon-to-be-forgotten piece of that which seems to be completely unaware of its predicament.

Same for the rest of us. (Except for the unaware part)

[fishbulb703]

96. Yes, we are a part of the universe. Do you know how Venn diagrams work?

We ARE THE UNIVERSE. We should act like it.

[FiveGoodMen]

98. A PART is not the WHOLE.

That should be obvious.

[fishbulb703]

100. Yes, and we are that (or one) part of the universe that is self-aware.

And so we should be concerned with preserving and advancing that part of the universe. Otherwise, what is the point? You're not a nihilist right?

[FiveGoodMen]

102. Okay, that last statement made sense.

[fishbulb703]

104. :)

[FiveGoodMen]

112. :)

:toast:

[piratefish08]

41. depends, imo. WILLFUL ignorance = stupidity in my book.

[Posteritatis]

64. "I don't care" != "nobody cares"

Also, I'm endlessly fascinated at the number of people who claim the vast majority of humans are inherently stupid, if just because so many of them are hesitant to give a straight answer when asked if they consider themselves part of the other five percent...

[Codeine]

3. They don't understand it.

Most adults can't even do basic 7th grade algebra, have no idea how physical systems operate, and know almost nothing about the physical realities of the universe surrounding us.

They do, however, understand fairy stories and mother goddess silliness.

[Cleobulus]

14. This is true, and I don't understand why people act this way...

I think the most striking thing for me is that so many of them are completely incurious about how the world works, or that even they could develop the ability to discover things on their own. They prefer to be given the answers, from people like Prince Charles, their local priest, bishop, or pastor, and this is a HUGE problem for the world.

[Posteritatis]

61. It's a mix of that and the "no opinion can be wrong" bullshit

Even if someone isn't taking their answers from insert-religious-figure-here or the like, it's easier than ever these days to simply decide you know the way the world is or should be, and anything which conflicts with your views is a vile personal attack.

[lob1]

4. Of course it makes no sense, but it doesn't have to

if you have faith. And that's a wonderful tool when pols can make an argument and be proud that it makes no sense whatever.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. They have lazy minds. n/t

[FedUpWithIt All]

11. He was speaking about the mechanization of the world.

The science as it pertains to the "new and innovative" rather than the science which is comprised of discovery and evaluation.


Monsanto is science. Oil exploration is science. Television is science. This is what i heard him speaking of when he said, "This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo’s assertion that there is nothing in nature but quantity and motion.

“This is the view that continues to frame the general perception of the way the world works, and how we fit within the scheme of things.

[UndertheOcean]

12. "Monsanto is science. Oil exploration is science. Television is science."

If he really thinks that way , he is beyond any hope . Infancy onset senility has progressed aggressively with this specimen.

[Cleobulus]

13. My post went completely over your head, didn't it?

First off, the Mechanization of the World as a model has been replaced in Science for well over a century, and in life sciences, even longer. So it no longer applies.

ON EDIT: Actually, another thing to point out, Religion started the Mechanization of the world as a model of the cosmos and the Earth, in the Earth-centric universe. Galileo, and Copernicus, both used this model, modified, to explain their theories. This model was eventually abandoned, as I noted above.

As far as everything you are talking about, those are APPLICATIONS of science, not science itself, science is a method of discovery and evaluation, THIS HAS NOT CHANGED. Do not confuse science with the application of it through technology, nor the abuse of it through capitalistic economics.

[FedUpWithIt All]

16. I have an education that ended at a 9th grade level. I understand concepts even if i am limited

where formal learning is concerned. And i will be the first to admit that things often go over my head.

The applications of science are killing us. The applications of science are most heartily embraced by those who confuse "dominion" with right to exploitation. We agree that science applications have been abused due to the wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony of corporate powers.

He was speaking of the applications of science and the old model that propelled us to the imbalance which led to the dominance of those applications.

If my simplistic view of such things warrants the dismissal of my views, so be it. I have no desire to impress. My only real concern in this life to to make the most of the time i have here while causing the least damage.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. The applications of science are saving us.

We live longer, can treat diseases and infections, mitigate the effects of viruses, live in areas that we could never live before...

The "lets commune with nature" bit sounds nice, but it only works if the population is allowed to be culled through occasional starvation, disease and war. The ancients people love to talk about weren't any more environmentally friendly, they just had a much smaller effect on the Earth because they had small populations.

[FedUpWithIt All]

19. I guess time will tell if we have benefited or not from our advancements.

I agree that medical advancements have a wonderful short term benefit. The same holds for your other examples.

In the long term and on a broader scale than individual (or regional) well being, the jury is most definitely out IMMHO.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. What do you mean "short term benefit". Do you think more people should be dying?

[FedUpWithIt All]

24. More people ARE dying. Just not where you live. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. Where? More people die because we have larger populations.

Do you think those populations should be allowed to be culled naturally through disease and famine?

[FedUpWithIt All]

30. More people are dying because advancement carries with it the broad destruction of natural resources

This growth often contaminates, devastates, and alters to such a degree as to force natural changes in the world which limit access to basic life sustaining resources. You can medically treat a sick child but a lot of good it is going to do if he is dying of starvation brought about by environmental changes. And it is pretty evident at this point what is causing some of the most destructive environmental changes.

Population is less an issue globally than the consume/waste structure of the wealthy nations and a complete imbalance in the consumption of the limited, globally available resources.

You do realize that the majority of the world have little or no access to the advancements you feel are saving the world. I suspect they may have a different perspective.

It is late. I am off.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. So you would like a smaller population. How would you like to achieve that?

You said that our medical advancements were only helpful in the short term. The other option is allowing people to die and let the strong survive.

And I'm fairly certain that the poorest countries would love to have access to our vaccines and medical treatments if they could. I imagine they wouldn't think much of this "let's all live in the forest" nonsense.

[FedUpWithIt All]

33. Again, population is not the problem IMO.

The vanity of the wealthy and their selfish greed and consumption of the few at the expense of the many is.

But again, i am off to bed.

Goodnight

[SemiCharmedQuark]

34. Medical advancement has few negative benefits other than saving the sick and keeping the elderly

alive and we were specifically talking about medical advancement.

Good night.

[NashVegas]

173. Really? How Do You Feel About

People being pressured to give up body parts? Is that truly for the good of society?

[NashVegas]

128. They Are Saving Individual Lives At the Expense of the Greater Race

So we can all use a few medical miracles and live to be 100 now. Awesome.

Trouble is, the earth cannot support this population.

A rich life is better than a long life.

And population IS a huge part of the issue: the asset holders need the cheapest labor pool possible. They also know that an overpopulated community is a community where there will be enough infighting to keep the masses too busy to refuse access to raw resources.

[Cleobulus]

35. The applications of ignorance are what is truly killing us...

much more so than the applications of science. The applications of science has allowed us to eliminate smallpox, the deadliest disease humanity had, eliminated it. Polio is now only affecting a small minority of the world population, and itself may be eradicated soon. Lifespans, in the western world, have more than doubled, and the amount of time we are staying healthy is much longer than it was just decade or so ago. The problems we encounter in the world today aren't applications of science, but misapplication of it for, as you put it, greed in corporate structures.

But this isn't an inherent imbalance, indeed its more a matter of public policy and making sure the applications of science can be given to the world, equally. We have doubled lifespans in Western nations, whereas Africa's average lifespan has hardly changed from the old Human median(30-40 years). This needs to change, but it won't change when we stop applying science at all, what we need to do is apply it responsibly.

Indeed, I would say that its the lack of inroads for scientific achievement in much of the rest of the world that is part of the problem with war, famine, corrupt governments, and most other social ills. A rationalist approach to these problems, as has been used in Europe, the United States, and Japan, will help alleviate suffering for millions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. LOL

:rofl:

[FedUpWithIt All]

137. Thanks for sharing...

:eyes:

You always add that special...something to the conversation.

[Zix]

36. You're just running your own hobby horse into Prince Charles's.

Your position and his aren't in opposition to one another. They're tangentially related at best.

[Cleobulus]

47. No, he and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum, he believes in some really odd...

and far out fantasy world stuff, me, I believe in what I can see or test or measure, i.e. reality.

[BootinUp]

103. I actually think he was attacking capitalism

in a round about way.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. Real socialist, that Prince of Wales.

[BootinUp]

107. He's divine, doesn't count. lol.

Look, that is how I read his comments.

[Angry Dragon]

22. The bible is the source of all of our ills??

I say it should be banned then..........it is the devils work

[Cleobulus]

31. The Bible is the most influencial book ever written in western civilization...

And yes, a lot of bad concepts and ideas we have are codified in that book, even if not even half are original, the Bible was/is considered authoritative, it is considered the Word of God, after all.

[The2ndWheel]

38. "its the most reliable method we have in figuring out how the world works."

But why do we want to figure out how the world works? To simply be part of it? That seems like a waste of time and energy.

"Of course, what Galileo and the naturalists and scientists that came after him did was knock down this pillar that Man erected for itself. Instead of Humans being above nature, to dominate it, instead we are a part of nature, and subject to its laws, all of its laws."

You are joking right? If we were willing to be subject to the laws of nature, we wouldn't be doing what we're doing. Knock down the pillar? Our advancements have given us the ability to act out that domination of nature on an ever greater level.

"with true concern for all of its inhabitants"

Holy shit. Please show me where that's happening. True concern? At best, we do that to make ourselves feel better.

"A few still demand animal sacrifices of a sort"

And human progress doesn't?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

40. Subject to to the laws of nature means allowing the weak among us to die

Is that really what you want?

[Cleobulus]

46. I really HATE this missapplication of Evolutionary theory.

Please define "weak" for me, this should be interesting. In addition, how is being subject to nature's laws mean allowing anyone to die? This I have no idea about, the laws we are subject to are rather basic, because we still have no control over them, climate, seasonal changes, fresh water supply, etc. Human beings haven't mastered control of the planet to such an extent that we are immune from drought, famine, etc.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. If people want to pretend that all of our ills come from science and technology, fine

People like to wax poetic about the old days before such things. But the ancients weren't particularly in tune with nature, they just had a much smaller effect on it because they were small in number. Cleared trees and killed animals don't much care if you say a nice thank you afterwards.

Why did populations stay small? At least in part due to famine and disease. Yes, we still have these things but modern advancements help mitigate them. Smallpox was eradicated. That is a stunning achievement. Polio is nearly a thing of the past.

Regarding being weak I simply mean that science has allowed us to help more people survive. For example, today we can use ultrasound to detect fetal distress and if possible correct it in utero. In the good old days that baby simply would have died. Diabetes is not a death sentence any more although it once was no matter how interconnected people felt or how many trees they worshipped.

[The2ndWheel]

91. I was simply stating that we don't like being subject to the laws of nature

Which is the opposite of what the OP was saying.

[Cleobulus]

44. I'm talking socially its changed our view of ourselves...

our practical domination of the planet has been achieved through the use of science as a tool, that's true, however science itself only provided the means, not the motivation. The changing of attitudes in people didn't really occur until recently in human history. It may just be feel good bullshit, buts its responsible feel good bullshit.


Oh, and human progress doesn't HAVE to be.

[The2ndWheel]

94. So the use of science allows us to increase our domination of the planet

In the name of the narrow interests of a single species. The motivation, I'd say, could be the same as a corporation in relation to the government. We don't like being regulated. We want to write our own rules.

[Silent3]

116. Better living through ignorance?

If we hadn't gone and figured out so much stuff, we'd be so much better off, stupid and happy! Or at least stupid and dying at an average age of around 20 years, before we could cause too much trouble.

There's a cause to champion! :eyes:

[Confusious]

127. That seems like a waste of time and energy.

I suggest then, that you get off your computer, stop living in a house and find a cave, and stop eating, because all of that has benefited from science.

Luddites.

[BootinUp]

39. We (you and I) agree. nt

[Forkboy]

42. At some point in many people's lives science starts to diverge from their beliefs.

When faced with that choice, all too many try to adapt the science to fit their beliefs, or ignore science outright. The need to believe what we want to believe is strong in us, and it's hard to discard that need when the science doesn't agree.

[KittyWampus]

51. Indeed. It's fun watching Reductionists come up with a way to explain Altruism.

[trotsky]

87. We observe altruism in many primate groups.

What's so "reductionist" about realizing that groups and tribes that cared about each other were more likely to survive?

Heck, let's have some REAL fun and have you tell us which magic pixie created altruism for us.

[Cleobulus]

110. What's that supposed to mean, altruism is a benefit to intelligent social animals...

as evidenced in the Primates(including us), dolphins, elephants, etc.

[Odin2005]

182. It's fun watching people making fools of themselves using "reductionist" as an epithet.

We are a social species. We evolved as a social species, so altruism is to be expected behavior based on selection pressures on us as a social species, there is nothing mysterious about this.

[Desertrose]

65. Well put, Forkboy. n/t

[stray cat]

43. Ignorance of scientific method is rampant on the left and right - and people believe their own ideas

over anything factual - and it definitely has nothing to do with religion - ignorance knows no boundaries

[NeedleCast]

60. This

DU is an excellent example.

[KittyWampus]

48. Charles critiqued the Mindset. He did NOT BLAME GALILEO. Pretty ironic you attempt

to make a point about someone else and end up displaying complete philosophical ignorance.

Materialism is NOT the de facto Philosophy of Science.

[Desertrose]

66. According to some (many) it is...

But I agree with you, that materialism is NOT (or should not be) the de facto Philosophy of Science.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. "Materialism is NOT the de facto Philosophy of Science."

Right. As evidenced by all the "spiritual" woo woos being just as materialistic and destructive as everybody else.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Still mad about the moon bombing, eh?

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. That, and people still teaching the theory of evilution.

[Cleobulus]

121. Materialism predates the modern scientific method by centuries...

again, something that arose independently of either religion or ancient rationalist philosophies because some people are greedy, and they needed to justify it. So to say that materialism is not the de facto Philosophy of Science is a nonsensical statement. Science doesn't technically have a philosophy, it could be the basis for one, but that wouldn't be materialism, again, because materialism predates modern science.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. It's hard.

It has math and stuff.

Did you see the abiotic oil thread?

[BootinUp]

53. "It makes me want to go poopy."

-Lewis Black

[harun]

54. Meaning

Science is about the things themselves not what the things mean.

For example under normal household conditions water will freeze at 32 degrees (F). If I lower the temp in my fridge to 27 degrees the water in it after a time will freeze. I can reproduce that, over and over.

It doesn't tell me what the meaning of water freezing at that temperature is. That is where belief and world view comes in.

I don't think people have a problem with science. I think people have a problem with science claiming to explain the true nature (essence) and meaning of all things. If it stays as science, no problem. If it is expanded to draw conclusions the science doesn't support, just to serve world view X, then people have a problem. Equating the science to serve world view X can be equally misused by people of "science" or of "belief".

One has the free will to believe the water freezes every time because a Creator of the Universe made this rule or one can believe this happens because we live in one of many universes where this is the case, etc. It is up to them, but neither conclusion is any more scientific than the other, they are both belief.

[BootinUp]

55. Might help if

you give another example of when people of science have misused science. I am trying to understand how you draw that line.

[harun]

82. Example

One could take the stance that science proves humans evolved from some other animal. That in evolutionary theory the strong and adaptable survive. That because the strongest survive it makes the group stronger in time. That to do otherwise is contrary to nature and to science. That the weak amongst us should simply be eliminated or enslaved as to make us more likely to defeat our enemies. This is a short example (because I don't have time to write all of it) of what led to Fascism, especially that espoused by the Nazi's in Europe.

So they could say they are basing their conclusions on the scientific explanations of evolution and implementing a science based governance conformable to the laws of nature.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism)

Of course this is bullsh*t. Studying evolution can tell people many things but it most certainly does not give humans a green light to commit genocide or slavery in the name of nature and science.

So that is an extreme example. Obviously there are more subtle ones. While scientific racism is obviously now refuted, the impetus in man to make this mistake will always be there. Good science is great but the conclusions drawn always need to be checked. Oppression of any group of people is wrong even if the interpretation (meaning) of the science of the time appears to say otherwise.

[BootinUp]

92. Gotcha, Social Darwinism bad

I agree.

Yes scientific findings can be mis-interpreted. That is why scientists do peer reviews. I think one would be hard pressed to put forth an example of a peer reviewed scientifc paper that you objected to on the same grounds.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Um, science DOES tell you why water freezes at 32 degrees Farenheit.

And if you only use God to explain the few things that science doesn't explain, then that's a pretty vapid idea of God.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

59. What do you think the meaning of water freezing is?

[HughMoran]

62. it blinds me

And hits me with technology

[Iggo]

63. It assails their willful ignorance with that evil logic.

They hate that shit.

[nichomachus]

71. You start from a flawed premise

Yes, the word "dominion" is used in the KJV, but it is an English translation of the original text. So, this raises a lot of problems.

First, you would been to look at old Hebrew Scriptures to see what word they used and what that word meant for them at the time.

Next, you'd have to look at the Septuagint Greek version to see how they handled it -- this step is important, because the Hebrew texts, once lost, were partly recreated from the Septuagint.

Next, you have to realize that the KJV has over 30,000 known mistranslations. So, next you'd need to determine if this is one of them.

Then, you'd need to know what "dominion" meant to people at the time of the KJV translation and how that applies today.

Only then, can you begin to build any kind of an argument that starts from the quotation you used.

This is the problem with the arguments against gays that use bible verses that use the word "homosexual." That word never appears in the original texts -- mainly because they didn't have a word for it, stemming from the fact they didn't have the concept of homosexuality as a discrete sexual orientation. They could't have spoken about it, any more than they could have spoken about ATMs.

[BootinUp]

74. But there is a flaw in your logic I think

Isn't there a generally accepted meaning today for this excerpt of the bible? Whether its the meaning from 2000 years ago has little relevance in the OP.

[AlinPA]

77. Partly because of "bible study" and "vacation bible school".

[KonaKane]

78. Who has a problem with science?

I for one, admire it and hold it as a necessity in our lives. The problem is when use that to denigrate or dismiss the spiritual side of humanity, which is very much there and also necessary. Einstein himself commented on this several times.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

[Iggo]

80. Life is wonderful and good.

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Because, first off, "one or the other" is a false dichotomy.

They're not related, and until I see Atheists marching into churches and sunday schools demanding that Darwin be taught there, I'm not buying that somehow science is on the attack against religion. When religous people attempt to pass off easily disproved fairy tales- like a 6,000 year old Earth- as "science", yes, they are going to continue to have their asses handed to them in the realm of logical debate. People can believe whatever the hell they want, but they can't call it 'science' unless it meets the criteria of the scientific method, and they can't complain and whine that their ideas aren't given "equal time" by science when they clearly don't meet those criteria.

Einstein was brilliant, but that doesn't mean he was never wrong. On the subject of Quantum Mechanics, for instance, he was (according to the best data we have available) very much wrong. Also, the "God" he believed in- the one of Spinoza- had basically nothing to do with anything resembling the Deity of Western Monotheism, and was explicitly NOT involved in human affairs (much less who was fucking who, which seems to be the primary obsession of many religions) ... so if you're looking to Einstein as the great scientific savior of Theism, you'd do well to look elsewhere.

[Cleobulus]

142. Leave spirituality out of science and both get on just fine...

what I take issue with is when organized spirituality(religion) inserts itself into reality, and demands equal time with science, in the same setting. Until its testable, which is most likely never, it should not be considered equal to science, its opinion, and nothing more.

[KonaKane]

145. Albert Einstein disagreed with you.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - A. Einstein

[Cleobulus]

147. Einstein wasn't a perfect being, he wasn't even right about quantum theory...

and its an opinion, nothing more.

[BootinUp]

151. The Slacker!

:sarcasm:

[Bert]

159. Ah, the old expert in another field trick

So because Einstein was an expert in physics you think that his opinion on voodoo and religion should have more weight? Wrong. You are attempting the old trick that being an expert in one field gives your opinion on religion more weight. I have seen it many times with say athletes and such who espouse to know god, and because they are an athlete or expert in some field that means that they should have more merit on a subject which by it's definition is unknowable. That is unless you think that some people really talk to god, which I like Jefferson believed was bunk. He leaves open the possiblity that there may have been some first mover but denies any sort of heavenly insight, which you would have to believe in to believe in the bible being heavenly written for instance.

Whatever Einstein thought philosophically was his own business, I will not however give it the same weight as I give to his mathematical and physic's insights which are profound for the sole reason that they can be measured and verified. Like many scientists he had the propensity to be a deist but still give a soft type of hand to the religious I guess in the hopes that in some small way it would help them to appreciate physics out of reciprocity. However like most religionists you pick and choose, with Einstein as well as the bible that which you want. And again Einstein was human, unless you are going to make a cult of Einstein against his wishes, much like some budhists made a god out of him agaisnt his wishes. The feeble minded know no other way.

[Odin2005]

183. Eistein was a Pantheist who mean "religion" in a far different way than...

...what woo-woos and Theists think he was meaning it for. Einstein was a Pantheist, a strict materialist, a strict determinist, and saw no contradiction in that.

[seabeyond]

146. so... what do you say to those looking into spirituality effecting the human body in a scientific

manner. using science to investigate that field?

[Cleobulus]

148. Well, two things, first is that the physiology of the affects of the mind...

on the body is something we should look into. For example, some people are given comfort in religion, this could lower blood pressure, relieve tension, and improve health. Then again, the same affects can be replicated by someone who plays video games to relieve stress in a similar way. Its an outlet, but its doesn't have to be unique to spirituality, and definitely not limited to specific religions.

If we are talking about scientifically proving something like an "otherworld" of spirits, or supernatural phenomenon, I don't see that as a fruitful pursuit, simply because the idea of being supernatural removes it from testable hypothesis.

[Heidi]

81. It's not a science problem. It's a religious extremism and willful ignorance problem.

Genuine stupidty is a condition of birth meriting every ounce of empathy and compassion and with which I have absolutely no problem. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer in many ways, but I live and love to learn, and have been proven wrong enough times that I know I'm fallible and no longer fear being challenged. Willful ignorance is conscious choice to hang on to one's preconceptions despite overwhelming evidence refuting them. That's like trying to outrun a freight train or wait out a house fire.

[KonaKane]

88. Agreed for the most part, but what is willfully ignorant about

raising a valid point regarding the objectivication of nature and the gradual removal of humanity from the pursuit of knowledge? I think thats what ol' Charlie was hinting at, and even though I disagree with him more than I agree, on this he is hitting it on the head.

[Cleobulus]

134. Both the problems you raised aren't problems with science, but religion. n/t

[KonaKane]

143. Incorrect. The Gulf spill is the best and most horrifying example on my side.

Science in disregard of nature - based on material gain only without a care for the greater picture.

[Cleobulus]

149. Science in disregard of nature isn't science...

Science cannot disregard nature, indeed science proved that humans are a part of nature, not removed from it. So the question is, what happened in the Gulf? Easy, human greed, human avarice, and human shortsightedness took over, profits over the natural world. Yet these motives, these faults of humans, didn't come about because of science, but rather are a darker part of human nature itself.

The fact that science is used by people who aren't scientists for profit isn't a fault of science, but a fault in humans themselves.

[Pithlet]

166. What happened in the gulf had everything to do with greed. That wasn't science. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

185. No, it isn't. It's an example of short-term greed without care for the world

The BP executives are not scientists. Careful attention to scientific facts might have warned of the dangers; but they didn't attend carefully to anything except how to cut costs and increase short-term profits.

[WCGreen]

86. Why would anyone care what a half witted product of incest have to say

about anything...

[The Straight Story]

89. My problem is with scientists (just like my problems are not with religion, but it's preachers)

Scientists are wrong on a regular basis, but it seems if you disagree with them you are 'ignorant'. Remember the whole mylar thing? Etc and so on.

Global warming? Sure, it is heating up. But we have tons of different reasons why given by scientists. Disagree with one and you get labeled stupid, a fundie, etc. Question their findings or methods and you 'hate science'.

Pure science is one thing, but keep in mind we are dealing with humans and their limited abilities.

[Bert]

115. As opposed to priests

Scientists know they are fallible. That is why science has two tenents, testability and repeatability. There is no dogma in science as religion, if someone comes up with a better theory of physics tomorrow then there will be no cult of Einstein proponents, just as there were no cult of Newton proponents when Einstein laid out his theories. Try again.

[Cleobulus]

117. OK, your post illustrates all that is wrong with science education today...

You say scientists are wrong on a regular basis, no shit, that's how SCIENCE works, because they get their theories PROVEN wrong by OTHER scientists. See, that's how science works, and why it is reliable. You act like this is a weakness, no, its the strength of science.

Also, there's a difference between science reporting and what scientists themselves say. On global warming, there is a consensus among scientists that human being are affecting the climate, the question is by how much, and how to alleviate it. A consensus is reached when the theories and evidence is weighed and a large majority of scientists agree it best fits the facts. It may change in the future, but not through climate deniers, because I have yet to see any of them publish a peer reviewed paper providing an alternative explanation of the facts.

The scientific method works because its very basis is that human beings make mistakes and have limited abilities, its self correcting. Of course, it may take time, better evidence/measurements to correct itself, but it ALWAYS does, given time to do so, and allowing other scientists the opportunity to disprove mistaken theories.

[Silent3]

125. Ignorance is more in how and why you disagree...

...with what we've learned through science, not just in the disagreement itself.

If you can't offer strong counter evidence, or a better analysis of the available evidence, but you disagree with, say, the Earth being around 4.5 billion years old and demand that it's only 6000 years old because your preacher told you so, and 6000 years feels "right" to you, then you're being ignorant.

If you think the sudden insight you had while watching an episode of Nova overturns everything we know about relativity, and you're suddenly sure you know how to make objects move faster than light, and you don't have to humility to wonder if maybe you made a mistake and overlooked something, while expecting everyone to simply "respect your opinion" automatically, then you're being ignorant.

People like that may even, every once in a long while, stumble upon a truth many scientists have missed. But much like a broken clock that's right twice per day, that occasional rightness doesn't mean a whole lot. It's certainly possible to be terribly ignorant and accidentally right at the same time.

[Tumbulu]

169. I agree with you and the "scientists" writing rude posts

only illustrate very clearly your point.

Also every single new product or technology that makes money in our capitalist world has absolute support from most scientists (i.e. the ones paid by industry to protect it from scrutiny and testing) and anyone who suggests that it should be scientifically evaluated is labeled as an "environmentalist" or an "activist" or some other label- not, no never as a "scientist" when they are in fact the real scientists.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. It's easier to live in an imaginary, two dimensional cardboard box of fairy tales

than face the mind-bending, head scratching facts of reality as they are.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. "Ah, Hickey, you've taken the magic out of the whiskey." Eugene O'Neill from "The Iceman Cometh".

[BootinUp]

106. I need to add another comment

when I said I agreed with you, I need to clarify, because I don't read Prince Charles comments like you did. I do not think he was attacking science in general. Rather what man has used science for. In fact I really think he was attacking the economic system of the western world only he thought of a very interesting way of doing it.

[LanternWaste]

111. I think it's because...

I think it's because we spend so much time telling ourselves how stupid we believe everyone else is that we don't really have too much time to spend thinking about science.

[seabeyond]

118. when fad science like evolutionary behavior is used in order to promote agenda

in the name of science thru manufactured studies to reinforce agenda.... i have issue.

then to have those promoting the garbage accuse a person who challenges as being anti evolutionary, or anti science, it certainly leaves a bad taste for questions like.... why do people question science?

[Cleobulus]

119. Because they don't know what science is, look at post 89. n/t

[seabeyond]

122. not sure what post 89 had to do with it, but there are posters on this thread

i have challenged these ridiculous arguments that particular scientists with agenda throw out for our consumption, throwing hissys that i am anti science because i dont buy into the shit.

these studies exclude all data and source of info or other factors in order to make up their argument for agenda purposes and call themselves scientist and result, science.

[Cleobulus]

123. Those scientists with agendas generally stop being respected scientists...

because their theories, that cannot be backed up by all the facts, end up getting proven wrong by other scientists. What can ruin their careers isn't being proven wrong, its insisting you are still right in the face of contrary evidence.

[NashVegas]

130. Doesn't Matter

It took the NHS 15 years - 15 years to confirm what was already taken as a given among readers of alternative news sources: HRT increases the risk of cancer. Until then, the respected scientists of the medical establishment, and the promoters of corporate-controlled health products ridiculed everyone who dared suggest such a thing.

And for what reason? Vanity. So we can look a few years younger after menopause.

[Cleobulus]

133. That just illustrates the importance for scientists to be independent and have free...

access to all the data of studies, whether public or privately funded. The fact is, the methodology still worked, and NOTHING should be considered a given.

[NashVegas]

139. Again, Doesn't Matter

Scientists will never be independent and free. Lab equipment costs money. Publishing requires access.

If your research provides an economic engine for 500 people to make hundreds and thousands of dollars, and my research says your research is wrong, your 500 are going to use every ounce of clout they have to see that I'm discredited and plough through. If and when the money doesn't turn up, they can always bribe a legislator or two to force it on the population, say, like HD TV.

Even now, scientists are using their knowledge and skills to assist both the government and the capitalist engine (Wall St., Madison Ave) to manage and manipulate the masses.

One of any anthropology student's brightest prospects for a good job is in marketing.

And it's all rationalized, by the scientist's quest for knowledge. Hey, I'm sympathetic; who wouldn't want to know the secrets of the universe?

All you really need to know is this: the Nobel prizes are named for the guy who invented a safer way to blow up people.

As you should be able to see by now, the issue is not science, per se, but the strategic use of science in the pursuit of financial and political power. Science provides both the means of objectively rationalizing what otherwise sane populations would subjectively consider immoral, AND the way of progress to accomplish the goal.

[Cleobulus]

140. Alfred Nobel created a device that helped miners go home without being maimed...

or killed. The fact that it could also be used to blow people up is what could be called an unintended consequence, and Alfred Nobel was horrified at the idea.

All technology works this way, its always a double edged sword. When our ancestors first used rocks to aid in hunting or in cracking nuts or butchering animals, those same tools were also used to crush skulls of other humans or to throw spears in their enemies' backs. That doesn't discount the usefulness, indeed, the necessity of those tools.

The scientific method is used to both cure and kill, that doesn't discount the fact that its the best tool in our toolbox to figure out not only how the world works, but also how to properly implement the tools we make as a result of using it.

[NashVegas]

174. Bullshit

How one could call dynamite's use as a weapon an "unintended consequence" when Nobel was born into of, and working as, an arms manufacturer, is beyond bullshit.


The only people he was kidding were himself and other hyper-rationalists.

[Tumbulu]

170. Thats right- you wrote what I wanted to say far more eloquently (nt)

[seabeyond]

131. and this is why science is having a tough time. anything wrong will be proven

(in time) and those scientists thrown out (doesn't happen that way, especially in some parts of science and illusionary to believe and insist it does)..... and anything out there today you disagree with or challenge is simply your own limited mind and anti science beliefs....

is this sounding familiar to you?

i can say, your post is parallel to what you argue on the other side.

[Cleobulus]

132. Why did you reverse what I said basically happens in scientific fields?

You make no sense, and seem to be confused as to what I'm talking about. Oh, and I don't say that scientists are kicked out, I said they lose respect and respectability within the scientific community.

[seabeyond]

138. you are out to win the argument, prove your point

not to have answers to your question. you totally went around my point, which you acknowledge as valid, but dismiss it.

that isnt open minded. that isnt exploration. it is exactly the same closed mindedness you are preaching against. you have done it thru out the thread. it is the same agenda bias that i point out in my post and that you argue against.

[Cleobulus]

141. What agenda do I have?

Its easy to acknowledge that scientists as individuals have bias, that's just human nature, my only argument is that the scientific method itself factors this in, you can have bias, sure, but the theory you have better be testable, falsifiable, and repeatable, otherwise its not a scientific theory.

The method is self correctable, because while one scientist may have bias, another scientist in the same field will have a different bias, and set out to disprove your bias with their own. Increase the number of scientists competing in trying to disprove a theory, and in the process, if the theory stands up to the test, that theory is then accepted through consensus. This has happened multiple times in the history of science, from the Germ theory of infection to Evolution, to the Theories on Gravity, both Newton's and Einstein's.

And again, other theories end up on the wayside, or at least aren't used when they don't fit. Einstein's theory on the curvature of space-time and gravity, supplemented and basically replaced Newton's theory. Newton's theory, and the math behind it are useful in a limited way, for certain masses of bodies, Einstein's proved to work better for a larger set of masses.

That's how it goes, science moves on, unperturbed by the follies of man simply because in its very methodology is the groundwork for correcting for the errors that creep in by mere mortals. Its a way of limiting bias that gives it strength.

[BootinUp]

144. Science continually tries to prove itself wrong.

THAT is science baby.

[Cleobulus]

150. And that's also why it works. n/t

[Bert]

120. Here is my take

Following is a defense I made to an earlier poster talking about mankind evolving. However from reading that other thread the original poster was talking about I decided to repost it. The thing with religion is it poisons all it touches. That is why there is still at this time a separation of church and state, and I see little difference between atheists and the deist founders of this country, which the religionists try to write out of history. Religion is a road to nowhere, ignorance begests ignorance as well as mysticism. I will spend my life concerned with that which I can measure and examine, not with some ancient superstitious voodoo. Then there are the specific evils of religious practice that we are supposed to overlook for all the supposed good done by religion. Well, every piece of good done by religion could just as well have been done by the non-religious and often has been. The only thing religion offers is a make believe place to be free of fear from death, and they only ask that you spend your entire life in bowed servitude to those who claim to be the speakers for some childish deity. No thank you.


How about the term social evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution but is a recognized term. It means that societies that behave in a benevolent and rational way can better utilize the dormant abilities of a society that go wasted than a fascist or even unregulated captitalist culture like ours. Basically, we can have exponential growth in our education levels in one generation if we act in an enlightened way. It is hard to point out indiviual cultures that would adhere to this standard becuase it is a bit sci-fi(can think of many short sci-fi stories that play with this concept) but we have had limited examples of our own, the educational and social as well as economic boom following WWII. I would say that some countries in northern europe are far ahead of us in educating their populace and producing societies that do not promote religious intolerance as well as allowing people a few vices and regulating them, such as cannabis and prostitution. As a result they have lower levels of addiction, prostitues are not more abundanat but they are more safe, they have fewer prisons and less of a millitary as well as more indiviual rights, all while maintaining a higher standard of living for the majority if you cut out the top two percent and for the most part being tolerant of others.

This is the type of evolution our co-poster was pointing out(at least I hope and guess so), social evolution and not physical evolution. The nice thing is that it can act exponentially and acheive huge results in a short time, even by our own limited measure of time. As far as physical evolution, yes I have a basic understanding of it and would suggest anyone who wants to really learn the basics of it google videos of 'richard dawkins how evolution works'. As far as religious nutters blaming materialism on science I dont know where to start except to say that this world should make a choice, science or religion. All who choose religion can take one half, and all who choose science the other half. I think it goes without saying which side will prosper. And I think religion is a disease, one that can afflict even the intelligent, case in point scientists who are devoutly religious. This just makes it all the more insidious and worthy of eradication. And I love the irony or those religious nutters using devices made thorugh science to espouse religion and denigrate science. They love faith based stuff unless it is actually needed. Case in point faith healing, at least they put their asses where their mouth is, pity it is usually the children of these nutters who pay the price for their ignorance and evil disregard for facts, logic, and science.

[LanternWaste]

124. I imagine the corollary is also true.

"Well, every piece of good done by religion could just as well have been done by the non-religious and often has been..."

I imagine the corollary is also true.

[Bert]

136. What corollary would that be?

I can only guess you are tryng to say that all the evil done by religion could just as easily be done by the non-religious? Wrong. Without religion the good do good and the bad do bad, it takes religion to make the good do evil. Case in point, when the Spanish were invading the Americas, and this is documented, they would take newborn babies and baptize them, then they would kill them. Do you wonder why?

Love the picture of Roosevelt by the way, best president we ever had, wish Obama was half the man he was.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

126. If someone followed me around, correctly proving everything I say is wrong, I'd hate them too. -nt

[Cleobulus]

135. OK, I promise not to stalk you anymore.

:P

[earth mom]

152. Unrec because you've misunderstood what Prince Charles said.

Prince Charles wasn't knocking science, but actually saying that science has been misused to rape the planet of most of it's resources and far too much of it's beauty.

Often the Brits get too flowery in their language instead of being blunt like we are here.

Prince Charles should have just came right out and said "we're fucked".

Not only that, but I think most people in this country are out of touch with nature which is why so many see nothing wrong with the continued exploitation of our earth so that they can maintain their way of life along with all the frivolous crap that entails.

Can you say McMansion?! Can you say Hummer?! Can you say Walmart and all that cheap plastic crap they sell?! Can you say disposable-cell phones, computers, video game systems, appliances?!


The gusher in the Gulf is evidence that we have gone too far and are totally out of touch with our planet and ourselves.

[Silent3]

153. You've just taken what you want say and grafted your preferred meaning...

...onto the Prince's words. If there's a sensible environmental message in there, it's buried under bullshit about Galileo and science.

[Bert]

160. Much like those who believe in the bible

They always take what they want and ignore what they dont like. In fact, today saying I am a christian basically has boiled down to meaning nothing more than saying I believe I am a good person. If they believe in multiculturalism, then Jesus was multicultural. If they believe in racial purity than Jesus was a racist. If they believe that America is the choosen land then they believe he came here later on. It continues ad nauseum.

[dana_b]

184. well if that was what he meant then he's still an idiot

as he and his family have more than any 100 families need in their entire lifetimes.

[Ignis]

157. If you really want an answer, do some research into other world-views:

http://www.amazon.com/o/asin/0871565099

Good luck.

[yawnmaster]

158. What has science done for the world?

serious question, and I am very interested in the possible answers.

[Bert]

161. I hope you are kidding.

If not, then take a look around you and at what you are typing on for starters.

[yawnmaster]

176. Yes, I am typing on a computer...

so science has given us -things-. But is the world better for it?
And no I'm not kidding.
I use technology probably more than most, but would like to really examine how existence is improved/worsened by technology (an therefore by science).

[Cleobulus]

162. Let's see, Germ theory allowed us to figure out the causes...

of many disease, and to learn how to treat them, especially through antibiotics. Theories explaining electro-magnetism and the movement of electrons allowed us to develop transistors that were much smaller than previous tube technology, and eventually lead to the integrated circuits and microchips. Evolutionary theory has lead to novel, and effective ways, to combat HIV and AIDS, along with other diseases. Theories on the nature of light as both particle and wave lead to the development of solar panels.

In addition, the Human Genome Project, perhaps the greatest achievement in human history is giving us the tools to already treat, and outright cure, hereditary diseases that were previously incurable.

There are many other things, indeed practically all of current human civilization exists as it does because of science. Would you like me to go on?

[yawnmaster]

175. yes these are all things that science has created...

but what good are circuits and microchips, for instance, but to make life more complex?
Is a complex life better than a simple life?
What good are disease cures? We all die anyway, and after we are dead does it matter how long we have lived?
One could argue that science and technology has actually led to more exploitation of the world.

What is the metric for existence?
If we were living a primitive existence, with no understanding of the scientific method, would life be worse/better?

Yes, current human civilization exists because of science, but without science we would just have a different human existence.

So what is the metric to use to determine if science has done anything for the world except allow technology...and how do we measure the benefits of technology?

[Posteritatis]

164. ...he asks, on the Internet... (nt)

[yawnmaster]

177. yes, I am using the technology that science has allowed us to create...

but how is the world better for it?
If the tech didn't exist, I wouldn't be using it; I'd be doing something else, if I even existed.

So, in other words, yes I know the scientific method has allowed us to discover things and engineering has allowed us to apply the science. But how has it affected the state of existence and the world, for better or worse?

[Lucian]

165. That's, by far, the dumbest question I have ever read here on DU.

[yawnmaster]

178. And therefore the answer should be very simple!...

waiting...
-crickets-


This actually leads to another question (which you may find equally dumb), which is,
why do you feel it is the dumbest question? seriously.

[Lucian]

180. You're asking what science has done for this world.

Look around you. It's not that hard to figure out what science has done for you, and this world.

That's why I thought it was a dumb question.

[yawnmaster]

187. now go beyond that and answer if the things science has done for the world adds to the world...

or detracts from it. Yes, I look around and see tv's, refrigerators, synthetic fibers, microwave ovens, etc.. just in my field of view, but to determine if this has added to the quality of existence, one needs to come up with some metrics regarding quality, and perhaps more after that.
How do we determine how the world has benefited from science and technology?

On an aside, I think we are really talking about the technology that comes from the gain of knowledge that science has enabled.
Science, really, being a methodology for gaining knowledge.
So has knowledge on its own done anything for the world? We can answer whether knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a worth endeavor for the improvement of existence, but perhaps at another time.

[flvegan]

163. Funny word, that. Dominion.

Many argue that it means to be a caretaker, acting with compassion and mercy. Sad it doesn't fit the selfish interpretation most of us give it.

[old mark]

171. "Stupid" came to mind first - I see I was not alone in that conclusion.

It is why "Frankenstein" has been popular for so long - FEAR of knowledge and science. I recall some jerk making a remark about Einstein's personal life-letters or some such,"I guess he knew something we don't".. I was sure he knew quite a bit that we don't...many people seem to be afraid and resentful of "smart" people in general for some reason I don't understand...they seem to feel scientists are doing what they do to disrupt their everyday lives...

mark

[Dr Morbius]

172. Science doesn't undermine religion. Religion undermines science. (nt)

[Skittles]

179. because it clashes with religious fairy tales

[Odin2005]

181. Because most people are willfully ignorant and prefer fantasy over reality.