Science - Who Needs It

[nPeace]

Knowledge like extending your lifespan beyond your mid 20s

Eat healthy, stay active, and avoid contaminants, have a right mental disposition, among other things. Science was not responsible for that knowledge

Knowledge like how to cure cancers

Really? Give me the data.

Actually it does, its called gravity

Why, not how.

I hear the stone age was pretty bleak

You heard wrong.

How does it effect the seasons and the crops that help sustain your life

We don't need to know that for it to happen. Say what? Why am I responding to this.

Even colour blind you can see the difference between fresh and rotten food.



Aint science great!



Various vaccines have reduced infant mortality dramatically, i am sure you are happy your children will live beyond their 3rd or 4th year.

And here i got bored but did notice you used the benefits of science from quantum mechanics to fibre optic technology to post your anti science OP, do you not see anything a bit odd in that? Or is it that you accept the science you need but ignore what you dont despite the fact it profoundly effects your life.

Many people were not vaccinated, and they are alive and well. Many reached old age, strong.
You got bored. Ha. Don't even ask me about this post.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Eat healthy, stay active, and avoid contaminants, have a right mental disposition, among other things. Science was not responsible for that knowledge

 

[Father Heathen]

If you're dismissive of science, then cease using medicine and technology at once.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Science has provided some knowledge many find beneficial.
However, science has not, and cannot provide knowledge of the most fundamentally important things in life.
Some have asked: Why did things evolve to form a universe and a planet equipped to sustain life? Science has no answer.
It is true, we can live without having the answer to this question.
It is also true, we can live without knowing that the earth orbits the sun, rotates around an axis at an angle of 23.5 degrees, at a speed of about 1,000 miles per hour.
How does that affect my hair growth?

Why do we need science?
It tells how you get colors. So? Do I need that to live? Besides about 8% people are color blind, and some can't see at all. I can appreciate color, without knowing how we get it.
True... science does help me to appreciate even more, the awesome nature of the designer of our universe, but I don't need science to know that our creator is awesome.

Okay, you say, but science has done done a lot to fulfill mankind's needs - electronics, transportation, medicine... At this point, I've hit a blank, so perhaps someone can help me fill it.
Electronics - Telephones, cellphones, television, music players, video recorders, computers...
There are people who live without these, and their lives are no less meaningful. We don't need these things to live.

Transportation - from the chariot to the Lamborghini
Really? Why? Is there a "Need For speed? Have we noticed that mankind seems to be unsatisfied with the speeds that man has reached... they seem to want more?
Nowadays, when some get stuck in traffic, they wish they could acquire wings and fly out of there. Where is Superman when you need him?

Medicine
Let's talk about medicine. Perhaps someone can name one medicine that we need.

We have everything we need in the earth. People have for centuries utilized these herbs - not only in their treatment of sicknesses, but also in practice for their overall health, and longevity.

Why do scientist mix these herbs with chemicals?
What really are reportedly cancer causing agents?
What are the contributing factors to many sicknesses, diseases, and body deformities?
Many believe science is responsible to a large extent. So to many, science has done a lot, yes, but a lot we don't need.

The facts show that while greedy rulers and merchant prevent us from getting what we do need from the earth, most science is used to pollute what we need.
So why do we need science?

"But still you use it", some argue.
We use it - not that we have to, but as a temporary convenience.
We also use the temporary polluted air, and food, thanks to science - not that we want to, but we are somewhat forced to.
For the most part, science it seems has played a role in doing more bad than good.

I believe the things we currently use are temporary, and will no longer be here in the near future.
The things we do need, however, like the planet's life-sustaining air, food, plants, etc., I believe these will continue forever. Only, everything will be free of man-made chemical pollutants. Sickness will be gone, because its root cause will be gone.

My point here, though it may appear that way, is not to discredit science as anything but good, because having knowledge of how things work, and using that knowledge with certain advancements, is not bad at all.
However, science can be put to so much good use, for which it is not currently being utilized.

Furthermore, for no good reason, but it seems for the sake of ego, to some, Science is a Sacred Cow
Science is a Sacred Cow is a book written by the chemist Anthony Standen. It was first published in 1950 by E. P. Dutton. It was in print for 40 years. The book argues that some scientists and many teachers of science have "inflated egos" or, in the words of Standen, "a fabulous collective ego, as inflated as a skillfully blown piece of bubble gum". The book was widely reviewed.

Reception
Part of the book's thesis is that the general public and students of science hold the words of scientists in awe even when these are merely "latinized nonsense". According to a March 1950 issue of Time, Standen's concerns are that scientists can be and have been "overbearing," "overpraised," and "overindulged". The book was once praised by one of the great scientists: Albert Einstein. An editorial note in the March 27, 1950, issue of Life magazine introducing several pages of excerpts and a half dozen editorial cartoons from Sacred Cow states "With tongue-in-cheek hyperbole, [Standen] suggests that a group that takes itself so seriously deserves some serious skepticism. Life—without taking all Mr. Standen's funmaking too seriously—thinks he deserves a happy hearing".

Chapter 1 - THEY SAY IT'S WONDERFUL
Excerpt
WHEN a white-robed scientist, momentarily looking away from his microscope or his cyclotron, makes some pronouncement for the general public, he may not be understood, but at least he is certain to be believed. No one ever doubts what is said by a scientist. Statesmen, industrialists, ministers of religion, civic leaders, philosophers, all are questioned and criticized, but scientists -- never. Scientists are exalted beings who stand at the very topmost pinnacle of popular prestige, for they have the monopoly of the formula "It has been scientifically proved . . ." which appears to rule out all possibility of disagreement.

Thus the world is divided into Scientists, who practice the art of infallibility, and non-scientists, sometimes contemptuously called "laymen," who are taken in by it.

So my point is... who needs science.

The samples of this book contain some great expressions, coming from a Chemist. I am interested in getting a copy.
...[con]verted into energy, and the atomic scientists went ahead and did it with the atomic bomb, and what other group of people have done anything so wonderful as that? Science has achieved so many things, and has been right so many times, that it is hard to believe that it can be wrong in anything, particularly for a layman, who does not have enough knowledge of the subject to be able to argue back. He might not even want to argue back, for the claims of science are extremely inviting. The benefits we have received from it are tremendous, all the way from television to penicillin, and there is no reason to suppose that they will stop. Cancer may be cured tomorrow, or the day after, and the nuclear physicists may easily find a way to end all drudgery and usher in the golden age. Mere laymen, their imaginations stupefied by these wonders, are duly humble, and regard the scientists as lofty and impeccable human beings.

"The scientist is a man of integrity and faith who trusts the basic laws of nature and intelligence to lead him into the paths of truth. His loyalty to truth is unquestioned: his capacity for patient and sacrificial inquiry is limited only by his powers of endurance; his devotion to the scientific method is unwavering; his objective is the welfare of mankind; and his discoveries, whether of medicine, mechanics, psychology, or what not, are the free possession of...

What exactly is the point of this post? You have pointed out that human beings are capable of surviving without the advances that science has provided for us. Are you suggesting that human beings shouldn't employ the scientific method to help us better understand how reality works?

So, who needs science? Anyone who wants to be immunized against a host of deadly diseases that have killed millions in the past. Anyone who likes to keep perishable food from spoiling by refrigerating it. Anyone who enjoys a lifespan of approximately 70 years compared to a lifespan of approximately 35 years. Anyone who likes to read after dark, but doesn't like to use flickering candles or oil lamps. Anyone who values educating themselves over living in ignorance. Oh, and OF COURSE, anyone who wants to communicate on an online forum such as this one.

So, were you immunized against certain diseases? Do you refrigerate food so that it doesn't spoil as quickly? Do you travel everywhere on foot? Do you rely on candles or oil lamps in order to see after dark? Clearly you use electricity and electronics to some degree, since you're communicating on this online forum


If so, why do you continue to make use of the advantages that science has made available to you?

 

[nPeace]

Science is a method of validation. It is a tool that allows us to verify the truth of a belief. The more knowledge we have about what is true the better we can make choices that will succeed in whatever goal we wish to achieve.

The less knowledge we have about what is true, the more likely the choices we make will be unsuccessful.

Obviously we don't need to know what is true for every choice we make. The truth can actually be irrelevant to our goals. In fact the ability to convince people of something that is not true can allow us to succeed in a goal depending on what that goal is.

However if one wants consistent success, the more we rely on what is true the more likely we will succeed in our goals.

You seem to be saying that there is nothing that leads to truth, but science.
If that's the case, you are the right place.
Science depends on a system of trial and error, where oftentimes it proves to be a fruitless attempt at finding truth.
The misses are often hits, that then have to be counted as a miss. To depend solely on science, to find truth, seems like a never ending quest.

Because the physical man sees spirituality as myth, they fail to see how far behind they are.
We don't need science to verify truth of everything. It can't.
Oftentimes, what man thinks he has verified, is just another belief like the other person.

Here we see how science is a sacred cow for many.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Might it be the case you would not have had the problem in the first place, if they didn't mess with certain things? Could it be that another method could have helped you? How do you know you would be dead?
Do you care to give an example of the medicine?

You could always use science to run tests to see if your alternatives are better than the existing treatments.

Given that infant mortality, lifespan and quality of life have increased markedly over the last one or two hundred years as we have learned more using science and applied that knowledge to various technologies, do you think they would have a better chance at survival now or 200 years ago?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not against science, as the OP shows, but for sure, I am against scientists with inflated egos, who think that science answers everything. There are those scientists, and there are individuals who have the mistaken view that because science allows one to achieve this or that, then there is no need for anything else - particularly spirituality or religion.
They did say the apostle Paul was rambling too.
We have free speech.

What does his response have to do with free speech? Calling something rambling--and it is--is not restraining your freedom of speech.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm not against science, as the OP shows, but for sure, I am against scientists with inflated egos, who think that science answers everything. There are those scientists, and there are individuals who have the mistaken view that because science allows one to achieve this or that, then there is no need for anything else - particularly spirituality or religion.
They did say the apostle Paul was rambling too.
We have free speech.

LOL for someone who claims to 'not be against science' you sure picked a very anti-science title for your OP. And then you ask some very anti-science questions like : Perhaps you can name one medicine that we need.

Anyone with diabetes needs insulin. Anyone with a deadly infection needs antibiotics.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Might it be the case you would not have had the problem in the first place, if they didn't mess with certain things? Could it be that another method could have helped you? How do you know you would be dead?
Do you care to give an example of the medicine?

My mother would have died from a burst appendix if not for modern medicine. Imaging saved my brother's life because he had the umbilical cord wrapped three times around his neck and would have choked to death. My dad was saved by antivenom as a kid when he was bitten by a copperhead. These are not new problems brought on by modernity, people have been dying from these since neolithic times. But my fam didn't have to. Thanks to modern medicine.

 

[ChristineM]

Eat healthy, stay active, and avoid contaminants, have a right mental disposition, among other things. Science was not responsible for that knowledge

So why has life expectancy more than tripled with the aid of science.? Without science how do you know what is a contaminant? How the hell does one control your mental disposition? Pray tell, there arw millions of mentally ill people would love to know your secret.

Really? Give me the data.

You want data? My husband was diagnosed with cancer, 10 years ago it would have been terminal. Now thanks to scientific cancer research he is cancer free.

67% of cervical cancers are now cured
98% of prostate cancers are now cured
95% of testicular cancers are now cured
91% of skin cancers are now cured.
25 years ago, even 10 or 5 years ago the survival rate was much lower if a survival rate existed.

Why, not how.

Gravity is why, pity you fail to comprehend that fundamental force.

You heard wrong.

Did i? Life expectancy around 24 years, starvation, cold, broken bones, dying from basic illness such as a gum abscess or an infected cut.

We don't need to know that for it to happen. Say what? Why am I responding to this.

??? So farmers plant out at any time and harvest by luck? Of course people need to know, sheesh, with your attitude the human race would have been extinction from stupidity before it even got civilised.

Many people were not vaccinated, and they are alive and well. Many reached old age, strong.
You got bored. Ha. Don't even ask me about this post.

And the reason those selfish individual are reasonably safe is because the responsible ones (the majority) are vaccinated.

US anti-vax poster child gets chickenpox

No need to ask you, you made it plain that you use your computer to mock the science that makes your life bearable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You seem to be saying that there is nothing that leads to truth, but science.
If that's the case, you are the right place.
Science depends on a system of trial and error, where oftentimes it proves to be a fruitless attempt at finding truth.
The misses are often hits, that then have to be counted as a miss. To depend solely on science, to find truth, seems like a never ending quest.

Because the physical man sees spirituality as myth, they fail to see how far behind they are.
We don't need science to verify truth of everything. It can't.
Oftentimes, what man thinks he has verified, is just another belief like the other person.

Here we see how science is a sacred cow for many.

I am considering using this old pond on my property as a source of water for drinking, cooking and cleaning. I believe it is OK. What do you think I should do? Should I just continue to believe or should I have people trained in science and the use of technologies to determine water quality test it to see if it is OK. Do you think that those technologies I was referring to were the result of bad science. Maybe I should not bother with people using that bad science and just go with what I want to believe. I really, really, really believe the water is OK.

Any help you can provide will be much appreciated in helping me to decide.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What exactly is the point of this post? You have pointed out that human beings are capable of surviving without the advances that science has provided for us. Are you suggesting that human beings shouldn't employ the scientific method to help us better understand how reality works?

So, who needs science? Anyone who wants to be immunized against a host of deadly diseases that have killed millions in the past. Anyone who likes to keep perishable food from spoiling by refrigerating it. Anyone who enjoys a lifespan of approximately 70 years compared to a lifespan of approximately 35 years. Anyone who likes to read after dark, but doesn't like to use flickering candles or oil lamps. Anyone who values educating themselves over living in ignorance. Oh, and OF COURSE, anyone who wants to communicate on an online forum such as this one.

So, were you immunized against certain diseases? Do you refrigerate food so that it doesn't spoil as quickly? Do you travel everywhere on foot? Do you rely on candles or oil lamps in order to see after dark? Clearly you use electricity and electronics to some degree, since you're communicating on this online forum


If so, why do you continue to make use of the advantages that science has made available to you?

Do not forget those candles and lamps produce soot that can get in your lungs. Skeletons found at Göbekli Tepe show the build up of soot from indoor fires. Those people did not need science to live, but they might have found a benefit in scientific information about indoor air quality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So why has life expectancy more than tripled with the aid of science.? Without science how do you know what is a contaminant? How the hell does one control your mental disposition? Pray tell, there arw millions of mentally ill people would love to know your secret.



You want data? My husband was diagnosed with cancer, 10 years ago it would have been terminal. Now thanks to scientific cancer research he is cancer free.

67% of cervical cancers are now cured
98% of prostate cancers are now cured
95% of testicular cancers are now cured
91% of skin cancers are now cured.
25 years ago, even 10 or 5 years ago the survival rate was much lower if a survival rate existed.



Gravity is why, pity you fail to comprehend that fundamental force.



Did i? Life expectancy around 24 years, starvation, cold, broken bones, dying from basic illness such as a gum abscess or an infected cut.



??? So farmers plant out at any time and harvest by luck? Of course people need to know, sheesh, with your attitude the human race would have been extinction from stupidity before it even got civilised.



And the reason those selfish individual are reasonably safe is because the responsible ones (the majority) are vaccinated.

US anti-vax poster child gets chickenpox

No need to ask you, you made it plain that you use your computer to mock the science that makes your life bearable.

It occurs to me that just being able to identify a disease or a condition is a major advancement in science. In ages past, someone suffering from a brain tumor might be imprisoned, tortured or killed, because they were possessed by demons. I cannot say that demons even exist or not, but all the incidents associated with them are based on belief. In the instance of someone tumor, identification of it was based on knowledge attained and verified through science.

If the ultimate fate of the ancient tumor sufferer was imprisonment, torture or death, those people really would have needed science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So why has life expectancy more than tripled with the aid of science.? Without science how do you know what is a contaminant? How the hell does one control your mental disposition? Pray tell, there arw millions of mentally ill people would love to know your secret.



You want data? My husband was diagnosed with cancer, 10 years ago it would have been terminal. Now thanks to scientific cancer research he is cancer free.

67% of cervical cancers are now cured
98% of prostate cancers are now cured
95% of testicular cancers are now cured
91% of skin cancers are now cured.
25 years ago, even 10 or 5 years ago the survival rate was much lower if a survival rate existed.



Gravity is why, pity you fail to comprehend that fundamental force.



Did i? Life expectancy around 24 years, starvation, cold, broken bones, dying from basic illness such as a gum abscess or an infected cut.



??? So farmers plant out at any time and harvest by luck? Of course people need to know, sheesh, with your attitude the human race would have been extinction from stupidity before it even got civilised.



And the reason those selfish individual are reasonably safe is because the responsible ones (the majority) are vaccinated.

US anti-vax poster child gets chickenpox

No need to ask you, you made it plain that you use your computer to mock the science that makes your life bearable.

Years ago, I read a story about ancient human remains recovered in, I think it was Greenland. What stuck in my mind was that the skull of an older, adult female was found with numerous tooth problems indicated by the condition of the teeth remaining in the skull. In one instance, it was determined that she had lived with a fairly severe problem for as much as 10 years, base on bone growth analysis.

Not only a testament to her ability to live with incredible pain, but of the value that later scientific work has done for us in the development of medical and dental technology.

 

[ChristineM]

It occurs to me that just being able to identify a disease or a condition is a major advancement in science. In ages past, someone suffering from a brain tumor might be imprisoned, tortured or killed, because they were possessed by demons. I cannot say that demons even exist or not, but all the incidents associated with them are based on belief. In the instance of someone tumor, identification of it was based on knowledge attained and verified through science.

If the ultimate fate of the ancient tumor sufferer was imprisonment, torture or death, those people really would have needed science.

I had never even considered that science had cured demonic
possession.

Another point, i am going into hospital an 3 weeks for gallstone op. Detected and diagnosed by x-ray and ultrasound scan. I understand that the op will be performed by a robot.

 

[ChristineM]

Years ago, I read a story about ancient human remains recovered in, I think it was Greenland. What stuck in my mind was that the skull of an older, adult female was found with numerous tooth problems indicated by the condition of the teeth remaining in the skull. In one instance, it was determined that she had lived with a fairly severe problem for as much as 10 years, base on bone growth analysis.

Not only a testament to her ability to live with incredible pain, but of the value that later scientific work has done for us in the development of medical and dental technology.

Similar, Rameses II of Egypt fame came to a slow, lingering and painful death by abscess that ate away a fair chunk of jaw bone

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I had never even considered that science had cured demonic
possession.

Another point, i am going into hospital an 3 weeks for gallstone op. Detected and diagnosed by x-ray and ultrasound scan. I understand that the op will be performed by a robot.

I am not sure it can be called cured, but people suffering from certain conditions now get treated for those conditions and not burned at stake or thrown in a dungeon.

Sorry to hear you have an impending personal example to support the value of diagnosis based on valid science. You take care.

Do you have to pay a robot surgeon? Can you barter with a can of oil?

 

[osgart]

Science provides a healthier, and easier way of life that provides us with the freedoms we would not otherwise have.

Science in and of itself is not a moral compass, and ignores the spiritual aspects of being that are crucial to survival, and civilty.

Let science do science. It is a separate issue than the ways we must inform ourselves of what is moral and ethical.

We could use good, and healthy religion to inform ourselves morally, but that is not the history of religion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Similar, Rameses II of Egypt fame came to a slow, lingering and painful death by abscess that ate away a fair chunk of jaw bone

Ouch! He would have definitely benefited from modern medicine with its sound basis in science.

According to some varied research I have read over the years, it is considered that our ancestors had a much higher tolerance for pain than we do. Considering what they had to endure, it is not surprising.

 

[ChristineM]

I am considering using this old pond on my property as a source of water for drinking, cooking and cleaning. I believe it is OK. What do you think I should do? Should I just continue to believe or should I have people trained in science and the use of technologies to determine water quality test it to see if it is OK. Do you think that those technologies I was referring to were the result of bad science. Maybe I should not bother with people using that bad science and just go with what I want to believe. I really, really, really believe the water is OK.

Any help you can provide will be much appreciated in helping me to decide.

We have a well, the water looks wonderful, sparkling clean and always a cool 11c no matter how hot it is outside.

Should we drink from it? After all, water here is quite expensive.

Scientific test showed several bacteria that chlorination will help get rid of so we decided not to risk the extra chemical. Its great for the plants though, they really love those microbes.