Science - Who Needs It

[ChristineM]

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?

Ahh, its the demonic possession that has been cured, not the brain cancer

Thanks, its actually quite inconvenient but it needs to be done.

Edit
I have to hire the robot at my own expense, its not covered by the health service. The cost of the surgeon is paid up front but is paid back in a few weeks by the health service and mutual insurance.

 

[shunyadragon]

These are generally not the products of "science" (perhaps excluding parts of medicine). Technologies tend to be developed by inventors/'tinkerers' via stochastic processes of trial and error.

Formal science tends to get far more credit than is warranted for technological developments, which are usually just "people doing stuff". The industrial revolution even predated the development of the modern concept of science.

Not only generally, but by and large science is responsible for the technological advancements in the history of humanity. What you call "people doing stuff" throughout the history of humanity is indeed primitive science that evolved to become the more complex scientific methodology. In the primitive forms going back to the Neolithic the trail and error methods of the development of technology was indeed a primitive form of science. The development of metallurgy in the Bronze and Iron Age were developed by basic experimental methods with different metals and temperatures common to science today. The scientific method has been apart of human intellect throughout history in simpler forms and with time became more complex.

 

[Deeje]

The truth is, science has always existed.....humans simply got smart enough to try to understand how it works. The more they discovered, the smarter they assumed they were, and the more they tried to manipulate the science to fit their pet theories and to line their own pockets.

Most of the systems that use science have sold out to commercialism.....which leads to the misuse of science.....resulting in the situation we have now.....we are killing this planet and threatening all life on it. Everything is causing problems.....sold to us as something to improve life....down the track we reap the fallout. How clever are we really?

 

[Nakosis]

You seem to be saying that there is nothing that leads to truth, but science.

Science is just a method to verify truth claims. How you come about that claim is up to you. You can make any truth claim you want by whatever means you feel is appropriate. Einstein, for example made a number of claims about time and space. Science has been able to validate many of his claims. SInce these claims have been proven by science, we don't have to rely on his word.

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.

Partly, theories/hypothesis are based on what we know to be true or what we accept to be true. Everyone does this. Folks observe reality and make a guess at how it works and reality may seem to work according to that theory. Someone may observe that whenever a car engine is running it vibrates for example. They come up with a theory that vibrations makes the car run. What science adds to this the attempt to disprove such a theory by eliminating every other possible cause. In the case of a car, maybe remove gas, air, electricity. Just vibrate the car and see if it runs. If the car still runs with vibrations being the only possible cause, then you've validated the theory.

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.

Because they haven't actually used science. They only did the first part. Came up with a theory, which kind of seems to work without eliminating all other possible causes to prove the truth of their claim. Without doing this second part, then people can claim anything that seems to be true as truth whether it is actually true or not.

Knowing what doesn't work is just as important as knowing what does work. Science does miss a lot. It's part of the elimination process. To arrive at the truth, you need to eliminate everything that can be determined not to work.

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

Science, used properly is simply a tool to eliminate false, claims, theories, hypotheses. If you don't go through this process, you can't really know if you can trust the claim, theory, hypothesis that you are relying on for truth.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The word "science" essentially means "to study", and I would suggest that this is generally better than living out of ignorance. Even theology is a science.

But science is a lot like owning a car, namely that it can be used for good or evil. The fact that we are even discussing this here at RF shows the power of science that we often just take for granted.

Since science deals with attempting to ascertain the truth, whatever that might be, to be anti-science is essentially to have us rely on just shear emotion, and we well know what kind of problems that can create.

I agree with you for the most part, however, I believe that it is still possible to study matters without making any impact on the world and thus without technically doing any "science." Take pure mathematics, for instance. The great mathematician G.H. Hardy took pride in the fact that his work was intellectually demanding, and yet ultimately "useless" in that it has no impact on the physical world, and thus can never be used for evil.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Not remotely related to science. Science does propose it leads to any sort of truth. Scientific methods lead to the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and the increased knowledge of science.

I personally consider absolute truth is beyond the grasp of fallible humans in any form.

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.

A really terrible biased view of science, based on fundamental ignorance of science, and a religious agenda, There is no attempt to find truth in science.

Because the physical man sees spirituality as myth, they fail to see how far behind they are.

Incoherent, except what may happen if humans ignore math.

We don't need science to verify truth of everything. It can't.

Science does not verify the truth of everything. Science only falsifies theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Oftentimes, what man thinks he has verified, is just another belief like the other person.

Very negative view of science, which establishes your anti-science agenda.

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

Absolutely false accusation. Science is not considered a sacred cow. Please come down to earth where we can discuss science as science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

So there are some benefits of science over belief. I wonder if that idea will get around to some or not?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with you for the most part, however, I believe that it is still possible to study matters without making any impact on the world and thus without technically doing any "science." Take pure mathematics, for instance. The great mathematician G.H. Hardy took pride in the fact that his work was intellectually demanding, and yet ultimately "useless" in that it has no impact on the physical world, and thus can never be used for evil.

Science can be conducted without an interest in or the possibility of some result that can be applied to a human use. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is reason enough.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you for the most part, however, I believe that it is still possible to study matters without making any impact on the world and thus without technically doing any "science." Take pure mathematics, for instance. The great mathematician G.H. Hardy took pride in the fact that his work was intellectually demanding, and yet ultimately "useless" in that it has no impact on the physical world, and thus can never be used for evil.

Math is a descriptive tool of science and everyday life, and does not in and of itself study anything. Science does science using the tool 'math.'


Math can be used to count and measure bullets and bombs, and count bodies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not remotely related to science. Science does propose it leads to any sort of truth. Scientific methods lead to the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and the increased knowledge of science.

I personally consider absolute truth is beyond the grasp of fallible humans in any form.



A really terrible biased view of science, based on fundamental ignorance of science, and a religious agenda, There is no attempt to find truth in science.



Incoherent.



Science does not verify the truth of everything. Science only falsifies theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence.




Very negative view of science, which establishes your anti-science agenda.



Absolutely false accusation. Science is not considered a sacred cow. Please come down to earth where we can discuss science as science.

I am uncertain how one would determine if they had discovered some absolute truth. I can only imagine that it would require abilities well beyond those that we possess to ever begin to have an inkling if something were the absolute truth.

Of course, we can believe we have the absolute truth without any special ability beyond that which any person already has.

 

[nPeace]

Truth is you don't need science or religion to live on this earth. You only need them to make your life easier and with religion perhaps grant you a better afterlife.

Interesting way of looking at it. It's reasonable.
Do you personally think one is better than the other - not meaning to put you on the spot? Would you mind sharing the reason for your answer.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am uncertain how one would determine if they had discovered some absolute truth. I can only imagine that it would require abilities well beyond those that we possess to ever begin to have an inkling if something were the absolute truth.

Of course, we can believe we have the absolute truth without any special ability beyond that which any person already has.

We may have and possible determined something that is absolutely true, but we cannot see beyond the limits of our present knowledge, therefore we only consider what we have falsified as true based on the present knowledge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We may have and possible determined something that is absolutely true, but we cannot see beyond the limits of our present knowledge, therefore we only consider what we have falsified as true based on the present knowledge.

If I understand you correctly, that is my thought as well. We could identify the absolute truth, but we have no way to determine that it is with the tools at hand now. It is possible that we may never have those tools in life.

Does that fit with your view and what we have been discussing?

 

[shunyadragon]

Truth is you don't need science or religion to live on this earth. You only need them to make your life easier and with religion perhaps grant you a better afterlife.

"Need" is an interesting proposition for humans to be able to live on the earth. If we go back to the paleolithic like 200,000 or more years ago primitive humans lacked an organized religion, nor science beyond basic stone technology. Evidence indicates that likely had burial rituals and some sort of desires and expectation beyond our physical life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ahh, its the demonic possession that has been cured, not the brain cancer

Thanks, its actually quite inconvenient but it needs to be done.

Edit
I have to hire the robot at my own expense, its not covered by the health service. The cost of the surgeon is paid up front but is paid back in a few weeks by the health service and mutual insurance.

No one expects demonic possession. No. That is the Spanish Inquisition that no one expects. I do not know why I keep forgetting that. It must be because I did not expect it.

If we can make artificial intelligence that develops a concept of currency and market economics, that may solve the issue of automation putting us all out of a job. They could price themselves out of the market.

 

[shunyadragon]

If I understand you correctly, that is my thought as well. We could identify the absolute truth, but we have no way to determine that it is with the tools at hand now. It is possible that we may never have those tools in life.

Does that fit with your view and what we have been discussing?

Yes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder how science that supposedly always existed, still happens to be in development

Yes.

Thanks for the confirmation. I was not completely satisfied with my initial statement and wondered if it might suffer from problems with clarity.

 

[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.

Do people that place importance on what can be determined in the physical world see spirituality as myth or do they see certain versions proclaiming to know the truth as myths regarding spirituality. Many people that understand science and accept the conclusions of science also hold spiritual beliefs.

I know that some sects of various religions have proclaimed the "end is nigh" many times over the last few thousand years and we are still here. If you were depending on them to find the truth, you would be on a never ending quest.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree with you for the most part, however, I believe that it is still possible to study matters without making any impact on the world and thus without technically doing any "science." Take pure mathematics, for instance. The great mathematician G.H. Hardy took pride in the fact that his work was intellectually demanding, and yet ultimately "useless" in that it has no impact on the physical world, and thus can never be used for evil.

And one of the ironies of his story is that his area, number theory, came to have deep applications in the types of codes that modern communication are based on. For the modern world, his work came to be quite useful.

We can never know what areas will be put to use in the future. That is the nature of research.

 

[nPeace]

Inflated egos is a personal issue, and not and issue with science. You made an unfortunate generalization about scientists without clarification. Let's not deal with vague accusation of 'those scientists?' who ever they are, and deal with science as science. Science does have self-correcting mechanisms of peer review and redundant research that weeds out personalities and notions of 'infallibility?' over time.



Of course but having free speech does not help the rambling incoherency of your post, and not really an issue with this thread..

"unfortunate generalization about scientists without clarification"?
Where?