Science - Who Needs It

[metis]

True to a certain extent. Math is the descriptive tool box for science and everyday life, and science is descriptive of the nature of our physical existence from the human perspective. What is specifically meaningful in science and math is problematic to predetermine in advance. It is often the case that the meaningfulness of science cannot be assessed until many years after the discoveries and advancements of science.

That really doesn't negate what I said as both are means to ends even though there's no way to determine in advance what those ends may end up being. IOW, science and math are a process, thus not an end in and of themselves. If they never are applied to anything, then nothing will result from them.

 

[Nakosis]

What do those truth claims have to do with my living?
How many does one need?
For example, people have been having sexual intercourse for centuries, and making babies. Do you think knowing about Mendel's Laws of Heredity, affect how they will now have sexual intercourse.
It seems my OP has been misunderstood... but that's okay.
I understand why.

Your question was why do you need science. I need to use in daily to support my claims. Part of my job. If one doesn't really need to provide proof of what they say I suppose one could get through life without it.

There are people, of course, who need education, since unlike others, they may not have been educated, or they may have been misled by opinions. Even scientists need educating themselves.
For example, they thought Joseph Lister was a stupid fool, before they learned they were wrong.

Who used science to support his ideas.

I hear what you are saying, and I don't think I disagree.
I think you should read the post more carefully to understand what I am saying.
I'm not sure it would make a difference, as I understand how our minds can sometimes run away with a few words our eyes see, and filter out everything else, but of course this has a lot to do with our mindset.
It is said, 'there is an art in listening'. Art is not an easy thing for everyone. It take a lot of practice. A whole lot, for some others.

It seems you don't feel that science needs to be influential in your life.
If I set aside my job... I suppose in general I can get by on my powers of persuasion. Using emotions/feelings it's not too hard to convince people to believe something necessary for your goals.

Anger, passion, fear all very useful for persuasion. I think it'd be hard to get through life without the ability to persuade others to your way of seeing things. Science when you use it is, IMO, the better way to go about persuading people. Certainly there are other ways.

Unless you think one can get through life without having to persuade anyone?

 

[shunyadragon]

That really doesn't negate what I said as both are means to ends even though there's no way to determine in advance what those ends may end up being. IOW, science and math are a process, thus not an end in and of themselves. If they never are applied to anything, then nothing will result from them.

I did not negate what you said, and I do believe it was incomplete from my perspective as a scientist. Science and math is more than a process, and such a statement is incomplete.

 

[metis]

I did not negate what you said, and I do believe it was incomplete from my perspective as a scientist. Science and math is more than a process, and such a statement is incomplete.

Just for the record, I am also a scientist, now retired.

IMO, all knowledge is related, but unless such knowledge is used and/or passed on, it dies with our own death. If you discovered the cure for all cancer but never used it or passed in on to some others, that knowledge is worthless, except for maybe your own gratification of knowing. As scientists, we don't work in a vacuum as we use our knowledge as part of a building process.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you *need* science to live or even to have a happy life? No.

But, science does make it *easier* to live and to have a happy life. For example, I almost certainly would have died before I was a teenager without some of the medications that came about through the scientific study of asthma. Being able to travel has opened me up to the wider world. Modern technology allows me to communicate with people across the globe (in RF, for example). All of these have increased my happiness and my ability to live a good life.

I would suggest you look at what the average person 300 years ago experienced on a day-to-day basis compared to a similar individual today. People died by the score before their first birthdays from childhood illnesses. Others died from diseases we can easily treat today (look up what having a tooth infection did 300 years ago). Crops had yields that were very small compared to today, which meant that famine was common. And, without modern techniques, when bad years came around, people starved to death because there simply was no food to be had. We can also point to things like refrigeration and other methods of preservation that both diminish the likelihood of starvation, but also allows us to enjoy foods from around the world (every look at what the average diet was like 300 years ago?). The differences are largely do to advancements in science.

It always amuses me when someone doubts the value of science while typing on a computer or phone as opposed to using smoke signals or pony express riders.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ask the ancient civilizations. Go to the Amazon, and ask the Indians there. Try the Aboriginal Australians. Just search for the indigenous people.
Oh wait. Forget I said that. I don't want any blood on my hands. Some people with a high-and-mighty-full-of-themselves attitude.often irritate humble people trying to live without interference. Then there are those who have a keen smell for unwelcoming "guest"

How does one ask ancient civilizations? What special knowledge do the Indians have about water purity that will help me make my decision? I do not live in the Amazon.

Are up planning on killing people. Why would there be blood on your hands?

I surely do recognize people with high-and-mighty attitudes who are full of themselves.

Are these people you speak of trying to live without interference? Some of them have histories of interfering with other tribes and people.

I must say, this ranks up there with irrational responses that I have gotten. You have outdone yourself on nonsense.

 

[nPeace]

Your OP is mostly rant and drivel, though I did answer it correctly. You asked who needed science and I'm sure many many people do and did. In the OP, you compared the past to the present and so will I.
I gave an example of how an important figure needed science.

The end.

Okay. Have a good one.

 

[nPeace]

Si you have no answer other than god messed up but you are unwilling to say that so fall back on mockery?

That's your opinion. Acknowledged.

One has to learn how to create that technology in order to benefit from it.

Agreed

I see no instructions in the god books of how to build a computer so you can mock technology.

If you need a computer to live, then by all means... enjoy yourself.

How about learning come basic cosmology or particle physics rather than mocking what you self admittedly dont understand?

Don't need it. Sad that up to this point you apparently still miss the point.

Proof please!

Where's yours? You gave me none.

The farmers learned by obsetvatobse, that in itself is an aspect of science. How about learning some history too rather than making yourself look deliberately foolish

"an aspect of science"?
Talk about looking foolish...

You made a statement based the ignorance of benefits of medical science. I replied with a valid example so once again you choose mockery as your get out clause. If you really think i did not understand your claim then how about explaining why it is better to provide the conditions for, say, smallpox to return rather than saving 5 million lives per year.

Conclusion. Because you cannot provide answers that work in favour of your faith you resort to mockery.

Learn to understand.
Peace out.

 

[nPeace]

In your first post: "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."

Also you are constantly referring to 'those scientists?' in negative generalizations, and egos without clarification. You totally misrepresent science by referring to the negative 'personalities' of individuals, which is not science. Science has self-correcting methods of peer review and redundant research, reevaluation, and commentary on previous works. Research that is not repeatable and is flawed is weeded out over time.

I am still waiting for your definition of 'good science,' since you have at present only resorted to vague character assassinations of unnamed scientists. I gave mine, and I am waiting . . .

Who said the above?

 

[nPeace]

And those herbal remedies for malaria rarely worked. We are fully aware of the herbal remedies and their relative ineffectiveness in treating most cases of malaria.

Why do you say they rarely worked, on what basis?

 

[nPeace]

Your question was why do you need science. I need to use in daily to support my claims. Part of my job. If one doesn't really need to provide proof of what they say I suppose one could get through life without it.



Who used science to support his ideas.



It seems you don't feel that science needs to be influential in your life.
If I set aside my job... I suppose in general I can get by on my powers of persuasion. Using emotions/feelings it's not too hard to convince people to believe something necessary for your goals.

Anger, passion, fear all very useful for persuasion. I think it'd be hard to get through life without the ability to persuade others to your way of seeing things. Science when you use it is, IMO, the better way to go about persuading people. Certainly there are other ways.

Unless you think one can get through life without having to persuade anyone?

I am not going to change my OP, or try to explain it better. I believe it is clear.
However, as I said before, some things are better grasped when we adjust our mindset.
Take care.

 

[shunyadragon]

Who said the above?

You in your first post.

n your first post: "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."

 

[ChristineM]

That's your opinion. Acknowledged.

Not only acknowledged but blatantly obvious

Agreed

Woopidoo

If you need a computer to live, then by all means... enjoy yourself.

Says the one using his computer to gripe about using computers,do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement?

Don't need it. Sad that up to this point you apparently still miss the point.

You quote obviously do need it if you want to argue against it and save yourself looking silly

Where's yours? You gave me none.

You made the claim, it is not up to me to prove your claims

"an aspect of science"?
Talk about looking foolish...

You sure do, glad you at least understand that.

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Learn to understand.
Peace out.

Oh i do understand, You made a statement based on ignorance of benefits of medical science and cannot dig yourself out of blunder.

 

[sayak83]

Why do you say they rarely worked, on what basis?

Such remedies were used before the advent of modern medicine. Yet so many died of malarial epidemic in the late 19th and early 20th century because of it (like my grandma-s three brothers). In those days people had 6-7 kids, and considered themselves lucky if one or two survive. Why do u think that was?

 

[nPeace]

You in your first post.

n your first post: "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."

I did not say that. That's a quote.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you say they rarely worked, on what basis?

The death toll before modern science developed modern treatments for malaria. Death toll is still high because of the lack of modern treatment; ~435,000 in 2017, a drop since 2010, which is estimated by 1,2 million. The numbers reflect the access to modern medical treatment. Global instability in many countries restricted the access of modern treatment. In 1980 the death toll was 995,000, and increased with the limited access of modern medical treatment.

See:Global malaria mortality between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis

See: US Malaria Deaths, 1870

US Malaria Deaths, 1870
By Lauren Urban US Malaria Deaths, 1870 While malaria still kills over 1 million people each year, most of those deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa—the United States has been free of the disease since 1951. In the 19th century, however, malaria was extremely common within the United States, with over 1 million cases reported during the Civil War alone. The map below depicts deaths from malaria in 1870—10 years before the malaria parasite.

Due to immigration and other sources of malaria musquitos the death toll in the USA in recent years we are not free of the disease, but the death toll remains very low.


Many developed countries like the USA have reduced the death toll due to malaria to minimal levels. down from 70 deaths per 1000 in the South and southern midwest of the USA

This reference gives the timeline of malaria dn medical treatment history: Timeline of malaria - Wikipedia

The conclusion is clear and specific the more available medical technology, and other modern technologies that are available based on science the lower the incidence of malaria and the lower the death toll.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did not say that. That's a quote.

Whether you said it or quoted it or not you endorsed it. If you do not agree with it why did you quote it?

 

[nPeace]

It's actually pointless talking with you madam. I cannot make you understand anything. So you can have the final say, after this.

Not only acknowledged but blatantly obvious



Woopidoo



Says the one using his computer to gripe about using computers,do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement?

No. If you understood the OP, you would not be saying this.

You quote obviously do need it if you want to argue against it and save yourself looking silly



You made the claim, it is not up to me to prove your claims



You sure do, glad you at least understand that.

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.




Oh i do understand, You made a statement based on ignorance of benefits of medical science and cannot dig yourself out of blunder.

You understand nothing.

 

[nPeace]

Whether you said it or quoted it or not you endorsed it. If you do not agree with it why did you quote it?

I expected better from an educated man.
That is not true. It is not factual, and no amount of science agrees with it.

 

[nPeace]

Such remedies were used before the advent of modern medicine. Yet so many died of malarial epidemic in the late 19th and early 20th century because of it (like my grandma-s three brothers). In those days people had 6-7 kids, and considered themselves lucky if one or two survive. Why do u think that was?

Question... What do you understand my original post to be saying... in brief?