The world would be a better place if we lived by science

La Fenetre

aidoh wrote: »

"Science" didn't create it. Individual scientists and engineers did. Maybe they were strong-armed into it, maybe they were offered obscene money, maybe they had a misplaced sense of national pride etc. etc.
People make bombs not "science".

So how would they make it without science ?

mzungu

In the absence of religion there would most likely be a small grouping out of the Antiscience movement that would become a full blown whack job splinter group(s). Maybe the science movement would develop its own fundamentalist factions too. Some folk will always find some reason to beat seven shades of crap out of each other unfortunately.

aidoh

La Fenetre wrote: »

So how would they make it without science ?

How would your computer have been made without science?
How would we be able to have this discussion over the internet without science?
Science isn't a set of guidelines or ethics or anything, it's just a structure that people use to understand nature.

osarusan

Science or scientists?

La Fenetre

aidoh wrote: »

How would your computer have been made without science?
How would we be able to have this discussion over the internet without science?
Science isn't a set of guidelines or ethics or anything, it's just a structure that people use to understand nature.

And if you read my eariler posts you'd see that is exactly my point. Like most things in life you can use science for ill or good, it's in the hands of the user.

buried

aidoh wrote: »

How would your computer have been made without science?
How would we be able to have this discussion over the internet without science?
Science isn't a set of guidelines or ethics or anything, it's just a structure that people use to understand nature.

It ain't some sort of key to "peace on earth" for infinity either.

One eyed Jack

Fleawuss wrote: »

Glad to see that you agree that wonder creativity and art are all found in science.

That's not what you said at all.

Which is what the post quoted denied.

No it did not. It rejected the premise that society should be ruled by science, ergo leaving no room for art, creativity or wonderment, without which there would be no scientific discoveries.

Congratulations on your elevation to speak on behalf of humanity.

And that's the most bizarre interpretation of an opinion I've seen in this forum in... ohh, the last half hour or so I suppose.

One eyed Jack

mzungu wrote: »

In the absence of religion there would most likely be a small grouping out of the Antiscience movement that would become a full blown whack job splinter group(s).

Anti-vaccination and "big pharma" whackos immediately spring to mind.

Maybe the science movement would develop its own fundamentalist factions too.

Proponents of evolutionary psychology immediately spring to mind - all human behaviour can be explained in evolutionary terms... except religion of course. That may come as a surprise, until you look at the main proponents of evolutionary psychology theory.

Some folk will always find some reason to beat seven shades of crap out of each other unfortunately.

And people pitting science against religion has been raging on since the Dark Ages and the Age of Enlightenment (the first wave, the current wave is the second wave since the Middle Ages).

candy-gal1

If it means that actual immortality or very close to it will be available to any who want it then Im all for it!

Fleawuss

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not what you said at all.





No it did not. It rejected the premise that society should be ruled by science, ergo leaving no room for art, creativity or wonderment, without which there would be no scientific discoveries.





And that's the most bizarre interpretation of an opinion I've seen in this forum in... ohh, the last half hour or so I suppose.

I'm afraid the irony just went over your head. As usual bizarre interpretations.

One eyed Jack

Fleawuss wrote: »

I'm afraid the irony just went over your head. As usual bizarre interpretations.

Where was the supposed irony there?

Your initial misinterpretation seems to be the source of the confusion you call 'irony', I call it hand-waving in an attempt to avoid explaining what you mean in simple terms.

Fleawuss

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where was the supposed irony there?

Your initial misinterpretation seems to be the source of the confusion you call 'irony', I call it hand-waving in an attempt to avoid explaining what you mean in simple terms.

Lol. I don't think I could create terms simple enough.

Eugene Norman

Fleawuss wrote: »

Oh they can do much better than that: they turn wine and bread into human blood and flesh. Science can't explain that! So there.

That's not quite what the church claims.

Fleawuss

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That's not quite what the church claims.

Which church?

Manach

From what I read say of Soviet history (Robert Service, Burleigh), they used the inevitable of Science as one the key idealogical props to their regime, with old mores and religious practices being cast off. That did not end too well.

titan18

5starpool wrote: »

If religion never existed I'm sure people would find stuff to fight over, but no religion would be a great start.

Aye, it'd be something like that person has dark hair, or green eyes.

Isn't it striking how some strident supporters of science seem ironically impermeable to reason?

Balance in everything, that's my motto.

The_Valeyard

buried wrote: »

No. The yanks did

Twice!

One eyed Jack

Fleawuss wrote: »

Lol. I don't think I could create terms simple enough.

Lol. More hand waving. Lol. Have it your way. Lol.

Corpus Twisty

Science created Monsanto. I'd rather give it a miss tbh.

Fleawuss

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Lol. More hand waving. Lol. Have it your way. Lol.

You don't really mean that.

jcdf

No, it would be a disaster if we lived by science.

You sound like a teenager to suggest such a thing.

Ave Sodalis

To answer the OP, no. I say this as someone with a BSc and soon to be MSc. There is so much bad science out there, or bad interpretation of science. I mean, how many dodgy journals are out there? How many biased or half done experiments are there, from which people still draw conclusions? How many skewed results and paid for journal articles? Getting a particular result is not difficult if you really want it done. Getting a study published is not difficult if you really want it done. For a society to be influenced by science to the same extent religion has, it needs to be cleaned up something serious. Otherwise, it could end up destroying science, and be just as toxic to society as religion was.

KomradeBishop

A far better question, which gets to the point much better, is: "Would the world be better if it ran based on evidence?"

Undoubtedly, yes. You don't have to impinge upon anybodies freedom of thought/expression in order to do this, and neither would you have to strictly enforce this principle (evidence is regularly in question), but there are so so many things that are provably factually the wrong way to go about running the world politically/economically, that simply pressuring people to respect and follow the evidence, could make a huge positive difference.

The ability of people who basically don't care about science or evidence (except where it suits their political goals) - or even basic logic a lot of the time (i.e. basically sophists) - the ability of them to come into political/economic power, and succeed, is really a great shame and one of the big things holding the world back.

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

A far better question, which gets to the point much better, is: "Would the world be better if it ran based on evidence?"

Undoubtedly, yes. You don't have to impinge upon anybodies freedom of thought/expression in order to do this, and neither would you have to strictly enforce this principle (evidence is regularly in question), but there are so so many things that are provably factually the wrong way to go about running the world politically/economically, that simply pressuring people to respect and follow the evidence, could make a huge positive difference.

The ability of people who basically don't care about science or evidence (except where it suits their political goals) - or even basic logic a lot of the time (i.e. basically sophists) - the ability of them to come into political/economic power, and succeed, is really a great shame and one of the big things holding the world back.

The world would grind to a halt if people consistently relied on evidence, and questioning evidence, and doing all sorts of debates over the validity of nit-picking evidence and so on.

There's nothing holding the world back, because we often take risks based on instinct without evidence. If we had to search for evidence before we ever made a decision, we wouldn't have come as far as we have done.

People believe what they want to believe, often in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence which contradicts their opinion, and they elect people who they believe will give them what they want, and they base their financial planning looking forward, what they want to achieve.

Progress would stall if we restricted ourselves solely to making decisions based on evidence. Sometimes you've just got to go with your gut.

It's inherently illogical, irrational, emotional, but that's what makes us human IMO.

KomradeBishop

You're presenting what I said, as if I said there would be a strict application of evidence - that's not what I said, I specifically said it wouldn't be strictly applied, only that there would be pressure so that evidence of good enough quality could not be ignored.

So your whole post is attacking something, I explicitly made clear I wasn't saying.

raze_them_all_

Ally Dick wrote: »

Lack of religion could mean lack of morals, so I am not sure that living by science is enough

I'm athiest, I don't need a reward not to be a dick

entropi

La Fenetre wrote: »

So how would politics have created it if science didn't gladly assist ?

Like anything else, you can use politics and science for good or bad, it's no mystery.

Like I said, it necessitated the building of it. Science wouldn't have needed to build an atomic bomb for no reason, it was built for war, for terror, to shock an already waning and low on food and weaponry Japanese army into surrender.

Science didn't gladly assist. You said it yourself, it could be used for good or evil. It was believed to be good, yet it was inherently evil due to justifying the obliteration of two cities and probably 100,000+ innocent people. Science doesn't have motives, people do.

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're presenting what I said, as if I said there would be a strict application of evidence - that's not what I said, I specifically said it wouldn't be strictly applied, only that there would be pressure so that evidence of good enough quality could not be ignored.

So your whole post is attacking something, I explicitly made clear I wasn't saying.

You changed the question to one you could answer "undoubtedly yes", as if you were making a definitive statement. I presented reasons why your assertion was very much in doubt, because you chose to ignore evidence that didn't suit your answer to your own question which wasn't the question asked in the opening post.

Fleawuss

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're presenting what I said, as if I said there would be a strict application of evidence - that's not what I said, I specifically said it wouldn't be strictly applied, only that there would be pressure so that evidence of good enough quality could not be ignored.

So your whole post is attacking something, I explicitly made clear I wasn't saying.

You'll see a bit of that. The idea is to expand the concept of faith so that it suddenly seems reasonable to be living in 1930's Ireland.

magma69

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Whats that saying... "The more things change the more they stay the same"
So yeah even if we lived in a world without religion there would still be wars, murders, rapes, you name it.

The world is becoming more peaceful, that's a fact.

One eyed Jack

Fleawuss wrote: »

You'll see a bit of that. The idea is to expand the concept of faith so that it suddenly seems reasonable to be living in 1930's Ireland.

If anyone was trying to "expand concepts" here (segueway in their own agenda), it was KB, who completely changed the question to one they thought was a "better" one, and decided to offer an answer to that, instead of actually offering any answer to the question in the opening post.

I'm not sure what that whole reference to faith and 1930's Ireland is about, but I'm reluctant to ask you to explain in case you "can't make it simple enough" again (cue more hand waving and "you wouldn't understand" diversionary nonsense). It's more likely that you simply can't explain, rather than you won't.

So far all you've done is made grandiose statements, and when asked to explain, you've thrown out the "you wouldn't understand" excuse, as though the failure is mine, and not yours. That's the sort of "I don't have to answer your questions!" arrogance that fuelled religious authority in 1930's Ireland.

Curious then that you would suggest it was I who missed some earlier irony that you failed to explain then too.

Bongalongherb

Ally Dick wrote: »

Lack of religion 'could' mean lack of morals, so I am not sure that living by science is enough

I'm atheist as well and I have morals/compassion/understanding and respect for other peoples beliefs. Just because I have seen no scientific evidence of a so-called God doesn't mean I would be closed minded. I have respect for others beliefs but I need some kind of proof for such an enormous statement of a creator/creator's of such Gods.

Science all the way, the job of a real scientist is to try to find the answer to the questions and phenomena that we have today to understand and measure/calculate and test if possible to the best of their ability, otherwise if they do not do this then they cannot call themselves scientists.

I will still have an open mind though, but not that my brains fall out.

B.A._Baracus

magma69 wrote: »

The world is becoming more peaceful, that's a fact.

Is it?
Because where are the facts?

magma69

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Is it?
Because where are the facts?

http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/has_the_decline_of_violence_reversed_since_the_better_angels_of_our_nature_was_written.pdf

A quick look of global violent crime trends show a decrease. Check out Stephen Pinker's book, The Better Angels of Our Nature.

Optimalprimerib

So instead of people fighting and dying over a false entity, people will fight and die over whether pluto is a planet? Conflict is part of nature right down to bacteria.

if there was no conflict, the planet would be outgrown (which is beginning to happen)

B.A._Baracus

magma69 wrote: »

http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/has_the_decline_of_violence_reversed_since_the_better_angels_of_our_nature_was_written.pdf

A quick look of global violent crime trends show a decrease. Check out Stephen Pinker's book, The Better Angels of Our Nature.

So some guys book is your counter-agument and your go to source?
One joe-blow out of 7 billion people. Think about that for a second.

Ave Sodalis

KomradeBishop wrote:

A far better question, which gets to the point much better, is: "Would the world be better if it ran based on evidence?"

People don't know what credible evidence is.

La Fenetre

entropi wrote: »

Like I said, it necessitated the building of it. Science wouldn't have needed to build an atomic bomb for no reason, it was built for war, for terror, to shock an already waning and low on food and weaponry Japanese army into surrender.

Science didn't gladly assist. You said it yourself, it could be used for good or evil. It was believed to be good, yet it was inherently evil due to justifying the obliteration of two cities and probably 100,000+ innocent people. Science doesn't have motives, people do.

Which brings you right back to what I was saying, politics and science can be used for good or bad, it's in the hands of the user.

MRnotlob606

steddyeddy wrote: »

Would the world be a better place if science governed our politics and morals. Straight off the bat science doesn't recognise races. There's less than 1% difference in the genetic code of all humans. That should end racism.

The Palestinians and the Jews are nearly identical genetically indicating they both come from the same region. There's no Holy land ! No more wars there.

No more ISIS because there's no religion.

No more American health service because science says treating the individual to deal with pathogens rather than society doesn't work and makes things worse (multi drug resistant bacteria).

Would the world be a better place if we let science govern our lives?

Wasn't a lot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict caused by Secular Jews in the beginning ? Zionism is actually quite socialist in nature.

MRnotlob606

I wouldn't like if in an overly scientific and rationalist world. It would make humans like mere automatons who just stepped off assembly lines. I think people would start treating Science as a dogma, and will feel an existentialist angst over when they try to look for morality and answers from Science.

sonny.knowles

Science good. Scientists bad.

La Fenetre

sonny.knowles wrote: »

Science good. Scientists bad.

It isn't "good" or "bad", it's in the hands of the user.

suicide_circus

Religion degrades us.

If I behave in a decent and socially responsible way, is that because I know logically this is the best way to act or is it because I fear judgement day?

Why don't I commit murder? Is it because God told me not to?

Our ethics and morals come from....OURSELVES. In terms of evolution and a healthy human society, murder, rape, theft and fraud are largely disruptive and unhelpful - humanity didn't learn this from stone tablets or scrolls - we are social creatures - we work better in groups - murder, rape etc have a negative impact on the cohesiveness of those groups - that's why we avoid these things.

We are the result of unimaginable celestial forces billions of years ago - ancient starts exploding - dust and debris scattered throughout the universe at alarming speeds - we are stardust....how beautiful is that? And we will return to stardust...our planet will eventually be swallowed by the sun and it will be like we never existed....*poof*....gone.

LeinsterDub

Ally Dick wrote: »

Lack of religion could mean lack of morals, so I am not sure that living by science is enough

The Bible is highly immoral. Rape, incest, murder, genocide to name a few

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

No art,creativity or wonderment. No thanks.

That's not what I mean. I mean policies should be evidence based. That doesn't mean getting rid of the arts.

La Fenetre

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Bible is highly immoral. Rape, incest, murder, genocide to name a few

You mean some of the people in it are

Mesrine65

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Bible is highly immoral. Rape, incest, murder, genocide to name a few

Sounds good, must give it a read some time

LeinsterDub

La Fenetre wrote: »

You mean some of the people in it are

I mean if you are to believe it. People acting under the guidance of God are highly immoral . In fact God himself comits many immoral acts personally

KomradeBishop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You changed the question to one you could answer "undoubtedly yes", as if you were making a definitive statement. I presented reasons why your assertion was very much in doubt, because you chose to ignore evidence that didn't suit your answer to your own question which wasn't the question asked in the opening post.

No you just misrepresented what I said. I'm not going to debate from the position of something I did not say, and when posters insist on trying to present me as saying something I did not (by asserting that they 'rebutted' something I didn't say), that gets very tedious and becomes a big waste of time/space in threads.