Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Times Waffle Alert

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    MetalDog
    Registered Users Posts: 904 ✭✭✭MetalDog


    Joe Humphreys, you are a willfully ignorant prat. What values? Sexism and child abuse no doubt.


  • Options
    #33
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    speaking wrote: »
    I dont know about that, wasnt Hitler into using darwinism in a freeky way to make his master race, i.e using science to justify his master race theory, im sure there are other examplse.

    You seem to be saying that science does not have a purpose and then saying sicence has a very important purpose? Which is it?

    If science just is, than surely science just is. It does not have a purpose other than what we as humans give it? nO?

    That is something the guy in the article pointed to, i.e the need to question how science is applied. To ask moral judgements on how it is aplied. Not to just follow scientific progress in a blind way.

    I don't recall ever reading of Hitler saying 'For Science's sake, let us kill the lesser races.' He could have as easily used gods to justify killing the other tribes. After all it said on the SS uniforms 'Gott Mit Uns.' But lets not drag this thread into a Godwin'd pit of doom.

    Science is about knowledge, pure and simple. It's only imperative is to let us understand ourselves and our world a bit more. It's as you say, we make the judgements. The post I responded to made it sound as if the science were to blame, whereas I'm fairly sure now that you meant the 'ideologically obsessed groups' were to blame for using progress in a negative way.

    But just because people misuse the hard won advances we have today doesn't mean we should stop advancing. We should fight harder to give people suffering from cancer those extra years of 'crummy life.' Mr Humphries should direct his worry over the values and convictions we hold to those who purport to uphold them.


  • Options
    #34
    speaking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭speaking


    Galvasean wrote: »
    *Looks around thread*



    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddd I'm out.

    I dont understand? Did Hitler not use the ideas of the survival of the fittest to explain his master race theory? That the strong survive and weak perish in nature? Did he not want to kill those he considered weak to make a stronger master race? Is this not using scientific ideas in a corrupt way? If Hitler had won the war is it not plausible he could have used science to justify the kind of horrible things he wanted to do?

    Explain to me if I am talking sh1t here, but dont just take the p1ss out of me like that its insulting.


  • Options
    #35
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

    Hitler refs come up waaaay too often here. Mostly in the form 'Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Meow were atheists and they killed millions.'

    It usually means the thread has runs it's course. Don't take it personally.


  • Options
    #36
    speaking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭speaking


    fitz0 wrote: »
    I don't recall ever reading of Hitler saying 'For Science's sake, let us kill the lesser races.'

    No but he did use the ideas of science in a currupt way, to support his aims. I am not saying science was the God, but I am saying he used the fact that science is perfect to justify the horrible things he did.
    Science is about knowledge, pure and simple. It's only imperative is to let us understand ourselves and our world a bit more. It's as you say, we make the judgements.

    Yes that is true in the hands of people who are morally okay and willing to do the right thing.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    We should fight harder to give people suffering from cancer those extra years of 'crummy life.' Mr Humphries should direct his worry over the values and convictions we hold to those who purport to uphold them.

    Your right thatw as a crass ignorant and stupid comment he made there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    speaking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭speaking


    fitz0 wrote: »
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

    Hitler refs come up waaaay too often here. Mostly in the form 'Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Meow were atheists and they killed millions.'

    It usually means the thread has runs it's course. Don't take it personally.

    Ouch! his comment making sense now.

    Although in a discussion about how science can be abused to suit an ideological aim i think it was a fair example to bring up.


  • Options
    #38
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    People abuse drugs all the time. And money. And trust, that one's always under pressure.

    But nobody seems to want to do away with any of the above. Arguing science is bad because bad people have used it doesn't work. The problem is bad people doing bad things.


  • Options
    #39
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    speaking wrote: »
    I dont understand? Did Hitler not use the ideas of the survival of the fittest to explain his master race theory? That the strong survive and weak perish in nature? Did he not want to kill those he considered weak to make a stronger master race? Is this not using scientific ideas in a corrupt way? If Hitler had won the war is it not plausible he could have used science to justify the kind of horrible things he wanted to do?

    Explain to me if I am talking sh1t here, but dont just take the p1ss out of me like that its insulting.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution covers it pretty well. But it basically boils down to the idea that he espoused some parts of evolution and some creationism and kinda twisted them together to justify his actions.


  • Options
    #40
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Why, I do believe we have come to a near complete agreement here. Odd, that rarely happens. :)
    speaking wrote: »
    Ouch! his comment making sense now.

    Although in a discussion about how science can be abused to suit an ideological aim i think it was a fair example to bring up.

    In this forum, it's usually brought up in the same manner time and again and the regulars are mostly weary of it by now. The context is appropriate in this instance though.


  • Options
    #41
    speaking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭speaking


    Sarky wrote: »
    People abuse drugs all the time. And money. And trust, that one's always under pressure.

    But nobody seems to want to do away with any of the above. Arguing science is bad because bad people have used it doesn't work. The problem is bad people doing bad things.

    Science is not bad. But then again what would science be if people were not there? it would still be I suppose but would have no meaning or value other than its own intrinsic value. Humans use science for their own good and the trouble is one persons good is another persons hell.

    What the guy in the times was saying was not to blindly follow science without question how it is used and the motivations behind people using it.

    Listen I am probably out of my depth here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    speaking wrote: »
    Your right of course.

    I just don't know.

    That's what I thought.


  • Options
    #43
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    speaking wrote: »
    Listen I am probably out of my depth here.

    Don't worry. You're actually doing fine. Don't mind my previous comment. I just really hate when threads inevitably turn into debates along the lines of:
    "Hitler did this,"
    "Well no, Hitler did that actually."
    And so on.


  • Options
    #44
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    speaking wrote: »

    Science is not bad. But then again what would science be if people were not there? it would still be I suppose but would have no meaning or value other than its own intrinsic value.

    Um... What?

    The model is not the thing.


  • Options
    #45
    MarkHitide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 233 ✭✭MarkHitide


    Science explains why hitting your head on the floor hurts.
    Religion demands that you do it anyway-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kowtow.jpg


  • Options
    #46
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Who says crummy? His life may be 'crummy', but that doesn't mean that anyone else's life is as bad as his.

    .

    Yet depression and suicide is at its highest since records began.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0711/recorded-suicides-rose-7-last-year-cso.html

    Basicly he is saying that science cannot gaurantee happiness. To that he is right even though it may be badly written.


  • Options
    #47
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    gvn wrote: »
    Any person or group could use almost anything for lots of nasty things. If a person or a group of people use some scientific principle for nasty things, what does that say about that scientific principle? Absolutely nothing. It just tells you about the character of the person or the group of people doing the bad thing.

    Goodness or badness isn't inherently woven into the fabric of "science", be that the scientific method or discoveries made through science; it's all down to the person using a particular principle (or whatever) of science for something bad--the person using science for "nasty things" makes it nasty, the nastiness isn't inherent in the "science" itself.

    Excellant point. One where you sould swap the word religion for science. People are the problem. Always has been and always will be.


  • Options
    #48
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Sarky wrote: »
    People abuse drugs all the time. And money. And trust, that one's always under pressure.

    But nobody seems to want to do away with any of the above. Arguing science is bad because bad people have used it doesn't work. The problem is bad people doing bad things.

    I cant believe it but we agree! :eek:


  • Options
    #49
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    jank wrote: »
    Yet depression and suicide is at its highest since records began.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0711/recorded-suicides-rose-7-last-year-cso.html

    Basicly he is saying that science cannot gaurantee happiness. To that he is right even though it may be badly written.

    Well if dying of tooth decay has no impact on your happiness, then ya he might have a point. Knowing the truth rarely makes me unhappy.


  • Options
    #50
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    jank wrote: »
    Basicly he is saying that science cannot gaurantee happiness. To that he is right even though it may be badly written.
    This whole thread is making my head spin, with some people talking about "science" as if it's an object.

    Science is knowledge. Everyone is a scientist, even if they don't wear a white coat and understand complicated maths. The scientific process describes how we acquire knowledge about the world around us (very few people take their knowledge solely from authority).

    Humans do "science" all the time, unavoidably, as an intrinsic part of our learning mechanism. We observe, we measure, we test, in subject matters as diverse as how stars make heavy elements to what an extra egg will do to your cake to what happens if you stick your hand in a plug socket.

    "Science" isn't a thing to make me happy, "science" is a process that my brain uses (not always consciously, I should add).


  • Options
    #51
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    jank wrote: »
    Yet depression and suicide is at its highest since records began.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0711/recorded-suicides-rose-7-last-year-cso.html
    I would always urge caution in regards to proclaimations regarding the history of suicide. Suicide records in Ireland in reality only began in the 1970s, and even then we don't really have a proper picture until the 1990s because many suicides went intentionally misreported as accidental deaths or natural deaths because of the stigma surrounding it.

    Even now it still occurs but to a much lesser extent. So in reality we have a tiny data sample on which to examine our history of suicide and trying to make any long-term projections or links is folly.

    I'm not saying that it's not an issue to be looked at, and I'm not denying that a trend has occured since the recession started.

    However suicide rates are often used to make statements about how people are disillusioned with modern life, and with more scientfic advances comes less happiness. Yet these are not statements with any basis in fact. For all we know, we're on an historical downward ebb in regard to suicide rates.

    Sidenote: On a similar discussion before, I had another poster tell me that the reason there are no records before the 70's is because depression & mental illness is a new modern phenomenon and nobody committed suicide before the 1970s :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    speaking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭speaking


    doctoremma wrote: »
    This whole thread is making my head spin, with some people talking about "science" as if it's an object.

    Science is knowledge. Everyone is a scientist, even if they don't wear a white coat and understand complicated maths. The scientific process describes how we acquire knowledge about the world around us (very few people take their knowledge solely from authority).

    Humans do "science" all the time, unavoidably, as an intrinsic part of our learning mechanism. We observe, we measure, we test, in subject matters as diverse as how stars make heavy elements to what an extra egg will do to your cake to what happens if you stick your hand in a plug socket.

    "Science" isn't a thing to make me happy, "science" is a process that my brain uses (not always consciously, I should add).

    I see what your getting at but i think we can distinguish between how people use science at an ordinary day level with think kind of cutting edge science being engaged in within multinational corporations and universities. I do think there is a difference between the two in fairness. The discoveries from latter is increasingly bringing out ethical questions that I dont know can be answered by science. (or should be as someone else said)

    Thats the danger, complicated ethical questions that sciencific discovery brings up, these questions are becoming more and more complexed in nature. yet the very emphesis on science and maths in schools for example at the expense of philosophical thinking type subjects may lead the population at large even less able to grapple with the kind of ethical questions scientific advancements bring up.

    I know in France they learn philosophy in secondary school and I think that would be a good idea here too
    Not that i am saying there should be less science in schools, there should be far more especially at primary school.


  • Options
    #53
    Morgase
    Registered Users Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Morgase


    speaking wrote: »
    I see what your getting at but i think we can distinguish between how people use science at an ordinary day level with think kind of cutting edge science being engaged in within multinational corporations and universities. I do think there is a difference between the two in fairness. The discoveries from latter is increasingly bringing out ethical questions that I dont know can be answered by science. (or should be as someone else said)

    I don't think anybody is advocating that science should tell us what to do, rather we can take new information discovered through the process of science and use this information to answer ethical questions. As regards the difference between science as the normal person uses it and cutting-edge science, I don't really see too much difference between the two other than the latter being more finely-tuned in terms of a professional being fully immersed in it and having techniques to hand. I say this from the point of view of a student of science and so I'm transitioning from one to the other.

    Thats the danger, complicated ethical questions that sciencific discovery brings up, these questions are becoming more and more complexed in nature. yet the very emphesis on science and maths in schools for example at the expense of philosophical thinking type subjects may lead the population at large even less able to grapple with the kind of ethical questions scientific advancements bring up.

    I know in France they learn philosophy in secondary school and I think that would be a good idea here too
    Not that i am saying there should be less science in schools, there should be far more especially at primary school.

    It's been a few years since I was in school, but I don't think there's teaching of science and maths at the expense of philosophy. I'll tell you what I'd love to see - a decent philosophy class (what I mean is teaching students how to think) instead of religion! Let's give people the thinking tools that they need in order to grapple with the complex ethical questions, because they do need to be answered.


  • Options
    #54
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Everyone is a scientist

    Ken Ham will be delighted to read that.


  • Options
    #55
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    speaking wrote: »
    I see what your getting at but i think we can distinguish between how people use science at an ordinary day level with think kind of cutting edge science being engaged in within multinational corporations and universities. I do think there is a difference between the two in fairness.
    My post was in response to the very bizarre way the term "science" was being used, as if it was a discovery we wanted to undiscover, or an object we wanted to be free from the shackles of.

    Nobody - nobody - here wants "science" to not exist. You wouldn't be able to espouse your views on the very subject without it.
    speaking wrote: »
    The discoveries from latter is increasingly bringing out ethical questions that I dont know can be answered by science. (or should be as someone else said)
    I said it on another thread!
    speaking wrote: »
    Thats the danger, complicated ethical questions that sciencific discovery brings up, these questions are becoming more and more complexed in nature.
    I don't think it's dangerous at all. I think it's part and parcel of a species intelligent enough to design the experiment and empathic/social enough to try to understand the ramifications of the result.
    speaking wrote: »
    yet the very emphesis on science and maths in schools for example at the expense of philosophical thinking type subjects may lead the population at large even less able to grapple with the kind of ethical questions scientific advancements bring up.
    Sure, but at least they'd understand the science part in the first place.

    I work in a medical research area, one that touches on the ethics of termination of babies with genetic defects, the diagnosis of future disease in children, the unintended discovery of something wrong with a person. I present my research plans to an ethics committee, people who are fully conversant with the philosophy and social history that I might lack. They are there to keep my research in the proper track, to guide me from the pitfalls.

    Synergy. Scientists + ethicists. Brilliant.


  • Options
    #56
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Ken Ham will be delighted to read that.
    Ah, f*ck it. That's the last time I try that argument....


  • Options
    #57
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    jank wrote: »
    Yet depression and suicide is at its highest since records began.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0711/recorded-suicides-rose-7-last-year-cso.html

    Basicly he is saying that science cannot gaurantee happiness. To that he is right even though it may be badly written.

    In case you hadn't noticed, there's a recession. You can blame unregulated banking not science.

    And, science is everything. It's us and the world around us. It's reality.

    Religion on the other hand is a business, dealing in fictitious tales of talking hedges and snakes, parted seas, stubborn fig trees, zombies and the supernatural.

    I'm pretty sure that science has made many people happy.

    science-vs-religion-walking.jpg

    In my view, no amount of prayers will work as fast on a hangover as a Solpadeine. (10 mins)


  • Options
    #58
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Ken Ham will be delighted to read that.

    Does he read? I mean, he's no Hitchens when it comes to absorbing books. :pac:


  • Options
    #59
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Ken Ham will be delighted to read that.

    Here's hoping JC never finds out about this news.


  • Options
    #60
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Does he read?
    Not sure, but having seen up close the notes he scribbled down for that "talk" he gave in UCD some years ago, he sure as hell can't write -- the spidery, shaky scrawl (seriously) suggested to me he was suffering from early-onset Parkinson's Disease.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    joseph brand wrote: »
    In case you hadn't noticed, there's a recession. You can blame unregulated banking not science.

    Ah yes and when the next boom comes around I guess hundreds of Irish men will stop killing themselves. The very fact people link material wealth and status as a means to happiness and acceptance should raise some eyebrows.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    And, science is everything. It's us and the world around us. It's reality.

    Everything? How can you say then when it cant? There is no proof that science is everything yet you believe it is.... hmmm sounds like blind faith to me. :eek:


Advertisement