Irish Times Waffle Alert

equivariant

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0717/1224320251262.html

I know that its not strictly speaking about atheism/agnosticism but its
verging on Waters-esque. How can the IT publish anything by someone who can proudly declare that he knows "f**k all" about science?

Daftendirekt

You know an article's gonna be good when the headline is incoherent.

Edit: Just to add something a bit more substantial, it really is a dreadful piece. The author is one of these people who thinks society is spiralling towards depravity and that an increased interest in how the world works is incompatible with an interest in morality and meaning.

The end section gives the flavour nicely enough:

Maybe I am being a bit unreasonable, but the human part of me – the part that sees people as ends in themselves and not just means to an end, that sees value in friendship and love and that knows good and evil are facts and not just perceptions – says good riddance to Esof 2012 and longs instead for a week-long conference on the meaning of life.

Compared to that, the nature of life is, well, interesting.

PopePalpatine

I think his way of thinking can be summed up as follows:

"I don't understand science, therefore *screams in fear*".

Dades

^^ Do us a favour and DON'T post in green bold.

Not everyone uses the same Boards skin and so your posts might be impossible to read on some, as opposed to just annoying to read on most.

Thanking you.

PopePalpatine

Dades wrote: »

^^ Do us a favour and DON'T post in green bold.

Not everyone uses the same Boards skin and so your posts might be impossible to read on some, as opposed to just annoying to read on most.

Thanking you.

Thanks for the heads up. I use this font colour on a different forum that I use.

seamus

Got this far before I realised what he was on about:

I mean, what is it we really need in this country at the moment? Progress in broadband or in moral standards?

The rest of the article is then predictable - "We need to stop sciencing for a second and have a bit of an aul committee meeting about how it makes us feel and whether we should continue sciencing. We need to think of the children".

He seems to be uncomfortable that scientific progress forces us to confront many ethical issues by taking them out of the theoretical, "I don't need to worry about that" zone, into the factual, "This will be reality soon" zone.

Of course, neither morality nor science progresses independently of the other. Scientific progress drags moral progress along with it. And where morality refuses to adapt or progress, scientific progress dies. People's fear of changing morality is understandable because many are brought up to believe that morality is fixed and absolute, therefore a change to morality must be inherently immoral.

Morgase

I really want to believe that the columnist is just a troll, but I have a sad feeling that he's not. Almost every part of the piece made me cringe.

I had practical experience of this last week when I watched a BBC documentary showing Michael Mosley swallow a tiny camera to stream images of his digestive system from top to bottom. It was interesting but it didn’t make me a better person.

I cannot fathom how the writer doesn't get how something like this can be used in diagnosis and help to improve a person's life. For all his waffle about how society should be improving its morals, he doesn't seem like he really gives a damn about improving healthcare which to me seems like an ethical thing to do.

MarkHitide

"Maybe I am being a bit unreasonable, but..."
Doh!

kiffer

Morgase wrote: »

I really want to believe that the columnist is just a troll, but I have a sad feeling that he's not. Almost every part of the piece made me cringe.

I had practical experience of this last week when I watched a BBC documentary showing Michael Mosley swallow a tiny camera to stream images of his digestive system from top to bottom. It was interesting but it didn’t make me a better person.

I cannot fathom how the writer doesn't get how something like this can be used in diagnosis and help to improve a person's life. For all his waffle about how society should be improving its morals, he doesn't seem like he really gives a damn about improving healthcare which to me seems like an ethical thing to do.

That jumped out at me too... It makes him seem a little self centered despite his later comments on valuing people as people and not as a means to an end...
"wow this is going to make so many peoples lives better, improve their quality of life and reduce discomfort while getting endoscoped..."
Rather than "yeah. But does it make me a morally superior person"

Am I reading the author wrong there?

I mean if it was an episode of mythbusters testing how many match heads are needed to fire an 18 pound bowling ball out of a cannon...
And now I want to build a tiny cannon that fires BBs with the power of scraped match heads... Take that homeless people I could be helping.

MarkHitide

Damn those pesky scientists stealing the limelight from us poor reactionary crypto-hippies
http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455

Paparazzo

Another article I wish I didn't read. I'd say his desk is beside Waters in the IT office.

swampgas

It's curious how willing many writers and journalists are to shout about how they are rubbish at maths or know nothing of science, as if it were some kind of proof of their artistic/literary credentials. And they don't just admit knowing next to nothing about maths & science, they often claim to be actually incapable of learning anything about them even if they tried.

You won't find too many scientists boasting about how illiterate they are.

gawker

Interestingly the author states he is atheist in the comments section. It makes the whole piece even more bizarre...

joseph brand

So many problems with this joke of an article.

Anyone who knows a bit of history, moreover, will be wary of scientists’ claims that they are making the world a better place. Simply knowing more than the next man does not give you the higher moral ground.

The irony here is delicious. Writing in a newspaper, saying that information is useless and will not help you better yourself. Choose ignorance.

The DNA discoverer Prof James Watson told a Dublin audience last week that scientists could find a cure for cancer within 10 years and my first thought was: So what, if we are only going to live our crummy lives the same way?

So what?
Has this gobsh1te been affected by cancer personally or through family and friends? Perhaps not. The ignorance displayed here is stunning.

Crummy lives?
Who says crummy? His life may be 'crummy', but that doesn't mean that anyone else's life is as bad as his.


I don't read the Irish Times but I was under the impression that it was of a higher standard than this 10th rate journalism. Absolute garbage.

mikhail

swampgas wrote: »

You won't find too many scientists boasting about how illiterate they are.

Professors with technical backgrounds are among the most widely read, widely travelled, musically accomplished, polyglot people I've met. Not all of them, and any one might only be one or two of those things, but on average they are highly intelligent, intellectually curious people, and some of them are real Renaissance men. I can't say the same about the journalists I've met.

Zombrex

His opening paragraphs about cancer make me want to punch him.

As ever the Simpsons summed it up best

[Moe burning down science museum gets crushed by fossil] "Oh, I'm paralised, I just hope medical science can cure me!"

joseph brand

mikhail wrote: »

Professors with technical backgrounds are among the most widely read, widely travelled, musically accomplished, polyglot people I've met. Not all of them, and any one might only be one or two of those things, but on average they are highly intelligent, intellectually curious people, and some of them are real Renaissance men. I can't say the same about the journalists I've met.

They always seem so genuinely happy, to me anyway. I'm very sure that intelligence and being around curious, like-minded individuals is a recipe for a happy life. I've always found nerds* to be very open, helpful and generous.

*I look up to nerds, and aspire to be one, although there are many people I've met who see me as a nerd.

Tony Darnell is one very happy nerd and his YouTube channel is flawless.

If there is a god, I bet he watches the sh1t out of Darnell and DeGrasse Tyson's videos.

speaking

mikhail wrote: »

Professors with technical backgrounds are among the most widely read, widely travelled, musically accomplished, polyglot people I've met.

And you have met a lot of widely read, widely travelled, musically accomplished, polyglots.

Well good for you.

I don't know as an atheist I think the guy had a few good points.

I mean people have used science for some pretty nasty things in history. Look at how some ideologically obsessed groups have used science. Groups with zelotic obsession and certainly with their own beliefs could use science for lots of nasty things.

speaking

speaking wrote: »

I mean people have used science for some pretty nasty things in history. Look at how some ideologically obsessed groups have used science. Groups with zelotic obsession and certainly with their own beliefs could use science for lots of nasty things.

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.

speaking

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.

Your right of course. But the only thing that makes me think is; that is it possible to separate science from how people use it or abuse it?

And when we assume science is always right and never wrong and beyond question (which I suppose outside of people it is) it seems to me we as people could go a long way to using that always rightness for some very nasty things.

I just don't know.

speaking

speaking wrote: »

Your right of course. But the only thing that makes me think is; that is it possible to separate science from how people use it or abuse it?

I'd hope so because they're completely seperate. You can't hold what is essentially a method for finding explanations of natural phenomenon (that's what science is) responsible for the actions of people who intend to do harm, no more than you can hold a knife (even though science isn't as sinister as a knife) as guilty of commiting a crime; the person does the harm, so you hold them responsible. Science is a method, it's completely seperate from those who "do" science and those who use it to do good or bad.

And when we assume science is always right and never wrong and beyond question (which I suppose outside of people it is) it seems to me we as people could go a long way to using that always rightness for some very nasty things.

The funny thing is that science (i.e. scientific principles/facts/theories/etc.) is always being questioned; it's intended to be questioned. Perhaps some people believe that principles and theories of science are proclaimed by "science" itself to be true--and perhaps unquestionably so--but that's not the case. Scientists are always trying to find errors and discrepencies in their work and the work of other scientists: it's one of their main objectives. Science (to personify it) questions itself at all times, which is the beauty of it.

P.S. Sorry if my paragraphs are slightly incoherent: tiredness is to blame.

speaking

gvn wrote: »

I'd hope so because they're completely seperate. You can't hold what is essentially a method for finding explanations of natural phenomenon (that's what science is) responsible for the actions of people who intend to do harm, no more than you can hold a knife (even though science isn't as sinister as a knife) as guilty of commiting a crime; the person does the harm, so you hold them responsible. Science is a method, it's completely seperate from those who "do" science and those who use it to do good or bad.



The funny thing is that science (i.e. scientific principles/facts/theories/etc.) is always being questioned; it's intended to be questioned. Perhaps some people believe that principles and theories of science are proclaimed by "science" itself to be true--and perhaps unquestionably so--but that's not the case. Scientists are always trying to find errors and discrepencies in their work and the work of other scientists: it's one of their main objectives. Science (to personify it) questions itself at all times, which is the beauty of it.

P.S. Sorry if my paragraphs are slightly incoherent: tiredness is to blame.

While I agree with everything you say. What happens when scientists use science for corrupt uses.

And when they make false claims and use the idea that science is always right to back up these claims.

I have just read the Times artical again and I have to say i aggree with the guy in a lot of ways

Does than make me stupid?

speaking

speaking wrote: »

While I agree with everything you say. What happens when scientists use science for corrupt uses.

It makes the scientist (a person) a corrupt or bad person. It doesn't say anything about the goodness or badness of the science, only of the person.

And when they make false claims and use the idea that science is always right to back up these claims.

If they (a person, not "science" itself) make false claims or use the idea that science is always right then, simply, they're not scientists. They're charlatans. You'll never see a scientist say that science is always, unquestionably right; as soon as one does so they cease to be a scientist. But, yet again, even if a scientist uses some false claim and the erroneous notion that science is always right to back up that claim, what does that say about science itself? Nothing. It speaks of the person, not the method.

I have just read the Times artical again and I have to say i aggree with the guy in a lot of ways

Does than make me stupid?

No, of course not. But perhaps you're not entirely clear on what science is (the vast, vast majority of people aren't clear on this).

speaking

gvn wrote: »

It makes the scientist (a person) a corrupt or bad person. It doesn't say anything about the goodness or badness of the science, only of the person..

But what is science only a human application of something?

No, of course not. But perhaps you're not entirely clear on what science is (the vast, vast majority of people aren't clear on this).

But I am not talking about science just what they guy said in the article.

I will give you some examples of where I agree with him.

WHEN IT comes to science I’m with Bob Geldof. The DNA discoverer Prof James Watson told a Dublin audience last week that scientists could find a cure for cancer within 10 years and my first thought was: So what, if we are only going to live our crummy lives the same way?

Yes, technology lets me download excellent Philosopher Zone podcasts from Australian national radio ( tinyurl.com/ 829lpkc) but it has also lumbered me with the life-draining experience of maintaining four email accounts while also monitoring Facebook, Yammer and Twitter.

Quite funny. No?

Anyone who knows a bit of history, moreover, will be wary of scientists’ claims that they are making the world a better place. Simply knowing more than the next man does not give you the higher moral ground.

Makes sense to me too.

Ludwig Wittgenstein put it best: “Wisdom is all cold and . . . you can no more use it for setting your life to rights than you can forge iron when it is cold.”

Again pretty dam interesting.

I had practical experience of this last week when I watched a BBC documentary showing Michael Mosley swallow a tiny camera to stream images of his digestive system from top to bottom. It was interesting but it didn’t make me a better person.

Again I see what he is getting at and i think I agree with him on it.

However, the overarching narrative of Esof 2012 was that science is a marginalised and under- appreciated activity, which could not be further from the truth.

The scientific community has enormous influence, in some cases is extraordinarily well funded and it is capable of “capturing” the world economy and global politics in the same way international finance does – and with the same lack of accountability.

I think here he has a good point to because most science now is funded by big buisness and it will probably be more and more influence by buisness needs in the future than people needs

They might hold the key to economic recovery but there is another type of recovery – a recovery in values and convictions – which they may, inadvertently, help to undermine.

Again I think he is on to something here.

I mean, what is it we really need in this country at the moment? Progress in broadband or in moral standards?

Bang on here too IMO

The science fraternity will cry “false dichotomy” but what it tends to overlook is the impact its work has on long-cherished value systems. I’m not talking about religion only. All belief systems – including belief in human rights and the dignity of the individual – face a real threat from scientific discovery or, perhaps more accurately, exaggerated claims on its behalf.

Take advances in genetics, for example. Rightly or wrongly, they have encouraged us to see things in a deterministic fashion. Now more than ever we tend to view our moral transgressions, not as matters of personal responsibility but rather as the inevitable product of traits we inherited from our parents.

In this environment, relativism has also become a more attractive proposition. We have less and less faith in our ability to adjudicate between competing value claims. Above all, however, science’s inexorable march towards atomising everything lends weight to the idea that life has no meaning – beyond perhaps the survival of the species.

Again he seems to be pointing too the problems of morality and science.

Maybe I am being a bit unreasonable, but the human part of me – the part that sees people as ends in themselves and not just means to an end, that sees value in friendship and love and that knows good and evil are facts and not just perceptions – says good riddance to Esof 2012 and longs instead for a week-long conference on the meaning of life.

I am an atheist yet I agree with him here too. I just don't see how science can give me real meaning.

No I think the article has a lot of good in it and would not be in favour of just dismissing it because it it critical of science. its actually not that critical of science just pointing to some limitations of science to find answers to questions of human meaning.

Compared to that, the nature of life is, well, interesting.

Gbear

speaking wrote: »

But what is science only a human application of something?

Science is a tool. Like a spoon.

And you can't have Nazi spoons.

mikhail wrote: »

Professors with technical backgrounds are among the most widely read, widely travelled, musically accomplished, polyglot people I've met. Not all of them, and any one might only be one or two of those things, but on average they are highly intelligent, intellectually curious people, and some of them are real Renaissance men. I can't say the same about the journalists I've met.

I was only thinking of this the other day - take Robert Oppenheimer (of Manhattan project fame).
Once he was due to give a lecture in the Netherlands (presumably about physics) but he seemed to mysteriously disappear a fortnight beforehand.

He turned up anyway, and proceeded to deliver the lecture. In Dutch. Having learned the language during his brief disappearance.

His now famous quotation uttered when the bomb went off
"I am become death, destroyer of worlds"
is from the Bhagavad Gita, for which he learned Sanskrit so as to be able to read it in it's original form.

speaking

Gbear wrote: »

Science is a tool. Like a spoon.

But if I scoop a mans eye out with it. If i feed a baby with it.

If I say the spoon is infallible unquestionable, well then it becomes that, if I am powerful enough or evil enough to say it and force others to believe it to.

Again the spoon in these circumstances is still just a spoon.

speaking

Gbear wrote: »

I was only thinking of this the other day - take Robert Oppenheimer (of Manhattan project fame).
Once he was due to give a lecture in the Netherlands (presumably about physics) but he seemed to mysteriously disappear a fortnight beforehand.

He turned up anyway, and proceeded to deliver the lecture. In Dutch. Having learned the language during his brief disappearance.

His now famous quotation uttered when the bomb went off
"I am become death, destroyer of worlds"
is from the Bhagavad Gita, for which he learned Sanskrit so as to be able to read it in it's original form.

All that knowledge, but was he a nice person? Did he care about other people.

fitz0

speaking wrote: »

I mean people have used science for some pretty nasty things in history. Look at how some ideologically obsessed groups have used science. Groups with zelotic obsession and certainly with their own beliefs could use science for lots of nasty things.

Throughout the annals of human history find me an example of some despot claiming new lands for Science, exterminating a people for the glory of Science, building 95 cubit high statues of Science.

Science does not have a fundamental guiding purpose beyond freeing us from binding ignorance tiny step by tiny step. With every weapon created, we have space rockets; with every nuclear bomb, a disease cured. Roll away the science and we are still living in caves, hitting each other with rocks and dying in fear of our own shadows at the ripe old age of 24.

speaking

fitz0 wrote: »

Throughout the annals of human history find me an example of some despot claiming new lands for Science, exterminating a people for the glory of Science, building 95 cubit high statues of Science.

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.

Science does not have a fundamental guiding purpose beyond freeing us from binding ignorance tiny step by tiny step.

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?

[/QUOTE]With every weapon created, we have space rockets; with every nuclear bomb, a disease cured. Roll away the science and we are still living in caves, hitting each other with rocks and dying in fear of our own shadows at the ripe old age of 24.[/QUOTE]

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.

Gbear

speaking wrote: »

But if I scoop a mans eye out with it. If i feed a baby with it.

If I say the spoon is infallible unquestionable, well then it becomes that, if I am powerful enough or evil enough to say it and force others to believe it to.

Again the spoon in these circumstances is still just a spoon.

Science is completely neutral. It discovers things as they are. It can be done poorly and it can be used for evil but blaming it for doing so is as silly as saying that spoons were used by the Nazi's eating their breakfast and were therefore complicit in their actions.

speaking wrote: »

All that knowledge, but was he a nice person? Did he care about other people.

Almost certainly. At great personal cost (including, I think, pressure to see that he didn't get a nobel prize) he spent most of his life after the manhattan project fighting for nuclear disarmament.

Galvasean

*Looks around thread*

speaking wrote: »

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.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddd I'm out.

MetalDog

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

joseph brand

speaking wrote: »

Your right of course.

I just don't know.

That's what I thought.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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).

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: