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

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

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Nothing can come from nothing, according to current understanding of science. Yet the existence of energy, a force that can only be converted, not created or destroyed seems to counter that.

    Which is why the existence or non existence of an intelligent cannot be proven or unproven by science, even to ask the question is unscientific and the belief or disbelief in an intelligent creator does not invalidate our current understanding.

    Exactly. So based on that why would it be a good idea to worship something that we have no evidence for or against?


  • Options
    #153
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Would the world be a better place if we let science govern our lives?

    In many ways it already is. But democracy is only as good as how informed the people voting actually are. And the more reliant our society becomes on science, the more we are going to be ruled and governed by those who understand it.

    Improving our education of science......... learning to demand evidence of people who make claims in our halls of education, power, science and medicine..... and at least attempting to get our media to hire science journalists with a scientific education so they do not come out writing tosh nonsense such as last months "Bacon is as dangerous as smoking" crap because they were asked to write science articles without knowing the first think ABOUT science..... are the ways that will allow us to NOT let science govern us as it already does, but for us to govern science.

    "We live in an age based on science and technology with formidable scientific powers, and if we do not understand it.... we the general public.... then who is making all the decisions about science and technology that determines the future our children will live in? Members of our congress? There is no more than a handful of them who have any background in science at all. We have arranged a society based on science and technology in which no one understands anything about it. And this combustable mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, will blow up in our faces. Who IS running science and technology in a democracy if the people do not know anything about it?

    Science is more than a body of knowledge, it is a way of thinking, or evaluating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. And if we are not able to ask skeptical questions of those who tell us what is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we are up for grabs to the next chalatan who comes ambling along. Jefferson himself said 'It is not enough to enshrine some rights in a constitution or a bill of rights.... the people have to be educated in order than we run the government not the government running us'"    .
    Carl Sagan
    Ally Dick wrote: »
    Lack of religion could mean lack of morals

    Doubt that is even a little bit true. Religion has very little to do with morals except as a packaging to sell a particular brand of it. And there less harmful packaging to be had. But I certainly have seen little to nothing to suggest religion has any beneficial effect on morality itself. Quite the opposite.


  • Options
    #154
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #155
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    kneemos wrote: »
    No art,creativity or wonderment. No thanks.
    I don't know if you've been anywhere near an art gallery lately but you don't find many pictures of Jesus in them.

    Art predates religion by a fair bit, it's more likely religion wouldn't exist without the creativity and wonderment of the human race.


    I'm surprised someone hasn't tried setting up a political party that funded in the best principles of science. Political parties that start moralising just annoy me, their manifestos turn me off ever voting for them. They're supposed to be fixing the roads and making hospitals efficient, not telling me what values the grass has.


  • Options
    #156
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Whereas I agree with the general sentiment behind the OPs post in reality it's nowhere near that clear cut. All those bombs that go off around the world blowing people to pieces to cheer some assholes god up - you'd really have to say science had more to do with their creation than god.
    Most of the really amazing scientific advances we have had the "good fortune" to see in the last century where driven by the military and it's insatiable bloodlust and paranoia.
    People hate and fear each other cos that's what people do, religion is as much an excuse as it is a cause.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #158
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Science isn't a moral framework for defining whether anything should be banned, it does though, provide the hard evidence/information needed, as an input to your 'moral framework of choice', so that the framework can be used to decide whether or not something should be banned.

    The critical/logical thinking used in the scientific method, is also useful for finding and pointing out inconsistencies in all moral frameworks as well, which can help to develop (or discard) the chosen moral framework - which alone, would remove religions power over government.

    The moral framework/principles chosen as the basis for politics/society/etc. though, is not really a matter for science - except where it comes to pointing out logical inconsistencies in different moral frameworks.


  • Options
    #159
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    I already do all my living through biology.


  • Options
    #160
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I don't think that would happen at all. Science can tell us smoking is harmful, eating fatty food is bad, but it will also tell us that if we don't enjoy ourselves it will affect our quality of life. Science can give us facts and advice it's still up to the people how they use that advice.

    Modern society that's benefited from science is nearly always a more open, inclusive society.

    A party lead by scientific principles could at least come up with the best solution to a social problem, and then the politics would be getting as close to that ideal scenario.


  • Options
    #161
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    That would sort of be a blind science that didn't take into account the variety in the human condition. Science isn't always definitive, it's our best guess. It's just that today we're pretty good at guessing thanks to decades of research and mistakes.

    Science won't say there is only one way to do something and it should be done that way. Science will say there are maybe dozens of ways of doing it. Here's the positives and negatives of each way, here's the cost, long term implications. We already do this stuff, it just takes a back seat to the agenda of the people involved, the mistrust of the people that will be affected.

    If we at least put more weight behind the science we do now it would be a start. The problem with science though would be that the people will be willfully ignorant just as we are today with politics. If the general public don't know enough about the scientific methods to monitor the people they vote into power then it's pointless as the government can just do what they like and say it's scientific.

    Over all I think the general public aren't knowledgeable enough to run the country. We don't have the training or skill sets to say the government is right or wrong. Until every citizen in the country leaves school trained to be a loyal public servant/politician (which should be the case in a democracy) we're all just plebs doing what we're told.


  • Options
    #163
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I think some issues such as the refugee crisis are mostly moral issues. Issues like health should be subject to more scientific thinking. The American health service for example is verging on anti science.


  • Options
    #164
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #165
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Science will assist you to build chemical weapons or cure cancer, but it won't tell you which one is right and which one is wrong.


  • Options
    #166
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Science will assist you to build chemical weapons or cure cancer, but it won't tell you which one is right and which one is wrong.
    So says pseudo science in an attempt to justify it's lack of reproducible results. :p

    Science can tell you about the effects of weapons. And quality-adjusted life years are one tool science can help you to make ethical decisions.

    Science can tell you what healthcare programs to invest in and the best way to do them.

    Polio is scary. There was a US air force pilot on a flight between Hawaii and the California. No symptoms before the flight but bad to be helped out of the cockpit on arrival and never walked again. Polio has been eradicated from everywhere apart from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Meningitis A has gone from a quarter of a million cases across the belt of Africa to four.


  • Options
    #167
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Religion has caused a lot of grief, but it has often also been a cover for other means.

    Crusades for example. My arse it was for reclaiming the holy land (maybe it was for the pope), for many it was just an excuse to kill some 'darkies' and plunder their lands.

    Although I'm really fond if these 'what if' scenarios, a world where religion has never existed would most certainly look a lot different. I'm positive we'd be miles ahead in a scientific manner.


  • Options
    #168
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    So says pseudo science in an attempt to justify it's lack of reproducible results. :p

    Science can tell you about the effects of weapons. And quality-adjusted life years are one tool science can help you to make ethical decisions.

    Science can tell you what healthcare programs to invest in and the best way to do them.

    Polio is scary. There was a US air force pilot on a flight between Hawaii and the California. No symptoms before the flight but bad to be helped out of the cockpit on arrival and never walked again. Polio has been eradicated from everywhere apart from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Meningitis A has gone from a quarter of a million cases across the belt of Africa to four.

    So according to science, which one should someone use a nuclear weapon or a cure for cancer ?


  • Options
    #169
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Actually, energy comes from nothing all of the time - literally everywhere around you - and is annihilated almost immediately afterwards:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

    Thanks to the counter-intuitive world of quantum mechanics.
    The universe is weird at a quantum level. That's where the answers are though.


  • Options
    #170
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    So according to science, which one should someone use a nuclear weapon or a cure for cancer ?
    A cure for cancer won't deflect an incoming asteroid. *


    *not that nukes are that much better


  • Options
    #171
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Science will assist you to build chemical weapons or cure cancer, but it won't tell you which one is right and which one is wrong.

    I am not seeing why it can not. It entirely depends on how you phrase the question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    So according to science, which one should someone use a nuclear weapon or a cure for cancer ?
    Well the names are kind of a hint in how they should be used. If someone has cancer use the cure, if you need to bring about an end to a global conflict against an enemy who won't quit then use the weapon.


Advertisement