Science Is Bullshit

science is brilliant man .........as mentioned science has stuck a great big hole in the sky " polluted the enviorment " added cancer chemicals to food and drinks " ......................ect ect ect . science has really fucked this planet up man " whats next clonin robots ? or is that already happening ?. someone mentioned trippin doe"snt count (WHY) cos scientists can"t explaine the unexplainable ?. science" where d" yer draw the line ? some science is good " alot of science is bad .

 

What you blame on science is actualy the result of technology. I draw this distinction because it is science that gives us the tools to decide which technologies are good, which are bad, and to what degree. Science also gives us the tools to make both good and bad technologies.

Claiming that pollution shows that science is bullshit is like claiming that Mein Kampf shows that writing is bullshit.

 

Yes, and just another comment. There are ideas in James Lovelock's "Gaia" and Masanobu Fukuoku's "One Straw Revolution" about the shortcomings of modern science. It often has a tendency to go on rampages of reasoning and deduction and coming up with wondrous technological advancements without actual consideration for "the big picture", that is the greater good of the earth and those living in it. If science can be "applied" more carefully and thoughtfully as opposed to just being a "tinker toy" for ambitious specialists , then it can be a highly beneficial thing. Humanity will need science in times to come.

 

Wisdom, knowlege and cleverness must be mixed in proper perportion(sp?).
The rareness of wisdom does not mean that either knowlege or cleverness are worthless.

 

ok all of the above may be true so lets help the op. get a clearer pic of what science is systemiatized knowlage derived from OBSERVATION,STUDY, ECT. def. from websters. if you see the apple fall from the tree sience tries to explain why this happens! yes reading books is good! learning is better understanding what you have learnd and puting it to GOOD use is the best a person can do!

 

Great conclusions.

 

Im gonna agree with the above poster, direction of technology is ignorance, but science is truth and truth is god, or so the stoics would say

 

Religion or dodgeball?

 

I know I'm making the same argument as the NRA here, but:

Science doesn't kill people, people kill people. Science is a tool.

 

quite right . science is a tool that people use to kill other people (knowingly or un knowingly ) .

 

I agree that science is really cool...it's just the "fundamentalist skeptics" that I think give it its bad rep. Say you see a ghost or communicate telepathically or something...and some jerk just refuses to believe you because it's impossible and tells everyone you're wrong and probably stupid...that is really annoying. Anybody can see that that would be annoying.

 

Science is a methodology. You can't really kill someone with an abstract concept. We were using tools to kill people long before we had anything called science. Science lets us make bigger and better tools, and yeah it's a shame that much of what drives scientific advance is our instinct to aggression, but I don't think there's really much alternative to it. If you really thought about it, I don't think you'd like to be completely without science and all its positive aspects. Rather a lot of us without science wouldn't have even survived infancy and those that did would be living far more unpleasant, brutal and dangerous lives...

And if you abandon science, how far do you go? Abandon any and all use of tools?

 

I'm too lazy to read the whole thread, but science is useful and amazing. Of course it's bred things like nuclear weapons, but then you have vaccines and such as well. And definite answers as to what we're made of and explanations for thousands of other things. Dissing science is just ignorant.

 

My thoughts:

Science isn't bullshit, but it is extremely narrow in its scope, by its own nature. It's overrated, and many people (not surprisingly) treat it like a religion, sadly. To me, the exhaltation of science is just typical smug anthropocentrism at work, which is the same impulse as religion.

I think that fundamentally, science only explains the how of things. A process; an algorithm. I think people are deluding themselves when they think science will explain everything (not saying everyone who sees the validity of science does that). It cannot explain the "how" of everything - behind every answer lies many more questions. Additionally, there's a lot of error in science (things are constantly revised, and there are anomalies everywhere that defy scientific paradigms)

Another thing that I tire of seeing in regards to science, is the whole "science versus religion" dichotomy. People are so brainwashed by this, that they think there is only either science or religion. It reminds of of left versus right politics, and black & white thinking in general. What if there's a method of interpretation of our universe that's neither scientific nor supernatural? UJust because I do not believe in the supernatural, does not mean I see the world purely in scientific terms.

That's all just about pure science, though. Applied science (technology) is a whole new story.

 

I think it's important here to discern between religions and deities. Science cannot and has not to my knowledge ever denied the existence of a god, because it cannot possibly prove it or disprove it.

Religions, however, cause problems for science, because religions rely on faith from their followers. You can't argue with faith on scientific terms; if someone really honestly believes that it's possible to feed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 5 fishes, telling them that it's impossible isn't going to help.

But that's beside the point, really. Apart from a few bad apples, very few scientifically minded people want to deny anyone their belief in gods and whatever doctrine surrounds that. There are exceptions, such as if the doctrine is directly harmful (e.g. doctors will usually make some attempt to reason with the family of a patient if they are refusing donor organs on grounds of religion), but for the most part, science gains nothing from trying to disprove the validity of someone's religion.

 

i dsagree with what the dude is saying, but dont bring age into it.

 

I actually agree with this, but most people (that I've come across) fail to make this distinction. I'm speaking here of the typical layman who sees things in black-and-white terms and denies the enormous complexity of things...

 

Well perhaps. But I drew the gun comparison for a reason; a gun is a tool that pretty much just kills or injures things. Science is used to kill (i.e. to make guns), but it clearly has a million other applications. Anyone who wants to denounce science on the strength of the odd Hiroshima should remember how many times a day they are able to press a button and just have stuff happen that they want to happen.

 

Well, the problem with science and religion is really when religion oversteps its bounds and starts stating facts about the natural world without having anything but what some dude wrote in a book ages ago to back up their claims.

Of course science is going to come in and smash those claims to bits- those kinds of factual claims are the domain of science. If your conception of god depends on those factual claims, then science has a lot to say about your god (if, for example, you believe that the Bible is the literal and infallible word of god).

Other than that, science has nothing to say, yay or nay, about the existence of any particular god. Philosophers might have a lot to say about whether a certain idea of god is consistent or not, but that has little to do with science.

 

that bomb dropped on hiroshima was definetly bad science many innocent people lost their lifes through it "you know that though dont yer .