Science Is Bullshit

Was that bad science? Or was it bad engineering? Bad politics? Science is about uncovering the natural world. The fact that our first use for that discovery was to make a big bomb says more about us as a race than science.

 

come one paul your smarter than that its like saying becaus we learned how to use fire fire kills pepole! please keep a grip! sticks and stones can kill only if they are used that way! they are still sticks and stones! sience taaught us how to make wine and beer! of witch i find pleasure! amongst a myriad of outher things! would you give up all the things that we as human beings have learnd for NOT ! would you give up the knowladge that we as humans have achieved! ie.. this plant helps with worms, this one helps whith congestion, ect..... its science! it does not dictate to us how we or it should be used! and why does it allwase come down to killing outher pepole? do you do this on a regular basis? no? ill bet you use what we have learnd through science every day!! ps. i know you are a compassionate man and i like you so please do not take offence! peace!!!

 

props to you bud !!

 

Some people might regard Richard Dawkins as one of those "bad apples", he recently made a series claiming that religion is and has been one of the major causes of harm through war, intolerance and non-thinking. The Root of All Evil

Actively denying people's strongly-held beliefs may not be the best way to go about promoting the scientific method but nonetheless he raises some pretty good points. Fundamentalism of any stripe certainly is a doctrine which is rarely anything but harmful and that's an important thing to point out.

The process of becoming a religious moderate it seems to me is a move towards evidence-based knowledge (ie science) and away from faith anyway; but people will probably need to cling onto the crutch of their faith for a while yet before it finally dies out.

 

Didn't see it, but I remember one critic being amazed at how he was able to make even the most carefully selected extremist wackjob sound relatively sane and non-belligerent by comparison.

To me, Richard Dawkins represents a far greater threat to the cause of reason than any religion, by offering those who manipulate religious followers to their own ends a convenient caricature of all the arrogance and anti-humanism that it is so often accused of.

 

As has been said, there really isn't any such thing as "bad science". Science is just theories, tests, ideas. "Good science" and "bad science" are how those theories and ideas are applied.

And personally, if the deaths of 100,000 people means I can microwave cook a bowl of tomato soup in 3 minutes, I think it's worth it.

(Please don't take that last part too seriously.)

 

You very obviously didn't see it!

Yes, much of the editorial response to this series made exactly this point. Most of the criticism delighted in referring to him as a "scientific fundamentalist" or similar, but I think this fundamentally misunderstands his position, which is subtle, nuanced, and at its core demonstrates intellectual humility as does all true science.

You can disagree with his forthright and forceful style but I think he makes a significant contribution by putting the scientific case across incredibly robustly, not to mention his extremely valuable work in evolutionary biology itself.

"A far greater threat to the cause of reason than any religion"? I think this overstates the case somewhat.

 

When I push the button and turn on my TV, or turn the key in my ignition, is that really what I want to happen? It's all to narrow. pushing that button, turning that key...yeah I get the immediate benefit of whatever technology, but at what cost? Most science, first of all, is sponsored by governments always on the lookout for that military edge, or by private companies who only care about short term profit (drug companies, for example). So yes, I have my fancy high tech computer, and Microsoft and IBM have their profits, and the US government has its increased military capability; but the energy it uses causes untold pollution and society as a whole loses. It's like a little Hiroshima every day, not all in one place or all at once, but spread out and constant, slowly killing us all, and the planet. Well, at least sickening us/it.

The main issue I have with science is that it is too materialistic. Actually, science is naturally materialistic; the problem is those doing science are too materialistic. They're too wrapped up if whether they can that they don't ask if they should. I mean, yes, we've had some progress, but overall it's hard to say, when one accounts for all the terrible side effects (pollution, increased killing power, social disintegration/isolation, side effects of medicine), whether we've gone forward or backward. We've so forgotten what's really important in life. Yes, the computer is nice, the TV is nice, the car is nice, but the bomb is not, the surveilance system is not, the car accident is not. And why do we connect quality of life with GDP anyways? GDP is a materialistic figure, but since when do money, TVs, cell phones, and cars bring happiness or high quality of life?

Yet, at the same time, you don't want to ignore science/materialism. That is, it's not about either/or, religion or science. It should be both. Science, tempered with morality/ethics and forward thinking would be a boon to mankind. But too often it's a selfish or malicious undertaking. I hate the fact that they've got us thinking religion/spirituality are not compatible with science. They work together in the human mind (emotion/feeling and logic) and the human experience depends on both. Why people fail to apply that is beyond me.

 

Maybe so. To be honest, I only really regard him in the same way as I do any fundamentalist preacher. I've seen an interview him. Okay, he's not screaming and shouting, because you couldn't get away with that in the scientific field the way you could in the world of mysticism. But it's the same basic intent.

Most men of reason will not attack religion the way he does simply because they know that it is a fight which has no rules, which they cannot win or walk away from gracefully, and which doesn't really serve any purpose except to piss people off. Maybe it makes us weak if we don't challenge people's beliefs solely because we don't believe them. Maybe we're neglecting our duty to educate. But I don't really see it.

 

I think even if I personally had dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, I'd struggle to feel guilty about it every time I turn the lights on. Just like if I owned a gun in case of emergency I wouldn't feel any terrible burden for everyone who's ever been shot.

Science, technology, whatever, should be tempered with morality. And for almost everyone it is. If you look into some of Oppenheimer's personal philosophy, it was pure bad luck that he happened to be in the position he was. If someone else had gotten his job, it might never have happened at all. Most people don't want to kill or do other bad things just for fun. People do them because they are able to justify them within the confines of their own morality. I don't personally think everyone has it in them to knowingly kill 100,000 people, and so I don't think anyone who wasn't directly involved should feel any guilt about Hiroshima.

 

peace flmkpr. two examples of bad science ( my opinion ).......... 1= animal cruelty .........2= pollution

 

people used science to make bombs ( quote ) the fact that our first use for that discovery was to make a big bomb says more about us as a race than science . you said it tony . now i"M off to make a big mother nature and meditate on it " thats got fuck all to do with science ........later man

 

I wouldn't say that's what he does, and I've read a number of his writings on the subject and seen his contributions to documentaries etc in recent years. For instance the central thesis of "The Root of all Evil" was that religion is a root cause of wrongdoing in the world, a force for ignorance and violent upheaval. That's not denouncing people's beliefs for the sake of it, it was a reasoned, evidence based argument as to why religion is harmful. Not just that it's something he disagrees with, but that's it's something dangerous. A valuable point to make, and he's an effective polemicist.

I really can't see the comparison with religious fundamentalists other than in a very superficial way, in his perceived arrogance - purely a matter of style. There's a pivotal difference, which is that science always admits of the possibility of being proved wrong, new theories coming along and the old ones changing and adapting with new evidence. That's something religion is incapable of doing, so any comparison between "fundamentalism" in science and fundamentalism in religion is flawed at its core.

 

What has animal cruelty got to do with science?

 

I know he's got to construct an argument and everything, but it just seems incredibly one-sided - as much someone denouncing technology because of a couple of atom bombs - to damn religion like that. For every atrocity conducted in the name of religion, there are thousands who live their lives happier as a result of it.

 

Because of the comforting illusion of faith? I see no problem with pointing out the dangers of intellectual dishonesty and the ignorance that is its necessary corollary...

The only good criticism I've heard yet is that he totally ignores the richness of language and symbolism which religion provides. And that's true, but he isn't dealing with the potentially positive cultural aspects of religion but the exclusively damaging nature of fundamentalist belief. I really can't think of anything positive you could say about fundamentalism of any kind.

I think he should be applauded for shining a light on ignorance...

 

man you seriously dont know ...................wowwwwwwwwww . i"m out of this conversation lad . this must be one of the stupidest posts ive ever come across " are you for real .............maybe someone else might wanna discuss it with you .........i"M off to squirt shampoo in some dogs eyes i can"t be doin with this shit man .please dont ask what has pollution got to do with science . man some people are off their heads

 

I'm not retarded. But you can't seriously believe that science causes animal cruelty. People have been committing unnecessary, unjustifiable acts of cruelty against animals in the name of entertainment long before science got anywhere near it.

Once you start assailing a school of thought for any atrocity that's conducted in its name, you're so far from the point you can't even see what you're missing.

 

Well that's your view. I feel it puts you in the same league as those who dropped the atom bomb (hear me out, okay?), in that you believe that the accumulation and application of knowledge is a worthy cause in and of itself, even if it only hurts people. Have you ever heard of anyone feeling ecstatic about the prospect of a godless universe?

 

I generally don't flame people unless they have good reason. But you're seriously fucking ignorant, and for some reason have an inherent lack of reasoning ability. Self Control is a smart guy, I would listen to him.