Science - Good or Bad for Mankind?

[m berst]

Has science done more harm or good to the planet and people since it's inception?

I tend to come down on the side of harm. Wars have been fought, billions of lives lost, hate, holocausts, inquisitions, burnings, torture, genocide, and many other horrible things have been unleashed on society as a direct result of science that led to improved technology for harming people, and to an arrogance that has turned us into moral monsters.

Has science put tools into our hands that we don't have the spiritual maturity to use? Has science led us to the arrogant assumption that we know something about the world, even as we destroy it? Can science teach us that knowledge that leads us to destroying that which we are studying is insanity? Or does the worship of science distract us from the truth, and lead us away from sanity?

I do believe science has accomplished a myriad of good and in it's purest form it inspires mankind to do what is right and use our humanity to make the world better. Unfortunately, we have gotten so far away from the original purity and tainted it with greed, evil, narcissism, hypocrisy, politics, and vanity that it may never be returned to a useful tool for the betterment of this world.

Maybe in the next life.


note - with apologies to Mortos for purloining his text.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2808120

[DrWeird]

1. Oh, it's good for mankind.

Can't say about the rest of the universe. But it's a wee bit hypocritical to have an online discussion about the merits of science.

[Wonk]

6. Just what I was thinking. Kind of ironic to be dissing science on this

interweb thingy :silly:

[WildClarySage]

2. I believe that science is a tool neither good nor bad

but using it makes it so. Rated against religion for destructive power, I'd go with religion being far deadlier than science any day.

[Maple]

3. Is fire good or bad?

It can be used to cook your food, or burn somebody's house down.

Fire has no morality, or value system. It just exists.

So don't blame science for what a few crazies do with it.

Without science, you'd still live in a cave and die at 20.

[enki23]

4. i know you aren't kidding....

and that's just sad.

[m berst]

22. what is sad to me

What I find sad is that I am, in fact, kidding in a particular way and people are missing the point in their zeal to identify and jump on an imagined enemy.

[Richardo]

5. Science is good.

The application of science can be horrible, but I can't see any downside in learning about nature and our universe using a discliplined, iterative method that encourages the examination and possible revision of basic assumptions as a result of that learning.

[Az]

7. Science does not lead

It is merely a tool. And be it a club or explosives, they are dependent on what we decide to do with them. This is why it is necissary to develop an positive social structure to accompany our technological advances. Without the social understanding to guide our hand in using these tools we are playing with fire.

[rock]

8. It's completely indifferent

However, the better question is: "Is mankind good or bad for mankind?"

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. Science quite likely saved YOU from a horrible death...

...that could have come in a gazillion different ways, from appendicitis to freezing.

[mpendragon]

10. pro science

I prefer to be typing this message to say . . . flinging wads of shit at people I don't like. While that is more a matter of cultural development and less of a matter of science, I'd say that scientific curiosity has done quite a lot to establish civilization.

It has been a little hard on the Earth.

[ibegurpard]

11. Sigh

Just like RELIGION and everything else, it's been both good AND bad.

[H2O Man]

12. More good

than bad.

[Q3JR4]

13. Kind of a misleading implication.

[Astarho]

14. Science provides the tools for killing millions

Religion provides the excuses for killing millions.

[theorist]

15. Response from a Scientist

Your use of the term "science" is kind of strange, as if it existed before mankind and we just hijacked it. Science is our word for the expression of human curiosity as it pertains to observable phenomena, just as religion and art are expressions of human spirituality and creativity. (Thus, to say that "science has done more harm than good" is equivalent to saying that "we have done more harm than good", and that is a reasonable stance, considering the bloody 20th century.)

Furthermore, scientific discovery has been directly affected by cultural climate (e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics) and necessity (e.g. skyscrapers and the atomic bomb), and these advances, in turn, affect the direction of history. This will not change, so I believe that it is our obligation to determine what discoveries are worthwhile. And by "worthwhile", I mean worth our time and money. I personally would like to see our energy and overpopulation problems solved.

But as you know from history, science is frequently wrong. We have made many strides to correcting our theories in the last two hundred years, but science is a game played by men. Mistakes are made (frequently) and this will continue to occur. The problem you seem to have is based on the exploitation of science, and the axiom that "human intelligence is always one war behind science" is one frequently adopted by scientists. Thus, your problem should be with policy makers, not with the scientific community.

[BradM]

16. Good

I think science has saved many lives. For example look at insulin. Yes those dogs suffered horribly, but I bet many of us would not be here at this time were it not for science.

http://www.topicsoftheday.com/

[kodi]

17. you are referring to technology, not science

.

[BradM]

21. Science/technology

Science is technology is it not? Technology is certainly developed through science.

http://www.topicsoftheday.com/

[m berst]

23. of course I am

As most people do, I am confusing the two - intentionally in my case here to make a point. What I am trying to address (in my apparently much too obscure way) is the worship of science, and the us versus them polarization in our thinking about these subjects.

[kodi]

24. " I am confusing the two - intentionally in my case here to make a point"?

no actually you are not doing that at all. in fact you are not making any point at all.

when you wrote ...

"What I am trying to address (in my apparently much too obscure way) is the worship of science,"

you are not intentionally confusing the issue, you are in fact confused.

science is not being worshipped, for were it, we would not have "creationism," "intelligent design," "astrology," or other unscientific attitudes so popular. instead of the subjectivity found in the aforementioned where reason is sacrificed to the heavens for pyschological purposes, rationalism would rule the day.

it doesn't.

so much for "worshipping" science

instead, technology is separated from science because the former has economic value and the driving force of technology is making something of economic value or utility.

those who make a profit from offing items of technolgy stand at the interface of science and the subjective. they use the fruits of scientific method to make their products and processes and also use the subjective nature of human value systems to ply their wares. naturally, their advertising seduces buyers by appealling to their subjective values and buttress their sales pitch by implying that "science" has the answers to their problems; be it a limp penis, excess weight, or the ability to call home while in katmandu.

where the line is never crossed by those who control society and sell technology is to allow its own basis, i.e., scientific method to be employed in the subjective realm of government and public policy.

[m berst]

25. still missing my point

And as I said, it didn't work very well.

You have to see the post on which I was doing a parody to get it, I guess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2808120

[m berst]

18. not obvious enough I guess

Sorry, my parody was apparently too obscure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2808120

[Jose Diablo]

19. The term science is not really interchangeable with the word technology

Your post seems to indicate that what you are really asking is has technology been good or bad for mankind.

Science is really nothing more than a method to determine truth as it pertains to predicting the outcome of an event based on a hypothesis of how the universe works.

If the prediction works, repeatedly, then we say the hypothesis is valid in describing how the universe works. And from the hypothesis we can gain the upper hand on survival to make our lives easier through technology.

As for science, is it good? Although I do believe in God, to give priests the power to control society has lead to outrage after outrage. The truth is priests and their attempts to control others with their interpretation of truth was really why science as a method was developed. People do not like to be screwed by people that are wrong.

As for technology, is it good? I don't know. It has lead to an easier life with far more humans alive than ever before, with a promise of eternity. But will the promise be achieved before we completely destroy ourselves? It is a good question, but I don't think it is really technology that threatens us. I think our culture has not kept pace with the technology.

Our economic system depends on an never ending pattern of growth just to stay profitable. This needs to change or our nest will be destroyed. I think if we can address the real issues facing mankind, we can pass through these troubling times.

In the short, I think both science and the technology it has produced is good, but we need to get serious about the real problems confronting our species.

[Pepperbelly]

20. totally a mixed bag...

no doubt of it.