Science research and experiments have achieved a great deal.

Some of these achievements have been beneficial, largely in medicine. Some have been harmful, and some are being questioned.

These achievements are too numerous to mention, but for example

The discovery of the ozone-depleting effects of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland led to the creation of the Montreal Protocol, one of the most successful international environmental agreements, resulting in the recovery of the ozone layer.

Science though, has its limits.

How limited is science, when it comes to big, and important problems facing the world today, such as wars, terrorism, violent crime, anger issues, domestic and child abuse, sexual assaults, governmental corruption, etc. to name just a few.

People worry about things that affect them on a personal and family level.

Science doesn't seem very far reaching, when it comes to what matters most.

Is there anything that has more reach, when it comes to the issues currently affecting the world on a global scale? If not science, what?

9 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

How limited is science, when it comes to big, and important problems facing the world today, such as wars, terrorism, violent crime, anger issues, domestic and child abuse, sexual assaults, governmental corruption, etc. to name just a few.

People worry about things that affect them on a personal and family level.

Science doesn't seem very far reaching, when it comes to what matters most.

Why do you think science can solve these problems? Science can provide us with tools, but it’s up to people to decide how, when and where to use them

KingKobra, from your arguments, it seems that you are giving science some human-like attributes.. Which is basically absurd (but very typical for humanists)..

1 hour ago, KingKobra said:

How limited is science, when it comes to big, and important problems facing the world today, such as wars, terrorism, violent crime, anger issues, domestic and child abuse, sexual assaults, governmental corruption, etc. to name just a few.

Now the absurdity of your argument has been further reinforced by your ignorance of mathematics. If we take the number of people who die in current wars, terrorist attacks, disasters, whatever, and divide it by the total population, we get a tiny fraction and percentage of population. It is the mass media (and the speed they share some unverified information) that blow these tiny numbers up to gigantic proportions because that is how they make money. And if we compare this to what happened a thousand or two thousand years ago, the loss of 100,000 people today vs. 100,000 people 2,000 years ago (with a world population several dozen times smaller) looks completely different.

How can we talk to humanists? Go learn some math!

Science has nothing to do with the problems you are talking about.

So how could this indicate the limits of science? Which science discipline? Humanities or real science?

1 hour ago, KingKobra said:

Science doesn't seem very far reaching, when it comes to what matters most.

Science is not a living entity, and it should not be endowed with any humanistic, fantastical attributes.

Edited November 29Nov 29 by Sensei

8 hours ago, KingKobra said:

Science research and experiments have achieved a great deal.

Some of these achievements have been beneficial, largely in medicine. Some have been harmful, and some are being questioned.

These achievements are too numerous to mention, but for example

The discovery of the ozone-depleting effects of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland led to the creation of the Montreal Protocol, one of the most successful international environmental agreements, resulting in the recovery of the ozone layer.

Science though, has its limits.

How limited is science, when it comes to big, and important problems facing the world today, such as wars, terrorism, violent crime, anger issues, domestic and child abuse, sexual assaults, governmental corruption, etc. to name just a few.

People worry about things that affect them on a personal and family level.

Science doesn't seem very far reaching, when it comes to what matters most.

Is there anything that has more reach, when it comes to the issues currently affecting the world on a global scale? If not science, what?

Science is humanity’s attempt to understand nature. There is no reason to expect it to deal with the issues you list.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Why do you think science can solve these problems? Science can provide us with tools, but it’s up to people to decide how, when and where to use them

I'm glad we agree on that.

My question was, Is there anything that has more reach, when it comes to the issues currently affecting the world on a global scale? If not science, what?

Is that something you have given thought to, and would like to give some input?

10 hours ago, exchemist said:

Science is humanity’s attempt to understand nature. There is no reason to expect it to deal with the issues you list.

Thank you. So, we cannot expect a solution to come from science - one of the most trusted systems in the world, with 65% - 73% of U.S adults saying science has had a mostly positive effect on society, and 84% of Americans expressing at least a fair amount of trust in scientists.

So, in your mind, is there nothing more far reaching than science, that mankind can look to for hope of a better future for their children, and their children's children?

Do you think the world will continue to get worst and worst?

Or, perhaps you don't think the world is so bad. Do you?

19 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

Thank you. So, we cannot expect a solution to come from science - one of the most trusted systems in the world, with 65% - 73% of U.S adults saying science has had a mostly positive effect on society, and 84% of Americans expressing at least a fair amount of trust in scientists.

So, in your mind, is there nothing more far reaching than science, that mankind can look to for hope of a better future for their children, and their children's children?

Take climate change. The science is very clear, and has been for over 50 years. Stop burning fossil fuels or the planet's biosphere shall within a few short generations, be decimated.

How does the US respond? It elected in an orange psychopath president.

Science can only do so much. After that, it's either political solution or inescapable consequence.

32 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

Thank you. So, we cannot expect a solution to come from science - one of the most trusted systems in the world, with 65% - 73% of U.S adults saying science has had a mostly positive effect on society, and 84% of Americans expressing at least a fair amount of trust in scientists.

So, in your mind, is there nothing more far reaching than science, that mankind can look to for hope of a better future for their children, and their children's children?

Do you think the world will continue to get worst and worst?

Or, perhaps you don't think the world is so bad. Do you?

I think America is alomost certainly going to get worse before (hopefully not if) it gets better.

I also think there is an unjustified snobbery in the 'hard' sciences against the 'soft' sciences, which are nowhere so well developed or cut and dried.

Perhaps one day Asimov's Second Foundation will be more of a reality than now.

30 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

I'm glad we agree on that.

My question was, Is there anything that has more reach, when it comes to the issues currently affecting the world on a global scale? If not science, what?

Is that something you have given thought to, and would like to give some input?

Thank you. So, we cannot expect a solution to come from science - one of the most trusted systems in the world, with 65% - 73% of U.S adults saying science has had a mostly positive effect on society, and 84% of Americans expressing at least a fair amount of trust in scientists.

So, in your mind, is there nothing more far reaching than science, that mankind can look to for hope of a better future for their children, and their children's children?

Do you think the world will continue to get worst and worst?

Or, perhaps you don't think the world is so bad. Do you?

"Far reaching?". What do you mean by that? Look, the scope of the discipline of science is clear - and it has limits, obviously. It can't magically solve problems related to humanity's interactions and decisions. Science is a branch (only one branch) of knowledge. Knowledge does not solve problems. People do.

28 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

Thank you. So, we cannot expect a solution to come from science - one of the most trusted systems in the world, with 65% - 73% of U.S adults saying science has had a mostly positive effect on society, and 84% of Americans expressing at least a fair amount of trust in scientists.

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious with this argument. Why would you expect political issues or psychological issues or legal issues to be solved by the process of science? We can use tools from psychology to help people understand, we can invent devices that regulate medicine intake or determine location or encourage certain behavior, we can even run complicated algorithms to determine the likelihood of various abuses or even voting outcomes, but ultimately the problems you list require more than one solution. And all of those problems are better addressed through regulation and political representation.

Can you think of any way politics and the law can use scientific methodology to improve their systems?

25 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

I'm glad we agree on that.

My question was, Is there anything that has more reach, when it comes to the issues currently affecting the world on a global scale? If not science, what?

Is that something you have given thought to, and would like to give some input?

Thank you. So, we cannot expect a solution to come from science - one of the most trusted systems in the world, with 65% - 73% of U.S adults saying science has had a mostly positive effect on society, and 84% of Americans expressing at least a fair amount of trust in scientists.

So, in your mind, is there nothing more far reaching than science, that mankind can look to for hope of a better future for their children, and their children's children?

Do you think the world will continue to get worst and worst?

Or, perhaps you don't think the world is so bad. Do you?

You’re making a leap here. Saying that science has a positive effect is vs having a negative effect. That says nothing about the amount of reach, or the nature of the positive effect. And such a general observation does not lend itself to a precise enough inquiry. How does science have a positive impact? There are myriad ways. We find treatments for diseases like cancer and diabetes, improving lifespans and quality of life. We get technology, such as GPS and smart phones. How we decide to use it all affects whether we are solving problems or causing them

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you think of any way politics and the law can use scientific methodology to improve their systems?

Non culture biased cognitive tests for anyone running for high office (or cabinet appointees), and notably more rigorous than "I could read the teleprompter at Fox News, and memorize cocktail recipes easily..."

48 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Take climate change. The science is very clear, and has been for over 50 years. Stop burning fossil fuels or the planet's biosphere shall within a few short generations, be decimated.

How does the US respond? It elected in an orange psychopath president.

Science can only do so much. After that, it's either political solution or inescapable consequence.

Studies show that scientists are among the most trusted people in society, rivalling the military in trustworthiness in many countries, and in most surveyed publics, trust in scientists exceeds that in national governments, news media, and business leaders.

So, left to politicians, people don't see them as having much reach.

Although some people are optimistic that they can do better, if the "right leader" is in place.

The "right leader" though is based on whom the people favor, and there are mixed feelings and even emotions, when it comes to political figures, or even political parties.

Not only do views differ, but interests differ.

So, it looks like "inescapable consequence" would be the outcome.

How do you feel about that? Is it something you accept, or would you be interested in a real workable solution, if one exists?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I think America is alomost certainly going to get worse before (hopefully not if) it gets better.

You are optimistic, evidently.

What do you think will help it get better?

Perhaps I should ask what you think is the reason it will get worst, because many persons are aware that human behavior, contributes greatly to societal problems.

Actually, there exists the idea that CRISPR gene-editing can be used to create what some describe as the "perfect human", since the potential is there to modify human traits beyond treating diseases.

Do you think people will somehow become better, if not by some achievement in science, by some other means?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I also think there is an unjustified snobbery in the 'hard' sciences against the 'soft' sciences, which are nowhere so well developed or cut and dried.

Perhaps one day Asimov's Second Foundation will be more of a reality than now.

That's interesting.

So, do you think the "soft" sciences might make a difference in how people respond to scientists and scientific "evidence"?

It is said that, while the narrative of a widespread "crisis of trust" in science is challenged by empirical evidence, concerns remain about the alignment of scientific priorities with public values and the need for scientists to engage more openly with the public.

Trust tend to make a difference, doesn't it?

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

"Far reaching?". What do you mean by that? Look, the scope of the discipline of science is clear - and it has limits, obviously. It can't magically solve problems related to humanity's interactions and decisions. Science is a branch (only one branch) of knowledge. Knowledge does not solve problems. People do.

I explained that far reaching means being able to address big, and important problems facing the world today, such as wars, terrorism, violent crime, anger issues, domestic and child abuse, sexual assaults, governmental corruption, etc. Things that affect people on a personal and family level.

Science doesn't seem very far reaching, when it comes to what matters most.

So, you agree. Thanks.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious with this argument. Why would you expect political issues or psychological issues or legal issues to be solved by the process of science? We can use tools from psychology to help people understand, we can invent devices that regulate medicine intake or determine location or encourage certain behavior, we can even run complicated algorithms to determine the likelihood of various abuses or even voting outcomes, but ultimately the problems you list require more than one solution. And all of those problems are better addressed through regulation and political representation.

Can you think of any way politics and the law can use scientific methodology to improve their systems?

What about that one you mentioned - "we can invent devices that ... encourage certain behavior"?

Can you elaborate on that, and perhaps give some examples of how this has worked to have an impact on society?

Can politics and the law use these devices to improve their systems?

In the first place, science isn't about solving problems. It's about providing explanations for the how and why of things. How people apply those explanations to solve problems is politics.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You’re making a leap here. Saying that science has a positive effect is vs having a negative effect. That says nothing about the amount of reach, or the nature of the positive effect. And such a general observation does not lend itself to a precise enough inquiry. How does science have a positive impact? There are myriad ways. We find treatments for diseases like cancer and diabetes, improving lifespans and quality of life. We get technology, such as GPS and smart phones. How we decide to use it all affects whether we are solving problems or causing them

Sorry. I should have given an example for each.

One of the most notorious examples is the development of chemical weapons by Fritz Haber during World War I, where his work on ammonia fixation enabled the production of explosives and poisonous gases like chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas, resulting in over 26,000 deaths.

I wasn't focusing on the negatives or positives, otherwise I would mention a lot of the negatives.

I'm more interested in what you guys consider a working system that can reach those big issues affecting families around the globe, is science is not a useful tool in that area.

40 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

Sorry. I should have given an example for each.

One of the most notorious examples is the development of chemical weapons by Fritz Haber during World War I, where his work on ammonia fixation enabled the production of explosives and poisonous gases like chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas, resulting in over 26,000 deaths.

I wasn't focusing on the negatives or positives, otherwise I would mention a lot of the negatives.

I'm more interested in what you guys consider a working system that can reach those big issues affecting families around the globe, is science is not a useful tool in that area.

The decision to use these weapons was made by people, as was the decision to ban their use.

The Haber process won him the Nobel prize, and is used for making fertilizer, which helps feed people, likely saving far more than 26,000 lives

You can discuss the ethics/morality of making weapons but blaming science, IMO, lacks nuance.

2 hours ago, KingKobra said:

What about that one you mentioned - "we can invent devices that ... encourage certain behavior"?

Can you elaborate on that, and perhaps give some examples of how this has worked to have an impact on society?

Can politics and the law use these devices to improve their systems?

I would call this approach technology, which is just more tools made from the knowledge science discovers. Science doesn't invent anything.

One problem we have with technology is trust. We should be able to devise a voting system that is secure, scalable, and accessible. Since the start of the millenium, however, the voting systems in the USA have come under almost constant fire from accusations of fraud. It's gotten so bad in the last 25 years that I'm not sure there is any person or group who can offer a solution, no matter how plausible it is.

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

The decision to use these weapons was made by people, as was the decision to ban their use.

The Haber process won him the Nobel prize, and is used for making fertilizer, which helps feed people, likely saving far more than 26,000 lives

You can discuss the ethics/morality of making weapons but blaming science, IMO, lacks nuance.

Yes, scientists are people, and their research and development of a product is the work of their hands.

We don't only praise their work when it benefits people, since we don't want to be biased. That would be similar to closing our eyes when we don't want to see our son do wrong, but opening our eyes when he does something good.

There are parents that do this, and it turns out badly for the child.

That's a different subject though.

I was just providing one out of many examples where scientific achievement were harmful to society.

23 hours ago, KingKobra said:

Science doesn't seem very far reaching, when it comes to what matters most.

Have you come across the phrase

Madam, Of what use is a new born baby ?

Look back over history could the inventors of

Fire

The wheel

The catapault

The place number system

Have any idea how 'far reaching' their invention might be ?

5 hours ago, KingKobra said:

What about that one you mentioned - "we can invent devices that ... encourage certain behavior"?

Your ellipses are doing too much work here. It was drugs, not devices, that could encourage certain behavior.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Look back over history could the inventors of

Fire

The wheel

The catapault

The place number system

Have any idea how 'far reaching' their invention might be ?

But inventions, or technology, is not the same as science, and the OP specified science. One can use fire, or the wheel, or a smartphone or GPS with no clue about the science involved. One might argue that fire and the wheel required no science at all, though improvements did. It was only necessary for science to reach as far as the ones who invented or advanced the technology.

The impact or reach of science has a ripple effect through technology, but adopting technology is not really an issue of science. Politics and economics, and perhaps other factors. So I have to ask if this is what the OP wanted to discuss.

On 11/29/2025 at 6:52 PM, studiot said:

Have you come across the phrase

Look back over history could the inventors of

Fire

The wheel

The catapault

The place number system

Have any idea how 'far reaching' their invention might be ?

I had never hear the expression before now.

The quote "Madam, of what use is a newborn baby?" is often attributed to historical figures like Benjamin Franklin or Michael Faraday, though its true origin is uncertain. It is typically presented as a rhetorical response to skepticism about the immediate utility of new discoveries or fundamental research, emphasizing that the value of something may not be immediately apparent but can be profound over time. This sentiment underscores the importance of supporting basic scientific inquiry, even when its practical applications are not yet evident.

That's interesting.

It reminds me of an expression I am familiar with - "The world was not made in a day". Meaning that significant achievements or complex projects require time, effort, and consistent work over an extended period rather than being accomplished instantly.

The saying is often attributed to John Heywood, an English playwright from centuries ago, and is commonly used to remind people that great things are built gradually through continuous effort. The full sentiment, as popularized by James Clear, is that while Rome wasn’t built in a day, the Romans were laying bricks every hour - highlighting that progress comes from small, consistent actions rather than grand, immediate results. This idea is central to the concept of habit formation, where long-term success depends on daily incremental improvements rather than focusing solely on the final outcome.

I guess you are saying then, just as we didn't get to missiles that can launch a nuclear bomb halfway across the globe, before we went through swords, bayonets, gunpowder, tanks, etc., greater achievement and progress will come later.

That's a reasonable proposal.

What if though we saw things progressing - that would be, regressing - in the opposite direction, because mankind's ideals, morals, and mindset are declining?

For example, power hunger, greed, corruption, hatred, selfishness, pride, unreasonableness, disagreeableness, etc., has been with man for centuries, but rather that gradually disappear, they are worsening.

Greed and selfishness are increasingly recognized as significant societal issues, with evidence suggesting their negative impacts have intensified. These traits are linked to environmental degradation, as unchecked consumption driven by greed accelerates fossil fuel use, polluting air, water, and land, and contributing to global warming and mass animal deaths. Research indicates that wealthier individuals often exhibit greater selfishness and unethical behavior

Do you suppose any future scientific achievements can reverse that increasing decline?

On 11/29/2025 at 9:07 PM, swansont said:

Your ellipses are doing too much work here. It was drugs, not devices, that could encourage certain behavior.

I'm only quoting the poster I was responding too.

What ellipses are you referring to?

1 hour ago, KingKobra said:

I'm only quoting the poster I was responding too.

What ellipses are you referring to?

I misread something; I retract my objection.

1 hour ago, KingKobra said:

I had never hear the expression before now.

The quote "Madam, of what use is a newborn baby?" is often attributed to historical figures like Benjamin Franklin or Michael Faraday, though its true origin is uncertain. It is typically presented as a rhetorical response to skepticism about the immediate utility of new discoveries or fundamental research, emphasizing that the value of something may not be immediately apparent but can be profound over time. This sentiment underscores the importance of supporting basic scientific inquiry, even when its practical applications are not yet evident.

That's interesting.

I glad you found the quote interesting.

However I'm not sure you cottoned on to its significance, perhaps due that the forum your quote came from (I has a quick look around there and found it very shallow and unimpressive)
The important message was not about who said it (It was definitely Faraday) it was that no one could (or did) predict the course of (human) history subsequent to the nascent science of electricity that was represented as a baby, any more than anyone could tell whether that baby could turn out to be a Ghandi or a Hitler or a Bill Gates or just Joe Soap.

Similarly all those discoveries or inventions listed had a major impact on subsequent human society, and sorry swansont, I disagree with your interpretation of the word Science.

Perhaps we should all agree both what is meant by Science and what the OP means by 'reach', as several have asked.

I understand Science to mean "An organised body of knowledge" without any restriction on what that knowledge is about.

I understand the OP to be interested in a body of knowledge would allow us (human society) to move on from our present state and situation to an improved and improving one.

By reach I understand a request, similar to the woman (who was not a dullhead) who asked Faraday about the baby, as to how far this might progress.

So perhaps King Kobra would like to clarify my understanding.

On 11/29/2025 at 8:01 PM, KingKobra said:

Studies show that scientists are among the most trusted people in society, rivalling the military in trustworthiness in many countries, and in most surveyed publics, trust in scientists exceeds that in national governments, news media, and business leaders.

So, left to politicians, people don't see them as having much reach.

Although some people are optimistic that they can do better, if the "right leader" is in place.

The "right leader" though is based on whom the people favor, and there are mixed feelings and even emotions, when it comes to political figures, or even political parties.

Not only do views differ, but interests differ.

So, it looks like "inescapable consequence" would be the outcome.

How do you feel about that? Is it something you accept, or would you be interested in a real workable solution, if one exists?

People only really trust people who can help them make enough money to future proof their life, that's how con-artist's make a living.

Trust in science only goes so far and even a scientist has a price they're willing to pay, in terms of trust.

Why did you put this in the 'ethics' forum?

I think @studiot point about Assimov's second foundation is a good example of an ethical solution; as AI gets more and more powerful at predicting humanities vagaries, an ethically bias free algorithm for it to run thing's for us, would be best for all of us, as it would remove the emotion from deciding the moral path needed.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

People only really trust people who can help them make enough money to future proof their life, that's how con-artist's make a living.

Trust in science only goes so far and even a scientist has a price they're willing to pay, in terms of trust.

Why did you put this in the 'ethics' forum?

I think @studiot point about Assimov's second foundation is a good example of an ethical solution; as AI gets more and more powerful at predicting humanities vagaries, an ethically bias free algorithm for it to run thing's for us, would be best for all of us, as it would remove the emotion from deciding the moral path needed.

Thanks but what about trust in doctors?

Surely we would give all the money we have (however rich) to save our own lives ?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Thanks but what about trust in doctors?

Surely we would give all the money we have (however rich) to save our own lives ?

Of course, but isn't that the problem...