2 hours ago, KingKobra said:

Evidently, it's here to stay, and I think it is a good thing.

Maybe but it looks more like a money spinner to me.

However I do agree that unless one is prepared to exclude biology from the Sciences, I don't see how one can exclude the so called 'social sciences'.

After all Biology includes the study of individual, groups and communities of ants and animals and their behaviours and interactions so must include the study of groups of humans.

But of course Science does not mean study it refers to knowing or knowledge and comes from the Latin verb to know and noun for knowledge.

~ology comes from the Greek 'love of'

In truth I don't see how one can achieve either without study.

2 hours ago, KingKobra said:

I'm so glad the world does not depend one individual ideas and opinions.

Otherwise, the world would be the most one-sided place to live, with things that can actually be helpful, being cast aside as useless.

Social science (not often rendered in the plural as the social sciences) is one of the branches of science, devoted to the study of societies and the relationships among members within those societies. The term was formerly used to refer to the field of sociology, the original "science of society", established in the 18th century. It now encompasses a wide array of additional academic disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, management, communication studies, psychology, culturology, and political science.

These fields use systematic methods - both qualitative and quantitative - to understand social phenomena, often employing the scientific method to analyze data and draw conclusions about human society. The origins of social science trace back to the Enlightenment and the 19th century, with key figures like Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, and Karl Marx helping to establish its foundational principles.

UNCF

Social Sciences: The Study of Human Experience - UNCF

Social sciences unlock insights into human behavior. Learn how you can pursue a career that shapes society’s future.

Family science is a social science.

Evidently, it's here to stay, and I think it is a good thing.

Would you care to retract,, and change your viewpoint?

No.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

ology comes from the Greek 'love of'

Think it means "study of". ("Logos" meaning "word" -eg logorhoia is verbal diarrhoea )

Are you getting confused with "philo.." ,meaning "love of"?

Edited December 8Dec 8 by geordief

6 hours ago, KingKobra said:

It's something that people can use, but it cannot do anything for the people.

When you think of it, what has science done for anyone? Would you agree, nothing at all, or would you argue "Science has profoundly improved lives across the globe by addressing fundamental human needs and enhancing quality of life in numerous ways."

How would you respond?

I would consider the irony of someone in one country having a discussion with people in other countries using multiple technologies derived from science arguing that science has done nothing for the people.

An assertion this obtuse is farcical.

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes, I think probably I do. People sometimes try to slap the label “science” onto bodies of ideas to give them an aura of authority that is not warranted. By the look of it this may be one of these. There is no Wiki or Encylopaedia entry for “family science”, for example. Looks flaky to me.

As a subset of social science it brings to mind the adage that any discipline that has to declare that it is science, is not science.

38 minutes ago, geordief said:

Think it means "study of". ("Logos" meaning "word" -eg logorhoia is verbal diarrhoea )

Are you getting confused with "philo.." ,meaning "love of"?

Thank you for that correction, your Greek is better than my memory +1

Strictly ~ology refers to the name of the subject of study coming from the Greek for the substance or pith of something.

Love of comes from another Greek word Philos as a prefix, so philosophy etc.

4 hours ago, KingKobra said:

I'm so glad the world does not depend one individual ideas and opinions.

A bit confused. Didn't you earlier say we'd all be healthy and happy if we submitted to Jesus? You seem to be strongly recommending one individual's ideas, specifically a Galilean carpenter.

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

A bit confused. Didn't you earlier say we'd all be healthy and happy if we submitted to Jesus? You seem to be strongly recommending one individual's ideas, specifically a Galilean carpenter.

Oddly, the real power of religious teachings is their versatility, accumulated knowledge, and openness to interpretation, so insisting on a single meaning is inherently incorrect, the one thing you aren't supposed to do. I look at the Genesis story and I see that the Abrahamic god commits the first sin by lying to Adam about what will happen if he or Eve eat from the tree. The serpent tells them the truth, which they're so drawn to that they defy god and eat from the tree anyway. To me, it's supposed to be about rejecting authority if you want to set yourself above the rest of the animals. This god isn't infallible, omnipotent, or omniscient, it makes mistakes which we should recognize if we want to be considered higher beings. This is the god who would later flood the world, fill it with plagues, and kill its son so it didn't have to torture the rest of us eternally.

Also oddly, I don't insist this is the only way to look at it. Huh.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I would consider the irony of someone in one country having a discussion with people in other countries using multiple technologies derived from science arguing that science has done nothing for the people.

An assertion this obtuse is farcical.

So science does something. Thank you very much. 😇

That's contrary to

Science can provide us with tools, but it’s up to people to decide how, when and where to use them

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.

Did I by any chance misunderstanding you, sir?

31 minutes ago, TheVat said:

A bit confused. Didn't you earlier say we'd all be healthy and happy if we submitted to Jesus? You seem to be strongly recommending one individual's ideas, specifically a Galilean carpenter.

Yes. I'm glad there are law makers, hospitals, child care protection, firemen, and so on.

What confuses you about having certain things in place prevents things from being worst than they are, while at the same time recognizing a workable solution to the world's problems?

Not everyone will submit to Christ's rule, but indeed, if everyone did... which isn't realistic at all, there would be no need for police officers, would there. Except perhaps to direct traffic, and help people cross the road safely. 🥲

2 hours ago, swansont said:

As a subset of social science it brings to mind the adage that any discipline that has to declare that it is science, is not science.

There is no such thing as natural science, in that case, and this information is certainly wrong:

The branches of science are commonly categorized into three major groups: formal sciences, natural sciences, and social sciences.

Would you suggest people come on forums more often, where they learn something beneficial to them?

1 hour ago, KingKobra said:

So science does something. Thank you very much. 😇

That's contrary to

Science can provide us with tools, but it’s up to people to decide how, when and where to use them

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.

Did I by any chance misunderstanding you, sir?

Yes, I think it’s quite obvious that you’ve misunderstood.

I can’t fathom, for example, that one would think the existence of a tool is contrary to “doing something” for people. Why use a tool if it does nothing? Or that technology, enabled by science, is contrary. Or the notion that having the option to choose to adopt technology could be contrary.

The underlying issue of the OP is one of the ability to solve problems vs the will to solve problems. Science can enhance our ability, but it’s moot if we don’t have the will, and the will (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with science’s “reach”

Similar to the idiom “You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink”

1 hour ago, KingKobra said:

There is no such thing as natural science, in that case, and this information is certainly wrong:

The branches of science are commonly categorized into three major groups: formal sciences, natural sciences, and social sciences.

There is no such field of study as natural science. As you say here, it is a group of sciences, a branch. The fields of study include physics, chemistry, biology and geology. One does not need to tack “science” onto these.

20 hours ago, KingKobra said:

  20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How would you define a soul?

Are you sure you want me to answer that?

That is the point of a question mark, so yes please...

20 hours ago, KingKobra said:

Perhaps you had better tell me how you were defining it.

That might be better. Considering how strongly some feel toward anything that is not in line with their beliefs, or interests.

I would define the soul as my personal god, it's a fragile entity that I can destroy by following a false morality.

The thing about religions is that, they need to maintain a cultural context in order for the morality lessons to be properly understood.

The adherence to a single religion, means that one is more likely to miss the point, read them all and you're more likely to understand why your OP is essentially meaningless.

On 12/8/2025 at 3:05 PM, KingKobra said:

There is ethics in science.

Ethics in science refers to the principles and standards of conduct that guide researchers in their professional practices, ensuring the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of scientific knowledge. [1][2]

This is where philosophy meets its children, science and ethics are guided by the same principles, and that's a deliberate seperation from a humanity.

However the ethics "committee" has to be paid and that's humanity in a nut shell.

IOW you can erase "ethics in" and the sentence has the same meaning.

I concur with the argument shared by many here that science generally gives us a better understanding of Nature. In a nutshell, and as said before, how we use that is rather a matter of scientific, engineering, etc ethics.

Perhaps however it's worth pointing out that there is a hypothesis currently undergoing study in anthropology and peripheral sciences that posits the possibility that a slow adaptive process of self-taming has been going on for a long time (in terms of human evolution, so think 10⁴-10⁵ years). This is known as the self-taming hypothesis or self domestication. Were it confirmed at some point, that would mean that the answers to those problems the OP mentions are subject to some kind of self-correcting adaptive process that science itself can study, confirm, or falsify.

That would mean science can even help us understand whether or not we're going (or likely to be going) in the direction the OP hopes for.

On 12/10/2025 at 1:51 PM, joigus said:

That would mean science can even help us understand whether or not we're going (or likely to be going) in the direction the OP hopes for.

That would depend on the "brave new world" we're aiming for...

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That would depend on the "brave new world" we're aiming for...

I don't think so. Science would help us understand in what direction we're going as a species in the ballpark of 10⁴-10⁵ years. Understanding, however roughly, in what direction we're going doesn't depend on what direction we wish to go.

On 12/15/2025 at 2:02 PM, joigus said:

I don't think so. Science would help us understand in what direction we're going as a species in the ballpark of 10⁴-10⁵ years. Understanding, however roughly, in what direction we're going doesn't depend on what direction we wish to go.

To some extent it does, for instance, we all need to get to work on time, so we design the most effective way to achieve that aim.

But my point in referring to BNW is that, would we even recognise it as dystopian.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

To some extent it does, for instance, we all need to get to work on time, so we design the most effective way to achieve that aim.

It doesn't. Understanding whether the human species has been taming itself for the last hundred thousand years is one thing. Setting our future goals, ethically, pragmatically; and acting in such a way that those goals are achieved, is a very different one.

As different as studying the history of a city and doing urban planning for that city.

16 hours ago, joigus said:

It doesn't. Understanding whether the human species has been taming itself for the last hundred thousand years is one thing. Setting our future goals, ethically, pragmatically; and acting in such a way that those goals are achieved, is a very different one.

As different as studying the history of a city and doing urban planning for that city.

I think perhaps we're talking past each other, in the context of this question, given the intention of the OP.

"Setting our future goals, ethically, pragmatically; and acting in such a way that those goals are achieved, is a very different one."

Indeed, it's a very religious aspiration, that has worked in the past; I'm not sure that science has the tool's.

On 12/17/2025 at 1:58 PM, dimreepr said:

Indeed, it's a very religious aspiration, that has worked in the past; I'm not sure that science has the tool's.

I don't see how setting our future goals is a religious aspiration. Religion is more about inevitability and submission. Not a whole lot to do with changing your future. Religion has no tools at all, as praying and lamenting are not tools.

Both Religion and science are tools.
Both can be used constructively to aid humanity and both can help destroy it.

Science has given us the means to feed ourselves, make tools to aid our work, make our lives comfortable and explore and know our world, but it has also given us nuclear weapons which may someday destroy us.

Religion has given us morals and ethics which allow us to get along with one another, but it is also used by some religious leaders to control the populace, and has probably caused more wars than any other human institution, and again, can destroy us.

The same can be said of any 'tool' mankind has developed, after all, guns were once used to hunt for food.
The intent to use all our 'tools' for good or evil is purely dependent on the user.
So, if we do destroy ourselves, it'll be solely our own fault.

20 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't see how setting our future goals is a religious aspiration. Religion is more about inevitability and submission. Not a whole lot to do with changing your future.

I don't see how it wasn't intended to set our future goals; we should try to remove percieved dogma, from the most likely initial intention of the various religions, given so much cross-over in any Venn diagram. I think it's fair to say that contentment with now, in order to alleviate the fear of tomorrow, is definitely at every intersection

I'm pretty sure there's nothing explicitly written that says, science and religion can't work together.

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't see how it wasn't intended to set our future goals; we should try to remove percieved dogma, from the most likely initial intention of the various religions, given so much cross-over in any Venn diagram.

I didn't say anything was or wasn't intended to set our future plans. I quite intentionally kept things quite unintentional.

I said something else. Please take some time to read what I did say, or this is gonna take forever with you talking past me, instead of we talking past each other., as you claim