SCIENCE:an organized system of ignorance

[Killa Klown]

Not that I'm against science, or that I'm some type of religous person but I was wondering is science really an organized system of ignorace.

 

I strongly believe in science, I believe it's what make the human race the greatest thing to happen to the universe and the most unique race in the universe, so far.

 

I also believe that science may sometimes cross the line, between moral righteousness and phenomenal scientific breakthroughs. For example the atomic bomb, chemical warfare, cloning, etc.

 

I myself don't have a true opinion on this subject, but I would really like to be interested in reading yours.

[YT2095]

perhaps Science is the Universes way of trying to understand itself.

[swansont]

Not that I'm against science, or that I'm some type of religous person but I was wondering is science really an organized system of ignorace.

 

No, it's not.

 

I strongly believe in science, I believe it's what make the human race the greatest thing to happen to the universe and the most unique race in the universe, so far.

 

Something cannot be more unique than something else. Uniqueness is, by definition, a boolean state.

 

I also believe that science may sometimes cross the line, between moral righteousness and phenomenal scientific breakthroughs. For example the atomic bomb, chemical warfare, cloning, etc.

 

Science is amoral. Scientists might cross the line, though.

 

I myself don't have a true opinion on this subject, but I would really like to be interested in reading yours.

 

So how is this any different than trolling?

[the tree]

I also believe that science may sometimes cross the line, between moral righteousness and phenomenal scientific breakthroughs. For example the atomic bomb, chemical warfare, cloning, etc.

Science didn't do any of those things, it just worked them out, people did those things.

 

I myself don't have a true opinion on this subject, but [b']I would really like to be interested in reading yours.[/b]

So how is this any different than trolling?

That. Now be nice.

[Killa Klown]

Good responses!!

[x__heavenly__x]

Not that I'm against science, or that I'm some type of religous person but I was wondering is science really an organized system of ignorace.

 

You know just a moment ago I took this post as a little offensive and wrote a long reply, but after reflecting on what I wrote and realizing it looked a lot like an irritated retort, I erased it.

 

However, after erasing it I pondered the statement and realized you are right in a very very minute way.

 

I have noticed that in mathematics and complex physics like Relativity and Quantum mechanics, there are few instances where a problem is solved by making huge approximations and assumptions, and creating new problems. This makes me think. Thats all I have to say. your query is really not a easy one to answer but please dont generalize "Science" as a whole. Its just a way to realize our universe in a more materialistic way and move our civilization ahead.

 

And yea Swansont, thats the most concise reply I have ever read. Wonderful. Man, by nature is power hungry so ready yourself to see a lot more of bad things happeneing these days.

 

And remember Killa Klown, that Man will always use Science or Religion to gain Power and influence over the other. We all are seeing it in the news. Its always about power, always! No religion condones murder, hatred or cruelty, nor does science.

[Killa Klown]

I didn't mean to be offensive to anyone, I myself strongly believe in science as one feature that make the world cooler and way more intersting.

 

I simply tried to understand how this quote can be interpreted as

 

By the way I took this saying from a song By ICP (halloween on Millitary st.)

[SkepticLance]

Is science an organised system of ignorance?

 

Not really. However, science is probably the most honest intellectual system ever dreamed up in terms of admitting its ignorance.

 

Scientists do not even talk of correct, incorrect, proved, or unproved. Instead, they talk of models of reality being better or worse. Scientific honesty can be devastating in its admission of ignorance.

[blue_cristal]

No religion condones murder, hatred or cruelty, nor does science.

NOT TRUE.

 

Bible, Koran and Torah explicitly says that God murdered or commanded to murder thousands of people ( including women and innocent children ).

 

Furthermore, I cannot imagine bigger hatred than condemn people to suffer eternally in the hell's fire simply because they believe in a different religion or conceptual system.

 

Though pure science can be mostly a peaceful activity, there are specific areas of applied science that aim specifically the research of new weapons.

[blue_cristal]

I think that we could say that religion is an organized system of deception and enduring addictive delusions.

 

Deception and delusion are the prefered weapons of power-thirsty people.

[ecoli]

I also believe that science may sometimes cross the line, between moral righteousness and phenomenal scientific breakthroughs. For example the atomic bomb, chemical warfare, cloning, etc.

 

What does this have to do with ignorance? The development of these technologies, while perhaps morally questionable, has not lead us towards ignorance.

 

In terms of science, they have lead to a desire to greater understand our world and how it works, and the development of technologies that have been morally beneficial (IMO) ex. - nuclear power, synthetic chemicals that have improved the standard of living, stem cell research, the list goes on.

 

From a social standpoint, the creation and one time use of the atomic bomb has awakened us to the danger of the use of such weapons... and they have not been used in warfare since WWII. Nuclear weapons have generally been a preventer of warfare on the global level; MAD keeping the cold war cold. This has not lead us to ignorance, but rather enlightenment.

[abskebabs]

Something cannot be more unique than something else. Uniqueness is, by definition, a boolean state.

I would disagree with that statement. If I have brown hair, in a population where everybody else has blonde hair, that makes me unique. But if I have blue eyes, and everybody else has brown eyes, doesn't that make me more unique? Perhaps I have made an error in my semantics, but please tell me whether you think my reasoning is correct.

[Dak]

Science is amoral. Scientists might cross the line, though.

 

I'm not sure this is the case, in practice.

 

things get researched based on how much funding they can get: that slants science, in practice, towards putting more effort into 'good' science that can benifit mankind. which apparently includes weapons-tech...

[abskebabs]

I'm not sure this is the case, in practice.

 

things get researched based on how much funding they can get: that slants science, in practice, towards putting more effort into 'good' science that can benifit mankind. which apparently includes weapons-tech...

I think what he means is the science, or the facts and knowledge of nature is amoral, as such things cannot have morals inherently. Those who pursue or fund scientific research themselves however may have vested interests, therby making it either moral or immoral. I think it depends entirely what you mean by science. If you mean the body of knowledge produced by logical resoning and induction of natural phenomena, then Swansont is correct. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the "scientific enterprise" or research, then you have a point.

[swansont]

I'm not sure this is the case, in practice.

 

things get researched based on how much funding they can get: that slants science, in practice, towards putting more effort into 'good' science that can benifit mankind. which apparently includes weapons-tech...

 

That's politics, economics and other outside influences, though, not the science itself. The choice of what science to pursue is not a scientific one, or possibly even a logical one.