If science is so great why hasn't it solved all of humanitys problems ?

[Quagmire]

"Being very mindful of this is why I hold such disdain for technology, but not science. I look at, for example, the technology of the plow. Sure, it solved the "problem" of being unable to churn the soils of the tallgrass prairie. And by doing so, humans committed ecological genocide nearly wiping an entire ecosystem type from the face of the planet (not cool, yo). Then humans made more technologies to solve "problems" of the now genocided tallgrass prairie - we can't have those "pesky" insects, so let's solve the "problem" by spraying poison all over the land. Oh, and we've got to be more efficient and have yields go up, up, up, so let's solve that "problem" by planting monocultures so there's basically no viable habitat for any living thing other than what we want to harvest on that land. Problem solving my rear..."

So which one of these is the hack or is the ability to hack the same as the hack itself?

For the purposes of my point, I don't see how it matters.

Maybe you do.

 

[Pogo]

For the purposes of my point, I don't see how it matters.

Maybe you do.

Or maybe I missed your point, I think knowledge is a good thing relative to ignorance but the application of that is fraught with human ignorance at the same time.

 

[Quagmire]

Or maybe I missed your point, I think knowledge is a good thing relative to ignorance

The problem is that if someone happens to come by some bit of knowledge that can be applied in such a way that it "improves" the human condition, inevitably someone is going to try to make money off of it and/or use it to established personal dominance. And If history is any indication they're almost always going to do so with complete disregard for the consequences.

Knowledge without wisdom is dangerous.

but the application of that is fraught with human ignorance at the same time.

It isn't fraught with human ignorance, it's subject to it.

So in my opinion it's pointless to make a distinction between the tool and its application if we already know ahead of time that it will be applied, and have a fair guess as to how.

 

[Pogo]

The problem is that if someone happens to come by some bit of knowledge that can be applied in such a way that it "improves" the human condition, inevitably someone is going to try to make money off of it and/or use it to established personal dominance. And If history is any indication they're almost always going to do so with complete disregard for the consequences.

Knowledge without wisdom is dangerous.


It isn't fraught with human ignorance, it's subject to it.

So in my opinion it's pointless to make a distinction between the tool and its application if we already know ahead of time that it will be applied, and have a fair guess as to how.

OK, I suppose Quagmire makes more sense to me now.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Stop it! Science is anti-semitic . It’s wrong to tell a person they can’t have the nature they were born with. If you want to tempt at science over human nature, test it on your own nature first. I like who I am.

There is nothing wrong with suffering. Leave it to omnipotent one to save us. I am worth it, are you?

 

[Quagmire]

OK, I suppose Quagmire makes more sense to me now.

I'm not sure if you're saying that my point makes more sense or if you're saying that my choice of username makes more sense to you now


(And either way is fine)

 

[wellwisher]

I'm so sick and tired of atheist secular scientism it's just another religion.

Most of humanity's problems are created by humans, via human consciousness. Crime and poverty do not fall from the sky. Rather than address the source, which is consciousness, science deals in mops; the janitør of consciousness. It cannot define consciousness, in a consensus way that can define all the motivations underlying consciousness, that causes all the problems. It is usually philosphy and religion that does that. The concept of sin are those motivaitons and actions that cause the suffering in others.

Science invented guns, which can be used for hunting, self defense, crime and war, all of which are connected to consciousness. Each use can be driven in different directions by the unconscious and semi-conscious brewings, underneath consciosness. Science cannot help to funnel this to postive need or else all the probems should be gone. The scientific method is not working for this purpose. That is better for inanimate things. One wouild need to know the code of the operating system of consciousness, to be able to tweak the code. But that would require internal data, since we cannot infer the code from the outside, via neural wiring sequences, but rather by our own experiences of internal motivation. This insoide approach to consciousness data is not covered by the current philosphy of science. It stay outside where you see output but the source is hidden in a box, out of sight of external view.

If you look at politics, the current political debate is often dishonest, and presents lots of false data and disinformation called mudslinging and fake news. Obviously this is not good for objectivity and is designed to manipulate. If science was the litmus test of sound method for defining the truth, how come they are not the referee, in the polticlal sphere, to keep the dishonerty of consciosness rational and honest? One reason is science is beholden to these same people, therefore their own consciousness, is caught between a rock and hard place. It is these scams, games, needs and desires from consciousness, that leads to problems and ignoring problems. .

The most important tool of science is consciousness. Theories and math need consciousness to create, to use and apply. If consciousness cannot be fully defined and used to understand and solve, even the most basic problems of consciouness like truth in media, how do you know if your ownn science consciouness is calibrated properly, and is not also biased? What you may feel is calibrated, but it may not be calibrated, if you do not know how to calibrate, or can not go somewhere to get is checked and recalibrated. While lack of calibration, formed by placing the thumb of the eog on the scale, is a souce of all human problems.

Religions do a better job in terms of defining the motivation behind consciousness, which is why most of the crime in secular countries, is done by the godless. Although they have science as a mop, science is not advanced enough to provide the owners manual, nor can it show us that the consciouses of science is in proper calibration, and does not have a thumb on the scale; political moves up the company ladder.

As a Catholic, one is required to go to confession. The question is how can you confess, if you are not aware of a problem? They used to teach you a moral code, and ask that you self censor your actions both before and after these motivations; leas to sin. Then based on that you confess as a way to restore calibration, knowing that the thumb would be back again, to throw if off, needing recalibration.

Now, with morality relative there is no common way to calibrate, which appears to lead to the problem of assuming calibration, if it feels good and benefits you; ego. However, lack of calibration via action and reaction can leads to problems for others.

 

[osgart]

What's the problem, I am enjoying the beauty outside my window and even a football game at the same time. I'm not thinking about how the sun is shining or how I can watch something happening 200 miles away, but if the picture goes away, I will go back to being a scientist to figure out why it isn't working. I can do both, I just don't need to believe in something unknowable to explain the beauty, I just accept and enjoy it.

Problem? If enjoying beauty was all there was to it, it wouldn't be worth it . Anyone can enjoy beauty without any effort at all. It's the hidden beauty people miss, and don't care that much about. Not just a passing chemistry.

Spiritual paths are knowable. It's from the inside out, not outside in.

 

[Pogo]

Stop it! Science is anti-semitic . It’s wrong to tell a person they can’t have the nature they were born with. If you want to tempt at science over human nature, test it on your own nature first. I like who I am.

There is nothing wrong with suffering. Leave it to omnipotent one to save us. I am worth it, are you?

I hope you forgot to end with a smile?

 

[Pogo]

Problem? If enjoying beauty was all there was to it, it wouldn't be worth it . Anyone can enjoy beauty without any effort at all. It's the hidden beauty people miss, and don't care that much about. Not just a passing chemistry.

Spiritual paths are knowable. It's from the inside out, not outside in.

And you know I don't achieve that how?

 

[Quagmire]

What about basic science?

What about it?

You know, just learning about the world around us, an impetus sparked by the curiosity and wonder most of us feel when we look at the world around us? This can be done without applying the scientific method, frankly, and that is done often as well.

Then what does it have to do with what we're talking about?

Humans learn an explore. Is that bad, now?

Gee, I don't know. I would say that in the course of a conversation if you have to turn something into something else in order to vindicate it, the question kind of answers itself.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm sorry I asked expecting a productive conversation. Sheesh.

Maybe you should try a different approach then.

 

[Quintessence]

Maybe you should try a different approach then.

What was wrong with what I said?

 

[Quagmire]

What was wrong with what I said?

A lot.

If you really want to have a 'productive conversation', you can start by going back to my last post and answering the questions I asked you.

Then you can go back to the post that you quoted and read the whole thing.

 

[Quagmire]

OK, I suppose Quagmire makes more sense to me now.

I'm not sure if you're saying that my point makes more sense or if you're saying that my choice of username makes more sense to you now


(And either way is fine)

Lol! OK. Through a glass darkly I guess.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Gee, I don't know. I would say that in the course of a conversation if you have to turn something into something else in order to vindicate it, the question kind of answers itself.

The arts do that, too -- looking at a subject from different perspectives, as the cubists, pointillists and others did, can help us to deeper understanding. Looking at light through a prism was a great help to Newton, and the work and Pierre and Marie Curie, although eventually leading to atomic weapons, also led to treatments for cancers that surgery can't manage.

So much of the good (and bad) of science comes from looking at things differently -- sometimes with microscopes, sometimes using different sources of light (which teaches how insects are led by flowers themselves to the goodies within), sometimes by asking a simple question like, "if something falls "down" where I am, what would happen on the either side of our planet?"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To add - calling something a "problem" is a subjective assessment and designation projected onto reality by a human. It is a normative judgement rather than an impartial description of that which is the case, as it declares that reality "ought" to be some way other than what it is.

With knees and all the problems they give me, I strongly disagree. There's nothing subjective about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm so sick and tired of atheist secular scientism it's just another religion.

Perhaps learning what science is and what it does along with learning what scientism is would be a good start.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Science is anti-semitic .

What?

 

[Pogo]

The problem is that if someone happens to come by some bit of knowledge that can be applied in such a way that it "improves" the human condition, inevitably someone is going to try to make money off of it and/or use it to established personal dominance. And If history is any indication they're almost always going to do so with complete disregard for the consequences.

Knowledge without wisdom is dangerous.


It isn't fraught with human ignorance, it's subject to it.

So in my opinion it's pointless to make a distinction between the tool and its application if we already know ahead of time that it will be applied, and have a fair guess as to how.

LOL, just realized you Q guys have me all confused, apologies where appropriate.