Whither Goest Thou, O Science!

[savagewind]

of? LOL

 

[savagewind]

Or, more to the point: Whither is science taking us? And is it somehow fated to take us there?

Science will take The World in a thousand different directions. Fated; nothing can be done to avoid or change any of them. Except, of course, science?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Sunstone

Where is science taking us? To greater comfort, convenience, less pain, and longevity. Science has give us tech, which means less labor and more leisure time not to mention just plain fun. Think of washer machines -- imagine how much grueling time and labor is saved. Second, science has given us modern medicine, which means we suffer less and we live longer. Think of how many women used to die in childbirth. Think of how smallpox used to plague the world. Think of life before anesthesia. Who wants to go back to a time where treatment was leeches?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So far as I've been told, we mostly owe the Victorians for the notion that society, in alliance with the sciences, is fated to evolve or progress towards a future characterized by (among other things) rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing.

Now, it is sometimes said that the Victorians were merely borrowing their notion of progress from Christianity. Specifically, the Christian idea that the world is evolving or progressing towards a post-Apocalyptic Golden Age of humanity. However, mythologist such as Mircea Eliade and others have long pointed out that the notion humanity is progressing towards a Golden Age is quite widespread, usually has nothing to do with Christianity, and apparently dates back to time immemorial.

Indeed, I am of the opinion that the concept of progress is deeply rooted in us -- encoded somehow in our DNA. Perhaps my main reason for thinking progress is an inherent concept is because it is a key and essential component of narratives, and narratives are ubiquitous to humans. That is, we are a story-telling animal. Everywhere on earth, regardless of the local culture and customs, we are a story-telling animal. How best to explain that fact than to at least suspect story-telling is rooted in our genes?

Yet, if story-telling or narrative is rooted in our genes, then so is -- in one form or another -- the concept of progress, for without some kind of progression, there is no such thing as a story. All you would have are a string of facts or events.

Hence, when we speak of 'the Victorian Concept of Progress', we must be careful to understand that the Victorians did not actually invent the notion of progress, nor did the Christians before them, but rather, they cast or shaped the concept in a more or less uniquely Victorian way by (1) conceiving of science as force driving progress and (2) by conceiving of the outcome of progress as a future characterized by (among other things) rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing.

Now, it does not take a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to know what's 'iffy' about the Victorian notion. Namely science -- and those things associated with science (e.g. rationality) -- do not necessitate, do not guarantee a future of rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing. Indeed, they seem capable of leading to quite the opposite! Just imagine science yoked to an Orwellian state and making possible unimaginably effective technologies of oppression! Such is actually within the realm of possibility.

But here's the tricky part: Some people appear to have simply flipped the coin. Instead of saying science guarantees a rosy future, they say science guarantees a nightmare future.

So, is there any more merit to the later view than there is to the former? Or, more to the point: Whither is science taking us? And is it somehow fated to take us there?

I think that either outcome could occur depending on how we decide to go with it. We have already seen both sides of this in many ways. The advancements made in medicine, hygiene, agriculture, mechanization and electronics technology often occurred side by side with advances in various weapons technologies, surveillance technology and the many sides of information capture and utilization. Some very useful and practical applications of technology discovered for military purposes has found a home in our homes for more benign uses. That microwave oven we all heat our coffee or soup in was the result of scientific advances and military applications to radar development.

It is how science and the resulting technology is managed and used that seems to be important in determining how we progress. Or if we do. I am with those that see science as a tool that can be used well and wisely or poorly. I would say that this could be applied to information and its uses as well, as we enter into the "great information age".

 

[Sunstone]

I think that either outcome could occur depending on how we decide to go with it. We have already seen both sides of this in many ways. The advancements made in medicine, hygiene, agriculture, mechanization and electronics technology often occurred side by side with advances in various weapons technologies, surveillance technology and the many sides of information capture and utilization. Some very useful and practical applications of technology discovered for military purposes has found a home in our homes for more benign uses. That microwave oven we all heat our coffee or soup in was the result of scientific advances and military applications to radar development.

It is how science and the resulting technology is managed and used that seems to be important in determining how we progress. Or if we do. I am with those that see science as a tool that can be used well and wisely or poorly. I would say that this could be applied to information and its uses as well, as we enter into the "great information age".

Good points! I take it you're not a fan of the notion that 'progress' in one for or another (i.e. towards a good or a bad end) is inevitable.

 

[Sunstone]

Thou waxeth most verbose.

Some of it comes from being
half-asleep when I was writing.
The sleepier I am, the less
concise I am.

No one should ask me for a
bedtime story on a night I'm only
half-awake. They'll see the
dawn before they hear the
ending.

 

[Sunstone]

No. I just looked at his Wiki page and it seems we may agree. "Everything was better in the past" is the kind of nostalgia that leads to the conclusion that everything is getting worse and worse.

It's been 40 years since I studied him, but I seem to recall he was the first to point out that the 'Golden Age' lay in the past for most mythologies, but in the future for some, and in both the past and the future for Christianity.

 

[Sunstone]

@Sunstone

Where is science taking us? To greater comfort, convenience, less pain, and longevity. Science has give us tech, which means less labor and more leisure time not to mention just plain fun. Think of washer machines -- imagine how much grueling time and labor is saved. Second, science has given us modern medicine, which means we suffer less and we live longer. Think of how many women used to die in childbirth. Think of how smallpox used to plague the world. Think of life before anesthesia. Who wants to go back to a time where treatment was leeches?

Would you say that direction or trend in science is inevitable?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is a way of gaining knowledge. But, knowledge and wisdom are different things.

Knowledge tells you how you can do things. Wisdom tells you what should be done.

Knowledge is power. Wisdom is knowing how to use that power effectively.

An old saying:

Knowledge without compassion is monstrous. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective.

Part of wisdom is having compassion in your goals.

And realism and the wisdom to understand the limits of even compassion and empathy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Would you say that direction or trend in science is inevitable?

Yes

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would also say that science used for advances

Good points! I take it you're not a fan of the notion that 'progress' in one for or another (i.e. towards a good or a bad end) is inevitable.

We move forward. Whether that progress is good or bad depends on how we move. We could also stagnate or reach some form of stasis. Some people might even like that. Like the culture in Return of the Archons in the original Star Trek series. Just more of the same and the rejection of outside forces.

 

[Sunstone]

I would also say that science used for advances

We move forward. Whether that progress is good or bad depends on how we move. We could also stagnate or reach some form of stasis. Some people might even like that. Like the culture in Return of the Archons in the original Star Trek series. Just more of the same and the rejection of outside forces.

I think a whole lot of people these days feel at one time or another dislocated by the pace of change these days. What's your take on that, Dan? Do you think a backlash has been developing?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think a whole lot of people these days feel at one time or another dislocated by the pace of change these days. What's your take on that, Dan? Do you think a backlash has been developing?

I think that we are seeing the results of a backlash to scientific and technological change and not necessarily in some idyllic form of returning to pre-industrial times. But there is that too. The anti-intellectual movement that is occurring in the United States is one form taking place among more conservatively-minded populations that I do not see as a progression to some sort of golden age. That movement is sometimes directly confrontational to progress that would be, on the whole, good for society. But there are those that want to simply live off the grid and make a simpler life. Those that are seeking the latter, do not seem as confrontational and some even employ scientific and technological means to achieve their goals.

It is a fairly complex set of philosophical, political and educational factors that seem to be dividing us into factions.

Certainly, I have a bias to science, but scientists and science educators have been generally pretty poor at explaining science to the everyday man in the street. That is part of the problem too. Not only is the pace of change a lot for many people, but understanding of the science behind the changes is not being properly communicated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am currently re-reading "The trouble with science" by the British anthropologist, Robin Dunbar. He maps out some of the problems that face science as a body in the late 20th Century. And we still have them as we move into the 21st Century. A big problem he sees is the information gap between science and the lay public and how scientists are viewed.

"Neither the proverbial man-in-the-street nor many of those who avow Postmodernist views in the humanities have any real understanding of what scientists do or how science works. Science has become a form of magic practiced by an elite priesthood whose members have been subjected to a long and arduous apprenticeship in secret arts and rites from which the layman is firmly excluded."
Robin Dunbar. 1995. The trouble with science. Introduction. Page 6.

A continued and increasing effort to educate the general population about science should be a priority. Not just what scientists do and what we know from it, but what the risks of any technology can be as well as the benefits. That science and knowledge from science are not magic. That getting a vaccine for instance has risks, but letting a manageable disease run through a population is not only risky, but pure ignorance and indifference. We need the wisdom from whatever source it arises from to guide our advancing knowledge and applications to better heights or we will repeat mistakes that we have already seen governments and groups make. That seems to me to be the biggest challenge and driver of whether science is progress to good or bad.

 

[Sunstone]

Must. Have. Dunbar's. Book! Gods, that man is a genius! Ever since his 1992 paper on the social evolution of human intelligence, I've one-quarter expected him to be the next Darwin, and three-quarters expected him to take up self-destructive drinking like any properly brilliant person.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm not sure we need to imagine that.

Why, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The problem that I have with your premise is the assumption that every human being is equally rational. Does every human being have the capacity to be equally rational? Aren't, each of us, unique as snowflakes? There are physical limitations (not all brains wired the same), impacts of socialization and indoctrination as we are raised. These and many other psycho-social factors impact how we think and feel. This is one of the problems with philosophy. Not all the variables are considered in these broad philosophical questions.

Scientific methods are simply the tools we use to verify the conclusions we make about those things with right or wrong answers. Science isn't the problem as these problems of how we live together have been with us since the beginning and will be with us whether we utilize scientific methods or not.

Human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing will only come when we figure out how to reconcile or accept the wide differences inherent in the human condition. As uniform rationality is not possible, we should look elsewhere for the solution.

MikeF wrote, "Scientific methods "

One has written scientific methods in plural, isn't it singular "Scientific Method", please?

Regards

 

[Cooky]

MikeF wrote, "Scientific methods "

One has written scientific methods in plural, isn't it singular "Scientific Method", please?

Regards

I think it's like saying "maths".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Must. Have. Dunbar's. Book! Gods, that man is a genius! Ever since his 1992 paper on the social evolution of human intelligence, I've one-quarter expected him to be the next Darwin, and three-quarters expected him to take up self-destructive drinking like any properly brilliant person.

I have been downloading a bunch of his papers off Google scholar lately. He is awesome!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

MikeF wrote, "Scientific methods "

One has written scientific methods in plural, isn't it singular "Scientific Method", please?

Regards

In a general sense, it is referred to as the scientific method. In a practical sense there are many scientific methods depending on the discipline, experiment and statistical analysis. For instance, a physicist, a biologist and an anthropologist are all following the scientific method even though the specific methods they use may vary radically. For this reason, publications require a methods section so that the specific methodology is communicated and in a way that it can be repeated by someone else if they choose. Or critiqued.