Whither Goest Thou, O Science!

[Mock Turtle]

Whither Goest Thou, O Science!

Science is on the right path if it remains positively in service of humanity. Right, please?

Regards

It is on the right path if it reflects the truth.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is on the right path if it reflects the truth.

and provided it remains within its limits, out of its limits it becomes irrelevant, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Mock Turtle]

and provided it remains within its limits, out of its limits it becomes irrelevant, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Well it is always good to know one's limits but I'm not sure this applies to science - otherwise it might not have progressed as much as it has done.

 

[MikeF]

and provided it remains within its limits, out of its limits it becomes irrelevant, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Hi paarsurrey,
What limits do you imagine science is constrained by? Or perhaps a better question is to ask what subjects or areas are out of bounds for scientific inquiry?

 

[paarsurrey]

Well it is always good to know one's limits but I'm not sure this applies to science - otherwise it might not have progressed as much as it has done.

Well, it has on side of being positive and the otherside of it is very destructive and could eliminate the human race off the face of Earth together with the science and the scientists , please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, it has on side of being positive and the otherside of it is very destructive and could eliminate the human race off the face of Earth together with the science and the scientists , please. Right friend, please?

Regards

No. People are the problem, not science. People choose to do what they will with regards any science, and use it for whatever purpose suits them. Science is neutral, if it has any such voice, which of course it doesn't.

 

[paarsurrey]

No. People are the problem, not science. People choose to do what they will with regards any science, and use it for whatever purpose suits them. Science is neutral, if it has any such voice, which of course it doesn't.

So science is deaf and dumb in the hands of the politicians. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Mock Turtle]

So science is deaf and dumb in the hands of the politicians. Right, please?

Regards

Politicians stick their fingers in many pies. Still doesn't mean science is somehow corrupt, limited, or to blame for whatever happens. People are the ones who make decisions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Politicians stick their fingers in many pies. Still doesn't mean science is somehow corrupt, limited, or to blame for whatever happens. People are the ones who make decisions.

While praising science its force of destruction should also be in the focus, that also one aspect of its limits. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Mock Turtle]

While praising science its force of destruction should also be in the focus, that also one aspect of its limits. Right, please?

Regards

It's not so much praising science, more just being honest. People tend to explore the possibilities that are there, and scientists are no different, especially if they see some value in their research. And science has given us so much.

Perhaps you are thinking about the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WWII, or even just their development. Not so easy to judge why they were used when they caused so much devastation, but I don't think it was known for sure that they would work as predicted or cause so much damage - especially the radiation effects. The saving of lives (on both sides) if the war carried on - and the Japanese showed no signs of giving up - was undoubtedly one factor, and they didn't even capitulate until the second weapon was used. Who made the decision, and upon what grounds, I don't know, but it was probably a politician who did so.

 

[Martin]

Science can produce medicines and vaccines, but it can also produce weapons of mass destruction.
So it's a tool which can be used for good or ill.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science can produce medicines and vaccines, but it can also produce weapons of mass destruction.
So it's a tool which can be used for good or ill.

We can't be sure if Science is more destructive or more constructive, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Martin]

We can't be sure if Science is more destructive or more constructive, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Science is a method that humans use for finding out stuff, and indirectly for inventing things and solving problems. It's morally neutral.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is a method that humans use for finding out stuff, and indirectly for inventing things and solving problems. It's morally neutral.

If science is neutral, then who cannot say whether it is moral or immoral, it is the humans who are moral or immoral, not the tool of science. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Martin]

If science is neutral, then who cannot say whether it is moral or immoral, it is the humans who are moral or immoral, not the tool of science. Right friend, please?

Regards

Humans can be both nice and nasty, moral or immoral. That's largely a result of upbringing, in my experience.

 

[paarsurrey]

Humans can be both nice and nasty, moral or immoral. That's largely a result of upbringing, in my experience.

Well, we were discussing Science and where it is going and leading us to, please? We go with Science two steps forward, but next we may be at the zero point where we started from. Right friend, please?
Don't the Atheism people hide behind it because they can't defend Atheism on its own positively, please?

Regards