The Anti-Science Comments On A.T.S

Originally posted by 0rbital
It's true scientists don't know everything but they don't claim to do so.

It's true there are fraudsters, though that's a very small minority.

Ask yourself this, where would you be without science? Sending each other smoke signals instead of that little keyboard you have in front of you? I've seen so much scorn towards them on this site that I'm half inclined to think people speak out against scientists in general just to make themselves feel smarter or is it people just taking the benefits of science for granted?

Science has healed our sicknesses, it's allowed us to see into deep space, it's allowed us to communicate worldwide and made the earth a lot smaller by doing so. Science has benefited us endlessly.

I'm not naive, I know it's also caused misery in certain situations, but you anti-science commenters still have a lot to thank them for.

mm... you know, the problem i have with Science... is that it expresses a certain kind of Awareness.... and it is the kind of awáreness, i dont like

Science and Technic are the Tools of that awareness ; the way we interpret the world around us

and yes we can communicate worldwide [ do we really need to? ] , can see in deep space [ says who , we arent looking in some house of mirrors? ] , it healed our sicknesses [ we only supress the symptoms... ] , etc

- i m really not that happy with 'science'
since it had a Price : our Soul.

..this was the gist of Goethes analogy of Mephistopheles :
Technic, in the form of the devil, trying to please and soothe the male with the 'pleasures' which Technic brings

- but Goethe lets the male to Win
so that the soul wont get imprisoned by Technic's fake world

...kind regards,

reply to post by 0rbital


some science has caused some problems that would not have existed had science had not come along. True some problems have been solved and more problems have been made in the process. Then you have to continue to use science to fix those problems and other problems are created in the process.

what happens when science cannot keep up with the problems it creates and we die??

there are some things in science we should not mess with. sure there are benefits but the problems are unknown and could potentially lead to our demise.

Im an environmental and earth scientist, i get infuriated by societies general lack of respect for science quite frequently. Arguing with people about things ive spent years studying thats they read a 5 second news article about, implying that what i know, scientific knowledge that ahs been tried and tested, is no more valuable than the opinion they have about the idea in their head. Its just like Neil Degrasse Tyson said, the great thing about science is its right weather you believe in it or not, thats the issue, i think much of the general populace thinks science is not more valid than anyones opinion, becaus ethey lack the understanding of the scientific method. Its not entirely their fault, as science has progressed so far now that much like many other aspects of human society and culture, it has become so polished and detailed to the point where your average person lacks the tools or ability to even comprehend proper hard science in all its complexity, as it has become so specialised.

My scientific area is one of the broadest and less detailed of many of the field sciences, due to the nature of the probelms and the complexity of the systems involved, i could study for a thousand years and still only encompass a small portion of knowledge on the subject in all its intricacies

Scientific literacy is a serious problem for society, and the divide will only become greater as the scientific knowledge progresses

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by 0rbital

 

some science has caused some problems that would not have existed had science had not come along. True some problems have been solved and more problems have been made in the process. Then you have to continue to use science to fix those problems and other problems are created in the process.

what happens when science cannot keep up with the problems it creates and we die??

there are some things in science we should not mess with. sure there are benefits but the problems are unknown and could potentially lead to our demise.

edit on 21-8-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)

that comment is born out of ignorance of the relationship bewteen science and society, science is self governing and self correcting, as it is a philosophy and an idea, but it is mostly driven by funding provided by government or private interest. Funding only goes in certain directions, luckily many smaller or seemingly insignificant things are found out along the way which push other scientific disciplines in new directions. Might as well go back to the dark ages if you want to say there are some things science shouldnt mess with, why shouldnt science 'mess' with some things as you so eloquently put it?

There are many good reasons people are anti science. Opposite to your OP, scientists are generally incredibly arrogant and DO think they know everything. They do things simply because they're capable of doing them, without knowing the consequences.

Science has healed sicknesses? Hardly - I truly believe science has created more sicknesses than it's healed. Allopathic medicine is considered the "King" and is very science based, but they haven't gotten far in my opinion.

Science looks at the surface of things, figures out how to manipulate it, and then does so, completely oblivious to what goes on beneath the surface.

And my favorite: science deals only - and I mean ONLY - with physical matter. That's pretty much ALL it is. Thus in health matters, it completely divorces the illness from WHO the patient is.

Science is so arrogant, it simply assumes that there is no meaning in people's experiences. If someone claims some spiritual experience, the first thing science does is try to prove that there is "some logical explanation." Oh look, NDE experiences are just '___' being released into the brain. Oh look, we found the physical/chemical counterpart to this spiritual process, therefore it's only physical and whatever experiential process the person was going through is rendered completely meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, I love my computer, etc., etc. but science has a LONG way to go, and that would be incorporating nearly all other disciplines within to itself, which it currently is far too arrogant to do.

Originally posted by BeReasonable

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by 0rbital

 

some science has caused some problems that would not have existed had science had not come along. True some problems have been solved and more problems have been made in the process. Then you have to continue to use science to fix those problems and other problems are created in the process.

what happens when science cannot keep up with the problems it creates and we die??

there are some things in science we should not mess with. sure there are benefits but the problems are unknown and could potentially lead to our demise.

edit on 21-8-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)

that comment is born out of ignorance of the relationship bewteen science and society, science is self governing and self correcting, as it is a philosophy and an idea, but it is mostly driven by funding provided by government or private interest. Funding only goes in certain directions, luckily many smaller or seemingly insignificant things are found out along the way which push other scientific disciplines in new directions. Might as well go back to the dark ages if you want to say there are some things science shouldnt mess with, why shouldnt science 'mess' with some things as you so eloquently put it?

Because it doesn't always fully understand them before it messes with them, as has been proven about a million times in the last 200 years.

Originally posted by Lone12

Originally posted by 0rbital
It's true scientists don't know everything but they don't claim to do so.

It's true there are fraudsters, though that's a very small minority.

Ask yourself this, where would you be without science? Sending each other smoke signals instead of that little keyboard you have in front of you? I've seen so much scorn towards them on this site that I'm half inclined to think people speak out against scientists in general just to make themselves feel smarter or is it people just taking the benefits of science for granted?

Science has healed our sicknesses, it's allowed us to see into deep space, it's allowed us to communicate worldwide and made the earth a lot smaller by doing so. Science has benefited us endlessly.

I'm not naive, I know it's also caused misery in certain situations, but you anti-science commenters still have a lot to thank them for.

mm... you know, the problem i have with Science... is that it expresses a certain kind of Awareness.... and it is the kind of awáreness, i dont like

Science and Technic are the Tools of that awareness ; the way we interpret the world around us

and yes we can communicate worldwide [ do we really need to? ] , can see in deep space [ says who , we arent looking in some house of mirrors? ] , it healed our sicknesses [ we only supress the symptoms... ] , etc

- i m really not that happy with 'science'
since it had a Price : our Soul.

..this was the gist of Goethes analogy of Mephistopheles :
Technic, in the form of the devil, trying to please and soothe the male with the 'pleasures' which Technic brings

- but Goethe lets the male to Win
so that the soul wont get imprisoned by Technic's fake world

...kind regards,

But that is more about the trap of materialism/3D and exploring Platos cave but not understanding the outside of the cave.

bigthink.com...

With String theory if you believe Michio Kaku we have 11 dimensions and are with science trying to understand the 8 other dimensions based on the reflection on Platos cave wall thru mathematical formulas. There seem to be other ways to explore the 8 dimensions that are more spiritually based than the logical side. When both the spiritual creative side and the logical side is in harmony guiding understanding then the potential is greatest from my point of view.

I am myself limited on the spiritual side so I have not learned yet what others already can do. But one step at a time and I will get there. There is no need for hurrying. I have all time in creation.

Originally posted by BeReasonable

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by 0rbital

 

some science has caused some problems that would not have existed had science had not come along. True some problems have been solved and more problems have been made in the process. Then you have to continue to use science to fix those problems and other problems are created in the process.

what happens when science cannot keep up with the problems it creates and we die??

there are some things in science we should not mess with. sure there are benefits but the problems are unknown and could potentially lead to our demise.

edit on 21-8-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)

that comment is born out of ignorance of the relationship bewteen science and society, science is self governing and self correcting, as it is a philosophy and an idea, but it is mostly driven by funding provided by government or private interest. Funding only goes in certain directions, luckily many smaller or seemingly insignificant things are found out along the way which push other scientific disciplines in new directions. Might as well go back to the dark ages if you want to say there are some things science shouldnt mess with, why shouldnt science 'mess' with some things as you so eloquently put it?

Study it yes. But thinking you understand it and apply the the knowledge to early no. Humanity has a tendency to think they know more than they do and do things that effect the whole since they do not grasp the true complexity of what they are doing.

Genetically modified foods (GM foods, or biotech foods) is a perfect example on a thing that should have been studied for a 50 years and really document what happens instead of having greedy companies pushing products and hiding problems that occur to make more money. The technology is not dangerous when used with wisdom. But when used unwise like it is now it is a disaster and shows humanities suicidal tendencies as a specie, just for stupid numbers in a bank account.

reply to post by 0rbital


Very few professors do advanced research based on their "own initiative" as they are relegated to research topics given to them by the National Science Foundation (in their field of research). Mostly they are assigned "desk jobs" so-to-speak.

Real science died along time ago with the greats:
David Sarnoff, Thomas J. Hayden, Ernst Julius Berg, S. Benedict, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, A.N. Goldsmith, A. Malsin, Irving Langmuir, Albert W. Hull, E.B. Pillsbury, Saul Dushman, Richard Howland Ranger, George Ashley Campbell, John Carson, and Ernst Alexanderson.

Originally posted by thebtheb
There are many good reasons people are anti science. Opposite to your OP, scientists are generally incredibly arrogant and DO think they know everything. They do things simply because they're capable of doing them, without knowing the consequences.

Science has healed sicknesses? Hardly - I truly believe science has created more sicknesses than it's healed. Allopathic medicine is considered the "King" and is very science based, but they haven't gotten far in my opinion.

Science looks at the surface of things, figures out how to manipulate it, and then does so, completely oblivious to what goes on beneath the surface.

And my favorite: science deals only - and I mean ONLY - with physical matter. That's pretty much ALL it is. Thus in health matters, it completely divorces the illness from WHO the patient is.

Science is so arrogant, it simply assumes that there is no meaning in people's experiences. If someone claims some spiritual experience, the first thing science does is try to prove that there is "some logical explanation." Oh look, NDE experiences are just '___' being released into the brain. Oh look, we found the physical/chemical counterpart to this spiritual process, therefore it's only physical and whatever experiential process the person was going through is rendered completely meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, I love my computer, etc., etc. but science has a LONG way to go, and that would be incorporating nearly all other disciplines within to itself, which it currently is far too arrogant to do.

I will rather have people who are a little skeptical than the people who have faith in that they know what the NDE without having them themselves. That is the same arrogance that you hear from religious people saying how spiritual experiences should be based on their faith telling a person experiencing something that he/she is wrong since it is not the same as in a religious book. .

A empty cup that do not have preconceived notion of what is can easily be filled with the truth (or something near to "what is") since it does not have an ego in the way telling the mind what the truth should be.

I started to make a long post, but I figure I'll just let Tyson say it himself. His words carry more weight than mine do. From Big Think, an interview with him about science and faith.
bigthink.com...

It seems that if there's any argument it revolves around ethics and the ethical use of knowledge, rather than science itself.

Robotic, cold scientists exploding nuclear warheads upwind of populations, letting people die of easily curable disease to see what happens, brainwashing, vivisecting... etc. are signs of psychopathology, not science, and we wouldn't even have a word for those sick bastards without science.

Originally posted by rickymouse

Originally posted by benrl

"Science" Consists of multiple disciplines across many fields some more advanced than others, Some on here have moral qualms with some branches of science that are legitimate concerns.

There is however a general lack of respect to intellectualism in general, calm reasoned and logical responses get less attention than irrational ones.

But that sadly is a symptom of the times we live in.

edit on 20-8-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

My biggest gripe with science is that they have to acquire funding which causes a misinterpretation of the evidence some times. Competing for funding in science makes it more of a business venture than it does science. It is not really the scientists fault, it is the way societies are set up. I see that scientists rarely want to challenge social consensus or big businesses. That I understand, I used to hate to challenge either of those myself.

I disagree; to compete for funding gets the best out of people especially inventors (young ones at that).
Yes it may seem like a business but it gives them a target, a goal, something they know will help their ideas greatly. Simply giving scientist the money will mean the ones with the great ideas may miss out to lesser ones. Competing for fund will get the best ideas on the table always.

Originally posted by MrBotan

Originally posted by rickymouse

Originally posted by benrl

"Science" Consists of multiple disciplines across many fields some more advanced than others, Some on here have moral qualms with some branches of science that are legitimate concerns.

There is however a general lack of respect to intellectualism in general, calm reasoned and logical responses get less attention than irrational ones.

But that sadly is a symptom of the times we live in.

edit on 20-8-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

My biggest gripe with science is that they have to acquire funding which causes a misinterpretation of the evidence some times. Competing for funding in science makes it more of a business venture than it does science. It is not really the scientists fault, it is the way societies are set up. I see that scientists rarely want to challenge social consensus or big businesses. That I understand, I used to hate to challenge either of those myself.

I disagree; to compete for funding gets the best out of people especially inventors (young ones at that).
Yes it may seem like a business but it gives them a target, a goal, something they know will help their ideas greatly. Simply giving scientist the money will mean the ones with the great ideas may miss out to lesser ones. Competing for fund will get the best ideas on the table always.

That only works for money hungry or ego centered humans. The most efficient way in nature have always been symbiosis. Several different people single handed doing the same research by themselves is not as efficient as a team of open minded ego less people who have a curiosity that cannot be tamed. Money should not be an issue and that it is proves how unevolved our systems are. Mediocre administrator telling minds like Einstein what to do. What a joke.