GameBanshee Forums

Science is usually defined as a specific way of gaining knowledge, a method and a way to look at things and draw conclusions, that differs a bit from everyday thinking. The definition of science has changed over time, but although definitions might vary, I think we can all look at the modern industrialised society and see the impact of scientific discoveries and inventions. We can cure many diseases that were once fatal or caused much suffering. We lead confortable lives thanks to techlogical development. Communication, infrastructure and transportation has made our world and perhaps also our minds, totally different from what it was like just a few hundred years ago.

We have also got weapons of mass destruction. Science has given us more power to exploit natural resources, and also to disrupt fundamental life processes on earth.

Science can be said to be amoral in its nature. Science cannot tell us what is wrong and what is right, nor can it provide us with answers to the many "why's" the human mind dwells in. Existential questions like "why are we here" and "what is the purpose and meaning of my life" are not possible to find answers to in science. Or are they?

So, what do you think is the purpose of science? Does knowledge has an inherent value in itself? Should science have specific aims, like humanitarian, moral, financial or other goals? Should science have limits? Should all knowledge and technology be available to everyone? Who should have control over scientific techniques and discoveries?

Your thoughs, please!

I beleive science is what we, as humans, do to alleviate certain aspects of our lives. those who arent that inclined towards religion, often travel towards science, and the same for the opposite. I also believe it is something we do to try and leave a mark as human beings on this world, and on a greater scale, this galaxy. The minor advancements, coupled with the major ones are something that we find thrilling, and miraculous, and it gives people a purpose. Science can be compared to gaming, writing, or composing as something people do to make themselves feel better, and feel as if they are doing something with their life, and not just wasting it.

Hmmmm. Good question. I will need to think on it. However, the first thing that pops into my mind concerns objectivity. Science must remain objective above all else. While scientists are not necessarily objective themselves, the science they do must be. This means that hypotheses must be testable and results repeatable. One group of scientists may think that they have found cold fusion, but if no one else can replicate the experiment, then one must suspect the objectivity and validity of the original group of scientists.

Also, you say that science is amoral[/]i, and this is true in so far as the word implies a moral neutrality. It is not guided by morality (that would hinder objectivity), rather, it is guided by questions. The morality of some questions may be questioned, and it is not always the scientists themselves who are asking the questions. The invention of massively destructive weapons can result from scientists objectively and neutrally answering very unfortunate questions that were posed by someone else.

Originally posted by Aegis
those who arent that inclined towards religion, often travel towards science, and the same for the opposite.

And then there are those like me who have a profound interest in both science and religion.

Unlike a lot of people, I do not view science and religion as opposite ends of a spectrum. There is unity in the two that many people don't see.

IMO, Science is a way to satisfy the curiosity that God gave us, our desire to learn. Some "religious" people may think that we need not ask how something happens, only that it happens. My intense curiosity tells me otherwise. Some science people believe we need not have faith that something happens; they believe that we should try to find out how it happens. My faith in God tells me otherwise.

Science is a way to learn about the intricacies of the creation of God.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
Unlike a lot of people, I do not view science and religion as opposite ends of a spectrum. There is unity in the two that many people don't see.

I agree with this, and I think you understand me completly with what I am saying. For a lot of people, there are just two radicals, no median, and that is where the real scary sh*t happens. That is when holy wars are declared, and the peasant folk get mean. Because people are unwilling to to accomdate to the other, violence ensues. The true meaning and purpose of science is then lost, and it's all for "the greater good". Tell me this, though. What is the greater good? In my experiance, the greater good would be trying to find ways to end suffering, and that can be acheived both through science and relgion (Though I prefer science, but thats another matter), but people tend to forget this in a thing I like to call "Small townmindedness", because it is always the smaller, more isolated towns that begin the trouble. Anyway, I feel I'm opening a large can of worms here, so I'll stop now, and see where this leads.

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
Also, you say that science is amoral, and this is true in so far as the word implies a moral neutrality. It is not guided by morality (that would hinder objectivity), rather, it is guided by questions. The morality of some questions may be questioned, and it is not always the scientists themselves who are asking the questions. The invention of massively destructive weapons can result from scientists objectively and neutrally answering very unfortunate questions that were posed by someone else.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean by a-moral, as opposed to im-moral.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
Unlike a lot of people, I do not view science and religion as opposite ends of a spectrum. There is unity in the two that many people don't see.

There is no continuum between science and religion. They are two different and separate things!

Originally posted by Gwalchmai


There is no continuum between science and religion. They are two different and separate things!

In a sense this is true, but what about Scientology? It's a relgion, but it's one that bases everything on hard fact, and doesn't involve faith in a book, or events that passed thousands of years ago.

So there are more like me

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn


And then there are those like me who have a profound interest in both science and religion.

Unlike a lot of people, I do not view science and religion as opposite ends of a spectrum. There is unity in the two that many people don't see.

IMO, Science is a way to satisfy the curiosity that God gave us, our desire to learn. Some "religious" people may think that we need not ask how something happens, only that it happens. My intense curiosity tells me otherwise. Some science people believe we need not have faith that something happens; they believe that we should try to find out how it happens. My faith in God tells me otherwise.

Science is a way to learn about the intricacies of the creation of God.

*So perhaps I'm not as strange as I thought, ohh who am I kidding. Yes I am*

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
There is no continuum between science and religion. They are two different and separate things!

If you keep going in the direction of science, you'll come around into religion(i.e., Scientology). If you keep going in the direction of religioin, you'll come around into 'science'(i.e. Viewing the Bible as the only true source of scientific knowledge(I've known people who thought this)). In other words, if you go too extreme into science, it becomes your religion. If you go too extreme into religion, it becomes your science. The fact that going far enough in one wraps around to the other shows that science and religion are not two different and seperate things.

Hmm. Just a few thoughts for now, I may come back later to take issue [nicely ] with the link between science and religion [scientology?!?!] that Sailor Saturn posits.

Science it not the technology, it is not the weapons, nor the more peaceful discoveries. It is a process. A way of investigating the world we live in. At it’s best it is constantly evolving and self correcting, and it is what gives us the clearest window into the way our complex universe works.

You can have science without the technology, pure knowledge, but the reverse would be ludicrously difficult. So is it technology we are supposed to decry? I see bemoaning science as akin to hating the truth.

Agreed

Originally posted by Gwalchmai


There is no continuum between science and religion. They are two different and separate things!

I have to agree with Gwalchmai, though I have no wish to offend. I have always been told (I was raised Lutheran, but am an atheist now) that a fundamental requisite of religion is faith, and I do not believe that faith has any place in science. (My definition of faith here being: believing in something though you have no objective reason for doing so.) In this respect, I see religion and science as diametrically opposed. I would question, however, the statement (made by Aegis) that people tend towards one idea or another. In the physics department (and in the engineering department, for that matter) at my university, nearly everyone believes in God. This, IMHO, is simply an indication that people have the ability to apply two different standards to two different aspects of their lives: on the one hand applying critical and objective standards to their scientific research; while on the other hand simply having faith in a God for which they have no proof - uh-oh! I don't want to get into that discussion ...

Anyway, to get back to C Elegen's question(s): No, "science" has no inherent value. All values must be tied to someone who is able to evaluate (i.e. humans). Thus all science should have the purpose of somehow furthering either an individual or some greather number of people.

The "aims," then, of science should be based on the inclinations of the individual doing the research. If people have the funds and the interest to study something which will somehow benfit all humanity - fine. If an individual wishes to research something entirely without benefit to anyone but themselves - fine.

"Should science have limits?" No, not unless the universe does. This question, I assume, relates back to the idea of "dangerous" science. The mere fact of understanding never hurt anyone - only when understanding of the world is made into real (and possibly dangerous) objects does a danger occur. The first respsonsibility of any scientist is to understand the risks of what he studies should the knowledge become diffused into the world. While American scientists worked on the atomic bomb, it was their duty to foresee the danger that they were creating. If they chose to ignore that danger, they are nevertheless morally culpable for the creation of atomic weapons. This relates to the last question regarding the "hoarding" of knowledge.

I believe, again, that the individual scientists are respsonsible for their findings. If they turn their findings over to a corporation, or a government, and then later find that that entity has given the knowledge off to a third party, it is still the scientist that is respsonsible for any evil that may then occur. Thus, I do not believe that science and knowledge should simply be given away, because one never knows where it might end up. Need I bring up the subject of terrorism?

Thanks for a fun subject. It has been a while since I have had the chance to really Comm.

Originally posted by der Moench
I have to agree with Gwalchmai, though I have no wish to offend. I have always been told (I was raised Lutheran, but am an atheist now) that a fundamental requisite of religion is faith, and I do not believe that faith has any place in science. (My definition of faith here being: believing in something though you have no objective reason for doing so.) In this respect, I see religion and science as diametrically opposed. I would question, however, the statement (made by Aegis) that people tend towards one idea or another. In the physics department (and in the engineering department, for that matter) at my university, nearly everyone believes in God. This, IMHO, is simply an indication that people have the ability to apply two different standards to two different aspects of their lives: on the one hand applying critical and objective standards to their scientific research; while on the other hand simply having faith in a God for which they have no proof - uh-oh! I don't want to get into that discussion ...

Let me start by saying I love your font color, der Moench. Chocolate is always good.

Now, onto what you were saying. Doesn't one have to have faith to believe something is true? How do you believe that science is true without "having faith in the validity of science"? Just as one is able to believe God doesn't exist, one is able to believe that science is false. Whether the belief is right or wrong, everything is belief; and thus, everything must be accepted by faith or not accepted at all. Does this make any sense?

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn


Let me start by saying I love your font color, der Moench. Chocolate is always good.

Now, onto what you were saying. Doesn't one have to have faith to believe something is true? How do you believe that science is true without "having faith in the validity of science"? Just as one is able to believe God doesn't exist, one is able to believe that science is false. Whether the belief is right or wrong, everything is belief; and thus, everything must be accepted by faith or not accepted at all. Does this make any sense?

Yeah, chocolate!! Mmmmmm! *drool*

Uh, where was I? Oh, yes: you ask "How do you believe that science is true without 'having faith in the validity of science'?" Let us not confuse the term "science." I would point out that science is simply a system used to discover truth. As such, I don't know that one can speak of having "faith" in it.

Hmmm. How do I explain this ... OK. How about this: Reality exists, right? And it exists in a certain discernable manner. It is the objective of each individual scientist to discover the nature of this reality, and to quantify and categorize and come to understand this reality. If they do so objectively, they will find results which "fit" with all knowledge thus far gained, and (more importantly) which will "fit" in with reality itself - no contradictions, and no room for doubt. If their results contradict laws of nature, or contradict reality, they must abandon what they have thought to be true, and seek another explanation.

So, the way I see it, is that "science" is sorta self-checking. One can't really say "I have faith that science is true and valid," because science is simply a method of discovering truth, and reality is the final arbiter of that truth. (As an interesting aside, did you know that "truth" and "reality" were the same word in ancient Greek?)

Anyway, once this entire concept of "faith" is introduced, IMHO, you have brought a sort of wild card into the game. You are simply saying "well, I don't know about reality or truth, but I believe, or feel that such-and-such." At that point, you lose the objectivity that science requires, and you can say anything you like about reality, regardless of it's truth.

Does that make any sense? I'm afraid I'm not so very good at expressing some of these complex ideas ... philosophy ain't my strong suit.

Originally posted by der Moench
Yeah, chocolate!! Mmmmmm! *drool*

Uh, where was I? Oh, yes: you ask "How do you believe that science is true without 'having faith in the validity of science'?" Let us not confuse the term "science." I would point out that science is simply a system used to discover truth. As such, I don't know that one can speak of having "faith" in it.

Hmmm. How do I explain this ... OK. How about this: Reality exists, right? And it exists in a certain discernable manner. It is the objective of each individual scientist to discover the nature of this reality, and to quantify and categorize and come to understand this reality. If they do so objectively, they will find results which "fit" with all knowledge thus far gained, and (more importantly) which will "fit" in with reality itself - no contradictions, and no room for doubt. If their results contradict laws of nature, or contradict reality, they must abandon what they have thought to be true, and seek another explanation.

So, the way I see it, is that "science" is sorta self-checking. One can't really say "I have faith that science is true and valid," because science is simply a method of discovering truth, and reality is the final arbiter of that truth. (As an interesting aside, did you know that "truth" and "reality" were the same word in ancient Greek?)

Anyway, once this entire concept of "faith" is introduced, IMHO, you have brought a sort of wild card into the game. You are simply saying "well, I don't know about reality or truth, but I believe, or feel that such-and-such." At that point, you lose the objectivity that science requires, and you can say anything you like about reality, regardless of it's truth.

But, what is reality? Reality is what we percieve it to be. We have faith that our perceptions are right. This is similar to the "Is the glass half full or half empty?" question. To the pessimist, reality is that the glass if half empty. To the optimist, reality is that the glass is half full. Both realities are right, but they're also opposites. This analogy also fits with religion and science in showing how they are not seperate. Both are methods for discovering the truth. Science is a way to satisfy curiosity and discover the truth "on our own." Religion is a way of discovering the truth "with God's help." Both are ways of searching for truth, they are just coming from different directions. It is rather simple to come at the truth from both directions. I do not understand why so many people refuse to acknowledge this. And, in answer to my question of "Is the glass half full or half empty?" I always say "Both."

Does that make any sense? I'm afraid I'm not so very good at expressing some of these complex ideas ... philosophy ain't my strong suit.

I have trouble expressing my complex ideas in understandable ways, too. I hope that what I'm saying makes sense.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn


"Is the glass half full or half empty?" . . . To the pessimist, reality is that the glass if half empty. To the optimist, reality is that the glass is half full. . . . I always say "Both."

The actual answer is this: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Still off-topic, but ...

@Sailor Saturn:

We agree on one point: the glass is both half-empty and half-full (and twice as big as required, HLD).

But that does not mean that the reality of the glass is subjective, nor does it imply a contradiction, nor do our perceptions make reality. There are many ways of expressing a true statement, but that does not change the truth of it.

IMO reality is truth, and by percieving the world objectively, we can find truth. You say we have faith that our perceptions are right - yes, to an extent. But perception may be fooled, and it is the task of science to look more deeply than surface perceptions, and come to understand the universe as a whole, integrated, logical, and non-contradictory whole. Again, I believe that by simply stating "I have faith in such-and-such" is to short-circuit that task, and to accept something with no further thought.

It's interesting to look at why relgion frowns upon science, and why there is such a blurry line upon it. Relgion fears it, because it is teaching the masses. If you look within the bible, it depicts anything tha gains knowledge as a bad thing (IE: Eating from the tree of knowledge), and that is why it is frowned upon. The blurring line of what science actually is has become so distorted, that it is know longer the pursuit of knowledge and awareness, it is the act of those without faith. IMHO, science is something to be embraced, but then, so is religion. Few people realize this, and those who don't are the ones who start holy wars, and then caught in the middle are those who know this. I'm not saying that the ones who realize this are Atheists, because there are those of religios faith that know this, I'm just it is the fanatic people that don't see the line, and cross it time and again, all because they don't realize the beneifits of science.

Originally posted by Aegis
It's interesting to look at why relgion frowns upon science, and why there is such a blurry line upon it. Relgion fears it, because it is teaching the masses. If you look within the bible, it depicts anything tha gains knowledge as a bad thing (IE: Eating from the tree of knowledge), and that is why it is frowned upon. The blurring line of what science actually is has become so distorted, that it is know longer the pursuit of knowledge and awareness, it is the act of those without faith. IMHO, science is something to be embraced, but then, so is religion. Few people realize this, and those who don't are the ones who start holy wars, and then caught in the middle are those who know this. I'm not saying that the ones who realize this are Atheists, because there are those of religios faith that know this, I'm just it is the fanatic people that don't see the line, and cross it time and again, all because they don't realize the beneifits of science.

I agree that many religions, and this often includes Christianity(i.e. fundamentalist Southern Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church(such as the "silencing" of Galileo), etc.), have the tendancy to frown upon science because they [usually] subconciously fear that science will disprove their religious beliefs. This shows a lack of faith in the validity of their religion.

However, I do have to point out an inaccuracy in one of your statements. The Bible does not depict anything that gains knowledge as a bad thing. If that were the case, then the entire book of Revelations would have to be removed from the Bible. As for the "Eating from the tree of knowledge," you have made a grave mistake here. It may have been intentional, but I will assume that it wasn't since you don't seem like the type of person who would intentially twist facts. Adam and Eve were told to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I, personally, am not sure that there was any knowledge to be gained directly from the eating of the fruit of this tree. By eating it, they disobeyed God. They were disobedient children. They did some wrong. Wrong = Evil. As soon as they ate it, they realized that had done wrong. They then knew evil and they then knew the difference between good and evil and learned that there were consequences that came with evil. But, in a perfect world, what need is there for the knowledge of evil?

You have hit it right on the nose, though Aegis with one of the things you said. "it is the fanatic people."

When I look at fanatics, I see one of two things. Either someone who just desires to control others by whatever means necessary or someone who isn't secure in their beliefs and thus becomes afraid of anything that might discredit those beliefs to the point that the person goes extreme. My Grandma won't go into any church building other than Church of Christ, no matter what day of the week, because she is insecure about her faith and beliefs and afraid that even just going into one of these buildings might cause her to backslide and "lose her salvation."(Note: Church of Christ believe you can lose your salvation.)

@der Moench You believe that reality is truth and that truth is not subjective. You have faith that you are right.

Perceptions make our realities. To a pessimist, an entire day of good events with one bad event could easily result in that person coming to the conclusion that the reality is that the world is a cruel place, whereas the exact opposite applies to a optimist. If you percieve that the glass is half-empty, then that is your reality. That is your truth. If you percieve the glass as half-full, then that is your reality. That is your truth. See what I'm saying?