Read the second part of the science fiction novel A Canticle for Leibowitz (Fiat Lux) by Walter M. Miller, Jr., which illustrates the critical necessity of science and faith working in tandem, and the terrible consequences for Humanity when they fail to do so.
The challenge is to identify the problems. Poverty, war, famine, disaster, climate, weather, unemployment, disease, crop failures may not be the problems at all. They may only be symptoms. Science can identify and even design the chemical to eradicate a pest that is destroying a crop. But science cannot motivate people to fund and implement the solution nor resolve the disputes between those who support the solution or mistrust it and block it. Man's problems tend to be more complex than resolving the mechanics of the physical world. Science is a helpful tool but Scientism is not up to the task of solving the underlying problems.
John Moore said... I would say that doing science is the solution to man's problems. It's not the product that matters, but the procedure.
that just confirms what I've always said about reductionist. Scientism Just saw off everything in realty tat I don't control take my little thing that I know and use that as all there is.
so you would leave humanity without answers for meaning,truth,or morality and just force everything into the mold that you know.
why does the procedure matter if the product doesn't matter? why is religion not a better procedure if the truth of it is not an issue? religion makes you happier.
oozzielionel said... The challenge is to identify the problems. Poverty, war, famine, disaster, climate, weather, unemployment, disease, crop failures may not be the problems at all. They may only be symptoms. Science can identify and even design the chemical to eradicate a pest that is destroying a crop. But science cannot motivate people to fund and implement the solution nor resolve the disputes between those who support the solution or mistrust it and block it. Man's problems tend to be more complex than resolving the mechanics of the physical world. Science is a helpful tool but Scientism is not up to the task of solving the underlying problems.
Excellent poi t but not only does it not motivate but it also can't prove what our value should be. Or maybe that;s what you meant by motivate? Without meaning or depth of being there's no point to abhorring war and poverty. Science can't prove those are bad because it can't choose a value system
i saw a thing this morning CBS news some scientists are trying to take DNA from Mammoths and make living mammoth,why? because we can of course. I say watch the movie dumb ass then report back* you get F in humanity 101.
*Ok Jurassic Park wzs with dinosaurs not Mammoths but I figure once they do one they will do the other.
I think people are giving short shrift to the Awesomeness of Science (tm). Only science deniers (and maybe Donald Trump -- but I repeat myself) deny the Glorious Awesomeness of Science (tm).
(1) with the great technological advances we are now in a position to finish off human race.
(2) with no human race there are are no human problems.
(3) ergo Science can end all human problems.
So it is obvious that the answer to OP's question is yes. I ****in' love Science.
I think anyone that does not trust the Sheer, Pure Awesomeness of Science (tm) is a stinky poo-poo head.
Now if you will excuse me, I am going to do something more useful and watch a Bill Nye video.
I guess man is man's biggest problem, and science isn't going to fix it any time soon, except in grod's sense. Those weapons were developed in deterrence of a political ideology that emerged from the humanities.
Afterthought: By their very nature the humanities have nothing like falsification to keep them earthbound. In consequence they are plagued by fashions. How many isms have we seen in the humanities in the last half-century? It’s only free and open discussion that constrains them. And this is now in danger from the political monoculture that afflicts humanities departments and from deliberate attempts to shut down debate. It’s very worrying.
Afterthought: By their very nature the humanities have nothing like falsification to keep them earthbound. In consequence they are plagued by fashions. How many isms have we seen in the humanities in the last half-century? It’s only free and open discussion that constrains them. And this is now in danger from the political monoculture that afflicts humanities departments and from deliberate attempts to shut down debate. It’s very worrying.
Most of the humanities don't need the same kind of verification/falsification as we find in science, but they have a built in version in that self expression can fail to ring true,in bad performance or sloppy writing and so on.
Paul Tillich did have a concept he used in his theology called correlation which did ue verification and falsification. I really think you are trying to turn everything into science,
We can travel at great speeds all over the globe, but since nowadays every place looks like every other one, why bother going anywhere?
We have all information at our fingertips with the internet, but no one knows how to tell truth from lies anymore.
Medicine and hygiene may have added years to our lives, but not one scintilla of added meaning.
We've walked on the Moon and explored robotically the furthest reaches of the Solar System, but that Big Ol' Moon has lost more than a bit of its summertime magic, and the stars can't even be seen anymore in the glare of city lights.
We've eradicated disease after disease while simultaneously devising ever more efficient (and fiendish) ways to commit mass murder.
Modern engineering has enabled us to erect structures that rival the Tower of Babel, yet they have all the style and "beauty" of a box of Kleenex. (I am certain that the people of Shinar had better taste than our contemporary architects.)
Books can now be printed faster and in better quality than ever before, and can now be published even privately... but no one reads anything nowadays.
And all this without even touching upon global deforestation, desertification, pollution, climate change, overpopulation, loss of wilderness, coral bleaching, melting of the icecaps, rising rates of species extinction (balanced against indoor plumbing, air conditioning, dentistry, eyeglasses, and recorded music.. ahh!).
Here is a marvelous article which more than touches on the subject of this conversation.
Note the line, "I worry that some people may be expecting science to deliver more than it can promise." Or "there are not two different kinds of truth, one for science and another for religion. But there are two kinds of questions." (The 2 paragraphs that follow that line are especially rewarding.)
And not really on-topic, but still well worth pondering is this: "Scientists do, indeed, speak in metaphors. We have to. Even the word “particle” is a misnomer. A boson or fermion is nothing at all like a tiny speck of stuff that you could see in a microscope. It is an entity that can only be described in terms of the mathematics that it appears to follow; and even the maths are a metaphor for the reality they are trying to describe. People who look for “literal” truth in the Bible would be well advised to remember that materialistic science itself is not meant to be taken “literally.” You can’t do justice to any deep truth, be it love or beauty or subatomic particles or God, with mere human language. You can only invoke a meaning through images that, if well chosen, might shadow the shape of reality in your mind."
19 comments:
I would say that doing science is the solution to man's problems. It's not the product that matters, but the procedure.
Doing science is equally adept at facilitating bad things.
Is eating food the way to avoid starving? May I point out that eating too much leads to obesity.
Read the second part of the science fiction novel A Canticle for Leibowitz (Fiat Lux) by Walter M. Miller, Jr., which illustrates the critical necessity of science and faith working in tandem, and the terrible consequences for Humanity when they fail to do so.
The challenge is to identify the problems. Poverty, war, famine, disaster, climate, weather, unemployment, disease, crop failures may not be the problems at all. They may only be symptoms. Science can identify and even design the chemical to eradicate a pest that is destroying a crop. But science cannot motivate people to fund and implement the solution nor resolve the disputes between those who support the solution or mistrust it and block it. Man's problems tend to be more complex than resolving the mechanics of the physical world. Science is a helpful tool but Scientism is not up to the task of solving the underlying problems.
John Moore said...
I would say that doing science is the solution to man's problems. It's not the product that matters, but the procedure.
that just confirms what I've always said about reductionist. Scientism Just saw off everything in realty tat I don't control take my little thing that I know and use that as all there is.
so you would leave humanity without answers for meaning,truth,or morality and just force everything into the mold that you know.
why does the procedure matter if the product doesn't matter? why is religion not a better procedure if the truth of it is not an issue? religion makes you happier.
oozzielionel said...
The challenge is to identify the problems. Poverty, war, famine, disaster, climate, weather, unemployment, disease, crop failures may not be the problems at all. They may only be symptoms. Science can identify and even design the chemical to eradicate a pest that is destroying a crop. But science cannot motivate people to fund and implement the solution nor resolve the disputes between those who support the solution or mistrust it and block it. Man's problems tend to be more complex than resolving the mechanics of the physical world. Science is a helpful tool but Scientism is not up to the task of solving the underlying problems.
Excellent poi t but not only does it not motivate but it also can't prove what our value should be. Or maybe that;s what you meant by motivate? Without meaning or depth of being there's no point to abhorring war and poverty. Science can't prove those are bad because it can't choose a value system
i saw a thing this morning CBS news some scientists are trying to take DNA from Mammoths and make living mammoth,why? because we can of course. I say watch the movie dumb ass then report back* you get F in humanity 101.
*Ok Jurassic Park wzs with dinosaurs not Mammoths but I figure once they do one they will do the other.
A colleague of mine at ASU West has the following on her door:
Science can tell you how to clone a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Humanities can tell you why that isn't such a good idea.
here is teh opening argunet I make in y debate iwth Bradley Bowen o Secular Outpost on thie existence of God
Metacrock's blog
I think people are giving short shrift to the Awesomeness of Science (tm). Only science deniers (and maybe Donald Trump -- but I repeat myself) deny the Glorious Awesomeness of Science (tm).
(1) with the great technological advances we are now in a position to finish off human race.
(2) with no human race there are are no human problems.
(3) ergo Science can end all human problems.
So it is obvious that the answer to OP's question is yes. I ****in' love Science.
I think anyone that does not trust the Sheer, Pure Awesomeness of Science (tm) is a stinky poo-poo head.
Now if you will excuse me, I am going to do something more useful and watch a Bill Nye video.
well said
I guess man is man's biggest problem, and science isn't going to fix it any time soon, except in grod's sense. Those weapons were developed in deterrence of a political ideology that emerged from the humanities.
Afterthought: By their very nature the humanities have nothing like falsification to keep them earthbound. In consequence they are plagued by fashions. How many isms have we seen in the humanities in the last half-century? It’s only free and open discussion that constrains them. And this is now in danger from the political monoculture that afflicts humanities departments and from deliberate attempts to shut down debate. It’s very worrying.
Afterthought: By their very nature the humanities have nothing like falsification to keep them earthbound. In consequence they are plagued by fashions. How many isms have we seen in the humanities in the last half-century? It’s only free and open discussion that constrains them. And this is now in danger from the political monoculture that afflicts humanities departments and from deliberate attempts to shut down debate. It’s very worrying.
Most of the humanities don't need the same kind of verification/falsification as we find in science, but they have a built in version in that self expression can fail to ring true,in bad performance or sloppy writing and so on.
Paul Tillich did have a concept he used in his theology called correlation which did ue verification and falsification. I really think you are trying to turn everything into science,
Metacrock's blog:
discussion we on know God is love
Ultimately, I think "science" is a giant neutral.
We can travel at great speeds all over the globe, but since nowadays every place looks like every other one, why bother going anywhere?
We have all information at our fingertips with the internet, but no one knows how to tell truth from lies anymore.
Medicine and hygiene may have added years to our lives, but not one scintilla of added meaning.
We've walked on the Moon and explored robotically the furthest reaches of the Solar System, but that Big Ol' Moon has lost more than a bit of its summertime magic, and the stars can't even be seen anymore in the glare of city lights.
We've eradicated disease after disease while simultaneously devising ever more efficient (and fiendish) ways to commit mass murder.
Modern engineering has enabled us to erect structures that rival the Tower of Babel, yet they have all the style and "beauty" of a box of Kleenex. (I am certain that the people of Shinar had better taste than our contemporary architects.)
Books can now be printed faster and in better quality than ever before, and can now be published even privately... but no one reads anything nowadays.
And all this without even touching upon global deforestation, desertification, pollution, climate change, overpopulation, loss of wilderness, coral bleaching, melting of the icecaps, rising rates of species extinction (balanced against indoor plumbing, air conditioning, dentistry, eyeglasses, and recorded music.. ahh!).
Here is a marvelous article which more than touches on the subject of this conversation.
Note the line, "I worry that some people may be expecting science to deliver more than it can promise." Or "there are not two different kinds of truth, one for science and another for religion. But there are two kinds of questions." (The 2 paragraphs that follow that line are especially rewarding.)
And not really on-topic, but still well worth pondering is this: "Scientists do, indeed, speak in metaphors. We have to. Even the word “particle” is a misnomer. A boson or fermion is nothing at all like a tiny speck of stuff that you could see in a microscope. It is an entity that can only be described in terms of the mathematics that it appears to follow; and even the maths are a metaphor for the reality they are trying to describe. People who look for “literal” truth in the Bible would be well advised to remember that materialistic science itself is not meant to be taken “literally.” You can’t do justice to any deep truth, be it love or beauty or subatomic particles or God, with mere human language. You can only invoke a meaning through images that, if well chosen, might shadow the shape of reality in your mind."
Nope. Science can't fix a rebellious and deceitful heart, and that's mankind's biggest problem. If science is our only hope then we're doomed.
Post a Comment