[Mezla PigDog]

I don't see a point to scientific achievement without putting it into the context of how it affects human society as a whole (in terms of technology, economics, ethics etc). Progress for the sake of logical progress isn't worth a lot if there isn't an obvious ultimate benefit for society.

[Cougar]

Mezla PigDog;367396 said:

Progress for the sake of logical progress isn't worth a lot if there isn't an obvious ultimate benefit for society.

That's fair enough but you have to accept that in order to make world changing advances in any field you have to make incremental steps. With fields as complex as theoretical physics and mathematics the concepts are so vast, the detail so mind blowing that the amount of time it takes to make tiny advances in understanding is massively disproportionate compared to the 'real world' significance of what is being acheived, regardless of it's academic merits. I mean it's not going to be everyday that someone yanks special relativity from up their arse without making a hideously complex amount of calculations etc before. That type of thing is incalcuably rare and one could argue is the domain of genius and us mere mortals simply have to plug away and make small insignificant advances which in isolation seemingly have little or no immediate relevance beyond the discipline.

[Mezla PigDog]

Agreed. However, I see a lot of research going on without well defined objectives. It's a positive that there is industrial research taking place alongside academic research so that academics can do their thing while industrial partners steer the research in a direction that produces a commodity.

My point is that science should never get religion status because it should never transcend the society that it's trying to improve. The society in which it takes place should dictate what research is done. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any ethics governing scientists and any experiment that can be accomplished would be fair game simply because of it's feasibility. In the more theoretical world of Physics and Mathematics, that's fair enough. In the more practical experimental world of Chemistry and Biology, that would very dangerous.

[frookenhauer]

A Psychologist, a Physicist and a Mathematician are on a train to Edinburgh in Scotland. As they cross the border into scotland they look out and see a single black sheep in a field. "Look! All the sheep in scotland are black!" says the Psychologist. "No! Some of the sheep in scotland are black!" Exclaims the Physicist. The Mathematician shakes his head. "In Scotland, there exists a field, where one sheep is black.."He pauses. "On one side."

I thought religion was all about belief, whether its to a "higher power" or a set of principles or even theories based upon observation, its all the same really. Its just that some beliefs are practical.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Mezla PigDog;367577 said:

Agreed. However, I see a lot of research going on without well defined objectives. It's a positive that there is industrial research taking place alongside academic research so that academics can do their thing while industrial partners steer the research in a direction that produces a commodity.

My point is that science should never get religion status because it should never transcend the society that it's trying to improve. The society in which it takes place should dictate what research is done. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any ethics governing scientists and any experiment that can be accomplished would be fair game simply because of it's feasibility. In the more theoretical world of Physics and Mathematics, that's fair enough. In the more practical experimental world of Chemistry and Biology, that would very dangerous.

I feel like this is a very paranoid, anti-intellectual view of science. Science as a pursuit crosses borders of nationality and language. Most of the research done for corporations and industry are more on the engineering side. But the engineers require the influx of new theory and materials produced by "dangerous" unregulated researchers in order to innovate.

I must humbly and apologetically disagree. IN GENERAL Science should be the unshackled exploratory field that allows it to function best. The scientists must follow the civil laws, and its taboos against murder, negligence, and atrocity, but they should not be subject to specific direction by the populace. My rant about energy policy aside, this is my belief.

[Mezla PigDog]

I agree, in an ideal world. However, this isn’t an ideal world and the people that fund research need to see a product at the end of the line. Plain old capitalism. I’m coming from the perspective of medical research where funders (government funded research councils, charities and grants from multi-national pharmaceutical/bio-tech companies) need to see progress resulting in reduced mortality/morbidity (in the short and the long term). Theoretical science should be (and is) completely unfettered but then you have the issue of attracting funding.

Additionally, scientific progress redefines the boundaries in which scientists need to operate. Stem cell research, animal testing, GM products and developmental biology (to name a few) push the boundaries of what defines humanity. Legislation then needs to be changed and that can’t happen without dialogue with a multitude of disciplines (and rightly so). Science for the sake of science IS a dangerous thing. Look at the experiments performed by the Nazi’s during WWII (it’s an extreme case but a perfect example of science without ethical considerations). Just because you can, it doesn’t mean you should.

Personally, I’m all for most of the disciplines that are currently the hotbed of ethical debate. However, I think that the dialogue that has to be established to allow for changes in legislation is a necessary thing and THAT is what must be dictated by the society in which scientific research takes place. If science ever rises above this (to religion status where religious belief dictates direction), it becomes detached from it’s purpose which is to improve the global standard of living.

On a daily basis, a lot of laboratories in my field have two lines of research. One that attracts the big money in terms of producing something tangible in a real time frame and then crazy little projects that are “blue sky� research. I know which ones I find more interesting but at the end of the day, in reality scientists are bound to the share holders and tax payers, the same as everyone else.

[RodeoRanch]

If science is a religion then I demand carpentry and plumbing be treated as such also.

[caladanbrood]

Adjutant Stormy;367195 said:

But seriously, most people see science and religion at odds in one of two places: biology (through evolution)

Even this don't really clash, unless people make the rather ignorant mistake of mixing up "religion" with creationism, which is merely a tiny but very vocal minority in the US.

As for universal origins, the only difference is "god made it happen" or "it happened from nothing" - both of which translate to "we don't know"...

[HoosierDaddy]

caladanbrood;367733 said:

Even this don't really clash, unless people make the rather ignorant mistake of mixing up "religion" with creationism, which is merely a tiny but very vocal minority in the US.

Sadly enough, I think there are a lot more of these people than you think. There are over 10,000 members to this stupid thing, let alone morons who believe it. Nearly 500,000 people have visited. That's enough to overthrow a small european nation!

[caladanbrood]

So out of 304million people who live in the US, less than a third of a percent have visited. Impressive, eh? Considering Creationism barely even exists as an idea outside the US... well, the percentage shrinks somewhat more, doesn't it;)

[Slum]

HoosierDaddy;367753 said:

Sadly enough, I think there are a lot more of these people than you think. There are over 10,000 members to this stupid thing, let alone morons who believe it. Nearly 500,000 people have visited. That's enough to overthrow a small european nation!

I could probably overthrow a small European nation with a pocket watch, a stick of gum, a pen cap full of C-4, and a telephone book... and, of course, a diabolical midget.

But that's just me.

[HoosierDaddy]

caladanbrood;367772 said:

So out of 304million people who live in the US, less than a third of a percent have visited. Impressive, eh? Considering Creationism barely even exists as an idea outside the US... well, the percentage shrinks somewhat more, doesn't it;)

When that small percentage represents just a portion of the people who believe it, it's more than just a smidgeon of people. I was using that number as a representative figure of the overall number. I'm telling you, it is bigger than you think, here. Does it matter that it isn't popular overseas? No. It's enough to get some people to vote in certain ways, so it affects the world.

[caladanbrood]

It affects your world, possibly...

I think we're getting somewhat off topic here, however.

[HoosierDaddy]

You are probably right, I sometimes get confused between this thread and the Cre v. Ev thread.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Yeah, a bit off track with the creationism argunment...but come to think of it, it's kind of a weird case where they are trying to make a part of religion into a science. Somewhat related...and it deserves further thought I think. If you can convert part of a religious belief convincingly into a science, then maybe the opposite (and the subject of this thread) is possible too...hmm.

Mezla PigDog;367694 said:

I agree, in an ideal world. However, this isn’t an ideal world and the people that fund research need to see a product at the end of the line. Plain old capitalism. I’m coming from the perspective of medical research where funders (government funded research councils, charities and grants from multi-national pharmaceutical/bio-tech companies) need to see progress resulting in reduced mortality/morbidity (in the short and the long term). Theoretical science should be (and is) completely unfettered but then you have the issue of attracting funding.

Additionally, scientific progress redefines the boundaries in which scientists need to operate. Stem cell research, animal testing, GM products and developmental biology (to name a few) push the boundaries of what defines humanity. Legislation then needs to be changed and that can’t happen without dialogue with a multitude of disciplines (and rightly so). Science for the sake of science IS a dangerous thing. Look at the experiments performed by the Nazi’s during WWII (it’s an extreme case but a perfect example of science without ethical considerations). Just because you can, it doesn’t mean you should.

Personally, I’m all for most of the disciplines that are currently the hotbed of ethical debate. However, I think that the dialogue that has to be established to allow for changes in legislation is a necessary thing and THAT is what must be dictated by the society in which scientific research takes place. If science ever rises above this (to religion status where religious belief dictates direction), it becomes detached from it’s purpose which is to improve the global standard of living.

On a daily basis, a lot of laboratories in my field have two lines of research. One that attracts the big money in terms of producing something tangible in a real time frame and then crazy little projects that are “blue sky” research. I know which ones I find more interesting but at the end of the day, in reality scientists are bound to the share holders and tax payers, the same as everyone else.

oooh...so close to goodwin'd it hurts. The nazis were a valid example here though

I'm getting that money is the major roadblock in this science-ology thing. Science for the sake of science is unprofitable and therefore isn't going to be widely practiced. Somewhat like environmentalism. Environmentalism for the sake of the environment is something practiced largely by extremist groups (sea shepherd society, greenpeace, etc...) but large corporations aren't in on it unless they're legislated to do so of if they can turn a profit off it. I get what you're saying.

Do you think though, that this attitude could change? It would be largely a matter of changing public opinion I think. If you could somehow elevate Marie Curie, Nikola Tesla or Stephen Hawking to the level of fame of somebody like Ronaldinio (sp?) or Lance Armstrong...would not the company employing such a scientist be more apt to let him roam further with his/her wild experiments?

Elvating scientific achievement to the level of athletic achievement. It's a challenge fit only for mass television media...and not entirely foolish IMO. At the end of the day, isn't discovering penecillin or the cure for AIDS really much more important than kicking a goal or winning a race? Science doesn't sell on TV because somehow though, humans don't give a shit about stuff like that. There's no emotional attachment to scientific discovery or hero status accorded to the folks making the discoveries. If you asked the average person on the street (in Canada) who Wayne Gretzky is, they'd be able to tell you his rookie stats from memory. If you asked that same person who Frederick Banting is they'd have no idea, even though discovering and refining insulin is massively superior to being good at hockey.

Coming back to science being restricted by cashflow. If scientists were publicised as heavily as athletes, would people give a shit and start demanding more free-range scientific exploration...or at least create an environment where a company generates positive PR for allowing their scientists to roam? IMO it could. Look what happened with "an inconvenient truth"...regardless of the video's contents and the veracity of the arguments presented therein (an argument for another thread), the video has created a mass demonization of gaseous carbon emission. In Canada, carbon emission is expected to be the major platform of the next election cycle. It was always a backburner issue before, but with carbon being so evil nowadays, politicians can't ignore it. Another example is drunk driving. Through ad campaigns alone, the attitude toward drunk driving has gone from "commonplace college activity" to "next best thing to murder". The media is powerful and would need to be on science-ology's side in this for sure.

So it's doubtful that science-ology could spontaneously appear in today's economic and political climate, but if you could shift people's attitudes and elevate the scientists through publicity, I think the idea could sell.

[Terez]

Isn't "science-ology" kinda redundant?

[cerveza_fiesta]

not exactly discussing the name here, but yer right.

[Gust Hubb]

Ok, I really am sad to missed this debate too!!!

First off all, I would like to posit that science is based on observations and interpretations made by people using their organic fallible senses. This is going to take a trip to the Matrix and maybe a little WIFOM, and Descartes, but we make subjective calls in everything we do. I think that science is an admirable superstructure designed to categorize, analyze, and interpret data acquired under predefined parameters, but in the end, the input and output for the results is human (and yes, even though computers can do data analysis without the intervention of human hands, human hands made the computer.

So, having a career in science, I have to lean on certain tenets to understand my world. I have to trust that everyone is seeing red in all the same places and that the smell of anchovies is reproducible among the general populace. Even more extreme, I have to trust that all the rest of you are real!!! Hell, don't forget there are multiple states and disorders that allow one to see, hear, etc what is technically not there.

As a result, I feel that in many ways, the cold objectivity of science is in part hubris. Assuming that just because we follow a set of rules determines truth is foolish to ignore. I'm not saying chuck everything we've learned as garbage, but I think in many ways, just like religion, science is limiting. Peer review? HA!!! There is an ungodly amount of politicking in that inscrutable process. Reproducibility? How many times do we have to repeat this before it starts acting like we want it too? Anybody can argue against this or that? Right.... Have you tried challenging an idea cited by and spawning 200+ other scientific articles (did I hear suicide?)

So, as with everything, I believe that we just have to accept things by faith tempered by a dangerously inquisitive mind. The danger is when blind belief or overconfidence rules the day.

Science is a religion friends.

[Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast]

[worry]

You have to realize...most of the posters in this thread were killed in a horrible accident, and it's a sore spot with the board survivors from that time. Bumping these threads just pulls off the scab.