Is Science evil?

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Is science evil? I don't mean what it can be used for, I mean science itself.

I don't think so. Esp. not in the face of the alternative--fear and superstition, which, I believe, are truly evil.

I think the one thing that science and faith have in common is that both are in opposition to fear and superstition. That, if nothing else, validates science (at least partially).

you can't actually seperate scientific thought from application coz the two are interlinked.

Science can be "evil" (i.e. negative/destructive) in application. As Yoda would argue - once the historical damage has been done, the intention is immaterial.

What do you think about:
-scientists who believe in pure truth alone and care nothing for application i.e. they see themselves as living in a bubble - i.e. they see how their discoveries are used as being nothing to do with them - yet they facilitate this use.
-industrial scientists who don't check the failings of their new technologies
-"religious" scientists who believe ALL steps new creations must be steps towards god/more knowledge (please note the "religious"/spiritual scientists who are sensitive to the need to understand/appreciate the bredth of repurcussions in new discoveries before even thinking about introducing them to the world)

so the issues could be seen as:

-science that believes itself to be seperate from the messy, complicated, hard-to-breakdown nature of reality - who would like to construct a consciously understandable and controllable version.

-those in the world who would like to squeeze whatever financial or power-related profit out of any new technology - yet refuse to investigate the negatives of these new proceedures (coz they are very difficult/impossible to fully know - and coz of "artifical" time/profit pressures)

-the introduction of "novel" elements to the world which have never existed before and whose repurcussions will therefore be "novel" - and will potentially "pervert" the world. NB those which are so durable as to endure for as close to forever as it's worthwhile considering. (nuclear waste, Persistant Organic Pollutants, non-biodegradeable matter, and potentially GM - for example)


Could it be time for comic-book philosphy to enter the science-world i.e. "with great power comes great responsability". It's such a compact and reduced message - even the "let's simplify the world down to what we can perceive/manipulate" scientists might like it

Whoops - that was meant to be short

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Since when is faith/belief the opposite of superstition?

p.s. i don't think science is bad per se - good-n-bad baby - it's in everything - including us. It's telling the difference that's the problem sometimes maybe.

Well, superstition is the product of fear (invariably) whereas (genuine) faith is (partially) the product of rational thought and consideration. Thus, faith is scientific to the extent that it is based upon rational study and reflection.

Yes you can, yes I did. That's like saying you can't seperate ham and cheese.

No it's not (your analogies are geting worse and worse)

EVERYTHING has the potential for "evil" if you ask me - but the proof is in the pudding. (or in the BSE/hormonised ham or horribly tasting pasturised cheese )

Sunny - how can you seperate the intention from the effect? If a doctor intends to save someone's life, but he kills him instead, we can't blame him as such, but you still can't deny his applications of theories killed the patient. This could indeed be coz of flaws in the theories etc. In the case of medicine, where it's kill or cure - i say go for it. That doesn't mean it works in all situations. i.e. Organics are AS efficient (in fact more) efficient that GM, so why risk al the associated negatives of GM?

This is an example that works in your favour - but still you should accept there is a relationship between intention/theories and effect.

How is ham the thoery of the application-known-as-cheese???

Easy, it IS seperate!!! AAAARRRRGGGHH!!
You're either insane or you don't want to lose to a commoner but either way SCIENCE IS NOT EVIL!! Hehehe

Suppose you and I walk into a resturant and buy two ham and cheese sandwiches. You say you should be eating an organic apple instead because ham & cheese sandwiches are evil since they clog your arteries with fat and mutagens. I explain that it's only the cheese that's high in fat and you say "You can't talk about the cheese by itself, you have to talk about the whole sandwich." I continue to talk about how you could substitute low-fat cheese or leave out the mayonaise to make a healthier sandwich and you say "You can't actually seperate ham from cheese coz the two are interlinked. Ham and cheese sandwiches are evil and that's that." And I say "If you don't eat the ham and cheese sandwich it's not fattening" And you say "AHA! That's exactly what I'm trying to say, don't eat it!" And I say "Aha! So it's not the sandwich that's evil it's what you do with it! That's exactly what I've been trying to say!"

THERE IS "GOOD" AND "EVIL" IN EVERYTHING NUMB-NUT - you can't proclaim one thing as "pure good" as you're basically trying to. You're right that how we use it is very important - But it's the NATURE of what we try and create and the NATURE of how we apply it that are both important. BOTH things - just coz they are apparently distinct doesn't mean they're not inter-linked. I understand your point but it's naive - let me give you an example:

So is it alright if industry-scientists use imperfect theories to create new varieties of potatoes, that will potentially cross-breed and irrevocably artificially alter all other potatoes, which will then be in all our food, so there's no way you can avoid it? [and now take on board the idea that they CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THE RESULTS AND THAT THIS IS ESTABLISHED FACT - and these carries inherent and known dangers to health and biological stability generally. Can you see how our increase in knowledge is incomplete and has been misapplied in this situation? i.e. the two things together being less than perfect!]

First and foremost: you know full well humans will accidently or deliberately put new technologies to dodgy uses - so how can you argue all advances in our power to manipulate are alright?

Secondly: our theories are regularly incorrect: therefore the application is flawed before the other human angles of dubiously-intentioned application comes into play. Consider the examples of neurolgists who, until the last few decades, were performing lobotomies and electric-shock-treatment highly inappropriately, cause their theories were ridiculous [and their methods primative too for that matter]

You may claim that things get better and better.

I claim that we apply things far to early coz of a belief in the 100% correctness of the theories (i.e. that what we don't know can't be known yet AND THEREFORE BASICALLY DOESN'T EXIST. The more our "powers" extend, the more horrific the outcomes in many cases. For every old mistake we suffer through and come out the otherside, a greater one looms that will do more damage. Following that particular trend - there will come a time when the guinea pig won't live long enough to learn from its mistake)

I'm not counselling the end to science - i love scientific advance. What i'm counselling is HUMILITY/REVERENCE in theorhetical stances (just as the way they are applied to create things, and the way these creations are applied should be as well, in an ideal world)

Don't come hobbling to me when the only potatoes we can buy have mutated the gentetic coding of your bones

Time for some humility/reverence baby - and an end to the damaging idea that we can fix all the world's problems through science - it's a non-sensical approach. Some problems we can't fix - others we've made for ourselves, and we can, by stopping being the cause, not making the same mistakes in an attempt to resolve them.

In the case of GM, all the things we need to achieve can be achieved by respecting the uses of what's around us.

It's a long road - but we're going to a lot of trouble to try and make it slope downwards, and generating huge hills to climb instead with every effort.

Time to get the balance right again.

Short (less ranty) version:

-All theories are flawed
-therefore their applications are bound to be flawed even before they start being applied.

you dig?

The start of a solution: don't treat the theories as the equivilant of "pure truth" - handy result: less stupid applications

I think it would all just boil down to ones definition of evil….

__________________

Science is not evil in and of itself.

The belief that science is omniscient and is therefore capable of replacing the deity is evil as are men who see themselves in that light.

Our science is a scratch on the surface. We cannot see far yet.

I would argue [and don't y'all know it ]...that:
-if we call "evil" generally something that has a negative effect...

-then the discipline of science can be evil (mental limitations - look at how Darwin couldn't appreciate music by the end of his life of categorising things, but loved it at the start) - especially when treated as a "religion"/100% truth.

-the religions it is replacing for many people can also be evil (look at the black-n-white, "this-is-pure-good-so-there-can-be-nothing-wrong-with-it" thinking they can inspire in montheistic cases, and other negative effects of constant doubt, aiming for "uselessness" etc etc in others)

How about my cell phone or this cup of water? How about a ham & cheese sandwich? How about a Zen sand garden? How about a pine tree? How about this smiley? The concept of Yin and Yang is about opposites, but, what if the thing isn't good or evil, wet or dry, tall or short? You can't say science is tall anymore than you can say science is evil. You could say boring/interesting or confusing/understandable.

No, no one gets killed for heresy anymore. We do things because we can and there's money in it.
If we want to eat amaranth cornflakes and seaweed.
Then Organics is flawed as well so we might as well go with GM because Organics have too many limitations while the GM possibilities are endless! Wheee!
Toose gets it!!
Oh! An old Clinton trick, change the definition of a word!

Now now silly:

Cell phone: improves communication - might be killing off your brain cells
Cup of water: nourishes - can kill you/make you ill if carrying other bodies.
Ham & cheese sandwhich: can nourish you - or damage you if off (or consisting of GMOs)
Zen garden: might help you relax - but might limit the mind with ridiculous criteria and also waste space over-all then
This smilie is often used by Django (need i say more - soz Dgangle )

Incidently - the concept of Yin/Yang is NOT about opposites in the way you simplify. Look at the actual pictoral representation always used: notice how the black is also represented in the white etc etc - and that the delineating line is not one hard straight line, but a curve which shows how these things can change across time and are more blended that basic dualities would have us believe.

It's about there being good and bad in everything. To differing degrees sure, and judging that scale is very hard - which is why we should never think it is infallible.

So....what are you saying here? You want a death penalty for lying?
Come on Froggy - there's some other solutions.

Well, if you enjoy your carcinogenic-pesticide-coated-unseasonal-fruit so. Enjoy.

Ho......ho.......ho. If your gut unravelling and other things we can't even predict yet are your idea of endless fun. Seems there's quite a final end-point that kind of endlessness.

Toose gets minus-kudos from this voodoo mystic for again claiming like you that there is such a thing as "pure good" things that are seperate from the rest of the world. That's what both your statements infer, and that's a very silly and potentially destructive way to think.

Oh fine - merely trying to update and rescue it from the hands of monotheistic either-or good-n-bad-are-seperate merchants.

Fine: let's just say scientific theories can be:
-wrong
-dangerous when applied if wrong
-even more dangerous if applied fully across the board without ever checking for flaws coz it's just not assumed to be important.

Do you agree with any of these oh theory-worshipper?

Yes, this one,
-dangerous when applied if wrong
and this one
-even more dangerous if applied fully across the board
and
Science can be "evil" (i.e. negative/destructive) in application
How can you say the same thing I'm saying and then say I'm wrong? Science has evil APPLICATIONS. Science by itself is sweet and innocent.
No it's not. Only humans are good or evil, maybe animals. I don't think animals can be evil but I keep thinking about the movie Cujo and those pigs in the Bible, and how about when dogs rescue their masters from fires? That would be a good dog. Anyway, the black and white of the Yin Yang symbol represents masculinity and femininity. I didn't know that about the line but that makes sense.
I'm saying no one belives their theories are 100% right anymore.
I'm claiming that the statement "There is good and evil in everything" is FALSE. I'm saying it's just something people repeat without thinking about it because that statement doesn't apply to inanimate objects or plants.

i'm agreeing that application is problematic - that doesn't mean i agree with you that theory/science never is. That's a silly way to think. You seem to have settled into a convenient either-or definition of theory=good/application=bad.

My estimation of "better" and "worse" are based on benefit-to-all/sustainability criteria, and i'll apply them to whatever i like thank you. A rock fall that carries harmful minerals into a river used for drinking water is now "bad" rock. Naughty rock if you like. We judge it so, but nobody made it so. Rocks can be bad

To seperate "pure good" and "pure bad" out is plain silly. It's an unrealistic appraisal of reality. Show me one person or thing that is PURELY good or PURELY bad.

Ah but they do. And others just pay lip service to the idea of reasonable/practical-doubt. A lot of it is to do with: psychological-preferences amongst certain scientists; the tendency-to-stick-to-theories-you've-built-your-career-around; the tendancy to put things is black-n-white terms coz it makes them easier to assess/manipulate etc etc.

What about a religious scientist who believes 100% in the extistence of God. What if they have built their scientific-belief-structure around the concept of god? What if they believe thouroughly in the idea of "subdue"ing all around? Aren't they then working on a 100% believed principle?

What about the scientist who builds a little too much on knowledge that is far from complete/replete enough, all because of aims and time-pressures of industry. If scientists like this are forced to say a product will work, and act on certain other assumptions, are they not treating this science as certain to a degree (as they do with GM i.e. they haven't really fulfilled any of the cliams they make yet)? - so this hard-sell influencing theorising and contingent application of theory.

You see- even theories are "applied" internally. i.e. the process of constructing the theories involves humans (who you say are flawed - and i agree). That's an application too - an application of human thought. How can these theories suddenly become flawless? They're not!

I think about it a lot - and lots of other slants and alternatives. This one fits the bill best for me. You give me an example of something that is purely "good" with no down-sides whatsoever.

You may call this mis-application of the words. I'd say these words should be employed over all things: thoughts, theories, applications, actions, ...even things involved in the actions etc. Especially those things created by humans. There's better-n-worse, and it's a hard balance to judge. Why make it harder to judge by employing mental-categorisations like good/bad divides. Forget moral-alone: think: sustainable/beneficial/harmonious/cooperative/necessary and...."understanding". Those are my catchphrases for today