The purpose of science

[C Elegans]

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!

[Aegis]

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.

[Gwalchmai]

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 [I]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.

[Sailor Saturn]

Quote:

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.

[fable]

Alright, that's the second time lately I've been in agreement with @Sailor Saturn. As a rule I'm not much of a drinker, but...

I'll post more about this subject, tomorrow. It's too late, now, and I've been writing too much, today.

[Aegis]

Quote:

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.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

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.

[Gwalchmai]

Quote:

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!

[Aegis]

Quote:

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.

[GandalfgalTTV]

Quote:

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*

[Sailor Saturn]

Quote:

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.

[Waverly]

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.

[der Moench]

Quote:

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.

[Sailor Saturn]

Quote:

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?

[der Moench]

Quote:

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.