Has science cost or saved lives?

[Jonourd]

AIDS is enough to start with and I wish I didn't have to mention it. Have we created more life than the world can actually handle?

[swansont]

Ah, I see. AIDS is manmade. Gotcha.

 

<sigh>

[Reaper]

so, what exactly is the point of this thread? It seems to me that this guy is afraid of science, which is understandable given the gross misinterpretations and misunderstandings of it out there. And he/she may have some sort of technophobia.

 

 

And, no, we haven't exactly created an artificial life form....yet.

 

Intersting point but many suffered from cancers that developed after the event. So if the planet is threatened from pollution as a result of scientific discovery invention is this not an issue or am I being too simlistic here.

 

Well, no, cancers that we suffer have existed long before we actually knew what they are. Radiation also existed long before we knew about it too, and most of it came right from the sun. However, nuclear weapons or nuclear processes happen to release lots of gamma rays just simply because of the laws of physics; it does not care whether or not it is any good for us. But, thanks to science, we know how to treat them, and what causes them. As for pollution, that wasn't necessarily the result of scientific research. That came more from fossil fuel emissions and our continued use of them (despite scientific research that very clearly shows that there are much better alternatives...)

 

If the practice of scientific investigation did not exist we would not have carbon emmissions would we?

 

I don't know for sure about that one. Carbon emissions come from a wide variety of sources, not just humans. Granted, most of them now come from humans because of fossil fuels.

 

But, I do know for sure that without scientific investigation, we probably wouldn't have known what killed the dinosaurs, nor would we have the capability of actually being able to prevent such an event, or survive it.

 

====================================

 

Science is a method that allows us to investigate the world so that we can know more about it. Technology is the application of science for that use; how we use it falls under ethics. Science, as everyone is saying, is amoral; it cares very little on how we use it, or if we even understand it.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been better for us to remain in ignorant bliss, where, in those times, humans had average lifespans of ~35 years, where childbirth was risky and dangerous, where there was absolutely no way for us to get medical treatment, where people used up most of their energy just to stay alive, where society believed in total and utter nonsense that allowed them to oppress the less fortunate and easily manipulate the masses (or tribe), and where just about any major catastrophic event (such as asteroid impacts or super-volcanoes or exploding suns or major climate changes) could have wiped us out forever????

[Mr Skeptic]

If the practice of scientific investigation did not exist we would not have carbon emmissions would we?

 

No, we would have sacrifices to try to appease the angry gods instead. I'd point out that with only enough knowledge to understand fire and farming, we could already wreak havoc on the world. Yet the knowledge itself is not the problem, the problem would be what we do with it. If you consider the impact of certain alien species on a habitat, you would know that knowledge is not the cause of habitat destruction. If you consider the level of knowledge a bacteria or virus has, you would know that knowledge has nothing to do with sickness. Knowledge is just a tool, and can be used for good or ill.

[dichotomy]

Imagine no vaccines and treatments for cholera, polio, rubella, small pox, tuberculosis, just to name a few diseases. These alone would have saved countless lives. But if the vaccines eventually lead to a large scale fatal weakening of the immune systems of the species, then they will be seen as things that cost lives.

 

Mutually assured nuclear destruction, IMO, is still the best life saver in science. Sad but true.

[CDarwin]

No, we would have sacrifices to try to appease the angry gods instead. I'd point out that with only enough knowledge to understand fire and farming, we could already wreak havoc on the world. Yet the knowledge itself is not the problem, the problem would be what we do with it. If you consider the impact of certain alien species on a habitat, you would know that knowledge is not the cause of habitat destruction. If you consider the level of knowledge a bacteria or virus has, you would know that knowledge has nothing to do with sickness. Knowledge is just a tool, and can be used for good or ill.

 

Without hypothetico-deductive reasoning and the basic outlines of the scientific method we wouldn't have the sacrificable animals or the means to sacrifice them either. Science didn't just emerge fully formed from the goo in 17th Century Europe.

[Mr Skeptic]

Without hypothetico-deductive reasoning and the basic outlines of the scientific method we wouldn't have the sacrificable animals or the means to sacrifice them either. Science didn't just emerge fully formed from the goo in 17th Century Europe.

 

Depends. Before the scientific method was formalized and organizations formed for the purpose of sharing scientific knowledge, scientific progress was almost non-existent. Just ask Aristotle.

[iNow]

If you seek an absolute answer then you must refine your question. Posed as is, the only possible valid answer is "both," and you are left to the multitude of subjective interpretations of every different reader. It's like asking if color is useful...

 

 

Only clear and well defined questions arrive at clear and well defined answers.

[CDarwin]

Depends. Before the scientific method was formalized and organizations formed for the purpose of sharing scientific knowledge, scientific progress was almost non-existent. Just ask Aristotle.

 

Aristotle didn't suffer from an inability to apply scientific reasoning; he simply didn't do it systematically. Neither did anyone else. Neither do most people today, either. Our culture today is simply more highly specialized, so it can encompass specialist scientists.

 

I just put it out as a proposal, but could you not view the rise of Western science as less of a philosophical revolution, the philosophies had been there all along, but as a cultural and economic revolution? Finally society became specialized enough to support specialist "scientific thinkers," as opposed to intellectuals who were primarily mystics or philosophers and stumbled across scientific work only periodically.

 

Either explanation is probably simplistic, but I think there's something to the social factors.

 

It's like asking if color is useful...

 

Color is useful, though. Attracting mates and telling ripe fruit and all that fun stuff. Our primate ancestors fought very hard to evolve that color vision. You should appreciate it.*

 

*It's very late, and my sense of humor become quite strange when I'm tired. So you know.

[Jonourd]

Maybe I should start a new thread at this point surrounding health.

[Glider]

A professor told me that researchers working on the bubonic plague sometimes accidentally expose themselves and die from it. Not a lot of people, just more then you'd think.

It's unlikely. Bubonic plague is quite easily treated these days.