By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WolfpackN64 on 10 January 2018
Edit Thread
CrazyGamer2017 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I'm not mixing them up. I'm stating there OUGHT TO BE morality in science. Disconnecting science from possible problems by shoving them in other fields is disingenious. You could say a problem created by a scientist is economic in origin. But that's a weak argument. Most societal elements (including religion) are influenced by this sphere. This also counts for the scientific sphere.

You're trying to decouple the pure scientific theory (which is in itself innocent) from the people who perform science. This is in no way grounded in any reality. Just as any scripture (religious or otherwise) can be seen as pure and harmless. It's the practical application that really determines the morality of the issue. Science and reason are ethereal concepts, they're grounded in reality and we should judge them based on practical application as we do with everything.

Again the very words you use demonstrate you don't understand science. "The people who perform science"? What the hell does that mean?

People don't perform science cause science is KNOWLEDGE, Science is NOT a tool or a thing that you use, a gun is not science, the principles of compression of gasses inside a metal chamber full of a chemical powder producing a sudden expansion of gas that can project a lump of matter at high speed IS SCIENCE. The people who use those principles to build a gun and sell it to someone else that aims that gun at a person in order to kill that person, this is NOT SCIENCE it's politics, religion, greed etc.

The opposite of science is ignorance which is what religion feeds on and the fact we want to understand how the universe works is science and as soon as you try to gain power through knowledge you are NOT doing science anymore you are doing politics, religion, economy etc.

You're trying to accuse science of what religion, politics, greed, money etc.. are guilty of. The only motivation of science is knowledge. a country that bombs people to kill them is interested in POWER, not science, such a country does research in order to maintain their power cause they need better bombs than other countries, but it's POWER, POLITICS, RELIGION etc that motivates them. NO COUNTRY will EVER bomb another country cause that other country has better universities or a better education, it will bomb it cause it has better weapons and could invade you or a better economy which you want to take from them, or cause they don't follow your religion etc... But NEVER cause of better teachers or cause they have more curiosity in astrophysics than your country does.

I'm not trying to accuse anything. I'm just trying to show you that science isn't in itself meaningful without scientists, without practical applications. Science isn't a divine principle that's ellevated above anything else. You give attributes to science that contradict your statement. People can seek knowledge through science. Science can't seek anything. Science itself is a vat of knowledge we can tap into, but Sciense IS NOT knowledge. Purely theoretical, these concepts are not one and the same.

But this is quite useless, so we have to look at practical applications. What I'm asking you is to look at reality, not at ideals, which is what you're ellevating science to by completely decoupling it from it's practical applications.