Philosophy Discussion Forums

Knightoffaith wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You're barking up the wrong tree my friend. The state funds science because science tells it how to kill people more effectively. Manhatten Project? Agent Orange?

Haha! So true...

-- Updated April 18th, 2013, 3:46 am to add the following --

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


"Theology ... is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." Robert A Heinlein. In the UK, Theology Colleges take public money. The amount of money is relative to cost. What benefit does the public get from its investment?

I am against funding of theology as well. So? Are we in agreement?

Skakos wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Haha! So true...

-- Updated April 18th, 2013, 3:46 am to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)


I am against funding of theology as well. So? Are we in agreement?

No we're not. You've already admitted that it's impossible to know where scientific research will lead. Mankind has benefited from thousands of scientific applications from research. Who knows what the CERN experiments will lead to. A new unlimited form of energy perhaps, it's possible.

But can't you see that this "maybe" is like the "maybe God will help" that priests used in the old days where religion ruled our fates?

Don't you see that science is becoming a new religion in that way?

Skakos wrote:But can't you see that this "maybe" is like the "maybe God will help" that priests used in the old days where religion ruled our fates?

Don't you see that science is becoming a new religion in that way?

No, because science has proved that it can benefit mankind. It's not based on faith but evidence. You describe science as the new religion because that's the only way you can attack it.

Can't help but notice my last post is being ignored. I'd still like to know why you think science needs to be singled out and cut out of the budget when there are much more wasteful and harmful things we spend a lot more money on.

JustAnotherCommenter wrote:Can't help but notice my last post is being ignored. I'd still like to know why you think science needs to be singled out and cut out of the budget when there are much more wasteful and harmful things we spend a lot more money on.

Sorry, I didn't do that on purpose. My opinion is that we should regulate spending on science. And put more justification in it. And we should SURELY stop wasting money on these "harmful" things you refer to. Although I am interested to know: are these harmful things you refer to related to religion or science?

-- Updated April 28th, 2013, 8:21 am to add the following --

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


No, because science has proved that it can benefit mankind. It's not based on faith but evidence. You describe science as the new religion because that's the only way you can attack it.

And philanthropy and love for the fellow human DOES NOT benefit humankind?!?

-- Updated April 28th, 2013, 8:22 am to add the following --

Knightoffaith wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You're barking up the wrong tree my friend. The state funds science because science tells it how to kill people more effectively. Manhatten Project? Agent Orange?

Haha! So true...

-- Updated April 28th, 2013, 8:28 am to add the following --

JustAnotherCommenter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I think the point was that science was a very small part of the budget but you are spending all of this energy attacking it because of the money it costs while completely ignoring the much higher cost and more wasteful areas of the budget. What I'm wondering is why you brush aside these other areas waste and focus on an area which is actually giving us new technologies and increasing our knowledge. What is it that you have against science? You're not the only one there's probably half a dozen people I've come across on this forum that are all up in arms against science and want to attack it whenever they can. I just don't get that, science research is the reason anyone is even typing on this forum. Here you want to cut all the funding to it, on another page you want to argue that it may be better to be sick than to be healthy because you don't trust medical science, on another page people (not you) are arguing that we should ignore anything science says because they don't understand it and so think it has to be a religion and not based on reason. I just don't get all the hatred of science, you even call out people who do science for "scienceism-love." Without scientists you couldn't even type on your computer, why hate on scientists?

Do you claim that typing in a computer is better than being out together and discussing live over coffee? Do you not see a "dark side" in technology?

JustAnotherCommenter wrote: I just don't get that, science research is the reason anyone is even typing on this forum. Here you want to cut all the funding to it, on another page you want to argue that it may be better to be sick than to be healthy because you don't trust medical science, on another page people (not you) are arguing that we should ignore anything science says because they don't understand it and so think it has to be a religion and not based on reason. I just don't get all the hatred of science, you even call out people who do science for "scienceism-love." Without scientists you couldn't even type on your computer, why hate on scientists?

Gee, if I hadn't turned on my computer I couldn't be typing on my computer, praise be to me therefore. And what of that other invention called man and woman, supposedly nobody to praise for that. Scientists have a way of reasoning in which magically all praise belongs to them, and no blame whatever belongs to them, because blaming them is supposedly a logical fallacy.

If you read closely the beginning of the book "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins, you can see this pathology. Doctor Dawkins first premise:
1. if "superior" beings from space would come to visit the earth the first thing they will ask in order to assess the level of "civilization" is "do they know evolution already?"
ergo if evolution theory measures "civilization" and "superiority", it is implied that the one more knowledgeable of evolution theory is more civilized and superior.
....by a miracle of coincedence...the writer himself, Doctor Dawkins, is very knowledgable of evolution theory, therefore Dawkins is more "civilized" and "superior".
In Dawkins fanciful dreams superior beings from out-there space come to visit him as one of the most, ahum, "civilized" and "superior" being on earth.

And that is what is wrong with science today. Science needs to be put on a creationist basis again like it was at the start of the scientific revolution, with full acknowledgement of subjectivity as legitemate in regards to the spiritual domain, and objectivity only in respect to the material domain.

Syamsu wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Gee, if I hadn't turned on my computer I couldn't be typing on my computer, praise be to me therefore. And what of that other invention called man and woman, supposedly nobody to praise for that. Scientists have a way of reasoning in which magically all praise belongs to them, and no blame whatever belongs to them, because blaming them is supposedly a logical fallacy.

If you read closely the beginning of the book "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins, you can see this pathology. Doctor Dawkins first premise:
1. if "superior" beings from space would come to visit the earth the first thing they will ask in order to assess the level of "civilization" is "do they know evolution already?"
ergo if evolution theory measures "civilization" and "superiority", it is implied that the one more knowledgeable of evolution theory is more civilized and superior.
....by a miracle of coincedence...the writer himself, Doctor Dawkins, is very knowledgable of evolution theory, therefore Dawkins is more "civilized" and "superior".
In Dawkins fanciful dreams superior beings from out-there space come to visit him as one of the most, ahum, "civilized" and "superior" being on earth.

And that is what is wrong with science today. Science needs to be put on a creationist basis again like it was at the start of the scientific revolution, with full acknowledgement of subjectivity as legitemate in regards to the spiritual domain, and objectivity only in respect to the material domain.

Very well put. Science today is based on the main assumption that there is nothing spiritual in the world and that everything is matter. If scientists want to really be called "free thinkers" then they should behave accordingly.

And of course I totally agree with your criticism of the criticism on using the Internet. The "argument" stating "you use the Internet so you have to be grateful to science" is all too wrong and all too simplistic...