Should science have limits?

Users who are viewing this thread

Pabst

Active Member
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Science does a good job of limiting itself. It was the scientific community that insisted that powered flight was impossible, that the sound barrier could not be breached, that anesthesia would never work, and more recently that the human brain could not rewire itself, let alone by directed therapy. That which does not meet certain criteria for scientific "truth" does not get funding, and those who "think outside the box" are only heralded years, decades or centuries later. You don't have to be religious to be a fundamentalist, you simply have to deny the possibility that everything you think is true is a load of shit.

tim :bounce

i think its more an imagination barrier limiting science than science limiting itself.

people didnt want to think the earth was round, people didnt want to think the earth revolved around the sun. its the few who dare to imagine more that drives science.

its why such discoveries are done by usually one person, not droves of people. people are happy being ignorant and dont want their minds challenged. they cant stand it. people have been imprisoned for their scientific findings. Galileo comes to mind.

many things we thought were impossible turned out to be very possible. your life is full of these things including the computer you're using.
 
  • 39
    Replies
  • 1K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

cam elle toe

Banned BY User's Request
Messages
17,794
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Yes it should. (IMO)

But the problem is defining the limits, and there will always be debate as to where the line should be drawn.
 

Leananshee

Active Member
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
i think its more an imagination barrier limiting science than science limiting itself.

people didnt want to think the earth was round, people didnt want to think the earth revolved around the sun. its the few who dare to imagine more that drives science.

its why such discoveries are done by usually one person, not droves of people. people are happy being ignorant and dont want their minds challenged. they cant stand it. people have been imprisoned for their scientific findings. Galileo comes to mind.

many things we thought were impossible turned out to be very possible. your life is full of these things including the computer you're using.
I think the original question has much to do with a potential need to put limits on scientific advancement before we blow up the world or unleash some supervirus that kills everything.

My response to that is that scientific advancement has long been held back, once by the church (though I'd argue that really hasn't been the case for centuries), more recently by the scientific community itself. True, there are a few mavericks who make the real advances that move the species forward. But noble sentiments die quickly in the rush for funding. Those who dare to imagine had better find a Rockefeller as crazy as they are. It does happen, but I'll tell you that external controls on science are already in place, and frequently they choke advancement. We're more likely to mire ourselves in perpetual ignorance thanks to our whopping debt than blow ourselves up.

tim :eek
 

Pabst

Active Member
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
then the question centers around the application of scientific discoveries, not of science itself.

nuclear energy can be used to power a city or to blow it up, it is the HOW we use it that is being discussed and poorly IMO.

to limit science is to limit learning. unless we're all happy being ignorant then science should not be limited.
 

Leananshee

Active Member
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Then it becomes a political question. Government chooses how nuclear technology is used, and regulates biotech. In the latter case I'd be for limiting the power of the PACs funded by the pharmaceutical and biotech companies. That in and of itself would keep THE most dangerous drug lords from killing us all. Too, keep the right-wingers out of the funding debates when it comes to research. Have a government with the cajones to enforce non-proliferation and disarmament. Do you think the government, national and international, is handling that task?

If you're for freeing science, work toward putting our secondary education system back on track, away from outcome-based education and freeing our teachers to actually teach the subjects they were hired to, for starters. We're raising an entire generation who will not question its societal structure and government.

tim :eek
 

siasl

Member
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
hmmm.....science is nothing more than exploration
so's religion, for that matter, once you get passed all the bs surrounding it

why would anyone want to limit exploration?

only reason i can think of is the risk involved: blow up the planet, start an biological epidemic we can't control.....exterminate ourselves.

limit risk...limit possibilities....increase "safety"

who decides?
 

Tangerine

Slightly Acidic
Messages
3,679
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
hmmm.....science is nothing more than exploration
so's religion, for that matter, once you get passed all the bs surrounding it

why would anyone want to limit exploration?

only reason i can think of is the risk involved: blow up the planet, start an biological epidemic we can't control.....exterminate ourselves.

limit risk...limit possibilities....increase "safety"

who decides?

How about the risk of altering human behavior on an ethically challenging level? Think of the movie "gattaca" for example. What if we reach a point where we can gentically alter people in the womb, or predetermine what kind of "life" they will have before birth - and severly restrict their opportunities because of that? It could severly limit the human potential to excel and overcome. Slippery slope for sure.
 

MistyLake

New Member
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I think it is important to know what science is, to know what its limits are or should be and where it can take humanity. Let us be clear, we are talking about Western science, because make no mistake that is the dominant science in the world. There are other sciences in the world; North American First Nations, Tibetans, Asian cultures all have science. What is happening though, through colonial methods, Western science has become this 'know-it-all" for the rest of the world. It tries to give explanations that people have to basically take with blind faith because after all it is SCIENCE. Pure Western science is about isolating something, adding something and seeing the reaction or cause. Truth is many things in life do not lend itself to this type of explanatory method. But if Science says it, even though you could technically find a scientist and their science to go to bat on all sides of an argument we must believe. Any science, Western or otherwise has its beliefs, its blind faith, its ethics, its methods of practice, its gurus. For that i think Western science is a form of religion. But it is a religion absent of spiritual belief. That division of mind, body, spirit; which Western science has worked very hard on achieving over the centuries. Limiting itself in less than humane ways?

So should it have its limits? Heh it can go crazy in the lab out for all i care…mad scientists unite! But we must allow for other explanations; other truths to be heard. Take for example any environmental project being proposed. The wait....let us see what 'the science' will tell us. Well science may be able to tell us that, for example; the gold mine tailings pond will eventually overflow with rain and poison ground water and local’s wells with cyanide and arsenic....or not….the pond will be reinforced and the risk is remote, count on xyz. But what about the First Nations philosophy on seventh generation and what that means in terms of digging up millions of tons of earth to find adorning metal? Or what about the psycho-social consequences on our collective consciousness in doing such inexcusable damage to the earth as our Great Mother? These opinions generally matter not, regardless of the side of the argument science takes, because Western Science is the voice of reason...right? ‘Science will save us!’ so it is the only voice that matters. But whose reason, whose voice is it? And if it does not represent all peoples, regardless of its claim to “finding the truth” then yes it should have limits, it should be a voice, equal with other voices rather then the dominant one, which it has become.

There are all kinds of forms of science, paranormal science, Christian science, on and on, so what limits could it possibly have when everything becomes science in the tradition of Western Science? Unless someone yells loud enough, or present day laws stop it, or the money well dries, it will go wherever it wants.

This is getting too long, i apologize i am new here. But take space travel for example, what is the point of spending so much money and resources on that, when people on earth starve, or die without running water? Science has become a key player tapped into a little thing called ‘progress’ and this is very dangerous, because in striving for the golden calf, it does lose its humanity. Maybe we already know what we should know at this point.

:flowers:
 

superstring99

New Member
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Should science have limits?
Should the universe have limits? Should we just wall our selves in and refuse our futures?

To answer your question. . . No. Science should not have limits. The only reason for science to have "limits" would be to satisfy those who are too squeamish to deal with change or those who are too religous to accept reality.

Our destiny is clear: We [intelligent beings] are life designed to understand the universe and to bring order to chaos. Fail to do that, and we might as well just close up shop and die off now.

~String
 

Tomperi

Active Member
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Limits...Limits..Hmmm. What kind of limits? Should science not be allowed to progress as far as possible? I think it should be allowed to, and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't. As for other limits? Well yes, there has to be some kind of limit. Take the experiments on humans by the Nazis, like Mengele, in WWII. We still today make use of what we found out from those experiments, but with todays standards, torturing fellow humans like that is just not acceptable, not even for the purpose of scientific progress. As for animal testing. Animal testing is the basis, on which modern medical and biological science rely on. Without it, we'd still have horrible diseases like Polio.And diabetics would have to do without insulin. It's fine to oppose animal testing, but if you do, stop taking advantage of what it has given us. That means: No more drugs or treatments tested on animals!
 

siasl

Member
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
How about the risk of altering human behavior on an ethically challenging level? Think of the movie "gattaca" for example. What if we reach a point where we can gentically alter people in the womb, or predetermine what kind of "life" they will have before birth - and severly restrict their opportunities because of that? It could severly limit the human potential to excel and overcome. Slippery slope for sure.

indeed
again, tho....who decides?

the "risk" of disaster as the result of concern about not getting into one version of heaven or another due to a lack of a "proper" form of religious devotion seems just as great to me....yet we argue in defense of religious freedom as a fundamental right.

how are the possible effects on mankind based on scientific exploration any worse than those of religion?
the fact that science gives some thought to the ethical and health/safety considerations of its actions on the ENTIRE species points to it having a better grip on the question of "freedom of inquiry" than a disturbing number of religious groups

it's only when commerce gets involved that those scientific considerations become subject to the same holocausts as religion is capable of.

maybe the answer to "who" is in there someplace :cool
 

theREDdot

Member
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Science should not have limits. But I say that for people who have good intentions and not bad doers. Like creating destructive weapons. Science should help improve humanity and expand our world.
 

motorbyclist

Active Member
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I don't think it should be limited... too much.

Like theREDdot alluded to above, everything has its good and bad sides, its light and dark - This includes economics, politics etc. as much as science.

In the last few years, and the comings years, science is moving faster and things are happening while most of the general population doesn't even realise it, which is illustrated in the whole genetically modified foods debate. As well as science advancing faster, we are getting into areas which have more of an affect on ethical issues and us as people. We are a lot deeper into the fringe sciences than anyone/government would likely admit.

I think there has to be huge legislation and control put on areas such as biology and genetics and nanotechnology in particular. Do we want to be able to decide what colour eyes or children have? How you will likely die and when? If you will have alzheimers disease, if so, when? We have to slow down and take a step back and think if we really need/want to do this or whether we should do this.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
An SOS For Science at newsweek.com.

Alternative energy is the next tidal wave in tech innovation. If we miss it, we will not only weaken our economy and harm our national security—we will turn ourselves into a second-rate nation. And as I sat there listening to the experts speak, all I could think was, we're doomed. (Click here to follow Daniel Lyons) It's not because our scientists aren't brilliant. They are. But look at what they're up against: a noisy babble of morons and Luddites, the "Drill, baby, drill" crowd, the birthers, and tea-party kooks who have done their best to derail health-care reform and will do the same to any kind of energy policy. Holdren has an undergraduate degree from MIT and a Ph.D. from Stanford; he has won countless awards for his work on nuclear proliferation, climate change, alternative energy, and population growth. But now he must sell his ideas to people who couldn't pass high-school algebra—and who believe they know more than he does.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top