RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

fiat_lux -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/10/2008 10:45:57 PM)

quote:

Did they worry about students showing up on campus with assault rifles? Were they paranoid of sexual predators preying on their children through the World Wide Web? Did they have media that glorified lewdness to the extent that we do today; even in the daytime, where kids have unimpeded access? What about unwanted "pop-ups" from porn sites on unsuspecting kids on the internet? Or what about the Comcast cable debacle that broadcast "hard-core" pornography accidentally over the Disney Channel; which may result in a class action lawsuit by the horrified parents that viewed it with their kids?

Basically nothing of what you've just said has anything to do with "science." Human beings are capable of evil? Check. They were also capable of evil before. Most of human history is basically a recitation of murder, rape, and conquest.

Since you started this thread by proclaiming that science was resulting in these problems and confers no survival advantages, I'd be interested in seeing what sort of society you'd envision as an alternative. Do you think the human condition was any more righteous or less gruesome a thousand years ago?



Jhud -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/11/2008 7:41:15 PM)

quote:

Hasty generalization?

Ask your parents or grandparents if today's society is better than theirs.

Did they worry about students showing up on campus with assault rifles? Were they paranoid of sexual predators preying on their children through the World Wide Web? Did they have media that glorified lewdness to the extent that we do today; even in the daytime, where kids have unimpeded access? What about unwanted "pop-ups" from porn sites on unsuspecting kids on the internet? Or what about the Comcast cable debacle that broadcast "hard-core" pornography accidentally over the Disney Channel; which may result in a class action lawsuit by the horrified parents that viewed it with their kids?

Ask an old man or women that you run across about this "paradise" we live in today in comparison to the past.....see what they have to say; listen to their wisdom.

The only fallacy I can see is the Hasty Justification.


I'm sorry, I mistakenly thought you were interested in logic and reason. My bad.



BVZ -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/13/2008 2:14:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic

quote:

Are you SERIOUS!?!? When one of your loved ones has an appendix that is about to burst... you will leave them on their bed to die, in stead of TAKING THEM TO A HOSPITAL!?


Oh yes....read the statistics in Harper's Index, under "Medicine", about the percentage of doctor's that actually wash and sanitize properly; or the percentage of Nursing staff that would recommend family and friends to their own hospitals of employment for treatment.....as well as statistics of death in hospital patients not related to their original treatment; but don't take my word for it; here's an article to show you the real world, Neo:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131089/


From the article:

That report focused national attention on the problem and led to numerous recommendations for improving safety.

Science at work my friend. How did they identify the problem? They used science. How will they solve the problem? Well, if they manage to solve the problem, they will pretty much use science.

quote:


And since I had contracted a life-threatening virus during my own stay at a hospital, and had to be quarantined, I know from actual experience that it can happen!!!


Why were you in hospital?

quote:


Whether I take them to a hospital or not is irrelevant to my argument: in logic, you have committed the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. But I'm sure violating the rules of logic and argumentation are less advantageous than rhetorical sound-bites; I'm sure you'd rather win the person than the argument here.


No, not really. I think Reductio ad absurdum is closer to the mark.

Interestingly, you don't find the conclusion absurd. You think that letting a loved one DIE when science (medicine) is perfectly capable of saving that loved one is perfectly reasonable.

Personally, in my humble opinion, you are a nut. (This it not an ad hominem either, since I am not attacking your argument. I am simply stating my opinion.)

Also, why do you think my point is irrelevant? You say that science does not impart any advantages to those who use it. I provide you with an example (saving a loved ones life). How is that not relavent?

quote:


And why hasn't anyone done some sort of cost/benefit analysis of "science" and given an actual answer to my thread, instead of replying with red herrings and ad hominem arguments.


The argument you think is ad hominem is not ad hominem. I don't see any argument with the characteristics of a 'red herring' argument. Perhaps you can be more specific? But you like it vague don't you?

quote:


Doesn't anyone study formal logic anymore? Didn't you take "critical thinking" in Community College? I guess it's easier to attack a person than it is their argument. At least I give responses to your post that directly address your objections; can't you at least try to rebut my position without resorting to attacks?


Please don't dress yourself up as a martyr. No one is attacking you. The argument I made was simply an attempt to put you in a position where you have to choose between something absurd (letting your loved one die for no reason), and accepting that science DOES impart advantages.

You chose the absurd option... which sais a lot.

quote:


Obviously, you like to live in a bubble of ignorance about the "real" world.

Answer me this: Should men and women with schizophrenia and bi-polar manic depression be allowed to own guns? Should their constitutional "right to bear arms" be nullified by their illness?


My opinion is no, they should not.

Also, you accuse me of using red herrings, yet you use them yourself. The point you raise here has NOTHING to do with science as an advantageous tool.

I call hypocrite.

quote:


The answer to this question is the same answer I will reply with about "science". Again let me speak even more plainly:

Science increases wickedness.....and science can't stop wickedness. Ok, so instead of dying by the hands of nature, we die by each other's own hands. We invent nuclear, nano, biological and chemical weapons for warfare so....now we do nature's job for her!!!


An evil man will use a rock if he has to. If technology is not available, he will use a sharp stick. Men are evil. Not science. Science is a tool that can be used for evil by evil people.

quote:


Read Stephen King's "The Stand" and Michael Crichton's "Prey"; I realize that they're novels, but the back story for these ideas is rooted in modern warfare technology.


Science can be used for evil. I agree. So?

quote:


Read an interview with Crichton about the premise of his book here:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/qa-prey.html

Or Stephen King here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stand


If you think that scientists are unaware of the fact that science can be used for evil, you are mistaken.

If your point is that science can be used for evil, I accept that point, and fully agree with it.

But that is not the point you are making.

Your point is this : Science does not impart any advantages.

This is simply not true.

My point about letting your loved one die, when science can SAVE him/her still stands. Clearly, saving a life is advantageous.



cognitivemagic -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/18/2008 6:34:07 PM)

quote:

Your point is this : Science does not impart any advantages.


That's not what I said. I said:

Science confers no survival advantages.

quote:

No, not really. I think Reductio ad absurdum is closer to the mark.


But you haven't even done that much. You have shown great skill in misrepresenting me, though.

quote:

Interestingly, you don't find the conclusion absurd. You think that letting a loved one DIE when science (medicine) is perfectly capable of saving that loved one is perfectly reasonable.


I didn't set up this dilemma. My response, as you have slipped into an amnesiac fog about it, was:

quote:

if my appendix burst, there's no guarantee any doctor can save me....he may or may not; I might just as soon die from bacterial infections incurred from the surgery.


and

quote:

I'm addressing modern science in general. My points are directed to those who see science as some benign, triumphant replacement to religion/spirituality.

I know that you believe in God and I'm not about to criticize anyone for being a scientist or lover of the sciences. I like 'em too.

But my points are addressed to optimists, and/or naive thinkers and secularists, who have bought into the notion that science is the be all and end all. I chose a provocative thesis, not to merely provoke hostility,but rather stimulate thoughts about the merits of science compared to it's absence; and also, a mourning for the lack of moral/spiritual responsibility that was shaved off in making room for the "Enlightenment". I heartily recommend Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age" which can be seen at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Secular-Age-Charles-Taylor/dp/0674026764

The principle that "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" doesn't mitigate the issue: why have guns at all?


I've already answered this objection. Are you really so naive to think that you or your relatives are absolutely, 100% safe in a hospital environment? Why do doctors have you sign "consent" forms to perform surgery if every thing is 100% safe and guaranteed? Why do you have to sign them upon admittance to the general hospital?

My mother and aunt died in the same Nursing Home when I was a young teenager. They were hardly cared for. My mother was hardly ever bathed and died of pneumonia, though she and my aunt were being treated for Multiple Sclerosis. They both had terrible bed sores because the staff never got them out of bed. And my mother suffered in silence in that Nursing Home for 7 years before she finally died. I was 15. The place smelled of urine, feces and unwashed patients. Some old folks there would cry out from torments over "persons" whom they couldn't see. And some of the staff lacked any pity for these people that they were in charge of caring for.

So what good did science do other than prolong the inevitable; prolong my mother so that she could die in complete insanity in isolation from her family in a hellish environment?


quote:

Why were you in hospital?


Irrelevant, in terms of argument; except for the ad hominem kind. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume you actually care.

quote:

Personally, in my humble opinion, you are a nut. (This it not an ad hominem either, since I am not attacking your argument. I am simply stating my opinion.)


And dishonest. You'd make a good politician or lawyer.[;)] You have just the right amount of callousness in your vectors to pursue these careers with aplomb.


Now let me ask you something:

Is it more important to defend the Christian faith or the domains of natural science? Is God superior to science, in your view? Did God use science to create the universe? Is "love" explicable by the sciences? Is science itself explicable by the human sciences?

Do you believe that science will cure all disease, prevent all death, return dead loved one's back to life, and usher in a human utopia?

If idolatry is your bag then by all means continue to defend your "god".

Humans precede science. Humans survived well before the "modern" sciences arose and will continue to survive, even if "science" doesn't. Humans are "real". Science is a figment/segment of human imagination.

I can neither see, hear, touch, taste or smell "science"; but I can with people. People are those about whom we love and care for; not human ideology. And love is more fundamental to human survival than science ever could be (1 Corinthians 13).

So what good is an illness free and death free universe when everyone hates each other? Science may extend life; but not a "good" or "happy" life. And extension of years is meaningless when you have misery to look forward to. A short, but blessed and happy life is preferred. Humans are incapable of being responsible, "enlightened" gods. Therefore, it would have been better that Pandora's Black Box had remained shut.

Watch the Mike Judge film "Idiocracy". It just might be prophetic. It might even be an epiphany.



fiat_lux -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/18/2008 7:13:49 PM)

quote:

So what good did science do other than prolong the inevitable; prolong my mother so that she could die in complete insanity in isolation from her family in a hellish environment?

I am very sorry for your loss, and very sorry for the terrible treatment your loved ones must have suffered.

However, science has nothing to do with that. Unless you feel that their treatment would have been better had people knew less about the human body, or perhaps about the theory of gravity.

quote:

So what good is an illness free and death free universe when everyone hates each other? Science may extend life; but not a "good" or "happy" life.

You started by saying it conferred no survival advantages. Now you're saying it confers no happiness advantages. Which is it you want to argue?

quote:

Is it more important to defend the Christian faith or the domains of natural science? Is God superior to science, in your view? Did God use science to create the universe? Is "love" explicable by the sciences? Is science itself explicable by the human sciences?

Do you believe that science will cure all disease, prevent all death, return dead loved one's back to life, and usher in a human utopia?

If idolatry is your bag then by all means continue to defend your "god".

Don't be ridiculous. Let's stay on topic, shall we?



cognitivemagic -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/19/2008 3:08:52 PM)

quote:

You started by saying it conferred no survival advantages. Now you're saying it confers no happiness advantages. Which is it you want to argue?


Again, who actually "survives"? Not me or you.

Actually, the "human species"; supposedly. But will the human species actually live forever by the wonders of modern science?

Answer: no

quote:

Don't be ridiculous. Let's stay on topic, shall we?


This isn't on topic. Besides, I started this thread. No one ever stays on topic on these threads. Like here, for instance:

quote:

I am very sorry for your loss, and very sorry for the terrible treatment your loved ones must have suffered.


But I appreciate your concern.

Let me reiterate: Science has not been instrumental in the origin or evolution of life. In fact, from a Darwinian perspective, it's completely superfluous to "survival". Species can and will "survive", on the Darwinist picture, without any "science". The fact is, we have gotten along quite well without it. But this should not be either surprising or controversial.

Furthermore, science treats "mankind" like an object; not a subject. The "humanities", on the other hand, treat men and women as "subjects". In fact, the "humanities" are a much better candidate for human flourishing and "survival" precisely because they "humanize" us; rather than objectify and depersonalize us, like the "sciences" do. The humanities offer guidance in being better persons.

The sciences, on the other hand, would make humans into "robots"; a "thing" that is no longer "free", but rather bound by the inexorable causal laws of physics and biology. And because of this, science (by it's very nature) cannot rightly understand and treat humanity qua humans.

Which is why Daniel Dennett's statement that Darwinism erodes all values, religious assumptions, etc. (i.e. our "humanness"), is so compelling an indictment in favor of my thread.

When we strip ourselves of the very things that keep us sane, morally and spiritually healthy, and connected with one another, what can we expect but the "symptoms" of an eroding civility and civilization that I have spent much of this thread noting.

"No Country For Old Men" is a brilliant analysis and reflection of this very "erosion" that has occurred in American society.

There have been books touting the "physics" and/or "biology" of religious beliefs, written as a means of giving some non-theistic explanation for the presence of those beliefs. I would love to see a scientist/philosopher write a book titled "The Biological Origins of Scientific Beliefs", and pay "scientific beliefs" the same respect.



EverLearning -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/21/2008 6:47:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
I didn't set up this dilemma. My response, as you have slipped into an amnesiac fog about it, was:

quote:

if my appendix burst, there's no guarantee any doctor can save me....he may or may not; I might just as soon die from bacterial infections incurred from the surgery.




Since we are talking about survival I will focus solely on that portion of your ramblings. If your appendix burst and you don't get surgery you have almost no chance of survival and would die a pretty painful death part of which would be bacterial infections. Now had you not been an idiot and gone to the hospital instead then there is a chance that you could be one of very small percentage of people that die during appendectomies. Now on one hand you have almost gauranteed death and on the other you have the slim possibility of an infection (most likely not from the actual surgery but from the fact that your intestinal contents ruptured into your torso) so what we have is no science equals death, with science equals small possibility of death so therefore just one more example of the fact that the entire premise of your thread here is false right from the title. Science does infact confer survival advantages now you can argue that science might harm the quality of life but it does increase survival rates.



Real_Solitude -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/23/2008 5:40:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
Again, who actually "survives"? Not me or you.

Actually, the "human species"; supposedly. But will the human species actually live forever by the wonders of modern science?

Answer: no


I disagree with all of the opinions you have stated. However, I have special interest in this one.
This is an opinion that is predictive in nature. When making a prediction, it is generally a bad thing to use absolute language. You strongly state that the science has not/will not have increased the duration of the human species. This is a claim that will not, and indeed can not ever be verified.
Why? Because the species Homosapian has, and will, exist only once. This species has developed science. There is no version of Homosapian that has no benefited from some version of science. It is highly improbable that we will ever be able to calculate how long Homosapians would have existed without science. Making a statment like "the human species will not live longer due to the wonders of science" is useless, as there's nothing to compare it to.



cognitivemagic -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/27/2008 6:14:58 PM)

quote:

Since we are talking about survival I will focus solely on that portion of your ramblings. 1)If your appendix burst and you don't get surgery you have almost no chance of survival and would die a pretty painful death part of which would be bacterial infections. Now had you not been an idiot and gone to the hospital instead then there is a chance that you could be one of very small percentage of people that die during appendectomies. Now on one hand you have almost gauranteed death and on the other you have the slim possibility of an infection (most likely not from the actual surgery but from the fact that your intestinal contents ruptured into your torso) so what we have is no science equals death, with science equals small possibility of death so therefore just one more example of the fact that the entire premise of your thread here is false right from the title. 2) Science does infact confer survival advantages now you can argue that science might harm the quality of life but it does increase survival rates.


Answer to point #1: In fact, you have no way to affirm your statements in either situation. You must not believe that there's any possibility of miracles. Also, you haven't fully pondered the full range of possible disasters that may befall you when entering a hospital; even as a visitor. If I can find the "Men's Health" magazine article online to add as a link, which deconstructs this naive notion, I will be happy to include it later.

More to the point: I was speaking of the "sense" of survival that Darwinians typically speak of: "species", not individual.

Answer to point #2: Nuclear weapons, biological/chemical weapons, weapons in general. We have the potential, with these type of weapons, to obliterate the earth many times over; and science cannot and will not prevent war!!!

quote:

I disagree with all of the opinions you have stated. However, I have special interest in this one.
This is an opinion that is predictive in nature. When making a prediction, it is generally a bad thing to use absolute language. You strongly state that the science has not/will not have increased the duration of the human species. This is a claim that will not, and indeed can not ever be verified.


You disagree with ALL of my opinions? Really?!

Then you must not believe in God; you also must not believe in the Resurrection of the body in the eschaton. You also must not believe in miracles or Jesus Christ. These were all "opinions" that I stated. So why are you, as a non-Christian, posting on a Christian website that doesn't allow for posts that violate it's doctrinal standards?

And just because you make a statement that disagrees with me, doesn't mean you have proved a point.

Also, your reply that:

"this is a claim that will not, and indeed can not ever be verified"

is precisely of the "absolute" sort of predictive language that you say we ought not to violate. Since you are the one that set the parameters on what statements can be epistemically feasible, I would like to know how you intend on getting yourself out of this self-referentially absurd quagmire?

My posts questions have gone largely unanswered:

quote:

Is it more important to defend the Christian faith or the domains of natural science? Is God superior to science, in your view? Did God use science to create the universe? Is "love" explicable by the sciences? Is science itself explicable by the human sciences?

Do you believe that science will cure all disease, prevent all death, return dead loved one's back to life, and usher in a human utopia?


My post is addressing a Christian audience. If you are not a Christian, then this thread is not for you.



Jhud -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/27/2008 6:37:07 PM)

quote:

Answer to point #1: In fact, you have no way to affirm your statements in either situation. You must not believe that there's any possibility of miracles. Also, you haven't fully pondered the full range of possible disasters that may befall you when entering a hospital; even as a visitor. If I can find the "Men's Health" magazine article online to add as a link, which deconstructs this naive notion, I will be happy to include it later.


Just out of curiousity cm, if you were to become seriously ill, or someone you were responsible for were to become seriously ill, would you seek out medical help of any kind?



cognitivemagic -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/27/2008 10:11:10 PM)

quote:

Just out of curiousity cm, if you were to become seriously ill, or someone you were responsible for were to become seriously ill, would you seek out medical help of any kind?


Yes. But this is will lead to the red herring points that I'm trying to avoid.

My point is that "species" survive with or without the sciences. Therefore, when it comes to survival advantages, nature could care less how long one extends one's own life through the sciences. What is usually in view, anyway, is the particular species' survival through descent and accompanying modifications.

Suppose that no humans existed: would the rest of the animal kingdom survive without the sciences? Of course they would; either because

1) Darwinian mechanisms would ensure their survival

or

2) God providentially cares for them

But as this thread has posts from Christians and non-Christians, it seems like the Christians want to defend science at any cost here.

On the one hand, my post was attempting to stimulate a discussion around a calculus of the benefits and costs of science, in the hopes of showing an irony in the scientific quest. I believe my main points are being diverted by tertiary issues that bear little relevance to what I've been saying all along by red herrings, straw men and ad hominems.

But some of the posters have admitted to this strategy.

I also wanted to draw attention to the decline of civilized society and connect the secularism that has paved the way for this phenomenon; of which "science" is part and parcel of this overall ideology. That's why I referenced the work by Charles Taylor called "A Secular Age", of which I drew partly from.

On the personal side, I was also curious to see how far "Christians" were willing to go in their cultural accommodations and pandering to the humanist and secular ideology.

And my prodding and debating has resulted in some curious findings. But I appreciate the honesty, even the vehemence, of the participants. [:)]

As they say,

"the squeaky wheel gets the grease"[;)]



EverLearning -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/27/2008 10:15:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic



Answer to point #1: In fact, you have no way to affirm your statements in either situation.


Actually i have reality on my side in that prior to surgery a burst appendix meant almost certain death and that would have been back when science was less important than religion so where do you stand on that?


quote:

You must not believe that there's any possibility of miracles.


Oh i wholeheartedly believe in miracles but they are the exception rather than the rule. In the vast majority of cases we are expected to hold up our end of the deal and that includes using the doctors and medical/scientific advances that God has graced us with.


quote:

Also, you haven't fully pondered the full range of possible disasters that may befall you when entering a hospital; even as a visitor. If I can find the "Men's Health" magazine article online to add as a link, which deconstructs this naive notion, I will be happy to include it later.


Don't bother i have read it. And while "disasters" do happen in hospitals the same institutions save FAR more people than they kill so therefore they do infact confer survival advantages.

quote:

More to the point: I was speaking of the "sense" of survival that Darwinians typically speak of: "species", not individual.


No species survives if enough individuals do not survive.

quote:


Answer to point #2: Nuclear weapons, biological/chemical weapons, weapons in general. We have the potential, with these type of weapons, to obliterate the earth many times over; and science cannot and will not prevent war!!!


And the ironic thing is that as technology increases the ability to kill multitudes in a single war it seems that each war we fight has a lower and lower death toll.

world war I 119,000,000 estimated dead
world war II 48,231,700 estimated dead
Korean war 3,500,000 estimated dead
Vietnam war 2,495,00 estimated dead
Gulf war 100,000 estimated dead

Now lets look at what science has done for us
The flu of 1918 killed up to 100 million people, then in the late 1900's probably around 1 million people died of the flu mostly becaue of vaccines (scientific advances).

In the past century the number or TB infections/deaths has decreased by more than tenfold

Then there is the black plaque 35 million dead in Europe 60 million dead in asia. Had any millions of people dying of plague lately (or anything else for that matter)?



Real_Solitude -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/28/2008 4:37:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
You disagree with ALL of my opinions? Really?!

All of the ones that I've read, yes. I do not believe in a god, no any of the other articles you mentioned.
I am here as a non-Christian because I was here as a Christian before my 'deconversion.' I have simply not stopped visiting. Further, to expose my ideas to criticism. It is an insecure person that will no subject their beliefs to opposition.
And lastly, if you can pinpoint in the TOS where it says that Crosswalk "does not allow for posts that violate its doctrinal standards." I would be most obliged. I read the TOS every few months, just to make sure I'm staying within the bounds of the rules. The closest rule to what you mention would be "15. You will not promote[...]" which, I believe, I do not. I am a non-believer. Many of my opinions clash with Christian teachings. However, when I present an opinion (especially in the science folder) it is for critique and evaluation, not persuasion. I like to see what other people think, and what they think of my ideas. I really couldn't care less if they agree with those ideas or not.
If the moderators of Crosswalk thought I was violating the TOS, I'm sure I'd be among the first to know. Until then, I will continue to engage in discussions on these forums.

quote:

And just because you make a statement that disagrees with me, doesn't mean you have proved a point.

This is true. However, I wasn't trying to prove a point. I was simply stating that, when making a prediction, it is usually unwise to use absolute language.

quote:


"this is a claim that will not, and indeed can not ever be verified"

is precisely of the "absolute" sort of predictive language that you say we ought not to violate. Since you are the one that set the parameters on what statements can be epistemically feasible, I would like to know how you intend on getting yourself out of this self-referentially absurd quagmire?

I wasn't really making a prediction though. I was trying to say that it's a moot point, because it's an unanswerable question.
The ability to read and the ability to comprehend what you have read are two different things. You obviously read my post, but I'm not sure you realized what I was saying.
To quote, " Actually, the "Will the human species actually live forever by the wonders of modern science?
Answer: no"
My problem was with the wording of the question itself. Let us assume that the human species ceases to exist this moment via our sun erupting. Will science then have added anything to the longevity of the human species? Probably not. It's likely that, even if we hadn't developed the scientific method, humanity would have lived this long. Now let's assume that humanity continues to exist until the end of the universe (ostensibly, 'forever'. It may be my mistake, but I'm assuming that since you're saying science will not increase the longevity of our species, that a non-scientific humanity would last just as long, if not longer, than us). Will science have had an impact on our longevity? Probably. However, since there is no control group (no non-science humanity), you can not absolutely state that we lived forever because of science. There is a likelihood, however small, that a non-scientific humanity will last just as long as a scientifically endowed humanity. If, for instance, humanity exists until the sun does consume the Earth, but never manages to colonize other planets or other find other ways of surviving, will science have had an impact on humanities longevity? Probably, but it's also likely that a low-level tool making species would have continued to out-compete other creatures, and therefore survived just as long.

To ask if science will make humanity last longer is a pointless question unless we have a control group. If you're asking if science confers survival advantages, it begs the question of "in comparison to what?" Without anything to actually compare our longevity with, we can't reasonably determine if science confers a survival advantage.



cognitivemagic -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/28/2008 11:18:19 PM)

quote:

Actually i have reality on my side in that prior to surgery a burst appendix meant almost certain death and that would have been back when science was less important than religion so where do you stand on that?


God trampled down death by death!! And God raises the dead and gives eternal life.

Science neither can, nor will, do this. And I'm not speaking of statistical improbability here.


quote:

No species survives if enough individuals do not survive.


But animals and plants survived quite well before humans appeared. And humans survived quite well before the advent of Galileo, Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Einstein and Darwin. No science needed in either case.
Are you saying that plants and animals are crypto-scientists? And how did "science" generate life to begin with?

So if life "dies" out, for whatever reason, life could regenerate again; and do so without science!!

quote:

world war I 119,000,000 estimated dead
world war II 48,231,700 estimated dead
Korean war 3,500,000 estimated dead
Vietnam war 2,495,00 estimated dead
Gulf war 100,000 estimated dead


That's a lot of dead people for a meager 80 year period. Could science have something to do with these war machines' success?

quote:

Don't bother i have read it. And while "disasters" do happen in hospitals the same institutions save FAR more people than they kill so therefore they do infact confer survival advantages


I'm not posting merely for your own ego. Who survives? Not you or I. The "humans species" then? Well, it's not shown that medicines or surgical operations have passed on any heritable traits to future generations, let alone "beneficial" traits. So, you haven't proved anything yet. Only time and research will bear out whether altering human nature by the sciences will demonstrate survival advantages. However, fiat assertions certainly do not constitute proof.

quote:

Then there is the black plaque 35 million dead in Europe 60 million dead in asia. Had any millions of people dying of plague lately (or anything else for that matter)?


Hmm....HIV? Cancer? Leprosy? Drug resistant strains of the flu? Fatal ataxia? Multiple Sclerosis? Heart disease? Stroke? Increased frequency of mass murders on school campuses?

Boy, things are so much better now.

And, by your own estimates, World War 1 killed more people in the span of 4 years, than the entire death toll of Europe and Asia during the "Black Plague" years.

I don't know why you even went here. What's more tragic: to die from a plague or by the hands of your fellow man?

quote:

Oh i wholeheartedly believe in miracles but they are the exception rather than the rule. In the vast majority of cases we are expected to hold up our end of the deal and that includes using the doctors and medical/scientific advances that God has graced us with.


First off, I don't buy the phony distinction between nature/supernature. Second, even with that distinction in mind, miracles can and will occur as many times as God chooses. God's decision, on this view, is not predicated on preserving "natural law" in order to keep the "specialness" of miracles, but rather on God's free decision to execute some miraculous event.

The universe itself is supernatural; not "magical". You might have confused the notion of "magical" with "supernatural"; but I won't speak on your behalf. If God creates and sustains the universe then, unless God is not supernatural, the universe must be supernatural. I prefer the term "sacramental".

But you missed the aim of my thread that I just explained in my last post.
I don't know what more to say here; but you haven't caught my drift from the previous post.

quote:

Many of my opinions clash with Christian teachings. However, when I present an opinion (especially in the science folder) it is for critique and evaluation, not persuasion.


This is a distinction without difference. Nobody offers arguments and points of view unless they intend on convincing somebody. You could just as easily write on your word processor at home all of your thoughts. But when you make those "thoughts" public, then it becomes hypocritical to claim that you don't intend on convincing someone of your point of view.
Besides, you confuse "motive" with "result". You may not consciously intend on persuading, but the practical upshot is that you do just that!

quote:

I do not believe in a god, no any of the other articles you mentioned.


At least your honest....but why the cloak and dagger posting on a site whose doctrines you disagree with? Maybe you're not so honest after all.[sm=sadquestion.gif]

quote:

I wasn't really making a prediction though. I was trying to say that it's a moot point, because it's an unanswerable question.


If you don't believe in God then I can see why you would say this. But let's say that humans don't survive because science was totally counterproductive to the survival of the species. Ontologically, it remains true regardless of whether any observers verify this (i.e. humans). But epistemologically, your point would be valid if it were true that there were no one to make this observation.

So your atheism would have to be absolutely true in order to discount non-human observers from the roster of epistemic candidates for verification (i.e. aliens, angels, saints or God Himself). So now you are going to have to persuade me that atheism is true in order to refute me!! But you said you're not here to persuade, so my point is still valid. Perhaps you intend on contradicting yourself.

quote:

To ask if science will make humanity last longer is a pointless question unless we have a control group. If you're asking if science confers survival advantages, it begs the question of "in comparison to what?" Without anything to actually compare our longevity with, we can't reasonably determine if science confers a survival advantage.


Good point. Tell that to "Everlearning".



EcclesFruitcake -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/29/2008 1:32:16 AM)

quote:

To ask if science will make humanity last longer is a pointless question unless we have a control group. If you're asking if science confers survival advantages, it begs the question of "in comparison to what?" Without anything to actually compare our longevity with, we can't reasonably determine if science confers a survival advantage.


Almost as nonsensical as the original post.

Consider the changes in:

average lifespan of a human,
infant mortality rate,
maternal mortality ratio,
population growth,

over the last 150 years.

Is the significantly larger population of the human species due to a greater understanding and knowledge of the natural world?

Is a larger population more able to endure catastrophes than a smaller one?

I am totally gobsmacked that anyone could even suggest that scientific knowledge does not increase chances of survival or that the answer is unknowable.

...Humans are doing far better than other species which have similar physical attributes and lack the depth of our scientific understanding.



Real_Solitude -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/29/2008 5:02:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
This is a distinction without difference. Nobody offers arguments and points of view unless they intend on convincing somebody. You could just as easily write on your word processor at home all of your thoughts. But when you make those "thoughts" public, then it becomes hypocritical to claim that you don't intend on convincing someone of your point of view.
Besides, you confuse "motive" with "result". You may not consciously intend on persuading, but the practical upshot is that you do just that!

In general, I would agree with you. When I'm presenting an idea on this site, however, I disagree. I've been expressing non-Christian opinions for roughly a year an a half on this site. In that time, I don't think I've gotten a single agreement out of any of the Christian posters. When I post something on this site that disagrees with the majority of the posters, I do so for two reasons. The first is to expose the argument to criticism. I figure that the people most likely to find flaws in my argument are those who disagree with it on a fundamental level. If someone does find a flaw in my argument, I must either find a reason that what they say is a flaw is no actually a flaw, revise the idea, or discard the idea. The second reason is because I enjoy debating with people, even if there's no resolution of ideas in the end. Basically, entertainment value, but entertainment that takes thought.

quote:

At least your honest....but why the cloak and dagger posting on a site whose doctrines you disagree with? Maybe you're not so honest after all.[sm=sadquestion.gif]

The fact that the site disagrees with me is part of the reason I stay here. There's no sense in engaging in discussion with people who agree with me on every point. I prefer to speak with people who challenge my worldview, in order to refine it. The main reason I'm here though is, as I said, simply out of habit from when I was a Christian.

quote:

If you don't believe in God then I can see why you would say this. But let's say that humans don't survive because science was totally counterproductive to the survival of the species. Ontologically, it remains true regardless of whether any observers verify this (i.e. humans). But epistemologically, your point would be valid if it were true that there were no one to make this observation.

So your atheism would have to be absolutely true in order to discount non-human observers from the roster of epistemic candidates for verification (i.e. aliens, angels, saints or God Himself). So now you are going to have to persuade me that atheism is true in order to refute me!! But you said you're not here to persuade, so my point is still valid. Perhaps you intend on contradicting yourself.

I see what you're saying, but the point I made about comparisons was what I was trying to get across. Even if our death is directly caused by some mad scientific experiment gone awry, and even if it is observed, we (or more specifically, the observer) can't say that science conferred no survival advantage. We can't say it because there's no control group to test whether or no we would have lived longer without science.
For instance, let's say that nuclear war breaks out tomorrow, and every human on the planet (and those in the space station) die within a month. Will science have caused our downfall? Pretty much. Did it confer a survival advantage? We don't know.
We don't know because some previous use of science might have stopped a complete annihilation of a non-scientific humanity. Some virus or bacteria which has a 100% transmission and fatality rate may have evolved, but was stopped by some mom with Lysol. Depending on the end-date of humanity, we could attempt to guess when a non-scientific humanity would have ended, but we can't know. So to say that science did or did not contribute to our longevity is useless. Science and humanity are too inexorably intertwined to speculate what-ifs. It's akin to asking how our longevity would be altered by having had only four fingers. We can speculate, but we can't come to a reasonable conclusion. Science is just as much a part of humanity today as having five fingers is.



cognitivemagic -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/31/2008 4:03:33 PM)

quote:

I am totally gobsmacked that anyone could even suggest that scientific knowledge does not increase chances of survival or that the answer is unknowable.


The characters in the book of Genesis, before Noah, were said to live for hundreds and hundreds of years (900 even). But further on in this book, the length of human life begins to shrink.

I suspect that it's because humans wreck their environment as they increase in the population and spread their havoc.

And so:

Is Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" wrong in it's conclusion that Global warming is a man-made phenomena and has potentially fatal consequences for life on earth?

The industrialization and extraction of resources to carry on modern industry, which have been enabled by modern science, are those very factors that he claims is responsible for the beginning of the end of environmental inhabitability. And he has a lot of support from the scientific community itself on this point.

So what's so controversial about my thread, ye optimists of the new age?

Faye Valentine:

You have been the most generous and level-headed poster here; and I don't care whether you're an atheist or an acorn, cuz you're alright in my book. I just wanted to distinguish the "Christian" posters from the "non-Christian" ones because divergent lines of thought require divergent argumentation. But you've been a better sport than most and deserve kudos [:)]



EverLearning -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/31/2008 9:43:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagicThat's a lot of dead people for a meager 80 year period. Could science have something to do with these war machines' success?


I would appreciate it if you would at least have the courtesy to address what i actually said. You knew the point i was making and chose not to address it. Thank you, that proves my point. You made the claim that science causes more deaths not less yet as science has steadily progressed just in the past 80 years the number of deaths per war has decreased. That is contrary to your claims. Now i realize it is easier to ignore than to rebut but it is at best impolite to do so.



drj11 -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/31/2008 10:25:13 PM)

Given that the average life expectancy for humans used to be about ~26 years for a great deal of our known history, I'd say science has done wonders for our survivability. One only has to look at infant mortality rates of days gone by to see this.

If you think we are more immoral today than we have been in the past you should really spend some time learning about the culture of societies in the past, even in the US.



EverLearning -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (3/31/2008 10:41:48 PM)

Caution sarcas ahead
quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

Given that the average life expectancy for humans used to be about ~26 years for a great deal of our known history, I'd say science has done wonders for our survivability. One only has to look at infant mortality rates of days gone by to see this.


Wait so you're telling me that people living longer into their reproductive years while at the same time having more of their children live is a survival advantage?

quote:


If you think we are more immoral today than we have been in the past you should really spend some time learning about the culture of societies in the past, even in the US.


I wonder what percentage of living people were murderers when cain slew able. Wait wasn't there supposedly a mass removal of the immoral from the face of the earth with only one family and two of each animal left to repopulate the earth? Wasn't that cleansing due to the shear number of the immoral at the time? Weren't there a couple of cities so immoral that God chose to wipe them from the face of the earth? Science did not make people any less moral and at the same time it did increase the lifespan, at least life spans of modern humans, while at the same time saving millions of children from certain death.

Remember that a species does not survive unless enough of it's individuals survive to procreate.



Real_Solitude -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (4/1/2008 12:56:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
Is Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" wrong in it's conclusion that Global warming is a man-made phenomena and has potentially fatal consequences for life on earth?


Why, yes, yes it was wrong. It was full of horrible science and faulty assumptions. See Junk Science for an introduction on what, exactly, he screwed up.

Warming is happening, but from what I can find, it seems to be cyclical, having little to do with humanity. The speed at which it's occuring seems to be greatly exaggerated as well. If what I've read is correct, then humanity should (assuming we keep our rate of technological progress as high as it's been for the last century) be able to either change the weather, or adapt to it with genetic/physical alteration long before it can do any sort of real damage.

"Faye Valentine[...]"
Heh, that's just the name of the person the quote is from. Thank you though.



cognitivemagic -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (4/8/2008 4:01:03 PM)

quote:

I would appreciate it if you would at least have the courtesy to address what i actually said.


I did. I showed that by your own estimates, through the assistance of "modern" technology, more people died from World War 1 (i.e. with technology and in a 4 year period) than the entire death toll of Europe and Asia during the Black Plague (i.e. as a natural occurence over about a 60 year period). You have tacitly acquiesced to my point.

The World Health Organization has estimated that 25 million people have died from HIV/AIDS from 1981 to the present. Approximately 90 million are expected to be infected in just Africa. HIV/AIDS is the worst pandemic illness that history has thur far known. So, has "social engineering" and "behavior modification" helped to stem the tide of this pathological juggernaut? Has any of the sciences helped to harness and stop it's spread? Is it even within your range of thought to consider that the pervasiveness of this disease has actually been the result of the development of modern technology?

quote:

Warming is happening, but from what I can find, it seems to be cyclical, having little to do with humanity. The speed at which it's occuring seems to be greatly exaggerated as well. If what I've read is correct, then humanity should (assuming we keep our rate of technological progress as high as it's been for the last century) be able to either change the weather, or adapt to it with genetic/physical alteration long before it can do any sort of real damage.


So...no cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, eh? No need to lower gas emission levels, eh? No possible way that mankind could ever cause this, eh?

On your atheistic point of view, mankind is merely a subset of the environment anyway. Why bother making such a distinction?

But, if you can believe that by nuclear fission, mankind has become capable of obliterating the planet several times over, why do you have such a problem believing that mankind could be partly responsible for "global warming"? Forget global warming; we can enact global frying!!

C'mon!

Can science stop the entropy of our sun?

I could debate you on "atheism" but this thread is not on that topic: therefore, I will open a thread on "Atheism" in the God folder, and then we can discuss it there.

quote:

Please don't dress yourself up as a martyr. No one is attacking you.


Martyr? If someone wants to start picking up the proverbial stones to pelt me to death, then talk of martyrdom may be appropriate. But thus far, people have merely been tossing macaroni salad at me!!

I mean, C'mon!

You didn't think I was thin skinned, did you?

quote:

And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind.

What is crooked cannot be made straight,
And what is lacking cannot be numbered.

I communed with my heart, saying, “Look, I have attained greatness, and have gained more wisdom than all who were before me in Jerusalem. My heart has understood great wisdom and knowledge.” And I set my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is grasping for the wind.

For in much wisdom is much grief,
And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

--Ecclesiastes 1:13-18



EverLearning -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (4/8/2008 7:34:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic

quote:

I would appreciate it if you would at least have the courtesy to address what i actually said.


I did. I showed that by your own estimates, through the assistance of "modern" technology, more people died from World War 1 (i.e. with technology and in a 4 year period) than the entire death toll of Europe and Asia during the Black Plague (i.e. as a natural occurence over about a 60 year period). You have tacitly acquiesced to my point.


And yet again you have failed to address what i actually said, you took a portion of what i wrote and attempted to use it to further your agenda. So it appears that you have no interest in discussing you only want to push your views on the rest of us.



drj11 -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (4/8/2008 10:09:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic

I did. I showed that by your own estimates, through the assistance of "modern" technology, more people died from World War 1 (i.e. with technology and in a 4 year period) than the entire death toll of Europe and Asia during the Black Plague (i.e. as a natural occurence over about a 60 year period). You have tacitly acquiesced to my point.


Yea, but what % of the population got killed in each? The world population has grown exponentially since the black plague. Black plague was estimated to have killed 30-60% of the european population at the time. I bet WW1 didnt approach that, though I dont know what the numbers are.

quote:


The World Health Organization has estimated that 25 million people have died from HIV/AIDS from 1981 to the present. Approximately 90 million are expected to be infected in just Africa. HIV/AIDS is the worst pandemic illness that history has thur far known. So, has "social engineering" and "behavior modification" helped to stem the tide of this pathological juggernaut? Has any of the sciences helped to harness and stop it's spread? Is it even within your range of thought to consider that the pervasiveness of this disease has actually been the result of the development of modern technology?


AIDS is hardly the fault of modern technology. It might spread faster sure. AIDS takes a long time to kill you.. without modern technology, we'd all be dying from something else first.

quote:


For in much wisdom is much grief,
And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

--Ecclesiastes 1:13-18



Could be... but I'd still take knowledge over ignorance. There's suffering either way. With knowledge you can at least begin to piece together why, and possibly alleviate it.



Real_Solitude -> RE: "Science" Confers No Survival Advantages. (4/9/2008 7:46:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
So...no cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, eh? No need to lower gas emission levels, eh? No possible way that mankind could ever cause this, eh?

On your atheistic point of view, mankind is merely a subset of the environment anyway. Why bother making such a distinction?

But, if you can believe that by nuclear fission, mankind has become capable of obliterating the planet several times over, why do you have such a problem believing that mankind could be partly responsible for "global warming"? Forget global warming; we can enact global frying!!

C'mon!

Can science stop the entropy of our sun?

Mankind isn't a subset of the environment, it's a species of animal. While predator can be considered environment for prey, prey for the predators, humans are so dispersed and advanced that those relationships don't matter anymore. Humans are in a unique class of animals in that we can actively change our local environments to great extents. I don't have a problem believing that mankind could change the environment, but I've seen nothing that suggest that we are changing the environment in any substantial way. We've probably had some negligible effect on world temperature, but not enough to matter. If our current technological progress continues, then by the time that we do change the environment, it won't matter, because humanity will be at a stage in which we can change it, or ourselves, at will.

As for "Can science stop the entropy of our sun?"... that's an odd question. Science can't do anything besides tell us about how the world is. Technology, on the other hand, can do quite a bit. Now, our technology can't stop the entropy of the sun, or even extend the sun's life. But in general, with a far-enough advanced technology, then yes, technology can probably stop the entropy of the sun. Not by violating the laws of physics, but by adding more fuel to the sun. With advanced enough technology, it's probably possible to throw suns, or planets, into the sun. Throwing Jupiter into the sun would certainly extend its life a little bit. It might destroy the earth in the process, but it can certainly be done, at least conceptually.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI