Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Must There Be Limits To The Pursuit Of Scienc

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 3:28:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
'Ignorance is bliss'

That's what they say. And critics reply that we might as well try ignorance is education is too expensive. While it cannot be overemphasized how scientific inquiry has vastly impacted modern living_and thinking_some of us wonder, isn't too much, too soon.

Already scientists have mapped the human genome, made AI robots, confirmed the Higgs boson, and affirmed the possibility of quantum gravity etc. But the thirst for knowledge is yet to be quenched, we want to know more.

Given this, would anyone agree if I said there should be limits to scientific inquiry. Well consider the bad side of the technology science has offered us; pollution, wide-scale destruction, greed for ostentatious living. Or within science itself one might take a nihilist approach and ask to what end is science be undertaken, if not none. If science tells us that many billions of years from now life will die, why should we bother ? And even if we must because it will save us, why bother over what gives us more reasons to bother ? Scientific answers never come without bringing more problems of their own. The institution of science has become (like many aspects of life and life itself) and end in itself: we do it just because . . . . (add any justufication you will).

When I talk of limits I'm not talking of peer-review or things which help make the scientific process better. I'm considering not pursuing lines of scientific enquiry at all and taking time to step back and take stock, and keep perspective of where science is taking humanity.

Comments and criticisms are welcome.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 4:39:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:48:01 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I agree. For example, I think research into Human cloning should end.

Yup. And could they drop the ball for SETI. I don't see why one should spend billions building sattelites to search for aliens. Another trip to the moon would be better IMO.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 5:03:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 4:39:24 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/4/2014 3:48:01 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I agree. For example, I think research into Human cloning should end.

Yup. And could they drop the ball for SETI. I don't see why one should spend billions building sattelites to search for aliens. Another trip to the moon would be better IMO.

Yea that too! Lol.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 5:45:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 4:39:24 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/4/2014 3:48:01 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I agree. For example, I think research into Human cloning should end.

Yup. And could they drop the ball for SETI. I don't see why one should spend billions building sattelites to search for aliens. Another trip to the moon would be better IMO.

SETI is privately funded, mainly by Paul Allen the co-founder of Microsoft who is now retired from Microsoft and spends time buying basketball teams and looking for aliens. There as no satellites used, just a fairly modest array of antennas in a valley. I wouldn't invest in it, but it has produced the somewhat interesting result of finding nothing despite a lot of searching. I can see no argument why a private person should be prohibited from spending money that way.

There was some government funding on SETI projects prior to 1995.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 5:52:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:28:39 PM, Iredia wrote:
'Ignorance is bliss'

That's what they say. And critics reply that we might as well try ignorance is education is too expensive. While it cannot be overemphasized how scientific inquiry has vastly impacted modern living_and thinking_some of us wonder, isn't too much, too soon.

Already scientists have mapped the human genome, made AI robots, confirmed the Higgs boson, and affirmed the possibility of quantum gravity etc. But the thirst for knowledge is yet to be quenched, we want to know more.

Given this, would anyone agree if I said there should be limits to scientific inquiry. Well consider the bad side of the technology science has offered us; pollution, wide-scale destruction, greed for ostentatious living. Or within science itself one might take a nihilist approach and ask to what end is science be undertaken, if not none. If science tells us that many billions of years from now life will die, why should we bother ? And even if we must because it will save us, why bother over what gives us more reasons to bother ? Scientific answers never come without bringing more problems of their own. The institution of science has become (like many aspects of life and life itself) and end in itself: we do it just because . . . . (add any justufication you will).

When I talk of limits I'm not talking of peer-review or things which help make the scientific process better. I'm considering not pursuing lines of scientific enquiry at all and taking time to step back and take stock, and keep perspective of where science is taking humanity.

Comments and criticisms are welcome.

How would stopping science be beneficial when there are problems like pollution that scientists are working on all the time. What you may find interesting is that many scientists when they release a new invention do warn of negative consequences. Its the end users and corporations that abuse them.

Maybe the question should rather be why are people not listening to the warnings?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 5:57:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:28:39 PM, Iredia wrote:
Given this, would anyone agree if I said there should be limits to scientific inquiry. Well consider the bad side of the technology science has offered us; pollution, wide-scale destruction, greed for ostentatious living ...

So was a world full of famine and plagues, dawn-to-dusk labor, and 40-year life expectancy a wonderful alternative to scientific progress? I don't think so. The idea that early existence was an ecological paradise is also false. One of the traditional methods for killing game was to set a forest on fire, or, more imaginative, start a grassland fire to drive animals off a cliff. Rockefeller saved the whales by developing petroleum as a cheap alternative to whale oil.

There is a distinction between knowing something and deciding how to use it. It's fair to keep the technology of nuclear weapons out of the hands of jihadists. But even if we wanted to, we could not stop the accumulation of knowledge.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:28:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:28:39 PM, Iredia wrote:
'Ignorance is bliss'

That's what they say. And critics reply that we might as well try ignorance is education is too expensive. While it cannot be overemphasized how scientific inquiry has vastly impacted modern living_and thinking_some of us wonder, isn't too much, too soon.

Already scientists have mapped the human genome, made AI robots, confirmed the Higgs boson, and affirmed the possibility of quantum gravity etc. But the thirst for knowledge is yet to be quenched, we want to know more.

Given this, would anyone agree if I said there should be limits to scientific inquiry. Well consider the bad side of the technology science has offered us; pollution, wide-scale destruction, greed for ostentatious living. Or within science itself one might take a nihilist approach and ask to what end is science be undertaken, if not none. If science tells us that many billions of years from now life will die, why should we bother ? And even if we must because it will save us, why bother over what gives us more reasons to bother ? Scientific answers never come without bringing more problems of their own. The institution of science has become (like many aspects of life and life itself) and end in itself: we do it just because . . . . (add any justufication you will).

When I talk of limits I'm not talking of peer-review or things which help make the scientific process better. I'm considering not pursuing lines of scientific enquiry at all and taking time to step back and take stock, and keep perspective of where science is taking humanity.

Comments and criticisms are welcome.

Putting it simply, this is absurd.

First off, science offers the solutions to many of these problems. Science is a tool. The fact that I can stab someone with a cooking knife, isnt an argument to ban all knives. Tools are not inherently good or evil.

Secondly, why would any scientist take a nihilistic approach? I dont even know why youre making this argument to begin with.

Thirdly, again, where science takes us, is up to humanity and has nothing to do with scientific inquiry.

The epitome of the demonstration of this, is Star Trek. Within the Star Trek universe, Mankind has sought to better themselves by the pursuit of knowledge, There is barely no poverty, barely any crime, there is no currency. Despite the fact that the United Federation of Planets primary goal is to garner, expand the horizon of inquest and knowledge, they have created what is no doubt a utopian society.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:45:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Thanks for your input.

At 3/4/2014 6:28:08 PM, tkubok wrote:

Putting it simply, this is absurd.

Okay. But don't take this too seriously tho'. There's a reason I put us as a question.


First off, science offers the solutions to many of these problems. Science is a tool. The fact that I can stab someone with a cooking knife, isnt an argument to ban all knives. Tools are not inherently good or evil.

True.


Secondly, why would any scientist take a nihilistic approach? I dont even know why youre making this argument to begin with.

I am suggesting the view that the pursuit if science is vain, especially in the larger scheme of things; like the universe's destruction, or our place as a speck of life in a lifeless universe_as far as we can see.


Thirdly, again, where science takes us, is up to humanity and has nothing to do with scientific inquiry.

I disagree on this. If science opens up a research area ethical questions are brought up. Inevitably, new fields and inquiries in science takes humanity down a path or possible path. We know of some like vaccination; we know of others like crude oil exploitation.


The epitome of the demonstration of this, is Star Trek. Within the Star Trek universe, Mankind has sought to better themselves by the pursuit of knowledge, There is barely no poverty, barely any crime, there is no currency. Despite the fact that the United Federation of Planets primary goal is to garner, expand the horizon of inquest and knowledge, they have created what is no doubt a utopian society.

I like your optimism. It's possible but I doubt that humanity can muster the political will et al to build anything like that utopia. I may yet be shown wrong tho'.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:49:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 5:45:52 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:39:24 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/4/2014 3:48:01 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I agree. For example, I think research into Human cloning should end.

Yup. And could they drop the ball for SETI. I don't see why one should spend billions building sattelites to search for aliens. Another trip to the moon would be better IMO.

SETI is privately funded, mainly by Paul Allen the co-founder of Microsoft who is now retired from Microsoft and spends time buying
basketball teams and looking for aliens. There as no satellites used, just a fairly modest array of antennas in a valley. I wouldn't invest in it, but it has produced the somewhat interesting result of finding nothing despite a lot of searching. I can see no argument why a private person should be prohibited from spending money that way.

There was some government funding on SETI projects prior to 1995.

Thanks for the info. And I made a mistake on the satellite thing; it was actually antennas. That said, Wikipedia's article on SETI states that modest funding if SETI has resumed.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Neil Tyson's video on America's 'Sputnik Moment' is quite inspiring on this topic.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:58:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 5:52:25 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/4/2014 3:28:39 PM, Iredia wrote:
'Ignorance is bliss'

That's what they say. And critics reply that we might as well try ignorance is education is too expensive. While it cannot be overemphasized how scientific inquiry has vastly impacted modern living_and thinking_some of us wonder, isn't too much, too soon.

Already scientists have mapped the human genome, made AI robots, confirmed the Higgs boson, and affirmed the possibility of quantum gravity etc. But the thirst for knowledge is yet to be quenched, we want to know more.

Given this, would anyone agree if I said there should be limits to scientific inquiry. Well consider the bad side of the technology science has offered us; pollution, wide-scale destruction, greed for ostentatious living. Or within science itself one might take a nihilist approach and ask to what end is science be undertaken, if not none. If science tells us that many billions of years from now life will die, why should we bother ? And even if we must because it will save us, why bother over what gives us more reasons to bother ? Scientific answers never come without bringing more problems of their own. The institution of science has become (like many aspects of life and life itself) and end in itself: we do it just because . . . . (add any justufication you will).

When I talk of limits I'm not talking of peer-review or things which help make the scientific process better. I'm considering not pursuing lines of scientific enquiry at all and taking time to step back and take stock, and keep perspective of where science is taking humanity.

Comments and criticisms are welcome.

How would stopping science be beneficial when there are problems like pollution that scientists are working on all the time. What you may find interesting is that many scientists when they release a new invention do warn of negative consequences. Its the end users and corporations that abuse them.

I never said to stop science; just to stop certain lines of inquiry. Even this has been done to an extent with cloning experiments_unless I'm mistaken. But science makes the means for abuse, available right ? LsD's and codeine for instance.


Maybe the question should rather be why are people not listening to the warnings?

I think you should ask yourself too. Maybe like you they figure what science do, it can (given time and effort) undo.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:11:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 6:45:05 PM, Iredia wrote:
Thanks for your input.

At 3/4/2014 6:28:08 PM, tkubok wrote:

Putting it simply, this is absurd.

Okay. But don't take this too seriously tho'. There's a reason I put us as a question.


First off, science offers the solutions to many of these problems. Science is a tool. The fact that I can stab someone with a cooking knife, isnt an argument to ban all knives. Tools are not inherently good or evil.

True.


Secondly, why would any scientist take a nihilistic approach? I dont even know why youre making this argument to begin with.

I am suggesting the view that the pursuit if science is vain, especially in the larger scheme of things; like the universe's destruction, or our place as a speck of life in a lifeless universe_as far as we can see.

Well, not "especially", more like "Only". Only in the far far far long run, is it in vain. But then again, so is everything, including living. Its really pointless to point this out.


Thirdly, again, where science takes us, is up to humanity and has nothing to do with scientific inquiry.

I disagree on this. If science opens up a research area ethical questions are brought up. Inevitably, new fields and inquiries in science takes humanity down a path or possible path. We know of some like vaccination; we know of others like crude oil exploitation.

Scientific research and scientific inquiry are two different things. Inquiry is searching knowledge, while research is how we go about discovering and searching that knowledge.



The epitome of the demonstration of this, is Star Trek. Within the Star Trek universe, Mankind has sought to better themselves by the pursuit of knowledge, There is barely no poverty, barely any crime, there is no currency. Despite the fact that the United Federation of Planets primary goal is to garner, expand the horizon of inquest and knowledge, they have created what is no doubt a utopian society.

I like your optimism. It's possible but I doubt that humanity can muster the political will et al to build anything like that utopia. I may yet be shown wrong tho'.

Id say that the largest problem would be religion.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:26:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:11:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:45:05 PM, Iredia wrote:
Thanks for your input.

At 3/4/2014 6:28:08 PM, tkubok wrote:

Putting it simply, this is absurd.

Okay. But don't take this too seriously tho'. There's a reason I put us as a question.


First off, science offers the solutions to many of these problems. Science is a tool. The fact that I can stab someone with a cooking knife, isnt an argument to ban all knives. Tools are not inherently good or evil.

True.


Secondly, why would any scientist take a nihilistic approach? I dont even know why youre making this argument to begin with.

I am suggesting the view that the pursuit if science is vain, especially in the larger scheme of things; like the universe's destruction, or our place as a speck of life in a lifeless universe_as far as we can see.

Well, not "especially", more like "Only". Only in the far far far long run, is it in vain. But then again, so is everything, including living. Its really pointless to point this out.

So everything is pointless, including pointing out how pointless it is. If that's the case, why did you point it out...?

Id say that the largest problem would be religion.

So the largest charity in human history is also the largest problem? The Catholic Church runs the biggest charity the world has ever known, you know. It also runs more private schools in the USA, and takes 17% of all USA hospital admissions. How can it be the largest problem?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:37:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:11:41 PM, tkubok wrote:

Well, not "especially", more like "Only". Only in the far far far long run, is it in vain. But then again, so is everything, including living. Its really pointless to point this out.

Why ? Lemme put it this way. Scientists usually say that it's no fun where there's nothing to find out. Now suppose science is successful and finds out all it needs to know, what happens ? I would say it's like a candle that burns out. Without knowledge to find science is pointless.
Won't delaying science delay it from becoming pointless. After all, some humans live 'on the safe side' so they don't age or die quickly.


Scientific research and scientific inquiry are two different things. Inquiry is searching knowledge, while research is how we go about discovering and searching that knowledge.

Okay. But you will admit that science already has limits to ensure that knowledge is valid. And you may not as quickly admit science has stopped certain research or inquiry due to ethical concerns: I think this was part reason medical science suffered since stufying of human corpses was a taboo. These are precedents to my poser on whether science should be limited in its inquiry.


Id say that the largest problem would be religion.

Religion is a symptom of humanity's potential for bullsh*t. Treating a symptom does no justice to its ailment.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:54:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Religion is a cause and a symptom.
It is caused by ignorance and stupidity, mostly. It causes on top of ignorance and stupidity lunacy and insanity. Yeah, it drives itself.

Science. There should be no limits other than for those that would effect severe consequences for us and life on the planet in general. After all, science should not be a tool of death and destruction, we've got insanity for that (religions; and oh sh!t... when writing this sentence and when I began this bracket thing here, I did not think of all the wars and deaths and damage religion has caused... yup, religion is insanity, takes an epidemic out of bounds, damned billions are infected).
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:59:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:26:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:11:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:45:05 PM, Iredia wrote:
Thanks for your input.

At 3/4/2014 6:28:08 PM, tkubok wrote:

Putting it simply, this is absurd.

Okay. But don't take this too seriously tho'. There's a reason I put us as a question.


First off, science offers the solutions to many of these problems. Science is a tool. The fact that I can stab someone with a cooking knife, isnt an argument to ban all knives. Tools are not inherently good or evil.

True.


Secondly, why would any scientist take a nihilistic approach? I dont even know why youre making this argument to begin with.

I am suggesting the view that the pursuit if science is vain, especially in the larger scheme of things; like the universe's destruction, or our place as a speck of life in a lifeless universe_as far as we can see.

Well, not "especially", more like "Only". Only in the far far far long run, is it in vain. But then again, so is everything, including living. Its really pointless to point this out.


So everything is pointless, including pointing out how pointless it is. If that's the case, why did you point it out...?

I didnt say that everything is pointless. I said that it is meaningless to point this out, because it only matters in the very very very very very very long run. This really doesnt affect people with regards to their lives, their generation, even their society. This may not even have to do with the planet that we live on.

Id say that the largest problem would be religion.

So the largest charity in human history is also the largest problem? The Catholic Church runs the biggest charity the world has ever known, you know. It also runs more private schools in the USA, and takes 17% of all USA hospital admissions. How can it be the largest problem?

Yes, it is the largest problem, because, guess what? Charity doesnt require religion. There are plenty of secular non-religious charities.

But the problem with religious charities is that they come with the baggage of religion, and they run the risk of spending money on things that are utterly retardedly meaningless.

I mean, since you bring up the example of the catholic church, dont you agree that it was a problem when the catholic church employed, and knew about these pedophile preists, and shuffled them around from church to church in order to avoid prosecution and stifle investigation? Dont you think the money they wasted on lawyers trying to defend these priests, the money they ended up having to pay because these priests were molesting children, couldve been put to far better use?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:00:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 5:57:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

So was a world full of famine and plagues, dawn-to-dusk labor, and 40-year life expectancy a wonderful alternative to scientific progress? I don't think so.

Yes. Future comforts tend to make mincemeat of past glories. In a possible future of robots, voice-input AI machines, maglev tracks etc life now will seem pretty messed up by comparison; as we think of life only 2 centuries back.


The idea that early existence was an ecological paradise is also false. One of the traditional methods for killing game was to set a forest on fire, or, more imaginative, start a grassland fire to drive animals off a cliff. Rockefeller saved the whales by developing petroleum as a cheap alternative to whale oil.

Good argument but there are other sides to the die. Petroleum is far more devastating. Now we are moving to solar and wind which are indeed clean. I'll try not to nitpick its problems one of which is being contingent on weather.

I disagree with your point on early existence. It would have been an ecological paradise, especially when compared to now. And the setting fire to forests would have been rarely used (except you have evidence). It hardly makes sense to burn a forest and your prey you live off. Amazonian jungle tribes are well known, I haven't heard of them burning forests. Kenyan Masai didn't, not even to hunt lions.


There is a distinction between knowing something and deciding how to use it. It's fair to keep the technology of nuclear weapons out of the hands of jihadists. But even if we wanted to, we could not stop the accumulation of knowledge.

True. Not because we can't, but because after seeing its results we won't want to it to stop (or be limited as I posed). Do you see any need limits (generally defined) in accumulating knowledge ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:20:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:59:58 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:26:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:11:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:45:05 PM, Iredia wrote:
Well, not "especially", more like "Only". Only in the far far far long run, is it in vain. But then again, so is everything, including living. Its really pointless to point this out.


So everything is pointless, including pointing out how pointless it is. If that's the case, why did you point it out...?

I didnt say that everything is pointless.( ... )

I think you did, actually. What else were you talking about when you said "So is everything"? Everything is what...?

Id say that the largest problem would be religion.

So the largest charity in human history is also the largest problem? The Catholic Church runs the biggest charity the world has ever known, you know. It also runs more private schools in the USA, and takes 17% of all USA hospital admissions. How can it be the largest problem?

Yes, it is the largest problem, because, guess what? Charity doesnt require religion. There are plenty of secular non-religious charities.

So, what's your point? Science doesn't require atheism. There are plenty of religious non-atheistic scientists. The fact is, the biggest charity in the world is due to religion. Charity is like, the epitomy of the opposite of the word "problem." If you want to have some ground here, start your own secular charity and try to do more good with it than the Catholic Church does.

But the problem with religious charities is that they come with the baggage of religion, and they run the risk of spending money on things that are utterly retardedly meaningless.

I mean, since you bring up the example of the catholic church, dont you agree that it was a problem when the catholic church employed, and knew about these pedophile preists, and shuffled them around from church to church in order to avoid prosecution and stifle investigation?

I'm skeptical about these claims.

Dont you think the money they wasted on lawyers trying to defend these priests, the money they ended up having to pay because these priests were molesting children, couldve been put to far better use?

What are you saying, all humans don't have the right to a fair trial? Even murderers get defended, at least in U.S. courts.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:32:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:37:25 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:11:41 PM, tkubok wrote:

Well, not "especially", more like "Only". Only in the far far far long run, is it in vain. But then again, so is everything, including living. Its really pointless to point this out.

Why ? Lemme put it this way. Scientists usually say that it's no fun where there's nothing to find out. Now suppose science is successful and finds out all it needs to know, what happens ? I would say it's like a candle that burns out. Without knowledge to find science is pointless.
Won't delaying science delay it from becoming pointless. After all, some humans live 'on the safe side' so they don't age or die quickly.

Uh, no. You would have to assume that a). There is a limit to knowledge, and b) we would reach that limit by the time the universe is destroyed/ceases to exist.

Even if we somehow managed to reach the limit of our knowledge, we wouldnt possibly be able to know that weve reached it. Thats the point about the unknown, you dont know about it.


Scientific research and scientific inquiry are two different things. Inquiry is searching knowledge, while research is how we go about discovering and searching that knowledge.

Okay. But you will admit that science already has limits to ensure that knowledge is valid.

I dont understand what you mean by "Science has limits to ensure that knowledge is valid".

What limit are you talking about, exactly?

And you may not as quickly admit science has stopped certain research or inquiry due to ethical concerns: I think this was part reason medical science suffered since stufying of human corpses was a taboo. These are precedents to my poser on whether science should be limited in its inquiry.

First off, studying human corpses is not taboo. We do autopsys on dead corpses all the time. Medical students use dead corpses that were donated to science, all the time.

But not really, because the problem and ethical concern was the method of inquiry, and not the inquiry itself. Inquiry into cloning, for example, where human cloning was banned, but animal cloning and other cloning methods and study into those areas, were approved.

There are always multiple methods with regards to inquiry.



Id say that the largest problem would be religion.

Religion is a symptom of humanity's potential for bullsh*t. Treating a symptom does no justice to its ailment.

as Nummi said, religion is both the cause and the symptom. However, treating the symptom is fine, theres nothing wrong with it. we do that all the time. The "Cause" that youre reffering to is something that is inherent within human nature and isnt something that is curable, so treating the symptoms, is the best thing you could do.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:01:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:20:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:59:58 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:26:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:11:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:45:05 PM, Iredia wrote:
Well, not "especially", more like "Only". Only in the far far far long run, is it in vain. But then again, so is everything, including living. Its really pointless to point this out.


So everything is pointless, including pointing out how pointless it is. If that's the case, why did you point it out...?

I didnt say that everything is pointless.( ... )

I think you did, actually. What else were you talking about when you said "So is everything"? Everything is what...?

Its not pointless, because it doesnt matter, which was the point i was trying to make.


Id say that the largest problem would be religion.

So the largest charity in human history is also the largest problem? The Catholic Church runs the biggest charity the world has ever known, you know. It also runs more private schools in the USA, and takes 17% of all USA hospital admissions. How can it be the largest problem?

Yes, it is the largest problem, because, guess what? Charity doesnt require religion. There are plenty of secular non-religious charities.

So, what's your point? Science doesn't require atheism. There are plenty of religious non-atheistic scientists. The fact is, the biggest charity in the world is due to religion. Charity is like, the epitomy of the opposite of the word "problem." If you want to have some ground here, start your own secular charity and try to do more good with it than the Catholic Church does.

I never said that science requires atheism, but it also doesnt require religion, either. But the point is that pointing out a religious organization that does charity, is irrelevant to the fact that religion is a problem.

Its like Sickle cell and Malaria. Yes, people with the sickle cell disease, are immune to malaria. Its benefitial. But sickle cell is still a problem, and still needs to be treated.

On the other hand, a secular charity organization, is someone who doesnt have sickle cell, and yet is still immune to malaria.

Also, the most wealthiest charities are secular:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

But the problem with religious charities is that they come with the baggage of religion, and they run the risk of spending money on things that are utterly retardedly meaningless.

I mean, since you bring up the example of the catholic church, dont you agree that it was a problem when the catholic church employed, and knew about these pedophile preists, and shuffled them around from church to church in order to avoid prosecution and stifle investigation?

I'm skeptical about these claims.

Skeptical about... the fact that pedophile preists existed? About the fact that the church tried to cover it up?


Dont you think the money they wasted on lawyers trying to defend these priests, the money they ended up having to pay because these priests were molesting children, couldve been put to far better use?

What are you saying, all humans don't have the right to a fair trial? Even murderers get defended, at least in U.S. courts.

You realize that the court appoints lawyers, free of charge? When youre arrested, youre told that if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:49:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:01:32 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 8:20:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:59:58 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:26:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:11:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:45:05 PM, Iredia wrote:
Well, not "especially", more like "Only". Only in the far far far long run, is it in vain. But then again, so is everything, including living. Its really pointless to point this out.


So everything is pointless, including pointing out how pointless it is. If that's the case, why did you point it out...?

I didnt say that everything is pointless.( ... )

I think you did, actually. What else were you talking about when you said "So is everything"? Everything is what...?

Its not pointless, because it doesnt matter, which was the point i was trying to make.


Id say that the largest problem would be religion.

So the largest charity in human history is also the largest problem? The Catholic Church runs the biggest charity the world has ever known, you know. It also runs more private schools in the USA, and takes 17% of all USA hospital admissions. How can it be the largest problem?

Yes, it is the largest problem, because, guess what? Charity doesnt require religion. There are plenty of secular non-religious charities.

So, what's your point? Science doesn't require atheism. There are plenty of religious non-atheistic scientists. The fact is, the biggest charity in the world is due to religion. Charity is like, the epitomy of the opposite of the word "problem." If you want to have some ground here, start your own secular charity and try to do more good with it than the Catholic Church does.

I never said that science requires atheism, but it also doesnt require religion, either. But the point is that pointing out a religious organization that does charity, is irrelevant to the fact that religion is a problem.

Its like Sickle cell and Malaria. Yes, people with the sickle cell disease, are immune to malaria. Its benefitial. But sickle cell is still a problem, and still needs to be treated.

On the other hand, a secular charity organization, is someone who doesnt have sickle cell, and yet is still immune to malaria.

I have far less qualms with your position if you clarify that you wish to "cure" religion some other way besides eliminating it.

Also, the most wealthiest charities are secular:

The Catholic Church does the most charity. If it isn't as wealthy as the secular ones, than this evidence is an argument FOR the Catholic Church (and by extension, religion), not against it. This is because if it is the case that the Church does more charity than the wealthier secular charities, that makes secular charities look stingy.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


But the problem with religious charities is that they come with the baggage of religion, and they run the risk of spending money on things that are utterly retardedly meaningless.

I mean, since you bring up the example of the catholic church, dont you agree that it was a problem when the catholic church employed, and knew about these pedophile preists, and shuffled them around from church to church in order to avoid prosecution and stifle investigation?

I'm skeptical about these claims.

Skeptical about... the fact that pedophile preists existed? About the fact that the church tried to cover it up?

The latter.


Dont you think the money they wasted on lawyers trying to defend these priests, the money they ended up having to pay because these priests were molesting children, couldve been put to far better use?

What are you saying, all humans don't have the right to a fair trial? Even murderers get defended, at least in U.S. courts.

You realize that the court appoints lawyers, free of charge? When youre arrested, youre told that if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you?

What's your point? That the church should abandon it's priests to get trampled by the legal system?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:15:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Point 1: Science should be limited.
Come on, we've seen too many stereotypical movies where the stereotypical scientist discovers the stereotypical thing that somehow wipes out the human population.
That having been said, the limits on science should be purely ethical. Anything whose research harms persons, for example. Hell, there are laws on that already. And ecological too I think, I mean, we can't just go blow up Mars for research (even if we work out how to do it so that it has no adverse effect on Earth). That's just wrong. Like it's wrong. Just wrong.
Plus as far as resources are limited, it's better to direct funds towards research a little more relevant to humanity than searching for extraterrestrials.

Point 2: The whole religion thing.
This one is ridiculous. How come so many people select one or two religions as representative of the thousands on the globe? Okay, so you have a problem with the Christian concept of deity. Now how does that have any bearing on Buddhists, animists, Wiccans, people who seriously believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? So how do you consign them all to the same "religion is stupid, lol" pot?
And in relation to this topic, the validity of religion is a moot point. Countless pre-twentieth-century (and plenty of modern) scientists - Newton for one - believed in some concept of God/gods/the supernatural, and exactly how did that hinder their life's work?
And then people go all "Look at all the wars/evil/blah blah blah religion has caused!" Well, I can't remember where it is, but I recall this table of all the major wars in history with casualties, and religious wars were responsible for only about three percent of said casualties. Yup, three. Hardly surprising, when you consider that the wars which wreaked the most havoc - the World Wars - had f*ck-all to do with religion. Pedophilia? Sure, let's slam the Catholic church and blissfully ignore the several million other cases of statutory rape that have nothing to do with priests. Never mind that simple statistics demands that there must be an intersection between the relatively large number of Catholic priests and the relatively large number of people with pedophiliac leanings - let's just blame their religion.
And when someone tries to point out the good that religious bodies have done, we go "Yeah, whatever, other people do good stuff too." Exactly. Other people do bad stuff too. What are you going to blame for their evil? Atheism?
Sigh. Okay I'm ranting. But my basic point is that no matter your stance on its validity, religion isn't the demon stalking humanity. It's humanity itself - the human nature that tends to greed and selfishness and sh*t. Some of that nature spills into all human institutions, from politics to economics and yes, religion. We're just f*cked up, that's all.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll just go jump off a cliff.
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:19:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 1:15:46 AM, jewelessien wrote:
And when someone tries to point out the good that religious bodies have done, we go "Yeah, whatever, other people do good stuff too." Exactly. Other people do bad stuff too. What are you going to blame for their evil? Atheism?

Thanks for putting so plainly the point I was trying to make above xD
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:33:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 1:19:01 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/5/2014 1:15:46 AM, jewelessien wrote:
And when someone tries to point out the good that religious bodies have done, we go "Yeah, whatever, other people do good stuff too." Exactly. Other people do bad stuff too. What are you going to blame for their evil? Atheism?

Thanks for putting so plainly the point I was trying to make above xD

I'm just tired of people spouting off just because. You can be an atheist and have no problem with religion. It's not a contest. I don't know why people make it one.

Oh yeah I found the source: http://www.godandscience.org...
And I made an error: the 3% there refers to democide (genocide, mass murder, politicide, etc), not war. About seven percent of wars had religious affiliations.
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 3:16:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 2:19:46 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
This seems the fastest a thread on science has degenerated into religion. :)

tbubok started it, Garret didn't help matters.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 10:52:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:00:15 PM, Iredia wrote:
Yes. Future comforts tend to make mincemeat of past glories. In a possible future of robots, voice-input AI machines, maglev tracks etc life now will seem pretty messed up by comparison; as we think of life only 2 centuries back.

Sure, the conveniences are remarkable. In the mid-20th century there were still huge famines and very common debilitating diseases like polio. Now the only famines are caused by political intervention. We still have disease, but it's much less. Exactly at what point would you choose to stop agricultural and medical science? Starvation and disease would limit populations, but that's not a good alternative.

Good argument but there are other sides to the die. Petroleum is far more devastating.

No it isn't. Wood smoke is much worse. It don't buy the CO2-will-end-life story.

Now we are moving to solar and wind which are indeed clean. I'll try not to nitpick its problems one of which is being contingent on weather.

Solar and wind are not viable solutions at present. They are expensive and unreliable. Nuclear is now viable, but lack of scientific literacy prevents it from being used.

I disagree with your point on early existence. It would have been an ecological paradise, especially when compared to now. And the setting fire to forests would have been rarely used (except you have evidence). It hardly makes sense to burn a forest and your prey you live off. Amazonian jungle tribes are well known, I haven't heard of them burning forests. Kenyan Masai didn't, not even to hunt lions.

I'm not going to find all the research to cite. The point is that primitive people had no concern for environmental consequences. If they are hungry and can get food by driving a herd off a cliff, they're not going to stop because Al Gore tells them to. If the population is very small, then it doesn't much matter. So the goodness derived from stopping science is that only a small population living brutal lives can exist. That's not good.

True. Not because we can't, but because after seeing its results we won't want to it to stop (or be limited as I posed). Do you see any need limits (generally defined) in accumulating knowledge ?

The problem is there no way to know exactly what is ahead. Suppose we knew that a certain line of medical research would lead to the develop a poisoned gas so toxic it could easily destroy all human life. I think that happened to James Bond once. If we knew that, then it would be a reasonable policy to ban research in that part of science. But that isn't possible to know. So the job is to make sure an antidote is developed as well.

I don't question the need for rules of medical ethics. The cause of scientific research is subordinate to human rights, so there is no grounds for forced human experimentation or cruelty. I view that as a limitation on methods, not science.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:11:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:49:40 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:01:32 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 8:20:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:59:58 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:26:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:11:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:45:05 PM, Iredia wrote:
Well, not "especially", more like "Only". Only in the far far far long run, is it in vain. But then again, so is everything, including living. Its really pointless to point this out.


So everything is pointless, including pointing out how pointless it is. If that's the case, why did you point it out...?

I didnt say that everything is pointless.( ... )

I think you did, actually. What else were you talking about when you said "So is everything"? Everything is what...?

Its not pointless, because it doesnt matter, which was the point i was trying to make.


Id say that the largest problem would be religion.

So the largest charity in human history is also the largest problem? The Catholic Church runs the biggest charity the world has ever known, you know. It also runs more private schools in the USA, and takes 17% of all USA hospital admissions. How can it be the largest problem?

Yes, it is the largest problem, because, guess what? Charity doesnt require religion. There are plenty of secular non-religious charities.

So, what's your point? Science doesn't require atheism. There are plenty of religious non-atheistic scientists. The fact is, the biggest charity in the world is due to religion. Charity is like, the epitomy of the opposite of the word "problem." If you want to have some ground here, start your own secular charity and try to do more good with it than the Catholic Church does.

I never said that science requires atheism, but it also doesnt require religion, either. But the point is that pointing out a religious organization that does charity, is irrelevant to the fact that religion is a problem.

Its like Sickle cell and Malaria. Yes, people with the sickle cell disease, are immune to malaria. Its benefitial. But sickle cell is still a problem, and still needs to be treated.

On the other hand, a secular charity organization, is someone who doesnt have sickle cell, and yet is still immune to malaria.

I have far less qualms with your position if you clarify that you wish to "cure" religion some other way besides eliminating it.

Im fairly certain that the only way to actually cure something is for it to dissapear, am I wrong?


Also, the most wealthiest charities are secular:

The Catholic Church does the most charity. If it isn't as wealthy as the secular ones, than this evidence is an argument FOR the Catholic Church (and by extension, religion), not against it. This is because if it is the case that the Church does more charity than the wealthier secular charities, that makes secular charities look stingy.

What do you mean by "Most", exactly? I mean, you agree that there are multiple aspects of a charity, i.e. how much donations they receive, how much money they spend, how many volunteers they have, etc?


http://en.wikipedia.org...


But the problem with religious charities is that they come with the baggage of religion, and they run the risk of spending money on things that are utterly retardedly meaningless.

I mean, since you bring up the example of the catholic church, dont you agree that it was a problem when the catholic church employed, and knew about these pedophile preists, and shuffled them around from church to church in order to avoid prosecution and stifle investigation?

I'm skeptical about these claims.

Skeptical about... the fact that pedophile preists existed? About the fact that the church tried to cover it up?

The latter.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...



Dont you think the money they wasted on lawyers trying to defend these priests, the money they ended up having to pay because these priests were molesting children, couldve been put to far better use?

What are you saying, all humans don't have the right to a fair trial? Even murderers get defended, at least in U.S. courts.

You realize that the court appoints lawyers, free of charge? When youre arrested, youre told that if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you?

What's your point? That the church should abandon it's priests to get trampled by the legal system?

As opposed to hiding the preists, to stifle police investigation? And by Abandon, you mean to not waste money paying attornies to defend someone they knew had received complaints about? I would say, Yes.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 2:41:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 10:52:59 AM, RoyLatham wrote:

No it isn't. Wood smoke is much worse. It don't buy the CO2-will-end-life story.

Okay. Why don't you think CO2 will end life ? I think it will for the obvious reason that humans depend on O2. Then there's global warming.


Solar and wind are not viable solutions at present. They are expensive and unreliable. Nuclear is now viable, but lack of scientific literacy prevents it from being used.

What technologies make nuclear power viable ? As far as I know it's still as dangerous as before, esp. its by-products. You may want to read Wikipedia's articles on power in Germany and Iceland: in the case of Germany, they are said to make extensive use of solar and wind power.


I'm not going to find all the research to cite. The point is that primitive people had no concern for environmental consequences. If they are hungry and can get food by driving a herd off a cliff, they're not going to stop because Al Gore tells them to. If the population is very small, then it doesn't much matter. So the goodness derived from stopping science is that only a small population living brutal lives can exist. That's not good.

Relatively speaking. In any case, I will avoid arguing here especially since I quite agree with your points. I was considering looking at it another way.


The problem is there no way to know exactly what is ahead. Suppose we knew that a certain line of medical research would lead to the develop a poisoned gas so toxic it could easily destroy all human life. I think that happened to James Bond once. If we knew that, then it would be a reasonable policy to ban research in that part of science. But that isn't possible to know. So the job is to make sure an antidote is developed as well.

I don't question the need for rules of medical ethics. The cause of scientific research is subordinate to human rights, so there is no grounds for forced human experimentation or cruelty. I view that as a limitation on methods, not science.

When I say science here I am considering both scientific knowledge and the method used to gain that knowledge. If there is a limitation on a method of inquiry, there's a limitation on knowledge. For example, till Harvey took the risk of studying a human corpse, doctors knowledge on blood circulation in humans was limited. Not to mention the fact that scientists actually took data from experiments done by Nazi scientists on captured Jews on how humans respond to cold.

See here: www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html

At least, we agree that ethics is one limit to the method and acquisition of scientific knowledge. We might as well talk on this. For example, I find it irksome that the using data from Nazi data experiments was refused in examples stated in the article link above.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.