Believe in science & ethics

last SG · 2007-08-17T14:02:49+00:00

The scope of science is very wide.It includes social sciences such as sociology,psychology and politics.

Daddy!! SG

i found a new love in my life : Costa Rica !

Ibram Gaunt SG

I'd summarise..........
--------------------------------------------------------------
Set 1: With regards to the capability of science -

Belief 1:
Some people believe that science can only explain a miniscule part of the universe. Some would add on and say that what science cannot explain, Man is not meant to know, or that our limited thought capacity cannot comprehend. Even given all the time and effort, not all the mysteries in the universe can be resolved.

Belief 2:
Others believe in the sufficiency of science....that what we do not understand yet, science will one day uncover the answers....and that by believing in limitations in science, our capacity to discover the undiscovered will be handicapped. Given enough time and effort, all mysteries in the universe can be resolved.
------------------------------------------------------------
also
------------------------------------------------------------
Set 2: With regards to the current mysteries behind the current unknowns -

Belief 1:
Some believe (whether rightly or wrongly) in supernatural agency behind what science has yet to (or cannot) discover.

Belief 2:
While others believe that it is only an unknown natural agency behind what science has yet to (or cannot) discover.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I may support Beliefs 2 for both sets, just as you may support Beliefs 1 for both sets. Yes, at face-value, Belief 2 of Set 1 may seem implausible (and even arrogant), but some would say it is not impossible for Mankind to discover all the mysteries of the universe given enough time, effort and ingenuity.

But......
We have to admit that both our positions are based on "beliefs" and do not rely on "evidence". Either of us can be wrong. And either of us can be right.

AndrewPKYap SG

People that reject science but cannot say what they should replace it with are just delusional. Why is that? Science is about reality. If you reject science, then, you accept delusions. If you embrace science, then, you embrace reality and reject delusions.

If you doubt that science is as good as it gets but you cannot say what you should replace it with, then you are just stupid.

Why give up the best when there is nothing better on offer? Stupid, right?

So if you want to doubt science or doubt that science is the best on offer, then say it, say what you think is better. If you cannot say it but you continue to doubt that science is the best, not perfect, but the best on offer, then you are just stupid.

AndrewPKYap SG

Why do people cling on to beliefs? The reason is simple, and that is there are weird coincidences in this world.

Some people get struck by lightning and some people win lottery.

Rational intelligent people will say: "Those are just coincidence. It happens and there is no way to control the outcome."

Stupid delusional people will say: "If I pray to such and such a thing or if I do such and such a ritual, then I will be able to ensure that I strike lottery and I do not get struck by lightning."

Delusional.

soul_rage SG

Rightly so.
I respect your beliefs. And you are right that yours is also a belief and not a fact. Either one of us can be right or wrong.

Anyway as I mentioned, Supernatural may be deemed a little too closely to superstition, as its too closely used with spirits and ghosts, etc.

However, as I mentioned, Supernatural may be encompassing the 'facts' which our current Science or us cannot comprehend.

Either way, I respect the way you debate, and I will refrain from responding to the zealots (superstitious believers) of Science in a flaming war.

soul_rage SG

I am bringing one more point to the above.
Actually I am not exactly (1). As you noted in my postings, I said that our CURRENT science cannot explain a lot of things.

Whether Science can one day open the door to all answers, remains to be seen, and I never intended to speculate about a future which is pretty far away

Its a common belief (I won't say fact here) that humans right now can only assess about 5-10% of their brain capability through the conscious usage of it.
Who knows, maybe one day, we can use 100% of our brain capability? Perhaps by then, your belief in (2) will come true, and I won't argue against that.

But one thing's for sure.

You and I won't live to see that day though Smile

PRP SG

U are erroneous to say that some ppl pretend to support science -- the word "science" need not have a capital "S".How do u get the conclusion that some ppl devoid of ethics?Last time,u asked what "fact" is.The question is laughable.Please don't think too highly of your opinions.

U say Andrew & I are superstious believers of science.This is your mistaken view.Haven't i say that it is good that one should have some doubt on scientific findings or opinions -- I commended u to bring out the opinion of doubting on science?

Calling other ppl stupid is not nice -- but sometimes it can be true.But calling others monkey is more insulting.

soul_rage SG

I am open to discussions with you if you are here to discuss and debate objectively. But I am not open if you stay in support of Andrew.

I summarize again (though I have repeatedly say this, I will say this again for the benefit of doubt):
- Andrew said its ok to call people stupid, if Science can prove a person is stupid
- It is NEVER ethical to call someone stupid. Straight-forward, clear-cut. Just answer this simple question. Do you go up to a person who is retarded by definition of Science, and call him a retard, just because Science proves he is retarded?
- If you don't, then you have no option but to agree with me that Andrew is devoid of ethics, since he doesn't respect other people.

If everyone behaves like him, and believes that so long Science says its ok, so ethically you don't care, then this world will be a sad place to live in.

Science was not meant ever to be used for such unethical purpose. It was meant to push forward the progression of Mankind and advance our ethics together.

If Andrew is a product of Science advancement, then I would rather Science not progress so much.

Why did I not flame you (until you started speaking up for him), or Ibram, or other supporters of Science, but ONLY HIM? The above IS the reason.

And yes, I called him a monkey because he refuse to admit that it is wrong to call others stupid. And I have no problems apologizing if he learns his mistake.

soul_rage SG

Why is Andrew a superstitious (over-zealous) believer of Science?

A true Scientific person combines both ethics and Science for the benefit of society.

An overzealous believer of Science disregards all aspects of Mankind and society.

He has reached a point where he's no longer supporting Science (and he will never win over others with his arguments), but he's behaving like the zealots of Religion, where they have gone all obsessed thinking that their religion is the holy grail, disregarding all other aspects of society.

It is precisely because of zealots existing in a certain religion, that results in people developing a dislike against that religion. They are the ones that push people away from their religion, and they do not know it.

AndrewPKYap SG

Is science perfect, No. Is science the best there is, Yes.

This is just a fact and is reality.

There are mentally weak people expressing their opinions in this thread. They cannot face reality. The cannot face the fact that the best is not 100% fool-proof. That is mental weakness. It takes mental strength to stare reality in the face. The weak are not be able to withstand the glare of reality.

Their weak minds try to look for "something" better. They believe that there must be something better since science is not perfect. They cannot find anything better and do they then acknowledge that while science is not perfect it is th best there is? No, that is too devastating for weak minded people.

Weak minded people seeks perfection where there is none. They cannot cope with reality because they cannot cope with uncertainty. They cannot cope with uncertainty because they are mentally weak.

Be strong. Accept reality for what it is. Not perfect but it is as good as it gets.

PRP SG

I advocate believing in science. It doesn't mean that one should only believe in science and nothing else.One can still believe in other good values such as family, friendship, honesty,respect,etc.

PRP SG

Calling others stupid is quite common.Surely the other person is not realy a fool but only that his opinion is wrong or stupid.There is no question of ethics.

Since you has called him monkey,what should Andrew apologise for calling others stupid?

soul_rage SG

Pls read the below
"And yes, I called him a monkey because he refuse to admit that it is wrong to call others stupid. And I have no problems apologizing if he learns his mistake."

I have already said I am gracious enough to apologise if he is willing to accept that he is rude.

Supporting a person should also be done in a reasonable manner, and not deliberately missing out parts of the posting.

If you said its nothing wrong to call others stupid, then you have a problem with objectivity as well.

If you cannot see how rude when he first started his postings, then you have a problem with seeing things in an objective manner.

As I said, why I only flame him, but not any other supporters of Science?

Ibram Gaunt SG

Yes, there are differences in the ways in which individuals process information in our brains, and different people have different mental capabilities - but the belief that we "use only 10% of our brain" is an urban legend. Humans put most of their cerebral cortex to use, even when dozing:
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

'Like memory, human intelligence is probably not confined to a single area in the brain, but is instead the result of multiple brain areas working in concert, a new review of research (sep 2007)suggests' More on this at: http://www.livescience.com/health/070911_intel_network.html

Actually when I suggested that humans could possibly (but may not be so plausibly) gain "knowledge of all the unknowns" in the universe, I was thinking of the ideals of 'Transhumanism' - a movement which advocates the enhancement of humans (physical and mental properties) through scientific means like bioengineering, nanotechnology, cybernetics, etc.

This ideals of this movement is of course very speculative and almost sci-fi in nature. Some people may be horrified at the suggestion to alter the human form, but this movement is rooted in a benign desire to gain knowledge and build an utopia:
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/

Certainly most of us today will probably not live long enough to see the next major step in human advancement....

soul_rage SG

Thanks for the correction of a common misconception. Smile This 10% thing was something said by many people for many years
However, it also implies that we humans are very limited in our brain capability, though how each person uses its resource is different, and can be effective or ineffective usage, efficient or inefficient usage.

I read transhumanism and is truly interesting. A scientific way to truly evolve to a higher being. Thanks for the link. I will be reading it in more detail.

But just a question, since the ideals of this movement is very speculative and almost sci-fi in nature (which seriously, it means there is no evidence that their ideals are attainable), then wouldn't this be something similar to paranormal research, where there are people attempting to use scientific methods to prove that the paranormal exists?

Ibram Gaunt SG

In my opinion, it is different from 'paranormalism'.... because transhumanism is a movement that extrapolates current (and real) development in the fields of science and technology - which have already given society tangible results in fields such as nanotech, bioengineering and cybernetics. The products of nanotech, bioengineering and cybernetics are very real and it is reasonable to postulate their growth in the future (which is what Singapore and other developed nations are doing, when they invest money into the biosciences industry). Advances in these fields can be seen from countless respectable journals in the sciences. Things that would be science fiction 50 yrs ago (such as mini home computers, internet, genetic engineering) have turned out true in the end. And though Transhumanism may seem like sci fi now, it is not unreasonable to speculate on its future development.

While 'paranormalism' is just argument from ignorance (i.e. just because we don't know something, the paranormalist will automatically ascribe extra-natural explanations to it, without doing rigorous study) and superstition (at worst). Paranormalism has not given society tangible benefits and its "research products" are dubious and when subjected to closer scientific scrutiny, does not hold up well. To date, paranormalism has not given back tangible benefits to society, unlike science. To me paranormalism will not advance the cause of mankind, but would instead hold it back in the grip of ignorance(just like creationism, which is basically argument from ignorance and religious fundamentalism....and can only damage the scientific education and development of society).

In fact paranormalism is a hindrance to Transhumanism....because in claiming that there are 'unknowns' that are forever outside the analysis of humankind (and that mankind is helpless in dealing with the unknowns), paranormalism hinders the search for knowledge and consequently retards the advancement of humanity.

soul_rage SG

Ah... I think I see that you differentiate them based on a practical approach, whether they contribute back to society.

Still, there is one thing I like to mention. You said that paranormalist will ascribe extra-natural explanations to something outside of science, without doing rigorous study, and they are superstitious people.

Paranormal researchers may not be as what you said. If you read about paranormal research, they are not like what you said, no rigorous study. They do have different approaches to their research on the paranormal such as Experimental approach, Participant observer approach, etc.

But end of the day, its true that paranormal research does not contribute much back to the society at present. But it doesn't also mean that it will never contribute to the progress of Mankind.

Ultimately, whether what both will achieve (transhumanism and paranormalism) is subject to speculation

PRP SG

If a chap is really stupid,can others say he is stupid?

When he said someone stupid and u called him a monkey,wasn't the isulting match even off?

PRP SG

Soul_rage said his skin problem cured after visiting a medium (but was not cured after visiting many doctors),so he believes some supernatural or God cured his skin ailment.I would say it is not to scientific to make such a conclusion.Would there be any doctor who is kind enuf to explain why his skin ailment cured after visting a medium?

AndrewPKYap SG

You have so much patience... Laughing

« Previous Page Next Page »