Originally posted by ProudlySingaporean:
Correct me if i'm wrong but science still cannot provide a
conclusive answer as to what gravity really is, as in science can
explain the how', but arguably not the 'what' and certainly not the
'why' regarding gravity. Perhaps Prof Brian Ridley(physicist at
University of Essex)'s book 'On Science' may elucidate the flaws of
science more clearly
You are right that the "hows" of gravity has been tackled first,
and rightly so that experimental results can validate Newton's
Universal Gravitation where gravity is treated as a "force".
Of course, there are other natural philosophers at that time was
not satisfied with this explanation, but there was no better
framework to explain it until Einstein's General Relativity, where
gravity became the curvature of space-time due to mass.
"Whats" and "Whys" in general enter the realm of philosophy rather
than science, and carry the potential pitfall of the anthropic
principle (which argues that everything in the Universe was
tailor-made for us). Scientific background can be used for
speculations, but without data, their speculations are as shaky as
any, including religious ones.
we can draw a parallel between this incident and all the debate
on bioethics that only came about of late. in both cases we are
unsure of the eventual long-term consequences of the application of
the latest radical scientific procedures despite all the extensive
scientific research. so people tend to use religion to judge the
validity and feasibility of such radical ideas and hence giving u
the notion that religion is sort of like impeding the progress of
science. But have you wondered what if there are no safeguards that
keeps scientific progress in check? yes scientific progress, such
as research in the field of life sciences, will definitely be more
rapid but at what expense?
You are correct to observe that the ethical standards used for
evaluating bioethics are usually decided by society. Moral
philosophers would prefer that they be consulted for such things
because they are more consistent, but government usually used
guidelines from the general population which will inevitably
include religious moral values. Where the various religions have a
consensus this is usually ok, but what if the various faiths are
not in agreement?
Do u know that the boundaries between the human realm and beast
is getting blurred at a frightening speed in today's world?There's
this Newsweek article...dunno whether can find online not...by
Professor Lee M Silver of Princeton's Department of Molecular
Biology that reported the creation of human-animal chimeras by
biologists.Think of all the moral conundrums that are brought about
by such scientific experiments.And you also heard about beastiality
right? Would god-fearing people do such things? Maybe yes but the
tendency for a scientist with religious considerations to do so
will be much less than a scientist bent on achieving breakthroughs(
not the bestiality part lar )
You are assuming that everything that "god-fearing" people do
are necessarily moral. Not every "god-fearing" person shares common
ethical systems or apply them consistently.
So what i'm trying to say is that religion serves as a good and
stable anchor for humans while keeping scientific progress in check
instead of hindering it.
In so far that religion provides the social conventions it will
serve this need for an anchor. Where social conventions are derived
from other sources (such as cultural and historical), it will
not.
Just to sidetrack a little, dun you think that that Edward
Jenner guy is like taking potshots in the dark and hoping to strike
lottery?I know that his revolutionary idea saved many lives but
WHAT IF a new and more lethal hybrid of viral disease may just be
created all thanks to him and his experiments?? How can he be that
damn sure that such a possibility wont occur?
You are right that Jenner and some others (such the scientist
who discovered Helicobacter pylori) are willing to apply their
hunch in a more heroic way than other scientists. Despite his
confidence in this technology he has to convince people that it
works, so he used a fairly risky approach. Today clinical trials
involving people are far more carefully decided, carried out and
monitored. Please understand that all experiments have to pass
through ethics approval.
Also, in science nobody can be damned sure about anything. Some
theories can produce experimental predictions 99.99% accurate to
the actual result, but that is still not 100%. Scientists are aware
of the limitations of not having enough support. What I personally
don't understand is how can anyone have unwavering belief in things
that have little or no support.
