‹ First  < 9 10 11
 
   
 

Is Spreading Science Justified By Reason?

 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
23 January 2015 00:46
 
Thoughtage - 22 January 2015 07:42 PM
Gregoryhhh - 22 January 2015 03:49 PM

we’d like to know your answer to the question you asked that started this, Thoughtage - “Is the spreading of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (science), a good reason (justified), to use the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic (reason)?”

Not if that is going to lead to the collapse of civilization via a nuclear exchange, global warming run amok, or other knowledge empowered process.

I don’t know if that is going to happen or not, nobody does.  But there’s enough evidence that it might happen to justify a discussion on our relationship with knowledge, imho.

so answer the question :Is the spreading of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (science), a good reason (justified), to use the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic (reason)?”

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
23 January 2015 00:59
 
Thoughtage - 22 January 2015 02:20 PM
Jefe - 22 January 2015 12:52 PM

What if this conversation were taking place 150 years ago, and the global culture adopted a more limited approach?  What if we were still living with things like tuberculosis, polio, cholera, small pox, etc… as just a limited example?

Good question. 

The answer would seem to depend on whether one thinks we can continue to manage new knowledge.  If we can, then yes of course, we’re all happy to be beyond the diseases you mention.

What if we’re not able to manage the new knowledge? 

Will the knowledge development of the last 150 years still be worth it if 14 years from now we have an all out nuclear war?

Will the knowledge development of the last 150 years still be worth it if 63 years from now climate change hits a tipping point and the temperature begins exploding?

Point being, the technologies we have developed over the last century or two have the potential to end civilization.  If that threat is credible and real, then we arrive at the question of this thread….

Is Spreading Science Justified By Reason?

put in other words -

Is the spreading of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (science), a good reason (justified), to use the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic (reason)? - um yeah.

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
23 January 2015 01:04
 
Thoughtage - 22 January 2015 07:42 PM
Gregoryhhh - 22 January 2015 03:49 PM

we’d like to know your answer to the question you asked that started this, Thoughtage - “Is the spreading of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (science), a good reason (justified), to use the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic (reason)?”

Not if that is going to lead to the collapse of civilization via a nuclear exchange, global warming run amok, or other knowledge empowered process.

I don’t know if that is going to happen or not, nobody does.  But there’s enough evidence that it might happen to justify a discussion on our relationship with knowledge, imho.

gawd what does it take to answer you own question - my fuckin foruth request - it’s your question Jethro (thoughage) Is the spreading of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (science), a good reason (justified), to use the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic (reason)?-

 
 
James Clovispoint
 
Avatar
 
 
James Clovispoint
Total Posts:  77
Joined  25-07-2011
 
 
 
28 January 2015 21:42
 

I am not trying to be facetious but some say here that science literacy is a big problem, but why?
Is it therefore Reasonable to want to spread science?

P.S.: for the record I am all for spreading knowledge acquired by Science.

 
James Clovispoint
 
Avatar
 
 
James Clovispoint
Total Posts:  77
Joined  25-07-2011
 
 
 
28 January 2015 21:56
 

As for those who fear that science and technology “is going to lead to the collapse of civilization via a nuclear exchange, global warming run amok, or other knowledge empowered processes”, you can’t blame the technology nor the science for the uses we make of our new found knowledge.
Our decisions depend on our political structures, our rapacious nature to make money off technology and much more, that is independent of science itself.

 
glacier
 
Avatar
 
 
glacier
Total Posts:  288
Joined  13-11-2014
 
 
 
29 January 2015 20:47
 
gsmonks - 29 January 2015 05:31 AM

Spreading science is justified by the good it does.

Those that think otherwise should eschew using technology and modern medicine.

Excellent summation, and well said!

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
30 January 2015 05:07
 

I do 100% agree with Kevin Kelly’s rational why new technology is always better: new technologies give us new powers to act. While some people by abuse these new powers, history has shown that the vast majority of people will not. So on average, more good comes out of progress than bad.
Nukes are a prime example: its 60 years ago that they were last used offensively. Since then, they have guaranteed peace. And their research helped build power plants which produce no climate gases.

The impact of modern technology, with its vast networking, scaling and exponential growth is basically impossible to predict. The effect of giving Massai warriors in Africa ( and other new 3 billion people) a smartphone with instant global news and Wikipedia access in totally unpredictable.

So the job of ‘controllers of progress’ would at most be be to monitor the implementation, not to try to stop the development.

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
30 January 2015 14:19
 

We took the dyes out of toilet paper, ( some of us remember pink, blue, peach, yellow, and all sorts of colors) - if we can do toilet paper right, we can certainly avoid as Thoughtage fears -“the collapse of civilization via a nuclear exchange, global warming run amok, or other knowledge empowered process.”
gregory

 
 
‹ First  < 9 10 11