A case against ignorance

[Citta]

I am making this thread because I have some concerns. There seems to be a certain tendency in society to accept blank out ignorance about very important, scientific matters. A disregard of the very important role that science, in the right use of this word, plays in our lives, our society and in shaping and creating the future of mankind. A failure to perhaps appreciate the growth in knowledge, and not to say the least appreciate the people that devoted their whole lives to discover incredibly important principles, postulate incredibly important ideas, develop incredibly important solutions to problems pondered upon by many before them - all of which affects our day to day lives.

Well, why is science so important? First of all, it is a way of life. It is a perspective. Science is a way to take us out of the gloom of ignorance and confusion into the illuminating perspective of understanding and comprehension in very clear and precise ways. It is akin to a personal transformation. It gives the ability to think through and contemplate over why the sky is blue, to what makes the stars shine at night and to how life formed on our earth. And then comes the consequences of answering such questions; It informs our decision making, it saves our lives, it gives us technology and possibilities that would have have been thought to be god-given by people in the past.

Yet I see this tendency, both here at the nexus and elsewhere in society. It seems to be some kind of hostility towards knowledge about things. Pretty ironic, thinking of the fact that all of our tech-society is build upon scientific principles that we use every day. Where does this tendency come from? Why is there some kind of acceptance to not at least have the common sense to disregard bullshit, to see when the media is full of shit (take a look at all the gibberish that got spewed out of the media during the atomic meltdown in Japan for example) and to appreciate science rather than to oppose it? How is it that some people feel threatened by science and criticize it so much?

This tendency is a serious democratic problem, and is above all very dangerous in the long run. It dumbs people down and make them unable to make informed decisions and stands in real life issues that affects every one of us. Please discuss!

 

[christian]

Citta, i personally have had a scientific background all my life. I understand all the great things that science has allowed man to create.

-However, i don't think that science has all the answers on living right. Sure Aeroplanes, cars, helicopters, scyscrapers are awesome. So is the latest surgeries. But if we lived right from day 1. Would we be ill and in need of them like our ill populations need them today??

-Surely there's no ignorance here, just a little imagination about how life would be so much better if we lived with nature, instead of attacking it with "scientific ha ha KNOWHOW!!"

- Overly simplistic, i know. But still worth considering , mad as i may sound....

 

[MySmelf]

Citta, i personally have had a scientific background all my life. I understand all the great things that science has allowed man to create.

-However, i don't think that science has all the answers on living right. Sure Aeroplanes, cars, helicopters, scyscrapers are awesome. So is the latest surgeries. But if we lived right from day 1. Would we be ill and in need of them like our ill populations need them today??

-Surely there's no ignorance here, just a little imagination about how life would be so much better if we lived with nature, instead of attacking it with "scientific ha ha KNOWHOW!!"

- Overly simplistic, i know. But still worth considering , mad as i may sound....

Science is attacking nature? That is ridiculous!!

Science isn't attacking nature, its a blind profit motivated capitalistic consumer culture that is harming our planet. The media, who is owned by the same profiteers that don't like what the current scientific findings are saying about the impact that our consumer culture is having on the Earth, is dumbing people down on science in an effort to illegitimize it!

 

[christian]

Yes, ok-science doesn't destroy nature, BUT man is using it for that purpose. Such examples are the atomic bomb explosions of Hiroshima, and the Destruction of one of the Marshall islands and their paradise lifestyle they had previously.

- NOW science is trying hard to try (pityfully) to REVERSE the damage that it's misuse has caused. Such as the above, ozone layer, Oil spills, pollution of seas,etc.:shock:

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Yes, ok-science doesn't destroy nature, BUT man is using it for that purpose.

Water can be used to kill, that doesn't make it "bad"...I don't think a section of humanity's use of something makes it "good" or "bad."

 

[mad_banshee]

Please discuss!

Well stated Citta.

I feel that most people would accept scientific fact were it not for religion.
Religiously indoctrinated people accept biblical fairy tales as truths and discount things like evolution and in general take the view that science is somehow evil.

In my opinion (and the opinion of many others) religion is the most dangerous thing our society faces....it is the root cause for ignorance, war, and intolerance.

 

[christian]

Yes, i can see there are some good points mentioned by all. Although some posters may see my points as being anti science, i'm not. I'm simply asking people for their points and giving them my response.

 

[jamie]

I think there is alot that science cannot provide us with. I think that people tend to overindulge in "science" to a certain degree at times to the point where they loose the ability to see anything beyond it.

for example..scince cannot provide us with the greater metaphores for the world around us and teach our children how to live and interact in a way that they both comprehend and are inspired by at the same time. Science can be a backbone of which informes those metaphores, but once it becomes a metaphore it no longer exists within the realms of science. This is why I think a more holistic approach to the whole thing is more realistic, where science is not the be all end all of everything, but it definatily has it's recognised place and the things science can tell us are properly integrated.

Science cannot tell me why things like a universe are even here in the first place. Science can tell me theories about events like the "big bang" that attempt to explain how this universe may have come into being, but that really is only an extremely limited explaination for why anything exists at all. There are so many fundamental and existential questions that science does not even touch..and that is why science is not and cannot currently be everything to us, nor does it explain the the fundamental nature of the universe to us. There will always be these other questions that remain and people will continue to look to philosophy etc for theories to these questions. Until science can step up and do what some claim it does it will just be the way it is.

 

[christian]

Thanks for that wonderful post, Fractal. I thought what you said was spot on!. Well said.

 

[SWIMfriend]

fractal enchantment, I think you are confounding the current social, practical, and technological aspects of science with what it fundamentally IS: an empirical way of knowing ANYTHING and EVERYTHING about the objective world; and empiricism just relates to "testing and demonstrating," i.e., experiencing/experimenting.

We "know" of NOTHING outside that realm (and yes, ultimately and theoretically, that includes everything that happens in your mind--your subjective experience).

It excludes realities that cannot be "shown" or "experienced"--and so far, we know of no such realities. We know of nothing which cannot be shown or experienced.

 

[jamie]

^ that is true to an extent. I mean what I said about larger metaphores we use to explain the world are applicable and definaitly practical. Without that aspect life would be dull and colorless. I tend to think this about indigenous cultures who are basically animists. Alot of scientists would write these people off as primitive or unintelligent. The stories they tell are based on a specific language system that is completely different from out own. When we listen to certain mythologies we hear stories that sound outright rediculous, when in reality I dont think these things are taken the same way within the cultural preset they emerge within. Alot of people speak metaphorically, with a purpose. While this type of thing I agree is not directly opposed to science, it is also not in the realm of science(maybe social science)..yet it is also very important to us as humans. This is why I say that science can be the backbone that informs these mythologies..just that they are not scientific.

beyond that what you said makes sense..I just dont know what it is really saying. I mean there is alot outside of the current realm of scientific understanding..science does not know EVERYTHING yet..and when they do figure something else out, it may have been what yesterday they deemed pseudo-science or not applicable at all..yet today they would decide it is now explained by science. You see I have nothing at all against "science" as simply the understanding of how things work.. of course ev everything is going to work somehow, but it does not mean that the day we understand it will come anytime soon. Until then scientists deem it as unproven and tend to write it all off. It is when we assume that our current level of understanding is a 100% coherant understanding of reality itself that I think we become a bit deluded by our own egos.

I guess what I mean is I agree with the scientific method, but I think what we call "scientific truth" is like a catch 22 since it is not at all consistant. It expands/evolves all the time. In that sense science when practiced with an open mind apart from any particular goal is one of the best methods of exploring reality we have becasue it should be free from dogma.

 

[SWIMfriend]

^ that is true to an extent. I mean what I said about larger metaphores we use to explain the world are applicable and definaitly practical. Without that aspect life would be dull and colorless. I tend to think this about indigenous cultures who are basically animists. Alot of scientists would write these people off as primitive or unintelligent. The stories they tell are based on a specific language system that is completely different from out own. When we listen to certain mythologies we hear stories that sound outright rediculous, when in reality I dont think these things are taken the same way within the cultural preset they emerge within. Alot of people speak metaphorically, with a purpose. While this type of thing I agree is not directly opposed to science, it is also not in the realm of science..yet it is also very important to us as humans. This is why I say that science can be the backbone that informs these mythologies..just that they are not scientific.

Of course science cannot DO everything. No one or no thing can "do" everything. People can create or communicate whatever metaphors they wish. Metaphor isn't knowledge, it's communication (and perhaps art). Art DOES certain things, or, IOW, there are certain things people do, and we call those ART. All that science does is to provide reliable information about reality. That's its JOB, so it's impertinent to think that it is insufficient because it doesn't do OTHER jobs.

beyond that what you said makes sense..I just dont know what it is really saying. I mean there is alot outside of the current realm of scientific understanding..science does not know EVERYTHING yet..and when they do figure something else out, it may have been what yesterday they deemed pseudo-science or not applicable at all..yet today they would decide it is now explained by science. You see I have nothing at all against "science" as simply the understanding of how things work.. of course ev everything is going to work somehow, but it does not mean that the day we understand it will come anytime soon. Until then scientists deem it as unproven and tend to write it all off. It is when we assume that our current level of understanding is a 100% coherant understanding of reality itself that I think we become a bit deluded by our own egos.

Science is a human endeavor, susceptible to all the insufficiencies of all human endeavors. The "complaints" you make would be equally relevant to any activity of humans. They're not about the failings of science, they're about the failings of people.

I guess what I mean is I agree with the scientific method, but I think what we call "scientific truth" is like a catch 22 since it is not at all consistant. It expands/evolves all the time. In that sense science when practiced with an open mind apart from any particular goal is one of the best methods of exploring reality we have becasue it should be free from dogma.

These things are commonly misunderstood about science. Science can NEVER claim to offer "truth." Nor can anyone else--who's honest. Science offers only "the best understanding currently attainable." Humans can come up with nothing better.

The only dogma that "should" exist in science is dogma regarding the method--and that too awaits new insights that could improve the methods and change methodological dogma. There needs to be a certain amount of dogma regarding method, because the methods typically go beyond the level of rigor that most people are used to. Dogma in that sense is only an effort to maintain high standards of work.

 

[Saidin]

So someone is ignorant if they have expeirences that our current 'seal of approval' understanding says cannot exist because there is no objective test for them?

I am a fan of pure science, it has done wonders for explaning in part how the world apparently works. Unfortunately science is practiced by humans, and therefore subject to all the falacies inherent with our current state of being...

All truth goes through three steps.

First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.

 

[BlackSun]

All truth goes through three steps.

First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.

And many falsehoods also go through the first two steps. Organized religion even goes through the third one. That doesn't mean it's "true".

I agree with your point that science tends to be intolerant of things that do not agree with it (even as things are constantly being proven wrong), but just because something is ridiculed and opposed does not make it correct.

That said, I've read through some of your posts in this section and while I cannot say that I agree with much of what you're saying, I do see the value in having opposing points of view. We can only understand things through our own experiences, and so to have people with different experiences and ideas to discuss things with is always a good thing in my mind, so long as both parties have a mutual respect for one another.

 

[SWIMfriend]

All truth goes through three steps.

First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.

It's important to see that "truth" doesn't go through any steps. Truth simply "is."

What you're talking about is how people react to things and ideas. You should consider that people are the ONLY SOURCE OF FALSEHOOD that is currently known. All other things are perfectly "true" all the time. Only people have the ability to create "false," and they do it in their heads. Generally, they seem to do it because they prefer "false" over "true."

 

[Saidin]

And many falsehoods also go through the first two steps. Organized religion even goes through the third one. That doesn't mean it's "true".

I agree with your point that science tends to be intolerant of things that do not agree with it (even as things are constantly being proven wrong), but just because something is ridiculed and opposed does not make it correct.

That said, I've read through some of your posts in this section and while I cannot say that I agree with much of what you're saying, I do see the value in having opposing points of view. We can only understand things through our own experiences, and so to have people with different experiences and ideas to discuss things with is always a good thing in my mind, so long as both parties have a mutual respect for one another.

I think using religion in this context is a fallacy. In this context we are talking about Truth, (what Swimfriend described as 'simply is') not some sub-segments interpretation of it that relies on faith to be self-evident. Some religions may be "true", we have no way of knowing at our present level of awareness. Real truth would come when it is self-evident to everyone, not just those who wish to or been conditioned to believe.

Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it. In reality none of us know anything, and I feel it is important to have opposing points of view to expand the mystery. I can only speak from my own perspective dictated by my experiences...some of which pose questions that I feel science cannot currently and likely will never be able to answer as it lies outside their purvue. Science deals with the physical, so has nothing to say about spirit which by intention remains hidden from them.

Thus my point being from my original comment...it appears as arrogance to claim ignorance of that which science has nothing to say about.

Open discussion with mutual respect is the goal of any communication...

 

[MySmelf]

Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it. In reality none of us know anything, and I feel it is important to have opposing points of view to expand the mystery. I can only speak from my own perspective dictated by my experiences...some of which pose questions that I feel science cannot currently and likely will never be able to answer as it lies outside their purvue. Science deals with the physical, so has nothing to say about spirit which by intention remains hidden from them.

Thus my point being from my original comment...it appears as arrogance to claim ingorance of that which science has nothing to say about.

Open discussion with mutual respect is the goal of any communication...

This is just one of the many reasons I LOVE this site! Soo many good philosophic debates go on here. :d

 

[gibran2]

fractal enchantment, I think you are confounding the current social, practical, and technological aspects of science with what it fundamentally IS: an empirical way of knowing ANYTHING and EVERYTHING about the objective world; and empiricism just relates to "testing and demonstrating," i.e., experiencing/experimenting.

We "know" of NOTHING outside that realm (and yes, ultimately and theoretically, that includes everything that happens in your mind--your subjective experience).

It excludes realities that cannot be "shown" or "experienced"--and so far, we know of no such realities. We know of nothing which cannot be shown or experienced.

Science is extremely useful in a practical sense, and very useful as a tool to help lift the veil of ignorance.

But science does NOT allow us to know anything and everything about the objective world. In fact, it was science, in the form of quantum mechanics, that has shown us we can’t know everything about a system, i.e. quantum indeterminacy.

In truth, the only thing we know for certain to exist is our own consciousness – our own subjective experience. We assume that the physical world is “real”, but we base this assumption on patterns of conscious experience. There is no way to prove that the physical world exists.

 

[easyrider]

Well, Citta, I think the problem lies in the way people utilize scientific knowledge for particular technological advancements, and its subsequent public reception. I don't believe the masses truly abhor science, save for some religious fanatics, but rather harbor some Luddite tension because of the real-life consequences of the application of scientific knowledge. In this sense, it's quite easy for the common man to contest the root, which is science. Others might estrange themselves from scientific ideals due to their philosophical inclination towards agrarianism.

 

[RayOfLight]

when we think of what is 'good' and what is 'bad' we are thinking only about ourselves, what is good and bad to us, are we humans the ones that determine universal truth? the statement 'beef farming is good and provides food for humans' is that a truth? what would a cow think about this?

I don't think we can really determine what is good and bad unless we see ourselves as the only thing that matters, maybe we are but I dunno how we can know that definitively. Also what we think of as bad like human suffering for example might actually be good because it teaches us lessons to help us grow. Why do people think knowledge is good?, what about the saying 'ignorance is bliss'

In truth, the only thing we know for certain to exist is our own consciousness – our own subjective experience.

this fact rules out any notion of us knowing what is good and bad objectively.