Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A repository for all the cool stuff I find online among other things. Updates randomly...
Labels
- Demon Gates (DnD) (1)
- Fight and Flight (MnM) (5)
- Gem Wars (DnD) (6)
- Humor (149)
- Media (78)
- Rising Sun (Serenity) (2)
- Roleplay (15)
- Science/History (48)
- Stories (12)
About Me
- Chevalier
- I'm a PhD student in bio-informatics at the university of Leuven, Belgium. I also have a dual nationality Maltese/Belgian, so I'm bilingual Dutch and English (which means I can't speak either very good). My current interests are fantasy and science fiction in general, roleplaying as of late and a bunch of little things that I do to occupy myself.
3 comments:
although this video is right in regard to the stupidity of creationisme, it stinks of elitism. The academic community as the only group of people capable of finding answers. Schools as merely tools to create new scientists capable of reciting the work deemed worthy by the academic community. The right to question these theories reserved only to those with the appropriate degree. The ignorant masses led by the many brilliant scientists of the academic community who debate on issues and decide the course of history. The scientific prosess as the only true model to understand and intervene in our universe....
Oh please. Science, naturally, has given rise to many of our modern day achievements, but not all. Science is only one out of two things that has made our race great. The other being the ability to form communities (a.k.a. politics and even religion)
Science in itself has two major flaws. 1: science does not offer one truth but almost as many as there are scientists. The academic community never settles a dispute fully. 2: because it has no morality science will never ( or should never be allowed to) rise above its position as a tool.
I really need to check my own blog more often, otherwise I would have responded to this sooner.
The main theme of this video was indeed creationism, and how if it attacks science it's also attacking all of our scientific achievement. I don't think it was the intention of the maker of the video to glorify science as some ultimate way of life.
Although it does seem so far that science is the best 'tool' to understand and intervene in the universe (at least the tool with the best results).
I do agree with you that science alone could not have resulted in our society, but it was an important tool in the process. I accept that law, politics, ... all contribute to our way of living (I'm not really sure about religion, but maybe that's just me). The problem highlighted in the video is that people greatly underestimate what science has done for them. It's easy to forget in our current age how life used to be without it. Low survival rates, no comforts, restricted world view,... If it wasn't for science we probably be able to have these kinds of discussions. You might know that it's evident that science is responsible for our modern day achievements, but I don't think that's common knowledge, just look at the creationists in America (I find myself very lucky that they have almost no foothold here). And that's what the video is about. I posted it since lately I've been reading a lot about these kinds of topics (like animal research or vaccinations,...).
As for your 'flaws'. (1) is part of the scientific process. If we knew everything there would be need for science. It's good that we have different opinions, otherwise there would never be any progress (I refer to many scientific philosophy books how can all explain this process then I can). It is however true what you say that in school we just memorize whatever we have been taught, not giving a second taught if it might be true or not (who cares about truth, that doesn't give you good grades). Even at universities you're learning your professors opinion about something, which might not be what you think about it or what might be 'true'. But that doesn't make a 'scientist', since I've never heard of any who became famous by just reciting everything that was already known. Scientist test out radical new theories to challenge the old ones, they have different opinions, they do novel research and try new things. That's all part of the thing we call 'science'.
Flaw number 2, here I agree science can never dictate our morality. I would have no idea how such a thing would be even possible since 'morality' is something we can't quantify (This rock has a morality of 10M which is slightly higher than the squirrel with 9M?). But two things, science can explain or give extra information about things we make moral judgment on (when does something feel pain, are rocks also living creatures, ...) and secondly science may not be able to make moral judgments, but scientists are as much as any other person. The main difference might be is that a scientist is usually confronted with morality conflicts on a much regular basis than an average person (but maybe a little less than a politician or a judge hopefully) and because of this they usually have well rounded opinions about certain things. Of course their opinions will be heavily tuned to their doing and their lives (as with everyone).
There's a lot more that I want to write about this, but I'm gonna stop here before I come in danger of contradicting myself somewhere (I'm not an expert on this topic, just a normal person voicing my opinion)
Post a Comment