Can science cause madness?

[Cognisant]

Did the theory of Darwinian evolution inspire Nazi eugenics?
Is E=MC^2 what caused the bombing of Nagasaki/Hiroshima and the Cold War?

Clearly enough great ideas have great implications, but is there a kind of technological determinism that directs us, and if so then in what direction are we being led?

It's almost as if with each new scientific breakthrough we, as a civilisation, go temporarily mad from the revelation and in this sleep of reason we commit atrocities, of only because we can, then awaken to wonder, with bloody mouths and hands, just what did we get up to during the night?

Now imagine, if you dare, the implications of someone discovering anti-gravity....

I reckon the first interplanetary war will begin the day after the first Martian colony becomes self sufficient.

 

[Czech Yes or No]

Kind of an interesting related thought: some blame religion for the cause of most of the violence in the world, while at the same time, science is what enables the violence and must be held in just of high esteem in responsibility.

Science can be wonderful. Blind allegiance to science is just as dangerous as it is to religion. Sure, you can suggest that science is "logical", but how do we really know how science really works. You might suggest the scientific method, etc. but why those? Sure they're make sense at first look, but how do we know what science truly is?

And that had nothing to do with your statement whatsoever.

 

[Brontosaurie]

nop, it's religion that causes irrational application of scientific findings.

 

[Chad]

Like religious science doesn't cause madness. These people were Crazy before then understood the science. However, they use what every tool they can to justify there actions. This is the same thing Religious Right Wing terrorist do.

It the religion or Science fault that people try to use it to justify evil.

 

[Cognisant]

*prods fire*

 

[C.Hecker88]

This thread reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4

Highlights:
" We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood, for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world — millions of despairing men, women and little children — victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people."

 

[Cognisant]

Great speech, except democracy is essentially a system built on corruption.

What the world needs is one good man, a dictator, but a good one.

 

[addictedartist]

Science can cause happiness. However utilization of advancing technologies are only as useful as our understanding of them,
Ex.a fish could not would not screw in a light bulb. This does not make light bulbs useless, but only on the scale of their necessity, given the fishes circumstances it is not fit to tighten a bulb nor is it of any benefit.
The purpose of science is evolution to enter the next phase of humanity; to extend life and annihilate death

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

Science is more like an amplifier. Whether it's used to heal or to harm, the results are more effective and larger in scale.

 

[walfin]

I'm trying to think of scientific breakthroughs which didn't result in disaster.

Steam engine? Unless you count automobiles as a disaster (which in some way they are because I remember reading in Freakonomics or somewhere that automobile accidents cause more deaths than gun crime which in turn causes more deaths than terrorism, although people fear terrorism more).

Light bulb?

Calculus? All it did was generate animosity between the two competing discoverers.

Computers? Didn't see a disaster caused by that, unless you count forum addiction.

 

[defghi]

"Can knowledge cause madness?"

Can anything else cause madness?

Isn't the incorrect use of information the root of all insanity? But this does not make the information the cause.

I may have contradicted myself. Twice. Oh well. I blame madness. I mean science. I mean...

 

[Cognisant]

Computers? Didn't see a disaster caused by that, unless you count forum addiction.

Lol.

Light bulb?

The light bulb was more an invention than discovery, but there was the famous "War of Currents" between Tesla and Edison in which Edison electrocuted many animals with AC current.

Although personally, as someone who works on electronics but isn't an accredited electrician, I'm almost sympathetic towards Edison because I know better that to work with 240V AC, because it is really dangerous, and for most things DC is really useful, but Tesla was right.

Sorry Edison, still <3 you.

 

[Beat Mango]

It's almost as if with each new scientific breakthrough we, as a civilisation, go temporarily mad from the revelation and in this sleep of reason we commit atrocities, of only because we can, then awaken to wonder, with bloody mouths and hands, just what did we get up to during the night?

Yes.

Perhaps we do this as individuals too. When we first discover alcohol, we invariably fuck it up and go too far. When we first discover sex and relationships, we hurt or get hurt. All because of this hysterical kind of excitement overrides our reason ("in this sleep of reason" - brilliant)

 

[Analyzer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZK1GgaE7EQ

 

[Etheri]

Great speech, except democracy is essentially a system built on corruption.

What the world needs is one good man, a dictator, but a good one.

I completely agree, with the last line too.

Honestly, a benevolent dictatorship would be much more efficient than our current democratic bureaucracies. But how would we find one that's up for the task, and how do we protect ourselves from harm?

If a dictator conquered the world (by force if (s)he must), to then improve the quality of life on earth... Might it be worth it?

As to your original topic : I think science is a tool. Science is like a hammer. A hammer isn't 'good' or 'bad'. It just depends on what you do with it. You can build treehouses for your three year old, or you can whack three year olds' their heads in. Doesn't change the hammer.
Nuclear energy can provide for millions, nuclear bombs can kill millions. Same technology. Science isn't good or bad in itself, it's morality is decided by it's applications.

Also, I'd say nuclear bombs did a pretty good job in preventing harm during the cold war.

Controversely, how do we feel about scientific advancements through madness. During pretty much every war, there were fairly big technological advancements. Experiments on humans through torture and war crimes have given us more knowledge about the human body than years of experimenting on dead corpses and animals.

How do we go about using the scientific information we gather through the most macabre experiments. Can this knowledge be turned into something good for the benefit others, or would this only allow and perhaps even encourage unethical testing?

 

[Magus]

The problem is with the Hobbsian Leviathan idea of a benevolent dictator is that people are of course fundamentally egotistical creatures and so it is impossible prima facie. I myself think its a bit of a cop out, its like saying 'there are all these problems we face and they are hard because there are no right answers, wouldn't it be great if someone much smarter than us came along and took all responsibility for the answers and implemented them for us.' There are no solutions in the truest sense, only trade offs. Some will benefit, others will lose, even if only slightly.

I'm also a bit skeptical of the utilitarian notion of improving the lives of all humans. Call me a fascist or w/e but we live in a universe of scarce resources and there is indeed a perverse 'will to power' that runs in our species. Just as technology allows tools to conquer over nature it gives the means for people to conquer each other. Do any of us really care deeply about the lives and well being of others? We might like to think we do, but I think that there is a stain of egotism which no metaphor of the 'human family' can ever wash away.

'I am a law only for my kind, I am no law for all' - obligatory Neitzsche quote :P

 

[The Introvert]

The madness is already there. Science (technology) is simply a catalyst for creative (usually initially destructive) thinking.

People have always fought in wars. Scientific breakthroughs allow us to explore new catastrophic niches, so to speak. I liken it to a social rendition of the Cambrian Explosion

 

[Nezaros]

Science has always been used largely for warfare, because that's the only reason it gets any government funding. It's an enabler, but, like guns, science doesn't kill people, people kill people. If the inventions used to commit wartime atrocities hadn't existed at the time, they would have found another way to fuck things up. And anyway that's no reason to halt or even slow down scientific progress. War is a small price to pay for advancement.

 

[Pyropyro]

Hmm... This reminds me of the Discovery Channel show "Dark Matters"

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Yes or maybe those drawn to science have the potential to be mad and science awakens that latent ability.

 

[walfin]

Lol.


The light bulb was more an invention than discovery, but there was the famous "War of Currents" between Tesla and Edison in which Edison electrocuted many animals with AC current.

Although personally, as someone who works on electronics but isn't an accredited electrician, I'm almost sympathetic towards Edison because I know better that to work with 240V AC, because it is really dangerous, and for most things DC is really useful, but Tesla was right.

Sorry Edison, still <3 you.

Oh yeah I forgot, there was a disaster (from the human rights POV anyway) caused by that: the electric chair.

 

[AnnaC]

Madness causes science.

Or, more to the point: Those who are drawn to science are naturally drawn to question those things around them. They take nothing told to them for granted, and so are more likely to explore less sane ideas, and devise ways to test them which may amount to madness. They may also lead themselves to believe in some form of pseudo-science (for instance, the inferiority of all races but the Aryan due to evolutionary differences), which may be dubbed mad.

 

[addictedartist]

The truth hurts, science will destroy the human race without ethical practice

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I'm trying to think of scientific breakthroughs which didn't result in disaster.

I could make a case for antibiotics, specifically chemical antibiotics (sulfanilamides et al), but I have a feeling that they'll eventually lead to this:

Spoiler

The truth hurts, science will destroy the human race without ethical practice

 

[Nezaros]

The truth hurts, science will destroy the human race without ethical practice

This thread reminds me of the Unabomber Manifesto.

Scientific progress has three possible paths. It can continue as it is, with all the consequences that that entails; it can be subject to "ethical" regulation, meaning restrictions, government involvement; or society can backpedal into a dark age. Science isn't evil by nature, it's subject only to the hands of its wielders. Simply because humanity hasn't learned how to properly use science doesn't mean progress should be abandoned for the sake of "safety." We should continue until it bites us in the ass; it's the only way to learn, and we'll be better as a species for it. It may eventually cause a disaster that will kill off the majority of the population, but the world is overpopulated and could use a trimming; plus humanity is tenacious. Nothing short of the Earth being swallowed by the Sun would render it entirely uninhabitable. And anyway, if the choice is between an unknown, potentially dangerous future, and one where we forsake the primary thing that separates our species from every other, in exchange for a secure environment in which to waste away pointlessly, the former is the only option.

 

[Duxwing]

This thread reminds me of the Unabomber Manifesto.

Scientific progress has three possible paths. It can continue as it is, with all the consequences that that entails; it can be subject to "ethical" regulation, meaning restrictions, government involvement; or society can backpedal into a dark age. Science isn't evil by nature, it's subject only to the hands of its wielders. Simply because humanity hasn't learned how to properly use science doesn't mean progress should be abandoned for the sake of "safety." We should continue until it bites us in the ass; it's the only way to learn, and we'll be better as a species for it. It may eventually cause a disaster that will kill off the majority of the population, but the world is overpopulated and could use a trimming; plus humanity is tenacious. Nothing short of the Earth being swallowed by the Sun would render it entirely uninhabitable. And anyway, if the choice is between an unknown, potentially dangerous future, and one where we forsake the primary thing that separates our species from every other, in exchange for a secure environment in which to waste away pointlessly, the former is the only option.

*stands and salutes* Logica! Scientia! Veritas!

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

This thread reminds me of the Unabomber Manifesto.

Scientific progress has three possible paths. It can continue as it is, with all the consequences that that entails; it can be subject to "ethical" regulation, meaning restrictions, government involvement; or society can backpedal into a dark age. Science isn't evil by nature, it's subject only to the hands of its wielders. Simply because humanity hasn't learned how to properly use science doesn't mean progress should be abandoned for the sake of "safety." We should continue until it bites us in the ass; it's the only way to learn, and we'll be better as a species for it. It may eventually cause a disaster that will kill off the majority of the population, but the world is overpopulated and could use a trimming; plus humanity is tenacious. Nothing short of the Earth being swallowed by the Sun would render it entirely uninhabitable. And anyway, if the choice is between an unknown, potentially dangerous future, and one where we forsake the primary thing that separates our species from every other, in exchange for a secure environment in which to waste away pointlessly, the former is the only option.

Your post gave me chills and goosebumps, and I agree. Well written!

-Duxwing

 

[Nezaros]

Logica! Scientia! Veritas!

I should make a crest featuring that.

 

[Etheri]

I could make a case for antibiotics, specifically chemical antibiotics (sulfanilamides et al), but I have a feeling that they'll eventually lead to this:

It's all good. If the world was aware howmuch HCl is required for the mass production of nylon, they may just not use it in absolutely everything. I'm fairly certain dupont produces more HCl on a yearly basis than all the HCl that was used as a human poison, including the holocaust.

 

[Duxwing]

It's all good. If the world was aware howmuch HCl is required for the mass production of nylon, they may just not use it in absolutely everything. I'm fairly certain dupont produces more HCl on a yearly basis than all the HCl that was used as a human poison, including the holocaust.

HCl isn't dangerous after combining with other chemicals to make nylon, just like hydrogen doesn't burn after combining with oxygen to make water: the properties of the parts are not necessarily found in the properties of the whole. Moreover, on the point of dangerous chemicals being everywhere, you know what your stomach is full of, day and night, held back only by a layer of mucus? ... HCl So much of it, in fact, that if that aforementioned layer of mucus weren't there, then you'd digest yourself from the inside out in horrible, screaming agony.

The world of chemistry is a fascinating place, but understanding it requires some education and patience. I highly recommend taking an AP Chemistry course or its equivalent. It explains so many properties and phenomena that would otherwise remain mysterious.

-Duxwing

 

[Nezaros]

The world of chemistry is a fascinating place, but understanding it requires some education and patience. I highly recommend taking an AP Chemistry course or its equivalent. It explains so many properties and phenomena that would otherwise remain mysterious.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/40/

 

[Duxwing]

http://what-if.xkcd.com/40/

I like to mix a little O2F2 into my barbecque marinades. It gives the meat just that little extra kick, you know?

-Duxwing

 

[Rousseau]

Great speech, except democracy is essentially a system built on corruption.

What the world needs is one good man, a dictator, but a good one.

And, how long do you think a "good" dictator would last?

Here are many of the possibilities with a good dictator:

-One person making decisions, no matter how good, can never suffice to please the entire population of the world. Even with intense protection, he/ she is doomed to die/fail/etc.

- The above is only if the dictator does not divulge in and misuse the power that he has been given. Of course, many monarchs, dictators, and one man rulers have yielded to temptation.

- Even if he does survive, what about the heir???

There are way too many flaws in this idea for it to not develop into total war.


---- But, if I may add, if we can develop a system in which this dictator is intelligent enough to create a strong, well-built, long lasting structure of rule, then this would allow unification and booming progress.
- For that idea, I would recommend the Ender's Game series. The ones that specifically refer to the above are The Shadow of the Hegemon (I believe- not quite sure) and the Shadow of the Giant.

 

[Rousseau]

Did the theory of Darwinian evolution inspire Nazi eugenics?
Is E=MC^2 what caused the bombing of Nagasaki/Hiroshima and the Cold War?

Clearly enough great ideas have great implications, but is there a kind of technological determinism that directs us, and if so then in what direction are we being led?

It's almost as if with each new scientific breakthrough we, as a civilisation, go temporarily mad from the revelation and in this sleep of reason we commit atrocities, of only because we can, then awaken to wonder, with bloody mouths and hands, just what did we get up to during the night?

Now imagine, if you dare, the implications of someone discovering anti-gravity....

I reckon the first interplanetary war will begin the day after the first Martian colony becomes self sufficient.

@ Cognisant

So what exactly do you propose we do? Should we stop the accumulation of science? end the existence of the suffix -logy from our dictionaries?

-That would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Science and discovery is what got us where we are today. Despite the fact that it has cost us many lives in the process and continue to do so, our obligation is to the survival of our species. As long as this evolutionary goal continues to persist in all beings, science can only benefit us in maintaining this.

-- Although, I do admit, the loss of many lives can be attributed to the existence of science.

 

[Duxwing]

@ Cognisant

So what exactly do you propose we do? Should we stop the accumulation of science? end the existence of the suffix -logy from our dictionaries?

-That would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Science and discovery is what got us where we are today. Despite the fact that it has cost us many lives in the process and continue to do so, our obligation is to the survival of our species. As long as this evolutionary goal continues to persist in all beings, science can only benefit us in maintaining this.

-- Although, I do admit, the loss of many lives can be attributed to the existence of science.

You mean botched experiments, right?

-Duxwing

 

[Cognisant]

So what exactly do you propose we do? Should we stop the accumulation of science? end the existence of the suffix -logy from our dictionaries?

Nah, just shit stirring

People need poking, the flames need stoking, so I keep on joking.

 

[The Introvert]

You mean botched experiments, right?

-Duxwing

He meanz the bombz and gunz.

 

[Duxwing]

He meanz the bombz and gunz.

Which were used by whom? People. Guns don't kill people. Bombs don't kill people. People kill people. Science provides ever more destructive weapons, but the ultimate decision and responsibility lies in their wielders.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

Which were used by whom? People. Guns don't kill people. Bombs don't kill people. People kill people. Science provides ever more destructive weapons, but the ultimate decision and responsibility lies in their wielders.

-Duxwing

That doesn't negate the fact that it was all possible through science. He didn't say: "science singlehandedly kills people".

He said: "the loss of many lives can be attributed to the existence of science"

Without science, guns and bombs wouldn't exist. Therefore, the death toll caused by guns and bombs (and others) can be attributed to science (obviously, as well as people).

Your argument stems from your personal opinion of science, and it's obvious. Be less biased.

 

[Duxwing]

I apologize for my tone, but I've heard this same tired argument trotted out so many times that I'm rather frustrated by it.

That doesn't negate the fact that it was all possible through science. He didn't say: "science singlehandedly kills people".

He said: "the loss of many lives can be attributed to the existence of science"

Without science, guns and bombs wouldn't exist. Therefore, the death toll caused by guns and bombs (and others) can be attributed to science (obviously, as well as people).

I agree that the scientists who made the discoveries necessary for the creation of these weapons knowing that their results would aid in warfare bear partial responsibility for the deaths caused by said weapons. However, I disagree that we ought to figuratively throw the baby out with the bathwater by blaming a branch of philosophy for the acts of malefactors.

Moreover, so is language: your conclusion, taken literally, is true but trivial.

Your argument stems from your personal opinion of science, and it's obvious. Be less biased.

While I do love science, I do not argue from a position of bias, but "it's obvious" that you won't believe me. :/ Maybe you're not aware of how you're coming off, but the vibe that I'm getting is "Nothing could be wrong with my idea; therefore, anyone who disagrees with it must have something wrong with them."

-Duxwing

 

[Cherry Cola]

The argument fails anyway because science has arguably saved more people than it has killed.

 

[Duxwing]

The argument fails anyway because science has arguably saved more people than it has killed.

Very true.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The argument fails anyway because science has arguably saved more people than it has killed.

What about willful negligence, i.e. withholding the use of good science? I'd say it's dead even.

 

[Duxwing]

What about willful negligence, i.e. withholding the use of good science? I'd say it's dead even.

While some amount of good science might be hoarded away somewhere, we can't measure precisely how much or how impactful it would be or would have been because it is, by nature, hidden and unused.

-Duxwing

 

[Cherry Cola]

Willful negligence doesn't help your argument, as Duxwing said, it's speculation.

But even if it were not, if we were to say.. know that some breakthrough capable of saving infinite amounts of life has and is being actively withheld from us as a direct consequence of science's being - well even then it wouldn't matter. Science has still saved more lives than no science has. The withheld breakthrough is irrelevant because without science there would be no breakthrough to withhold. Ie it's a non factor for both the options.

 

[Duxwing]

Willful negligence doesn't help your argument, as Duxwing said, it's speculation.

But even if it were not, if we were to say.. know that some breakthrough capable of saving infinite amounts of life has and is being actively withheld from us as a direct consequence of science's being - well even then it wouldn't matter. Science has still saved more lives than no science has. The withheld breakthrough is irrelevant because without science there would be no breakthrough to withhold. Ie it's a non factor for both the options.

Huh, I never thought about that. Cool!

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

we can't measure precisely how much or how impactful it would be or would have been because it is, by nature, hidden and unused.

Being difficult to measure doesn't equate to nonexistence or being a non-factor. Hell, how much science is rejected by its own self-aggrandizing mechanism: peer-reviewed journals?

Willful negligence doesn't help your argument, as Duxwing said, it's speculation.

But even if it were not, if we were to say.. know that some breakthrough capable of saving infinite amounts of life has and is being actively withheld from us as a direct consequence of science's being - well even then it wouldn't matter. Science has still saved more lives than no science has. The withheld breakthrough is irrelevant because without science there would be no breakthrough to withhold. Ie it's a non factor for both the options.

I'd agree that it's speculative, but not purely speculation. Our society is structured in such a way that a profit motive competes with scientific efficacy. For example, the first chemotherapeutic antibiotic (before penicillin) was Prontosil, invented by my favorite Nobel winner. It's molecular structure is inspired from that of an industrial dye, and after it hit the market it saved hundreds of millions of lives because all of a sudden a strep infection couldn't kill you any more, if you could afford it. The problem is that Prontosil was developed because the industrial dye, which was already extremely inexpensive and readily available worldwide, was already patented. In fact laboratory testing demonstrated that the straight dye was more effective than Prontosil. Prontosil took several years to develop and refine before it hit the market, costing hundreds of millions of lives and their would-be progeny.

And actually, the development of penicillin itself was stifled for several years due to austerity...

Simply put: We have yet to escape death, so it's a zero sum game. Science be damned.

 

[Cherry Cola]

@thehab: If you want to make a case against science go with some potential Armageddon scenario man, the scales wont tip in your favour if you're just gonna crunch the numbers atm, the benefits just weigh more.

Although come to think of it.. science may have allowed for a lot of unnecessary deaths through it's effect on the size of the populace.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Empiricism has absolutely no application regarding whether or not an empiricism-shy concept may or may not be correct. The inherently subjective process of peer-review ensures that slots are filled. Anonymous reviewers conflict constantly; some praising the research while others simultaneously rip it to shreds. Triangulation is nice, but certainly not perfect, and articles as a means of communication themselves are inherently reductionist: http://www.nature.com/news/rejection-improves-eventual-impact-of-manuscripts-1.11583

Spoiler

But that's not a problem with science itself; rather, and like you said, it's a problem with society getting in the way of proper scientific research and development.

I'm admittedly enjoying your feeble attempt to separate society from science. Good luck with that.

While you're right, we weren't arguing about that originally.

It's not exactly a leap in logic when one considers the purpose of "saving" a life.

Would I be wrong to say that your frustration with science made you bring this up?

Yes, Freud, you would.

the benefits just weigh more.

To which I respond in a casual rhetorical tone: Prove it.

You're essentially making a moralistic argument that science aids in the perpetuation of hedonistic potential without questioning the moral value of hedonism and/or the avoidance of pain and/or death.

 

[Cherry Cola]

@Hab: You know I can't prove that because the numbers aren't crunchable, you're in the dark as well and the burden of proof hardly bears down on me more than it does on you. However, as much as we humans like to kill each other, we still die a lot more from other causes, and those deaths can and have been significantly reduced by science; hencewhy, I think it resonable to assume that in the end more lives have been saved than taken thanks to science.

Also yes I am making a moralistic argument, the question at hand is moralistic. Would it be good or bad if science hadn't been? You either go with the "what's good n whats bad?"-route and end up in perpetual sidetracked debate, or you just assume that as fellow human beings we share a similar enough conception of good and bad that we needn't define them everytime a question that in some way concerns them arises.