Can science cause madness?

[TheScornedReflex]

@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.

Science is more adapt at taking lives than saving them.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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.

Moralistic arguments are fine. It's less about nitpicking over good vs bad (which I have no interest in) and more about considering something in a holistic manner. One can approach a problem in a non-objective yet unbiased manner by merely considering plausible possibilities as such. Doing so doesn't lead to a result of good vs bad or better vs worse, but to "inconclusive," which is truly the only logically sound end. Hence why the following quote exemplifies both a blanket statement and a premature conclusion:

the scales wont tip in your favour if you're just gonna crunch the numbers atm, the benefits just weigh more.

Herein lies the flaw: Empiricism focuses only on the quantifiable results of a technology as opposed to its intrinsic attributes, which can only be evaluated using ethics. As a metaphor, the fact that we have thus far chosen not to blow half the planet to smithereens with nuclear warheads and have instead used the same technology to generate electricity doesn't exclude the possibility that we won't. Claiming that science is overall beneficial places unfair and unreasonable emphasis on the past over the future.

 

[Duxwing]

Herein lies the flaw: Empiricism focuses only on the quantifiable results of a technology as opposed to its intrinsic attributes, which can only be evaluated using ethics. As a metaphor, the fact that we have thus far chosen not to blow half the planet to smithereens with nuclear warheads and have instead used the same technology to generate electricity doesn't exclude the possibility that we won't. Claiming that science is overall beneficial places unfair and unreasonable emphasis on the past over the future.

We can't know until everything is over; however, we still must decide whether or not to fund scientific research in the present.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

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

Yes.

I almost put that at the end of my last post, but I didn't want to seem reasonable (detract from my point).

 

[The Introvert]

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

It's because my argument is unambiguously true. It's a fact. I'm not blaming science for killing people, I'm simply saying that without it, those people wouldn't have died by those means. There's more to be said about the nature of people, rather than the nature of science; science is a form of acquiring knowledge (among other things), and it's unbiased. It's not good or bad, but it can be used for either. Therefore, it would be silly to deny the fact that it has been used for both, and will continue to be used for both.

Dude, I'm in the field of science. I love it. But that doesn't mean that it's perfect, or that it can't be used for malintent, because it most certainly isn't perfect, and it's most certainly used for the wrong reasons.

 

[Duxwing]

It's because my argument is unambiguously true. It's a fact. I'm not blaming science for killing people, I'm simply saying that without it, those people wouldn't have died by those means. There's more to be said about the nature of people, rather than the nature of science; science is a form of acquiring knowledge (among other things), and it's unbiased. It's not good or bad, but it can be used for either. Therefore, it would be silly to deny the fact that it has been used for both, and will continue to be used for both.

It's true, but it's trivial. Hitler could have just as easily herded the holocaust victims into big pits of fire as gassed them with Cyclon B.

Dude, I'm in the field of science. I love it. But that doesn't mean that it's perfect, or that it can't be used for malintent, because it most certainly isn't perfect, and it's most certainly used for the wrong reasons.

I never said that science was perfect or that it could be used for malintent. I'm saying that Science is neither good or bad because it's simply a means of acquiring knowledge; I also happen to find Science beautiful, but that's another question.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

It's true, but it's trivial. Hitler could have just as easily herded the holocaust victims into big pits of fire as gassed them with Cyclon B.

That's where you're wrong. It wouldn't be just as easy.

I never said that science was perfect or that it could be used for malintent. I'm saying that Science is neither good or bad because it's simply a means of acquiring knowledge; I also happen to find Science beautiful, but that's another question.

-Duxwing

So we're saying the same thing...

 

[Duxwing]

That's where you're wrong. It wouldn't be just as easy.

That's a question.... OF SCIENCE!

So we're saying the same thing...

Exactly.

-Duxwing

 

[Nezaros]

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

What does this mean, exactly? Who has been killed "by science"? In the entire history of the world, all murder victims were killed by people, regardless of what technology they used. Accidental deaths are much like deaths from natural causes; people die. It's a part of the universe. Some people just meet their end sooner than others. Someone could be healthy until they are a hundred and thirty, while someone else can die of disease after three months.

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.

And are you trying to say that "saving infinite amounts of life" - that is, immortality, for the entire world - would be a positive effect of science? Overcrowding is one of the world's biggest issues. If nobody ever died, we would either have to start killing people just to make room or all of humanity would be absolutely miserable. Neither of those sound like good outcomes.

Do we really value human life so much that we're measuring the morality of science based on how many people we can keep from dying? A number which is, at this very moment, zero, and to increase it beyond zero would be to spark the end of civilization. People living healthy lives is good, yes. But they need to live, be happy for x amount of time, and then die, to make room for new people. And no, maintaining an immortal population while the birth rate decreases to nothing isn't the solution either. I don't think I need to explain why.

Perhaps in the distant future, when extrasolar colonization is feasible (if it ever becomes feasible), the prevention of death may be a less impractical concern. But until then, as a species, we need to accept mortality. Death isn't bad. It is something that happens. It's a natural part of existence. To fear the unknown to that great a degree is a problem.

Also: Who wants to live forever?

 

[Cherry Cola]

As a metaphor, the fact that we have thus far chosen not to blow half the planet to smithereens with nuclear warheads and have instead used the same technology to generate electricity doesn't exclude the possibility that we won't.

I know, hence the doomsday scenario. But again speculation, trying to calculate the likeliness of humanity killing itself with nuclear weapons or something is hard, and better treated as a separate question imo.

 

[The Introvert]

What does this mean, exactly? Who has been killed "by science"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

Death by long exposure to science

 

[Duxwing]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

Death by long exposure to science

*salutes Marie* Per aspera ad veritas.

-Duxwing

 

[Cherry Cola]

Oh sweet Marie, fairest dame of my dreams, where are you tonight?

 

[Nezaros]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

Death by long exposure to science

Killed by nature. It just happened sooner than if she had died of old age. No one is "killed by science." Science can either speed up death or it can prolong life, but we can't measure its value by "how many lives it has saved." That's absurd. Science doesn't save lives, it improves them.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, but I'll stick to my mental image of science wielding two katanas and fucking people up bad

 

[Nezaros]

... I really wish I could draw right now.

 

[RaBind]

Madness is caused by ambition. The ambitious are drawn to taking their ideologies to their logical extremes, and that's what causes madness.
Humans through the use of science can trade suffering in the future for struggling in the present.
Science is a tool what it brings depends on how it's used, hence the need to educate people to hold this power with responsibility.

 

[Cognisant]

*pops in to see how his abomination of a thread is doing*

 

[kvothe27]

Perhaps it could if one suppresses emotion to maintain objectivity at all times or most of the time. Such a practice could result in emotional meltdowns that result in psychosis. Perhaps.


Also, Nazi eugenics was more inspired by the long history of anti semitism in Europe than evolution. Obviously, it was also a confluence of extreme events, people, and ideas that lead to it.

Read about Martin Luther's antisemitism for example:

for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
for their religious writings to be taken away;
for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave laborers.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies