budaatum:

Knowledge is not neutral and is good or bad! One person's knowledge can be termed ignorance by another which in itself indicates subjectivity since it is based on perspective.

The value of knowledge derives from its applicability. The only relation between the experimentation method and the value of the gained knowledge is the experimental rigor.

In other words, unethical methods can produce good knowledge but flawed methods cannot.

Knowledge based on a communist perspective, for instance, while valid to the communist, is not valid to the capitalist. Same occurs in religions where Christians and Muslims consider the other's so called knowledge to be ignorance.

Before i proceed, do you have any scientific background, I am about to make it physics....and I am asking this question because most of your reply is so related to apply science which is social....

vaxx:
The value of knowledge derives from its applicability. The only relation between the experimentation method and the value of the gained knowledge is the experimental rigor. .

No! If the "applicability" is wrong, I'd go as far as claiming your "science is faulty"! The value of knowledge is also dependent on its method of derivation.

vaxx:
In other words, unethical methods can produce good knowledge but flawed methods cannot..

Even if the results are good, the fact that it is unethically derived makes it faulty and questionable knowledge! Lordreed explained this to you but you misunderstood and thought he agreed with your unethical science! The Nazis were unethical in their science and for this very reason quite a lot of the knowledge they derived is shunned!

vaxx:
Before i proceed, do you have any scientific background, I am about to make it physics....and I am asking this question because most of your reply is so related to apply science which is social....

Bachelor of Engineering, Electrical, Electronics & Communications. And Physic and Maths teacher!

budaatum:

How is science "ultimately immoral"? In fact, what do you understand by "science"? Start there if you would please.

Science is the study of stasis -- "that which is fixed and does not change" -death.

Science is an enterprise whose goal it is to chart existence and life in terms of death (stasis).

What is TRUE in scientific terms is that which is reproducible and repeatable in space and time.

The foundation of science is experiment. The outcome of experiment is a statistical observation (often quoted as a sigma value) which IGNORES anything that is not reproducible or repeatable, i.e anything creative. So, in fact scientific knowledge is a form of bias. Scientific knowledge is inherently the residue of IGNORANCE.

I use the word "immoral" in the sense that every precedent has shown that scientific knowledge ultimately fails. The moral of science is failure. The reaction of science to that failure is to supersede the ignorance with more ignorance. This is daubed scientific progress.

sinequanon:


Science is the study of stasis -- "that which is fixed and does not change" -death.

Really?? Where do you get this from?

budaatum:

Really?? Where do you get this from?

I have explained in my post.

Science searches for "scientific fact" -- phenomena that do not change in space or time.

The nature of scientific understanding is based on this stasis.

sinequanon:
Science is ultimately immoral. So, ultimately, you cannot have science and morality.

How did you arrive at that?

LordReed:


How did you arrive at that?

Read later posts. I have explained.

Note: the spam bots are notorious for finding words in philosophical discussions that they cannot understand, and banning people. So, be prepared for disappearances at any point..

sinequanon:


I have explained in my post.

Science searches for "scientific fact" -- phenomena that do not change in space or time.

The nature of scientific understanding is based on this stasis.

Sorry, but science does not search for "phenomena that do not change in space or time"! Quite a lot of phenomena change in space and time, and science attempts to understand and explain such changes. Simple knowledge of chemical processes would point this out to you, as would a study of velocity which is specifically defined as the change in position (space) divided by the time of travel.

budaatum:

No! If the "applicability" is wrong, I'd go as far as claiming your "science is faulty"! The value of knowledge is also dependent on its method of derivation.

Science - The Method - is neither right nor wrong. It is a tool - like a hammer, or a telescope, or math. It's applicability are objectively the same, to test , experiment and tools to carry out further research.

Even if the results are good, the fact that it is unethically derived makes it faulty and questionable knowledge! Lordreed explained this to you but you misunderstood and thought he agreed with your unethical science! The Nazis were unethical in their science and for this very reason quite a lot of the knowledge they derived is shunned!

i have corrected this ignoratiou elenchi fallacy for a quite number of time now. Science does not determine what is ethical wrong or right, it is the society that sets the benchmark, as for scientist ethically can be pragmatically deduce. And that is is what is happening in scientific incline society... politicians work along with scientist to determine what should be out as ethics to the populace and not base on majority opinion

Bachelor of Engineering, Electrical, Electronics & Communications. And Physic and Maths teacher!

Good, you should be my teacher now ... why do you thinks physical law sometimes break down at the singularity...

budaatum:

Sorry,..

Let us discuss, and leave out the attitude.

budaatum:
...but science does not search for "phenomena that do not change in space or time"! Quite a lot of phenomena change in space and time, and science attempts to understand and explain such changes. Simple knowledge of chemical processes would point this out to you, as would a study of velocity which is specifically defined as the change in position (space) divided by the time of travel.

You are confusing the fact with the content of the fact. (You have also confused phenomenal fact with definitive fact -- you can define whatever you like, however you like without it telling us anthing about the phenomenal environment, but let us ignore that.)

To apply what I am saying to your example, velocity = displacement per unit time, "holds" today, yesterday, tomorrow, on Earth, on Jupiter, on galaxy SPT0615-JD. (Hope the bots don't kick in and ban me because they don't recognize it.)

The "scientific fact" itself is static, regardless of its content.

vaxx:
Science - The Method - is neither right nor wrong. It is a tool - like a hammer, or a telescope, or math. It's applicability are objectively the same, to test , experiment and tools to carry out further research..

Science, the method, and a tool, can be wrongly used just like a hammer or telescope or maths can be wrongly used. It would after all be wrong to use a hammer as a screwdriver. But moreso, society has in itself determined what wrong science is (i.e. science with wrong methodology), and it has gone much further by deciding codes that must be followed for proper ethically acceptable scientific research!

I just don't understand your science that is done without consideration of these obvious facts! As I previously asked, is a scientist permitted to perform experiments that have not yet been deemed ethical in the society in which the scientist operates?

vaxx:
I have corrected this ignoratiou elenchi fallacy for a quite number of time now. Science does not determine what is ethical wrong or right, it is the society that sets the benchmark, as for scientist ethically can be pragmatically deduce. And that is is what is happening in scientific incline society... politicians work along with scientist to determine what should be out as ethics to the populace and not base on majority opinion.

And I have repeatedly provided you with evidence to show that you are wrong! In fact, every scientist has a component of their scientific education that specifically addresses what is morally acceptable in the conduct of their research! Here is just one more discourse on the topic! The derivation of research ethics has no bearing on whether it is a consideration! It just happens to be. Any scientist doing research has to bear ethics in mind!

vaxx:
Good, you should be my teacher now ... why do you thinks physical law sometimes break down at the singularity...

And how, pray tell, does this relate to the discussion at hand?

sinequanon:


Science is the study of stasis -- "that which is fixed and does not change" -death.

Science is an enterprise whose goal it is to chart existence and life in terms of death (stasis).

What is TRUE in scientific terms is that which is reproducible and repeatable in space and time.

The foundation of science is experiment. The outcome of experiment is a statistical observation (often quoted as a sigma value) which IGNORES anything that is not reproducible or repeatable, i.e anything creative. So, in fact scientific knowledge is a form of bias. Scientific knowledge is inherently the residue of IGNORANCE.

I use the word "immoral" in the sense that every precedent has shown that scientific knowledge ultimately fails. The moral of science is failure. The reaction of science to that failure is to supersede the ignorance with more ignorance. This is daubed scientific progress.

This is easily disproved by the very gadget you use in posting this. As a product of science it is undoubtedly creative and constitutes no evidence of immorality in the way it was developed.

Almost all you do and use today is a product of science so where is this failure evident?

budaatum:

Science, the method, and a tool, can be wrongly used just like a hammer or telescope or maths can be wrongly used. It would after all be wrong to use a hammer as a screwdriver. But moreso, society has in itself determined what wrong science is (i.e. science with wrong methodology), and it has gone much further by deciding codes that must be followed for proper ethically acceptable scientific research!

When you apply science into what is not meant for, it become pseudoscience, using science as a tools for politics is unscientific and unpragmatic. There is difference between code of conduct and ethics, you like beeping like the continuous error message in about to be damaged computer. Science has an objective methodology and anybody doing science without this principle is not doing science. Wrong science methodology equals to pseudoscience.

I just don't understand your science that is done without consideration of these obvious facts! As I previously asked, is a scientist permitted to perform experiments that have not yet been deemed ethical in the society in which the scientist operates?

science has a lay down foundation that is base on code of conduct that is valid by law and not by ethics. Scientist determined what they anonymously agree upon and not from unprofessional. Just like it is done within the cycle of law. Ethics is differ from law as it differ from code of conduct.

And I have repeatedly provided you with evidence to show that you are wrong! In fact, every scientist has a component of their scientific education that specifically addresses what is morally acceptable in the conduct of their research! Here is just one more discourse on the topic! The derivation of research ethics has no bearing on whether it is a consideration! It just happens to be.Any scientist doing research has to bear ethics in mind!

wait a moment do you even understand my argument on this topic, I may be arguing with someone who is having a direct opposite idea to what I present on the topic headline.... Your repetition has no bearing, it just conclude that you are not abreast with the topic of discussion.

And how, pray tell, does this relate to the discussion at hand?

This proves that you are not abreast with the topic of discussion. AN ANSWER TO THIS SHOULD ENLIGHT YOU ON THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE.

I doubt you know what your position is on this topic vaxx since its apparent that you can't stop tying yourself in knots.

vaxx:

budaatum:
I doubt you know what your position is on this topic vaxx since its apparent that you can't stop tying yourself in knots.

i always ignite the fire that power your emotions, (i only want to force you to reason instead of being to emotive)try defending yourself, instead of throwing tantrum.... anyway i am use it to bro....

LordReed:


This is easily disproved by the very gadget you use in posting this. As a product of science it is undoubtedly creative and constitutes no evidence of immorality in the way it was developed.

The creative aspect is not scientific. You may be thinking that the process of exploiting the science is creative. But, I would even disagree with that.

Our technological modes of communication today, although speedy and accessible, are inherently biased to serving rapid fire lifestyle, with short term thinking. There are many pathological trends associated with it.

Now take, on the other hand, the spiritual guru who says that his most transcendent experience was communing with nature in solitude. How does your "technological gadget" help him, there? What if he is right, and the key to peace and prosperity among mankind is communing with nature (now increasingly impossible in our technological, fast paced rat race)?

If you ride an elephant, it will take you into the forest. If you ride a horse, it will take you to the grassland. Where you arrive is in the nature of your vehicle. The moral of your journey is the realization of the nature of your vehicle -- for humans, the mind, today the scientific mind.

LordReed:
Almost all you do and use today is a product of science so where is this failure evident?

Just about everywhere.

vaxx:
i always ignite the fire that power your emotions, (i only want to force you to reason instead of being to emotive)try defending yourself, instead of throwing tantrum.... anyway i am use it to bro....

Oh shut up and admit you are in above your head.

sinequanon:


The creative aspect is not scientific. You may be thinking that the process of exploiting the science is creative. But, I would even disagree with that.

Our technological modes of communication today, although speedy and accessible, are inherently biased to serving rapid fire lifestyle, with short term thinking. There are many pathological trends associated with it.

Now take, on the other hand, the spiritual guru who says that his most transcendent experience was communing with nature in solitude. How does your "technological gadget" help him, there? What if he is right, and the key to peace and prosperity among mankind is communing with nature (now increasingly impossible in our technological, fast paced rat race)?

If you ride an elephant, it will take you into the forest. If you ride a horse, it will take you to the grassland. Where you arrive is in the nature of your vehicle. The moral of your journey is the realization of the nature of your vehicle -- for humans, the mind, today the scientific mind.



Just about everywhere.

You are quite making some interesting point. Science is not immoral as you claim. Poeple determine that? Not science

Science is a set of self-correcting methods for discovering the truth, plus the information uncovered by science . The same science that produce car that can be use in transporting a sick patient to the hospital is the same car that transport the robbers to steal from the bank.

By law, there is code of conduct that governs the applicability of science, it is based on pragmatical approach.

budaatum:

Oh shut up and admit you are in above your head.

maybe I have to be making a list of Buda tantrum on every thread, this should be in what number?

vaxx:
maybe I have to be making a list of Buda tantrum on every thread, this should be in what number?

Stick to the topic at hand vaxx, or move on if you haven't got anything worthwhile to contribute. Stop derailing the thread.

sinequanon:

The "scientific fact" itself is static, regardless of its content.

Science is the acquisition of knowledge about the "facts". Or would you rather we not bother to know about the fact?

Please tell how we are supposed to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground” if we do not learn about the "facts" of our existence?

budaatum:

Stick to the topic at hand vaxx, or move on if you haven't got anything worthwhile to contribute. Stop derailing the thread.

you are the spammer.... can't you see...

vaxx:
You are quite making some interesting point. Science is not immoral as you claim. Poeple determine that? Not science

You mean that people choose to do moral or immoral things with science?

I go further and say that science inherently leads to immoral things. It is in the nature of science as a conceptual vehicle.

vaxx:
Science is a set of self-correcting methods...

Correct in which sense? And with which method are you independently affirming this "correctness"?

vaxx:
for discovering the truth,..

Science is about self-consistency, not discovery of truth. "Truth" in science only refers to internal statistical consistency.

Give ONE example of any universal TRUTH that science has discovered?

vaxx:
plus the information uncovered by science .

Information is inherent in life. All living creatures gather information. It is not the preserve of science. What makes science science is the way it gathers information, and the information it chooses to IGNORE -- information it deems to be of no value because it cannot control it -- information that does not lend itself to the repeatability/reproducibility stricture of science.

vaxx:
The same science that produce car that can be use in transporting a sick patient to the hospital is the same car that transport the robbers to steal from the bank.

The healthiest people on Earth live far from any hospital or motorway.

The problem is that you are not talking about the bigger picture. The small picture is: sick patient -- hospital - good. But the whole paradigm of rushing sick people to hospital is built around the frantic pace of life, which technology is best at serving. How much pollution do cars create -- toxins? greenhouse gases? tyres and rubber runoff? How much sickness is caused by that? What are people using cars for, mostly? Going to and from work in built up cities. Why? Competition, competition, competition, demand, demand, demand. The healthiest people in the world are away from all of that. Most epidemics are man made, hand in glove with technological lifestyle.

vaxx:
By law, there is code of conduct that governs the applicability of science, it is based on pragmatical approach.

Pragmatism only reflects the purpose behind it. Without discussing that purpose, it is empty.

For science, the purpose is control. it is baked into the deliberation of science. It is the purpose and pursuit of control that ironically spawns, not freedom and choice, but our rat race societies of today.

There is a lesson to be learned -- a moral that science teaches in its failure. i.e science is inherently immoral.

sinequanon:
Science is ultimately immoral. So, ultimately, you cannot have science and morality.

science is pragmatically incline and thus favour human morality if is to be justify.

sinequanon:


The creative aspect is not scientific. You may be thinking that the process of exploiting the science is creative. But, I would even disagree with that.

Our technological modes of communication today, although speedy and accessible, are inherently biased to serving rapid fire lifestyle, with short term thinking. There are many pathological trends associated with it.

Now take, on the other hand, the spiritual guru who says that his most transcendent experience was communing with nature in solitude. How does your "technological gadget" help him, there? What if he is right, and the key to peace and prosperity among mankind is communing with nature (now increasingly impossible in our technological, fast paced rat race)?

If you ride an elephant, it will take you into the forest. If you ride a horse, it will take you to the grassland. Where you arrive is in the nature of your vehicle. The moral of your journey is the realization of the nature of your vehicle -- for humans, the mind, today the scientific mind.



Just about everywhere.

How does divorcing a product from the science that made it possible form a logical position?

Your spiritual guru is free to practice his spirituality without technology. Nowhere does science say you must use the products of science. He is free also to produce evidence that his way is superior.

This failure you allude to is not evident. Science has successfully explained a lot of the natural phenomenon we see and helped us improve the quality of our lives.

budaatum:

Science is the acquisition of knowledge about the "facts". Or would you rather we not bother to know about the fact?

It is more subtle than this. Science COLLATES facts and then draws inferences.

It is within this process that science DISCARDS information that it deems useless to society. Science bases this VALUE JUDGMENT on its central philosophy that predictability and controllability of nature is the answer to human suffering. It is a VALUE JUDGMENT, not a truth. If we look at the big picture, we can see that it is failing. It is failing, not because of the way humans choose to use science, but because science can ONLY serve control freakery. Science is not a way to general wisdom, only to control freakery, which we call "knowledge" -- certainty of control. Ironically, it is this same control freakery that is mankind's biggest ailment. Science serves that demon in humans.

budaatum:
Please tell how we are supposed to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground” if we do not learn about the "facts" of our existence?

You will have to consult whoever told you that you are "supposed to" do those things.

vaxx:
science is pragmatically incline and thus favour human morality if is to be justify.

You have to talk about purpose before you can discuss pragmatism. What purpose does science serve? Are human purposes morally justified?

If your argument is that, "science is the result of human need, therefore it is moral", then we can end it there with polite disagreement.

My point is that mankind is frustrated by his own needs. The answer to that is a moral question of transcendence of those needs, not technological pandering and commodification of the needs.

sinequanon:

If we look at the big picture, we can see that it is failing. It is failing, not because of the way humans choose to use science, but because science can ONLY serve control freakery. Science is not a way to general wisdom, only to control freakery, which we call "knowledge" -- certainty of control. Ironically, it is this same control freakery that is mankind's biggest ailment. Science serves that demon in humans.

Science allows you to communicate with me over a distance way further than you would have been able to do by shouting. Is that a "failure" and an "ailment" that only serves your "control freakery" need to communicate with me?

Science is what people go for when they are ill and go to the doctor. Is it "failure" and an "ailment" that science gives us the "control freakery" to heal people and stop them dying young?

Science is what has helped produce better yielding and disease resistant crops which has helped reduce scarcity of food and reduced the number of people who would have died of famines. Is this "control freakery" a "failure" and an "ailment"?

LordReed:


How does divorcing a product from the science that made it possible form a logical position?

You are not being very precise about what you are asking.

I have already said that the technology is a product of many skills and disciplines, not only science. So, you cannot arbitrarily claim for science whatever you deem positive.

Be more specific. For example, do you know the history of semi-conductor technology? They got computers working before they had a proper theory for semiconductors. Modems? Working modems were carrying information with greater bandwidth than early theories predicted, because those theories were incorrect. With technology, it is overwhelmingly the case that scientific theory does NOT lead the way. It is TRIAL AND ERROR that leads the way. The results end up in products before the scientific theories can account for them.

You can check out the history of aircraft and the theory of flight. You will find the same thing. TRIAL AND ERROR, then TECHNOLOGY, then SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.

LordReed:
Your spiritual guru is free to practice his spirituality without technology. Nowhere does science say you must use the products of science. He is free also to produce evidence that his way is superior.

This failure you allude to is not evident. Science has successfully explained a lot of the natural phenomenon we see and helped us improve the quality of our lives.

Then you should be able to give us you BEST example for discussion. Please do so.

sinequanon:


You mean that people choose to do moral or immoral things with science?

it means it is not science that determine its applicability if it is ether immoral or moral, it is society that does it. Science is just a principle.

I go further and say that science inherently leads to immoral things. It is in the nature of science as a conceptual vehicle

And likewise science can inherently leads to moral things.. it society that dertermine that not science itself.

Correct in which sense? And with which method are you independently affirming this "correctness"?

science is a method of truth searching on it is own and I am affirming it on its objectiviable evidence. The truth of science in Germany is the same as it is in Ghana.

Science is about self-consistency, not discovery of truth. "Truth" in science only refers to internal statistical consistency.

science goes further than that, The goal of science is to find evidence, investigate, and verify, while making a valid truth regarding what it process , science may reveal what is true. What is truth?

""Apophainesthai ta phainomena - to let what shows itself be seen from itself, just as it shows itself from itself.” (Martin Heidegger). This is particularly phenomenology.

Give ONE example of any universal TRUTH that science has discovered?

i will give you a countless number of truth in science but that should not derail this thread. Science truth itself can be universally accepted if so wish because Science has one cool and unique feature compared to any other source of truthe searching

It is self-correcting!

If you are wrong, there is this thing called peer-review that will check that you did your thing right. Even if you slip through, independent testing of your findings will eventually expose any problems your explanation has, after which you will either have to revise your theory to state exactly when it works, or start all over again. And even if you are aware of the gaps in your theory, someone will sooner or later find a better explanation.

Point in case: bring out your smartphone and turn it on. This truth can be universally accepted....

Information is inherent in life. All living creatures gather information. It is not the preserve of science. What makes science science is the way it gathers information, and the information it chooses to IGNORE -- information it deems to be of no value because it cannot control it -- information that does not lend itself to the repeatability/reproducibility stricture of science.

science is about seeking this information and how it can be apply to our nature......information will be tootless without science.

The healthiest people on Earth live far from any hospital or motorway.

Just like not all wealthy people do banking, is a debate for another day. Hospital is meant for medical and health care, even the healthiest people need this.

The problem is that you are not talking about the bigger picture. The small picture is: sick patient -- hospital - good. But the whole paradigm of rushing sick people to hospital is built around the frantic pace of life, which technology is best at serving. How much pollution do cars create -- toxins? greenhouse gases? tyres and rubber runoff? How much sickness is caused by that? What are people using cars for, mostly? Going to and from work in built up cities. Why? Competition, competition, competition, demand, demand, demand. The healthiest people in the world are away from all of that. Most epidemics are man made, hand in glove with technological lifestyle.

why are you so focusing on one particular point leaving the older in disrest, even the food you take for survival as it's own negative consequence, in fact almost every thing you can think of as a human as a negative approach, as a moral agent you begin to see diffrence in every phenomenon, When you begin to appreciate the purpose of any phenomenon be it science or human.The real balance is, to see the Spectrum of the Cosmos. The world is far more complex than we can ever imagine.which science is trying to breakthrough .science is the Art of max precision, to know the distortions of recording.

The Scientific training is to make us much more careful and sceptical. This is an openness to learn. To put the negative aspect back to its place in the original spectrum, not the one, we construct with all our distortions and lies.

Pragmatism only reflects the purpose behind it. Without discussing that purpose, it is empty.

good point, have you reflect the purpose of science?

For science, the purpose is control. it is baked into the deliberation of science. It is the purpose and pursuit of control that ironically spawns, not freedom and choice, but our rat race societies of today.

subbjecctivy limited, the purpose of science is: to validate knowledge in such a way that people with different interests can agree that it is valid. It doesn't sound like much, but it is the most valid point. You take this as control fine but not so entirely....Nothing outside of people controls people, except other people, and perhaps addictive substances, which are offered by other humans. What kinds of science are done (or not done), and what is done (or not done) with the results, is under the complete control of humans.

There is a lesson to be learned -- a moral that science teaches in its failure. i.e science is inherently immoral.

This is completely not true.......

sinequanon:


You have to talk about purpose before you can discuss pragmatism. What purpose does science serve? Are human purposes morally justified?

science is about seeking and advancing knowledge...

If your argument is that, "science is the result of human need, therefore it is moral", then we can end it there with polite disagreement.

science is not limited to human needs alone but what consists our nature and it's environs....

My point is that mankind is frustrated by his own needs. The answer to that is a moral question of transcendence of those needs, not technological pandering and commodification of the needs

.science is neutral of this ? It simply a principle....thst human has tested over time and it works