₦airaland Forum

killsmith:
that's my question. Progressing to where? What scientific innovation can solve all of man's problems and fill that void in the heart of man?

Science does not even pretend to offer solution for every man problem. It is simply a methodology for exploring phenomena, explaining their causes in a way that can be predictive and repeatedly and testing hypotheses about the way things work. It’s a good method man has been exposed to for obtaining a working approximation of reality, most of the time.

budaatum:
Ok, not die, exactly, I exaggerate, but only a bit. They at least fought for the validity of their observations instead of "believing what you were told". I'm adding one more name to that list.

Jesus Bruno Galileo Copernicus were scientists who [i]died[\i] for causes.

At least they do this by validating this using natural philosophy

budaatum:
Just yesterday, as I was about, I wondered why vaxx thinks being emotional is a negative thing. Does he think 'passion' is bad perhaps. Maybe he does not see the power in words. They after all are full of passion.

Yeah, I can't fight you. But I will challenge what you say if I need to. Emotionally and passionately too. Nothing is a barrier to the human aspect to a human being worshipper, vaxx. Indeed, one day.

don't mind me, i am carried away by the flick of internet.


I am not talking to stranger but talking to omo ilu oyinbo.... yes criticised my work.......

I feel like educating you and as well correcting the esteem individual who will be reading this hogwash.

sinequanon:
most people, including most atheists, have an inadequate understanding of the scientific contention inherent in Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution (henceforth ToE).

Evolutionary observation is not a creed of atheist, every enlightened individual from all works of life agree on using observational verified evidence to measure what can be quantify and tested.

Most adherents to ToE only have a religious attachment to it, and they like to "beat up" people who know even less than they do about the issues. To this end, they would seek out people who say things like,

the real struggle of evolutionary observation is not between the athiest and the religion enlightened folks, the main struggle is between enlightened folks and gullible individual who in the face of all observable evidence still denote /reject observable evidence.

A) If ToE is true, why aren't chimpanzees turning into people?

B) Why are there still monkeys if they evolved into humans?

C) The Earth is only 6000 years old -- no time for ToE.

These are straw man statements that adherents of ToE like to knock down in order to bolster their own confidence.

Most adherents to ToE do not know the real problem with it:

This are chin chin for science basic elementry class or called it akara ati eko This fallacy has been beating to stupor already, so the gullible individual repeating this mantra is only speaking from ignorance.

Absence of a STATISTICAL MODEL.

This spew is not new as well, same mantra those who are not expose enough to science as a whole spew. Those who ignorantly forget science is a body of discipline and the aspect that deal with evolution belongs to biological department.....

I enter a room and see a large table with 50 fair coins on it. I hypothesize that the coins were NOT place there by an intelligent agent, but landed randomly on the table (perhaps, thrown carelessly). That is an HYPOTHESIS

(1) fallacy, Evolution in simple term is basically an analogy of species breeding by human, it will be unscientific to hypothesis non observational evidence .

From the horse mouth himself..."".If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501 charlse Darwin..

To support my hypothesis scientifically, I need a STATISTICAL MODEL and statistical analysis of the situation.

hypothesis are even written in a way that are objective, so to claim that there is no intelligent being in the room where the coins is observed can never be scienctifc statement. Science deals with observational evidence either remotely or within as it is the case of quantum physics.

Without it, my HYPOTHESIS cannot become a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

For any hypothesis to become a scientific theory , it must begin with objective evidence. And hence it is this evidence that will be measure and tested to validate the hypothesis claim.

In the situation of the coins on the table, I could come up with a statistical distribution to model how the coins have landed (a binomial distribution). I could then work out the probability of the coins landing the way they have. If, out of the 50 coins, 47 are heads and 3 are tails, my hypothesis that the coins landed randomly would be scientifically rejected, because the chance of so many heads happening randomly is vanishingly small. My hypothesis must pass the statistical test (say 23 heads vs 27 tails) in order to possibly become a theory.

pile of hot trash, even if am going to use your illogical response. evolution still does not depend on chance .natural selection, the principal known which is the mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving desirable (adaptive) features and eliminating undesirable (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in a given short times.

Now, replace your table by DNA, your coins by genes, and your coin placement by "mutation".

illogical analogy from hot pile of trash.

ToE HYPOTHESIZES that the mutations ARE random. It doesn't say that they could possible be random. It CONCLUDES that they ARE random. But it does so with no statistical model or statistical analysis. Therefore, Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution remains only an HYPOTHESIS.

An evidence to show you know nothing about what you spewing .Random’ is a fuzzy concept. And there are several kinds of mutation.Go and relearn biko....commonly they are hotspots for mutations along a chromosome, so mutations are not uniformly distributed as you are naively thought. It happens along a chromosome. Biologically, They are approximately randomly uniform.

Some work has been done to start on the long, long road of creating a model, which could turn the HYPOTHESIS into a THEORY. But unfortunately, this work is being led by religious folk with the agenda of disproving ToE. This situation has been allowed to happen because scientists themselves have tried to avoid the science and the real scientific questions. They have gone instead for the "what else could it be?" argument, and indulged in an unscientific squabble with religion.

hogwash. You should have ask a reasonable question if you don't know, Darwin set up his hypothesis by proposing a mechanism for evolution i.e. variation with differential descent, and this he does by justify his proposal with evidence.

Same mantra scientific ignorance spew that had been flog to death big time. this is a clear indication of someone who pendown this hogwash from rejected shipment of tilapia fish ending toward Somalia.

I believe in the existence of God (olodumare) and yet I am not in denial of evolution............


Warnning ( scientific ignorance can kill).

killsmith:
Holding science back from what? Where is science heading to?

I mean from scientific progress and innovation....

budaatum:
You are not "in a position where you just have to believe what you are told"! You were in the position that you needed to handle at the time. And when it got too much for you, you quit! Some people, Bruno Galileo Copernicus, they died fighting not to believe what they were told. They should be a lesson.

There is no need to drag issue with individual who fall outside community standard, as that alone is a medical condition. You know what I mean. ( if everyone is saying A and he want to treat it like B) you should be skeptic about such individual.

All we have has a human is our intuition. All nature has is her evidence. The marriage of the two is called science. And if someone in 2018 is claiming this is base on false standard. You should know the person is only acting ignorance.

And do not be decive by too much lies, anybody can wrote anything whatsoever on cyberspace.: "" Your right is to check and validate it thru objective evidence.

budaatum:
Isn't that what you do when you attack my emotions?

Either You like it or not, you can never fight me.......

I hope to see you someday, at least talk like a human........it seems we have forgotten that aspect due to internet barrier.

sinequanon:
My background is in mathematics. It is abstract. It doesn't have this problem that science has.

The shrillest advocates of the scientific method are those who know little about it. Real scientists are far more cautious, but unfortunately, many dare not talk in public.

The rise of academia in India is going to be a game changer. They are more willing to discuss things that have become taboo in the West. Brainwashed folks like yourself, will then be able to follow follow..

Another confused apologetic, you don't even know the importance of axioms in science which is liking to abstract in mathematics.

Arguably mathematics is science in the sense that it use the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge" like that of axioms which is use in mainstream science.


You ignorantly do not know math has its own problem, just like science (who is denying that). You are even part of the problem . Holding hogwash knowledge and celebrating it as a fact.

The ignorant did not even know mathematics is taught as a bunch of random rules ""à la SOHCAHTOA ""and FOIL which you have to apply blindly -- without understanding what you're doing, with no coherence whatsoever to solve random, purposeless questions. I am sure you are yet to consider this as a problem.


You hide under the cover of cyber space and thinks you can cover truth with false. Sincerely speaking you might not be holding a mathematics degree.....it is common norms(those that talk too much of themselves are empty basket) as it is said empty drum make the loudest sound.


Even budaatum thinking is a basket case prove me wrong reading your response..

sinequanon:
Yep. Typical logic. Scientific principles are truth because 2018.

I advise you to go and develop your critical faculties and come up with real substantive debate, instead of your posturing.

i can see you could not make sense of it, just like you denied objective evidence throw at you.

My opinion though , you may discard it. Go relearn all what you claim as a fact. No academia will take you serious with this line of thought . You sound more like an apologetic rather than educationist.

To stand in denial of scientific principle in 2018 is clearly an act of ignorance .

sinequanon:
I think our discussion is coming to an end and you are going round in circles.



It only takes one counterexample to prove that something cannot work universally. When I gave an example you said that you were not interested in that type of argument. This was your illogical response:



You are not genuinely open to discussion. So there is no point discussing further.



Again, you are evasive. Being a student does not answer the question of whether you have direct personal experience of peer review. Why write nine evasive words instead of a simple "yes" or "no" answer? You are deliberately being evasive.



Here you go again, repeating your opinion instead of explaining what it is based on.



More repetition and arbitrary assertions. No explanation.



Repetition. The point has been addressed. You are clearly not reading and understanding the answers.



I have enough evidence about you from the way you reply. Your ideas are virtually a carbon copy of the popular responses laypeople have been programmed to make.



You have to be more than "not a novice" to understand the depth of this topic.



I have explained this already.



The problem is that this discussion belongs in philosophy.

What you are doing is the very common mistake of trying to critique science from within science. Even Richard Dawkins started out naively trying to do this, but eventually he got clued up and realized that the questions were way deeper than he thought.



I could call that an "ad hominem ATTACKKKK"

But I won't. You see, I can tell that it is your honest opinion relating to how YOU see my argument. For me, that is fine in an argument. I do the same thing.



I am not sure what you are typing on, but your grammar is coming out confusing. Your definition of science means that we are talking at cross-purposes in any case.

As for closed-mindedness, you may think that you are writing stuff I have not heard before. I have heard almost everything you are writing. It is the automatic response of hundreds and hundreds of layfolk. I have seen it on many forums, like masses of programmed folk who don't or can't discuss enough of the nitty-gritty of science and philosophy of science.

I carried out one experiment, on several forums dedicated to discussing the theory of evolution. I did a search on those forums for the word "mutation" which is a key concept in theory of evolution (Neo-Darwinian ToE). I typically got 200 search results. Then I did a search for the word "spaghetti", and I got MORE results than for "mutation". Thanks to Richard Dawkins, more people were yammering on about flying spaghetti monsters than arguing the science and talking about mutation. That is not debate. If you try to get into scientific debate with most of these jokers, they turn out to be ignorant clowns. (I later had a thought and searched for "spagetti" without the "h". I got even more results than for "spaghetti"...then I spelled it with one "t" and more hits spewed forth... jeez!)

Already I have ended the discussion? Why sbouild i allow this baiting to continue.


Sure most of my evidence are back up objectively. Knowledge is not a monopoly of vaxx. Continue with your line of thought even when it has been shown to you, it is hogwash ....is a wast of time arguing in basket....

persius555:
If that building is indeed 142 years, then some countries need to learn maintenance culture from Ghana.

Trust me, you don't want to see a 100 year old building in my country

Yes it is....

KENFERDYOORI:
At this point I leave you to broaden your perspective....

Thanks

sinequanon:
I]can't make sense of what you mean be a process being "true".

Are you asking which of the peer review METHODS you mentioned is "not accepted" everywhere?

I am not sure what you are getting at.

I am simply asking you wish of this process undergo in peer review method you are discarding? Your opinion was "" have I involve in this research particularly myself to validate how it work""?you went on to bring a scenario of an individual which findings was rejected base on political reason...... and I ask you? Since you of this opinion how do you determine if peer review is not universally true or what method of the process are you discarding?

What I wish to know is if you have any direct personal experience with peer review.

I already told you, I am simply a student.....

You are mischaracterizing an example as a "model of defence".

I think that you are missing the point, which is that saying that something has been "peer reviewed" does not automatically mean that it should be accepted as fact. I gave an extreme example, but there is a sliding scale.

something that has been peer review means it has scienctifc backup and can be trusted. The word Fact you are using here is ambiguous. Even people with noble laurel have seen their work discredited . That is the beauty of science, it can easily falsify itself. People who normally refuse to publish thier work are those who are afraid of scientific scrutiny.

[

quote]The upshot is that you have to be personally skilled to some extent in the field in order to assess its credibility.

This is fallacy at best, let me make you understand something .. Most of us, I mean most of the time, are to some extent a scientist. I.E. Your car won’t move. You Hypothesize that something is wrong. You gather information - the keys aren’t in the ignition, or their is a ‘boot’ on your tire, or the gas gauge is on E. You redress the hypothesized issue - filling the gas tank, puting the key in the ignition and turning it, paying your fines. You check your Hypothesis validity by seeing if your car will move now, if not you return to observing why the car may not move (oops, forgot that this car had its battery stolen) and test that observed possible cause of the issue, and so on, until you got the car moving. This is all what science is all about.

THE POINT IS THAT YOU ARE ASSESSING THE SUCCESS AND CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE THROUGH THE LENS OF HUMAN REPORTING.

Another fallacious claim, I recently told you, I learn , read and practice. You need to have enough evidence of me before you can make any assumptions of me.

SO I AM SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO BE CLOSER THAN THAT TO SCIENCE, AND HAVE A DEEPER PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING THAN THAT, IN ORDER TO ASSESS THE SUCCESS AND CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE AS A FRAMEWORK.

Do i need to make claim in my corner room for you to understand I am not a novice of scientific discipline....

No. As I said above, this is a fallacy. Perhaps you can see the fallacy when applied to religion. The fact that religious acts are carried out by fallible humans is not a logical argument for saying that religion is morally neutral. You have to examine what the religion is SAYING.

science is a method not a believe. Only the person using science can be consider immoral or moral ...religious is a believe system....bro where do you dig this logic out?

So, I am asking you to go back to earlier posts where I talk about what science is SAYING. To crudely paraphrase, the scientific method is encouraging us to pay attention ONLY to what we can take control over and exploit. That is why science looks for mechanistic behaviour, and DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF NON-MECHANISTIC BEHAVIOUR. It does so arbitrarily. There is no logic that proves that the universe is mechanistic. It is a value judgment based on a need to control the universe. THAT IS WHERE MY MORAL ARGUMENT COMES FROM.

false.. if there were no mechanism in the program of this universe. it would not have exist. ( you may even be arguing against religion here)The laws of physics that we understand so far show us that the change in value of a single one of them would cause the current universe to cease to exist.

Again, you are engaging in rather shallow repetition of accolades for science.

I addressed this distinction between research and science earlier. Instead of addressing my points, you have listed a standard popular response, which doesn't get to the point.

why are you so close minded? I am tempted to say you might not really be whom you claim. Your point is hogwash, I give reasons as to why it is. You can hold fallacious claim as point and think you have a fact, how do you even validate or verify your own claim. I want to know? And let's put this method into scrutiny.

Read my earlier post again. Are animals doing science because they evolve knowledge? That is not my use of the word "science". I am talking about a deliberate enterprise that asserts that the universe is mechanistic and seeks to uncover that "mechanism

i think your best question should be ""those animal use scientific experiment"" You can't ask an error questions on its own? ". Well it has not crossed my mind before, but now that you mention it, yes I think you could say some animals use scientific method. Crows, for example, are very good problem-solvers. Other animals as well are good at experimenting, and evaluating the results of their problem-solving attempts. The only thing missing is verbatim.

Options may be limited, but "I cannot practically test this personally" does not validate the argument "it is true because a human institutional authority told me so." It is better to admit you don't know.

it will be very difficult to change a close minded individual?

KENFERDYOORI:
Having acknowledged that both of them are great minds, I must say that they both spoke from their respective perspectives.
Reality is both/and; science and religion are just aspects/approaches to this reality. Non of them is absolute. That's where "hermeneutical flexibility" and if you like "epistemic humility" come in.

Brilliant observation? As you can see none of them claim superiority over what they describe, And both of them were simply expressing their God given wisdom which can be accumulated to the position of knowing (epistemic). And as well both of their veiw are expression of humility (because they are aware of this implication).believe and opinion are the foundation of wisdom bro.....

KENFERDYOORI:
We continue to learn everyday. What I'd advocate for is a "hermeneutical flexibility" between science and religion.

I will urge to visit this
thread.

...https://www.nairaland.com/4373546/believe-religion-same-time-accept

hopefulLandlord:
What? all MAD does is prevent nuclear attacks. I'd even argue that MAD is responsible for invention of more nuclear weapons

Good, that is my point. On the second note that should be another argument for another day.

KENFERDYOORI:
I don't know the extent to which you're scientifically inclined, but I don't think even Max Planck(The father of quantum physics) would speak this way. I don't want to be too critical of your writing... there's still much to know about science bro.

science itself is knolwedge, the more you try to know, the more you become scienctifc incline.....

And I urge you to be critical, I want to learn from you.

sinequanon:
Peer review is a process whereby a body of work, like a research paper or thesis, is checked for quality, substance and accuracy by a panel of peers, who are active in the field. It is generally an iterative process, where corrigenda and suggestions are decided upon by the panel for consideration, and the work is resubmitted until it is accepted in full or rejected

i am not asking about the definition, I am asking about the process, what are the process of peer review you consider that are not universally true? Well I will do the favour of answering the question myself... they are three process of peer review and I shall be explaining them below. .....

""Single-blind peer review: In this type, authors do not know who is reviewing their paper, but reviewers are aware of the authors’ identity""

""Double-blind peer review: In this type, both the author and peer reviewers are not aware of each other’s identity"".

""Open peer review: In an open peer review, identities of both author and reviewers are disclosed to each other.
Post publication peer review: This is a variant of open peer review. In this type of review, reviewers evaluate a manuscript after it has been published on an open access platform"".....

All This are taking from academia review centre and it is applicable all over the world.

So my argument is this, which of this process is not universally true and how can a novice(That you claim I am) be enlightened about them. Ensure your proposition is base on verifiable evidence? If not I will treat this argument as one of those who argue in cycle.

OK. Let me ask. What is your experience in scientific research?

i just told you, I am just a mere student who is open and willing to learn.

I have given you examples of peer reviewed research accessible to both of us. In the case of Andrew Wakefield, who suggested the possibility of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, his research was peer reviewed and accepted in one of the most prestigious medical journals, The Lancet.

I don't see this as a good debate using one individual as model of defence, what about the numerous scientific research that had being published and it's accepted on merit. I am not really interested in this kind of argument, it is baseless.

Another problem I know about from personal experience as a researcher is in application for research grant. These are often government grants, issued annually. It would be very naive to assume that the government will fund OPEN research that conflicts with government policy. The government would want such research to be CLOSED to outside scrutiny in order to protect the political and economic factors that are part of policy. A public example of that was the research done by Professor Nutt (whom I mentioned in an earlier post). He wasn't silenced, but he lost his position and funding for publicising his research.

This is not always true . They have been well sponsored research on the use of alcohol and cigarettes despite their economic importance . And this research does not favour government at all. Well, quite agree with you, it is possible for government to block or close down access to scientific research if it has enormous effect on goverment economic potential, this act of immoral from the goverment and not science itself. Science does not meant to be immoral, it is society (political herachy) that acted immoral. Science suppose to be free and fair. You should have it in mind that I said earlier that is society that determine what is immoral or moral. As science is neutral.

The highlighted is where we are in dispute.

Humans are inquisitive creatures. We have been researching for as long as we have existed on Earth -- long before anything we call science. We observe our environment and we interact according to our observations. Most animals do the same thing. It is not enough to call it science. Even medicine has existed long before science. Even animals self-medicate. We don't call it science.

science is a Latin word which means knowledge, trying to put a date and time constraint into when science begin is a fallacy on it is own, ""knowledge is as old as the universe"" Science was not invented or created. It just happened over time. The human is by nature curious and at first looked for better ways to form hunting weapons, harness fire, track animals…the list is endless all this are element of science that we evolve to learn by observation. Later, we found ways to uncover the secrets of nature through experimentation. We developed glass, curved it and looked at the microscopic world through the microscope and the stars through the telescope and so on. Well it will make sense if you it started at the big bang.

Scientific research is a particular kind of research that values a particular type of outcome in isolation of any other paradigm. It postulates a mechanistic world. This means that only certain types of research and outcome are valued by science. It is a narrowing down of research at large. It is an injection of IGNORANCE.

scientific research is base on empirical evidence and anything that can be measure or determined with our objective eyes anything other than that is not science. Science does not claim he had answer to everything. Science is a tool just like hammer, it might not be good for sawing.... Science already admit it's own error, it can not exploit anything outside objective verified evidence. It is not a position of ignorance but a position of intellectual. It has been tested overtime and it works.

LOL!!

I've seen this kind of argument so many times.

They ask you for evidence and proof.

If you supply it, they say, "see, science eventually led to the truth".

If you supply it without widely acknowledged proof, they say, "it is all conspiracy".

This is what science is asking for, bring out the objective verified evidence and let's put it into test, if it is not objective/empirical. Take it away from me.

The problem is obvious: if your definition of proof is "what the authorities say", then you cannot prove that the authorities are doing anything wrong. You are in a position where you just have to believe what you are told.

No, my definition of proof is evidence on objective verified fact. Science is not about proof but about evidence. There is difference between the two.

Your only proper alternative is to read up and understand the subject matter in sufficient depth that you can separate genuine research from politics and machinations, and make your own, more deeply informed decision.

Not a bad idea. But what about taking up the pratical aspect of it.

You can test the evidence yourself.

LordReed:
Unfortunately, despite our advancement as a species we are not at the point in which we can discard weapons. Too many "bad actors" still remain and are continually being trained by nature and nurture for this to be a reasonable approach. We must continue to safeguard ourselves from irrational uses of force

.Have you heard of Mutual assured destruction?
(Google up)is one of the critical way human have use to limit the invention of more nuclear weapons, I am not a pacifist so I do not totally subscribe to the idea of weapon anihilation. But I believe we can get there and we are evolving at a speedy rate. More pragmatic decision are being taken to avoid what We will have turn up to a global war. Check out how north Korea was able to balance just about to be busted war between them and USA. Interesting right?

I am not sure it actually absolves scientists of blame. Being an unwitting tool is not without its consequences. If Wehrner Von Braun ever had had the misfortune of meeting victims of the rockets he helped design, I am sure it would not have gone well for him

your argument is similar to a culprit who is sentenced to life jail, who will he blame? The constitution, the lawyer that adjudicate over his case or the crime he comited ? Rationally I don't think the rockets engineer will be blame rather those people who use what the engineer built negatively on them. If you are to hit by a car on a highway, do you blame the car manufacturer or the driver of the car?

Well, I think scientists ability to critically look at the data and propose solutions will be the aid as well as some experimental psychology

Beautiful opinion. .

Thank you.

You are welcome.

LordReed:
I really don't agree that the act of creating these weapons is immoral in of itself. I rather see it as amoral, being that the weapons themselves do not do anything until they are used but the scientists who create them don't particularly care how the weapons are used.

thanks for this beautiful reply....

:i appreciate you taking your time to disscuse this issue...this is a sign of intelligence. (

LordReed:
Like I wrote in an earlier post, there are several layers to this question.

First, the reason or necessity for weapons. In the early dawn of human history, man saw that his environment was filled with all sorts of things that had the potential to kill him and especially with predators it wasn't enough to just run away. The need to defend against predatory attacks is a valid reason to create weapons. Even in todays world where we no longer fear an attack from creatures on the savannah where man evolved from, man has become predator to himself. It is still necessary to create weapons to defend yourself with more so for nations that control large swaths of physical ground containing resources and other things of strategic value. May be one day we'll get to the point were we no longer prey on ourselves but that day isn't here yet.

ok let's agree primitive men sees weapons as tools, and humans like tools because they give us an advantage. As you said Hunting rifles give us an advantage over the game that we hunt. Defensive firearms give us an advantage (or at least helps level the playing field) over an attacker. Offensive firearms give us an advantage (or, there again, help even the odds) against an enemy we are trying to conquer. All this shows evidence that man by nature want to dominate. Hence we can say primitive men invent the idea of weaponry simply because he want to dominate....as the world evolve Do men still needs this idea? Why do We steed needs to go choose what We want, because by nature we appear more capable than animal. We are now evolve to the stage that we can live freely among ourselves. With human ability of problem solving . We can easily separate basic problem solving from internal conflict. With problem solving, we are able to consider many paths to a solution, using our imagination, follow them down to what appears to be the best option. I don’t consider this to be “choosing to do what we want”

Second, what level of force is required. So this is where the grey areas begin to show up. Questions like was it necessary to use the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why was such a devastating weapon created in the first place? Well, to some extent I understand the military doctrine that requires you to bring to bear overwhelming force that ensures not just victory but utter prostration of your enemies they loose the will to continue to fight. It is quite a good strategy actually but when it comes to weapons of mass destruction I think at that point logic has been turned on its head. Wholesale slaughter of innocents cannot be justified in my opinion. Combatants are signed up for do or die trying not innocents. Anytime the violence shifts from targeting the military, its resources and capabilities, I think the plot has been lost. In the case of scientists creating such weapons of mass destruction, I think they are misguided folk who allowed their curiousity to be directed immoral pathways. Quite plainly in my view it was unnecessary to create nuclear weapons, weaponised biological agents and chemical substances designed to kill en-mass. While the act of creating itself can be said to be amoral, it is their use that is truly immoral.

This is the basic of my argument, that scientist are to build principle
Scientists discover principles, Governments develop them into weapons and use them. The few people with power in their hands use them to kill and destroy.
Scientists are just in the pursuit of knowledge. Whatever they discover, they share in the hopes of advancement of humanity. ""How we use them, is up to us"" with open mind, you should understand where I am heading toward.

Third, outcome, what do we gain by having weapons? As already shown previously there are benefits to creating weapons. This time I want to focus on the psychological aspect more. The sense of security and safety weapons provide cannot be denied. But then again they also distort the way people view how to resolve issues. We can see it in cultures were the proliferation of weapons are relatively indiscriminate. In my view scientists need to work towards aiding society to have a grip psychologically in harnessing weapons. Their ability to create weapons should not be an end in itself, they have to contribute to the wellbeing of society even psychologically.

i think with our problem solving skills, we could benefit from less harm phenomenon rather creating weapons, I quite agree weapons creation has its own advantage but other soft approach can be taken. With psychology, it is affective science and not necessary pure or natural science, in this regards it differ from the main theme of natural science which is to discover and explore. Man should begin to see the purpose of a phenomenon and value it rather than focusing too.much toward on the negativity( Even food has its own disadvantage). if any at all, we should have a body that determine what society needs and this should be the neccasry platforms that will serve as a benchmark for the scientist. This body should be democratic in nature, my opinion though.

These are my views on the subject.

As said, your view are brilliant and intelligent.....

Let me give you a last punch on this thread while leaving you with your mumbo jumbo.

budaatum:
I am not advocating anything objectively moral. I've told you many times over that I do not necessarily agree that morality is objective and that linking both words gives a meaning I am ambivalent to! A society may impose certain moral codes on it's people but that does not imply objectivity since they may simply be pandering to sentiment, or even ignorance.

This is a result of failure on your part to make perfect critical decision, More intelligent a person is, more he tends to think algorithmically for the solution of a real life problem. But for an undecidable problem, it is impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct yes-or-no answer. As a scientist that you claim you are , I urge to make perfect use of algrothem. Here or there is an invalid position or better still illogical.

A case in point is the attitude to homosexuality in different societies. Nothing objective about it! Its relativity is obvious in the fact that every nation makes it up as they go along subject to relative time, place and understanding. The fact that some nations accept stem cell research and some don't is another case in point to show relativity!

when you know this , why then are you advocating for universal tolerance? Sometime i wonder why you normally speak from both side's of the mouth.if Saudi Arabia consider that a lady who had her first menstruation cycle (be it at age 12) can go marry while country such as USA consider age 18 as the perequsite norms any lady can get marry, while we USA want to influence his own opinion on Saudi Arabia? IS THAT NOT ACT OF MAKING MY OPINION OBJECTIVE?

However, not one single society I know of would accept that any single persons subjective morality is acceptable if such morals go against what is generally accepted! especially where issues like murder, paedophilia and scientific research is concerned. That is why there are ethical codes that apply to these activities! They show the standards that are accepted or you shall not be tolerated!

They have been scientific reaearch on the study of camel urine in both UAE and saudi arabia and it has been proven to be healthy and medicinal . will country such as Britain or ireland include this urine in one of their health care practice?

morality/law are mostly base on public opinion instead of rational thought. If today 99 percent of men decide to make eating beef immoral ...it will become immoral for any white men to still be eating beef and it will become illegal to do so.

Even American law decide where you have to put your dick...i can't just fuuuck Your wife without your consent though she agree.

KENFERDYOORI:
What a mindless show of sophistry. I've always applauded the scientists for the progress so far.
However, the forces man has unleashed should be properly managed, otherwise, man becomes enslaved by them.

I am not here to decive you bro.....both society and scientists influence each other while science remain neutral. The whole point of science is to be skeptical about its own results, get this fact bro.

Science's own process is to try to obsolete everything it has achieved. So no, that's by definition not enslavement.There's no claim of perfection or absolute authority . It just a promise that tomorrow will be better than today.

sinequanon:
Well, I can see that you are talking about a process you clearly don't understand, you have not been involved in, yet you believe in with a passion.

Argument ad hominem fallacy, instead of you to attack the argument you claimed is not universally true, you are now attacking my own personality. I ask what are this process of peer review you consider untrue or what are this process you yourself as engage on so as to validate you are talking from position of authority. (.i am just a mere student who is seeking knowledge)..

It is a mantra, because you are repeating what you have been told, without have anything in the way of direct experience.

i never knew where you get this from, I read , I learn and I practice....this is enough evidence to claim this validity, you are talking to a stranger you know, never assume anything directly from your side about me without having the necessary evidence.

You misunderstand. I am not saying that his idea "went wrong". I am saying that his paper was probably valid, but was removed for political reasons, and the authorities in his field (of which he used to be a leading practitioner) tried to silence him by stripping him of his license to practise, for political, not scientific, reasons. He escaped to the US, where he was more free to speak. If you follow the discourse that is happening in the US, you will come across not just one case, but several cases of doctors and researchers who have talked about the pressure they have been under to conform and shut up. Far from validating research, the peer structure is hijacked to enforce political conformance.

it is not today politician have been hijacking scientific research to mitigate on their society and it is not today scientist research has been influencing political decision positively as well. Politicians had the control power, they can influence be it anything....it is not about immoral in science, it is about immoral in society. This is why i say society determine what is immoral or moral. If you abreast with scientific finding which I doubt, you will realise the politicians often decide who get more payed base on what society demands. For instance, .it is well known that much more money is allocated towards research for women's health issues than for men's health issues, even though women already have the higher life expectancy to that of men but because society has the inherent interest of women, it has become a factor.

Another field is "global warming". You paymasters, as with most research, are governments. The whole system ends up serving political ends.

As I said earlier both influence each other, it will be very unhealthy to any society if research conducted shows evidence of castastrophy and the politicians decided to hijack it for political gain. Yes it happens, I am not denying it but this is not science as it is base on mediocrity. A progressive society like Europe have a consensus agreement on global warming apart from that of America which is influence by Donald trump polity.

Look at the tomfoolery that happened at CERN, with the Large Hadron Collider. It was complete fakery, with all the big names willingly taking part. The status of the Higg's Boson is still "unproven", but they used media spin and chicanery to mislead the public. It's all about money and justification of public expenditure for the upgraded collider. The most interesting aspect was to see all the celebrated physicists taking part in the pretence.

You were able to discover it was base on pseudoscience because geniue fact spring out. Politicians had sometime influence pseudoscience for thier own political gain. It is common and it happen. But this is not science.....

sinequanon:
Yes, yes, yes... I]have actually been involved in peer review. What is your qualification to speak on the matter?

then what does this process of peer review you work with? And how do you objectively verify that it does not work

You are repeating a heap of things that can be googled on "popularized science". When I read what you write, it reads like a mantra, almost verbatim, what has been drummed into some people's heads by the likes of Richard Dawkins, but which you don't really understand. It is not an argument. It is a mantra.

far from it. Peer review can be objectively verified and if by so doing you called it a mantra and i will like to see the process that state otherwise. This online ""anybody"" from its corner room can provide anything . Let's see what you call understanding and put it on the basis of objectively verified evidence.

Your idea of peer review is so naive.

I think you talk carelessly

Take vaccines, for example. Did you read what happened to Andrew Wakefield, whose work was published in the respected Lancet and then removed after a political storm? He was stripped of his license to practise, too.

In many fields, peer review doesn't work. People are too afraid to lose their jobs. A couple or notable examples are Andrew Wakefield and Professor Nutt (who published a paper on the relative harm of cannabis and other drugs.)

This is one of the problems with you guys because an idea went wrong somewhere therefore it justify every other purpose or what the idea is meant for is consider untrue. Are you wsure you not repeating the same mantra I found people like you doing...

I am pointing error instead of contributing since you failed to see where you shot yourself, I can't be arguing in a blanket.

budaatum:
Thankfully, the world does not seem to accept this view of yours, that tolerance cannot be imposed. You just step out your door and be intolerant to others and see what we'd impose on you! The general society seems to accept that it is okay to be intolerant of intolerance

indirectly you are now advocating for objective morality instead of relative moral which you subscribe to . Double standard.....

Intolerance is not necessarily immoral. Not many would argue that intolerance of paedophilia is immoral, and the fact that it isn't is "carved in stone", and we are dogmatic about it. Almost all societies generally dogmatically agree that those who do think paedophilia is not immoral have warped minds, and if they are found to be practising paedophilia we will not be "open-ended" about it and will gladly show them how "carved in stone" our dogmatic intolerance of their behaviour we will be

Buda quote.... intolerance is not neccasry immoral "" using phedophile as an examples.....while rejecting all evidence that state otherwise !

am simply pointing out to you that ethics is a necessary requirement when engaging with others. Consent happens to be one of the ethical considerations in particular fields like scientific research.

consent is the major key in ethical consideration when doing medical science. Buda I am tired of repeating this....it now sound like a poem

[quote]You are free to present your own argument. Meanwhile, do point out this "speaking from both side's of the mouth". We must not allow anyone to get away with such nonsense, and most especially, not buda

!.i am not good with such picking and pointing. It is your duty as part of nairaland fBI to do your investigation.

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

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:
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.

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...