Do you believe that science cares about what people desire or don't desire?

[cho_pilo]

Discuss.

 

[ASimon]

Discuss.

I think scientists have a decent sense of what people desire (or what they should desire), and scientific research is quite often prodded along in those specific areas.

 

[Bernward]

Discuss.

hi cho pilo,

As a researcher/lecturer in the hard sciences, there are a number of issues here as I see it (for what that’s worth!): -
‘Science’ per se is defined in the Concise Oxford dictionary as: -
"a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of, and experiment with, phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe".

As such, ‘care’ within scientific objectivity is for the accurate design of tests and rationalisation of results to be of the utmost rigour to determine valid findings, and these may then be interpreted with ‘care’ and ‘caring’ through risk analysis to account for any potential impacts of the outcomes on specific stakeholders or interest groups.

In this context, ‘people’ would normally be classified into a series of groups according to their potential interests as ‘stakeholders’ - and scientific experiments or developments could be deemed ‘caring’ in so far as each of the stakeholder groups’ sets of defined interests were able to be met.

There is an approach used called Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) ,Checkland, P (1983) which identifies stakeholder groups in software development as a guide, and these can be interpreted as : -
Customers, Users or ‘Providers’, Owner, Environment
Clearly each of these groups will have ‘benefits’ and ‘disbenefits’ arising from any possible research outcomes, and the level of CARE’ assigned for any of these groups may vary in science just as it does in society at large, with greed being a very difficult form of bias to filter out completely, along with corporate self-interest in all its manifestations.

• so to answer your question : -

there is no doubt that business interests guide much if not most of the scientific research and developments that take place around the world, and business relies on supplying products or services that people desire for their existence.

Governments spend vast sums on scientific research including counter-terrorism - the safeguarding of the population from what people ‘don’t desire’ .

It is perfectly possible for science to care about what people desire or don’t desire, but first you must refine the question to account for different people as ‘stakeholders’ to determine the extent to which care may or may not exist in a given situation.

Whenever anyone finds themself in a net ‘disbenefit’ situation as a stakeholder for a given scientific development, they should cry loudly to make their position heard and accounted for - but it may seem like nobody cares in the end - and right now across the world science is producing products which satisfy secular stakeholder groups to the detriment of their own and our own spirituality - BECAUSE SPIRITUAL VALUES AND SPIRITUALITY ARE NOT BEING FACTORED INTO STAKEHOLDER RISK ANALYSIS - if it was seen as being important as environmental then there would be all kinds of hypothetical scenarios being included - but hey - are we just going to sit here and let them ???

Hope this helps,

God bless

 

[Micorhizea]

hi cho pilo,

As a researcher/lecturer in the hard sciences, there are a number of issues here as I see it (for what that’s worth!): -
‘Science’ per se is defined in the Concise Oxford dictionary as: -
"a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of, and experiment with, phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe".

As such, ‘care’ within scientific objectivity is for the accurate design of tests and rationalisation of results to be of the utmost rigour to determine valid findings, and these may then be interpreted with ‘care’ and ‘caring’ through risk analysis to account for any potential impacts of the outcomes on specific stakeholders or interest groups.

In this context, ‘people’ would normally be classified into a series of groups according to their potential interests as ‘stakeholders’ - and scientific experiments or developments could be deemed ‘caring’ in so far as each of the stakeholder groups’ sets of defined interests were able to be met.

There is an approach used called Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) ,Checkland, P (1983) which identifies stakeholder groups in software development as a guide, and these can be interpreted as : -
Customers, Users or ‘Providers’, Owner, Environment
Clearly each of these groups will have ‘benefits’ and ‘disbenefits’ arising from any possible research outcomes, and the level of CARE’ assigned for any of these groups may vary in science just as it does in society at large, with greed being a very difficult form of bias to filter out completely, along with corporate self-interest in all its manifestations.

• so to answer your question : -
  …

Hope this helps,

God bless

I like the detailed response. Long story short, would you say that science is a methodology and “caring” is a function applied, or not, of the people using it?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Science is not a sentient being, science cannot care about anything; it is the same with religion and politics.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Science is not a sentient being, science cannot care about anything; it is the same with religion and politics.

Agreed. But if we were to assume that the OP meant “scientists” and not “science,” then we could actually answer the question.

Going by the above modification: Depends on ‘where.’ Academic science is generally directed through discovery. Industrial science is generally directed through desire.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Well… what about the idea of science The idea of science would in every way I would think show a keen interest in creation , the location and all of its features allowing mans existence which would suggest an interest in humanities well being. This would be a representation of regard and as well admiration, what thou-est admires thou-est wants to know more about

so dangers which can threaten mans well being or enhance through stability in things which
the idea of science is inspired toward would certainly include this care idea.

there are all kinds of things including asteroids,magnetic pole issues, virus, earthquakes, floods ,atmosphere conditions, hurricanes,pleasant weather, toothaches,tommy aches,getting to friends quickly gps thing, alien invasion potential, moon rock , mars rock possible fountain of youth…which all may or may not have ideas of their own which the idea of science can let us know about, because the idea of science is to find out, because the idea of science…presumes…the people in science are of sound minds representing a species which has the expected idea to keep the show on the road. So if people have normal progressive desires , its a go.

whats the big idea anyway…ha ha ha

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Science is not a sentient being, science cannot care about anything; it is the same with religion and politics.

I agree. It’s like asking if a scalpel is used to hurt or help people. It’s a tool, just as science relates to conceptual and physical tools. The tools themselves are not what holds the feelings of caring. It’s the people that use them.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

the scalpel had to merit production for a purpose, just like science. In both the nature of the scalpel and science both assume the positive purpose of its original idea, which affords the progressive desires of the human. (otherwise you need a new label for these things no? perhaps unconventional scalpel and unconventional science

just like god created everybody with good and wise intentions…the individual just like society in the scalpel and science, can wrongly use the original merit for its purpose in destructive ways Unconventional human…criminal. The idea of , the idea of science caring about the desires of normal people still stands