Science is neutral, It has no allegiance

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatrickLars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PatrickLars

Guest
I. Science is for everyone, I’ve had enough for those both atheists and theists who always use science to bolster their ranks and divide it. Science vs Religion topic is probably one of the ‘things of the past’ and we all know that the result is, you cannot disprove/prove God. That’s why instead of pondering into the deepest abyss of the Category - Perfect Being, why don’t we just get along and progress for humanity. That’s why also, that everytime a physicist or a biologist or even a psychologist, when you ask them if they believe in God, they would mostly say, that’s not my field. They have a respect for that.

II. For atheists, mind you that some theists are dogmatic and close-minded(you know who you are) but that doesn’t mean they’re agaisnt for progress, I know that all of you or most of you are hungry for clarification and justification. And for theists, follow the message, the message of love, help one another, and don’t be a hypocrite, instead of using the book for personal gains, make a charity. God didn’t command don’t progress. I’m theist, and I know that some of my fellow did horrible actions against the very core of what we believe in.

III. I have a great respect for atheists, thanks to their criticism and skepticism, I’ve become more equipped, they opened my eyes to different possibilities. They gave us insight to what, why and when questions about our professed Faith. There are people who use science also for personal gains. I thank God for these men. Atheism, a branch in the philosophy of religion, is also neutral, they may question yours but not to the point of eradication. Anti-theism on the otherhand, is probably as bad as fundamentalism. These people have no respect whatsoever, and they’re willing to do everything agaisnt theism. Anti-theists and atheists are different, the former, they don’t respect you, the latter, they respect your belief but they want to challenge yours. Science respect both atheism and theism, but science will not allow to be in cage between these two worldviews.
 
Science may be neutral, but those who practice is aren’t. Follow the money.
 
 
PatrickLars said:
I. Science is for everyone, I’ve had enough for those both atheists and theists who always use science to bolster their ranks and divide it. Science vs Religion topic is probably one of the ‘things of the past’ and we all know that the result is, you cannot disprove/prove God. That’s why instead of pondering into the deepest abyss of the Category - Perfect Being, why don’t we just get along and progress for humanity. That’s why also, that everytime a physicist or a biologist or even a psychologist, when you ask them if they believe in God, they would mostly say, that’s not my field. They have a respect for that.

II. For atheists, mind you that some theists are dogmatic and close-minded(you know who you are) but that doesn’t mean they’re agaisnt for progress, I know that all of you or most of you are hungry for clarification and justification. And for theists, follow the message, the message of love, help one another, and don’t be a hypocrite, instead of using the book for personal gains, make a charity. God didn’t command don’t progress. I’m theist, and I know that some of my fellow did horrible actions against the very core of what we believe in.

III. I have a great respect for atheists, thanks to their criticism and skepticism, I’ve become more equipped, they opened my eyes to different possibilities. They gave us insight to what, why and when questions about our professed Faith. There are people who use science also for personal gains. I thank God for these men. Atheism, a branch in the philosophy of religion, is also neutral, they may question yours but not to the point of eradication. Anti-theism on the otherhand, is probably as bad as fundamentalism. These people have no respect whatsoever, and they’re willing to do everything agaisnt theism. Anti-theists and atheists are different, the former, they don’t respect you, the latter, they respect your belief but they want to challenge yours. Science respect both atheism and theism, but science will not allow to be in cage between these two worldviews.
Click to expand...
Question for you, Patrick:

Let’s say, hypothetically, that mankind was afflicted with a disease that could only be cured by either of two methods known to science. Let’s say that method one was that the cure would be derived from other humans, but, obtaining the curative also meant the death of each human from which the curative was taken. The other source for a cure was from flies. However, the same fate inured to each fly from which a cure was obtained, as each fly also died.

Now, let’s say that through some exceptional undercover work, some detectives found out that scientists, and science in general, were targeting the human source primarily, for the curative, and subscribing highly to that method, leaving the flies largely alone for fear of upsetting some national Friend of the Flies group.

Would you still say that science was neutral?

Please don’t over-think this little scenario. It is best if you simply go with your “gut” feeling, fully knowing that there is no real reason to fear a Friend of Flies group because no such group exists.

jd
 
Science illuminates Truth. Our Catholic faith also illuminates the truth.

Science isn’t neutral. It’s on our side. 🙂
 
JDaniel said:
Question for you, Patrick:

Let’s say, hypothetically, that mankind was afflicted with a disease that could only be cured by either of two methods known to science. Let’s say that method one was that the cure would be derived from other humans, but, obtaining the curative also meant the death of each human from which the curative was taken. The other source for a cure was from flies. However, the same fate inured to each fly from which a cure was obtained, as each fly also died.

Now, let’s say that through some exceptional undercover work, some detectives found out that scientists, and science in general, were targeting the human source primarily, for the curative, and subscribing highly to that method, leaving the flies largely alone for fear of upsetting some national Friend of the Flies group.

Would you still say that science was neutral?

Please don’t over-think this little scenario. It is best if you simply go with your “gut” feeling, fully knowing that there is no real reason to fear a Friend of Flies group because no such group exists.

jd
Click to expand...

That’s​

  • a. hypothetical & not reified
  • b. ever so slightly biased against scientific research
  • so it’s not really a fair question.
Since some people claim that suffering is good for the soul, they can be the ones to die. This will achieve the following good effects:
  • they will be living up to what they say
  • others will be able to benefit medically
  • those who die will have given their lives for others
  • their example will encourage others to be equally generous
  • which will have the effect of providing an endless supply of people prepared to die that others may live
  • which in its turn will mean that both science and religion will be satisfied, instead of colliding because something suggested by one is bothersome to the the other.
The scientists, the religious types, the admirers of suffering, the sick who need the science in the first place - everyone is catered for. What could be better ? Result ? Everyone’s happy 😃
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

That’s​

  • a. hypothetical & not reified
  • b. ever so slightly biased against scientific research
  • so it’s not really a fair question.
Since some people claim that suffering is good for the soul, they can be the ones to die. This will achieve the following good effects:
  • they will be living up to what they say
  • others will be able to benefit medically
  • those who die will have given their lives for others
  • their example will encourage others to be equally generous
  • which will have the effect of providing an endless supply of people prepared to die that others may live
  • which in its turn will mean that both science and religion will be satisfied, instead of colliding because something suggested by one is bothersome to the the other.
The scientists, the religious types, the admirers of suffering, the sick who need the science in the first place - everyone is catered for. What could be better ? Result ? Everyone’s happy 😃
Click to expand...
Yes, Gottle, it is a hypothetical question. As I advised Patrick, don’t over-think it; simply answer it. My reasons will become clear as soon as it is answered.

jd
 
JDaniel said:
Yes, Gottle, it is a hypothetical question. As I advised Patrick, don’t over-think it; simply answer it. My reasons will become clear as soon as it is answered.

jd
Click to expand...
In the absence of a reply from Patrick, I will dare one: “In this respect, I would suspect that science isn’t neutral.”

jd
 
JDaniel said:
In the absence of a reply from Patrick, I will dare one: “In this respect, I would suspect that science isn’t neutral.”

jd
Click to expand...
I think your example is pointing out how politics and morality play a role in everyday life. As much as science wants to be neutral, it is constantly guided by other determining factors such as morality and politics. Pure science though, as an ideal, I believe is neutral.
 
Like someone else said, science follows the money. Medical doctors were the first academic group to endorse the Nazi party in WWII Germany. The Nazis promised them human experiments.

I knew an assistant director of the NRL who attended a church, and also practiced a form of yantra meditation which allows one to present luminous images in ones aura.
 
Science cannot be neutral because it presupposes the value of knowledge. It implies that it is good to pursue and discover the truth, i.e. to be rational. Scientists therefore should have moral integrity and reason objectively rather than be influenced by their own prejudices. and preconceptions.

Yet rationality and moral integrity cannot exist in a vacuum. Scientists are human beings and science is a human enterprise. So it is necessary to explain the nature of rationality and moral integrity if we are to understand fully the nature of science. One thing is certain. Any account of reality which denies that human beings are rational and moral undermines the foundations of science.
 
There was a very interesting series on this topic broadcast on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corprration) called How To Think About Science. It was quite in depth, and spoke to scientists, philosophers of science, and historians of science. To a man, they maintained that science is not in fact neutral, that it is very much informed by the place we think it holds, by the way science is funded and research organized, and by what we think it is supposed to do, and by what we see as the possibilities it might reveal.

The idea that science is neutral and the scientist a kind of solitary, noble person in search of Truth, is in fact a model/view of science that arose in an earlier century based on the way science was being done then. It has largely been replaced in fact, and only the general public who doesn’t have much actual contact with scientists tends to see this as how science works.

None of this is to say that science isn’t useful or a search for truth. But it most certainly isn’t neutral.
 
geometer said:
Like someone else said, science follows the money. Medical doctors were the first academic group to endorse the Nazi party in WWII Germany. The Nazis promised them human experiments.

I knew an assistant director of the NRL who attended a church, and also practiced a form of yantra meditation which allows one to present luminous images in ones aura.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Sailor Kenshin pointed out, in Post # 2, that we should, “Follow the money.” And that’s part of the point I wanted to make.

Take at look at, for example, embryonic stem cell research compared with adult stem cell research. As of this date, there have been zero successes for embryonic stem cell research. So far, thousands of human beings have been killed for no good reason whatsoever.

OTOH, all of the existing successes have been accounted for by adult stem cell research. PERIOD! In fact, now, via modifying the adult stem cell a bit, we can virtually replace the embryonic stem cell with the adult cell for all further research, if anyone wants to go in that direction.

“. . . the scientific breakthrough of reprogramming ordinary body cells to behave like embryonic stem cells indeed holds tremendous potential in understanding diseases, birth defects, and drug benefits, and will ultimately reduce embryonic stem cell research to a simple footnote of science gone amok.”

Dr. Dan Pepin
-Professor of Human Biology
-Professor of Anatomy & Physiology
-Consultant on Bioethics

Now, what is the motivation for scientists to continue on with ESC research? Number one, on the list, “follow the money”. But, I don’t think that that’s all there is to it. There is definitely a relationship between the researchers for ESC research and the abortion industry. And, I don’t think it’s for the money. So, why?

The future industry, where the real money will be, is baby farming. In England, they are somewhere in the process of setting up shops, along main street, with racks of embryos in the windows, for viewing. The embryonic human life has become an expendable commodity.

What I find interesting is that for years the apologists for abortion and ESC research were also those opposed, philosophically, to capitalism. But, when it comes to killing little boys and girls, eh, so much for that stupid stance!

Science is NOT neutral. Despite that there are scientists who oppose ESC research (they are usually from the ASC research side), they remain quiet. The question is, “Why?” What pressures might be brought to bear against any anti-ESCR scientist(s) that speak out against the insanity?

I sat in a special meeting, several months ago, where the subject was the sole subject on the agenda. In that meeting also sat several newspaper and radio reporters. Everyone of them was incredulous that they had never heard, or suspected, that such facts against ESCR and for ASCR existed. All they had ever heard was ration after ration of “one day soon all of this will pay off.”

The fact is: we do not need ESCR. (Once again,) PERIOD. ASCR is more than capable of doing it all. Furthermore, if we were to put more effort into the ASCR programs, we would actually be helping lots more people today. Some very notable people need it badly. A notable man died not to long ago that ASC most likely would have helped. However, his “advisors” kept the facts of ASCR away from him. Why?

jd
 
JDaniel said:
Exactly! Sailor Kenshin pointed out, in Post # 2, that we should, “Follow the money.” And that’s part of the point I wanted to make.

Take at look at, for example, embryonic stem cell research compared with adult stem cell research. As of this date, there have been zero successes for embryonic stem cell research. So far, thousands of human beings have been killed for no good reason whatsoever.

OTOH, all of the existing successes have been accounted for by adult stem cell research. PERIOD! In fact, now, via modifying the adult stem cell a bit, we can virtually replace the embryonic stem cell with the adult cell for all further research, if anyone wants to go in that direction.
Click to expand...
Considering a stem cell is a stem cell is a stem cell, I don’t see why this statistical oddity means anything, unless you think God is stopping embryonic stem cell research from finding results? I’m actually against embryonic stem cell usage myself, but I think you are reading far too much into that.
 
liquidpele said:
Considering a stem cell is a stem cell is a stem cell, I don’t see why this statistical oddity means anything, unless you think God is stopping embryonic stem cell research from finding results? I’m actually against embryonic stem cell usage myself, but I think you are reading far too much into that.
Click to expand...
Pele:

What I am saying is that science is not very neutral. Science, controlled by its own industrial military complex (always wanted to use those three words!), has enough power to force the scientists who oppose ESCR to keep their mouths shut. I, being just a mere mortal, have no earthly idea why ESCR can’t get any wins for itself. I find that a terrible shame, considering only the number of little boys and girls that have been annihilated in its name. If science was neutral, the debate at least from this POV would be over. There wouldn’t be any ESCR.

I believe science does have allegiances. For example, follow the politicians who are for ESCR, back to their respective States and local communities, and you will no doubt find out why.

I’m with you on ESCR. I, too, would like to see it stopped. I think our reasons might overlap to some degree - believe it or not! (Just kidding.🙂 ) But, I don’t believe a stem cell is a stem cell is a stem cell.

“If one carefully reviews each of these studies [those utilizing ESC research], he will readily see some similar shortfalls. i.e. each study refers to the “potential” of hESC’s to treat patients or to some “success” in treating lab animals. What is often omitted, or cleverly camouflaged, is that with the “improvement” of certain diseases or defects in lab animals, the major roadblocks of rejection and cancerous tumors could not be overcome.” - Dr. Dan Pepin

Our politicians know this, but, don’t seem to care. If it means a facility will open in their home town, let the killing continue.

jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top