Seems odd to me that some people nowadays are pushing back against science. Some against all fields and all knowledge. That it's been harmful, deceitful or fraudulent in myriad ways. I certainly don't get what's going on. Feel free to chime in.

If it were not for Science, we would still all be living in Caves and eating raw meat.

Bit of a no -brainer question really

32 minutes ago, Cake Monster said:

If it were not for Science, we would still all be living in Caves and eating raw meat.

Bit of a no -brainer question really

Completely agree. But flat-earthers and anti-vaxers and other nutters are totally trashing science lately. Had a poster on another thread direct this at me just last night...

 

Religion killed untold millions.  I'd say science has killed many more.

 

I couldn't disagree more with his science part. I'd contend science has saved untold millions, increased life expectancy and vastly improved quality of life.

Mostly beneficial but.....

I would say it's more a case of what was once taken as legitimate and trustworthy etc., has now, by the efforts of mass media and the internet etc. been totally destroyed by spin and misinformation. To the point that many find it hard to believe what is real or not, what is credible etc.

How many times do we now see "do your own research", that was never mentioned in years gone by, and the source was usually and generally accepted. 

 

The information highway has been destroyed by manipulation in all guises, and everything has become "questionable".

 

 

Just now, Skeptic7 said:

But flat-earthers and anti-vaxers and other nutters are totally trashing science lately.

I see the flat-earthers are worried about the reintroduction of the 2m distancing rule.

 

They claim it could push some of their members over the edge.

Mostly beneficial because where would the world be without nuclear power. 

As for all other aspects scientists are just do as ordinary people do disagree.

Surely we are not going to find anyone who thinks it has been detrimental? Anyone over 30 that is because without scientific advances they would all be dead by now anyway.

6 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

Surely we are not going to find anyone who thinks it has been detrimental? Anyone over 30 that is because without scientific advances they would all be dead by now anyway.

Wish you were right. Unfortunately, you might be in for a surprise.

 

Ultimately I will link this poll in another thread...which is thought to be the longest running thread ever on ThaiVisa/AseanNow...and is rife with science deniers and bashers. 

Beneficial for mankind possibly, but certainly detrimental to the planet and the rest of it's occupants.

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

 

 

I couldn't disagree more with his science part. I'd contend science has saved untold millions, increased life expectancy and vastly improved quality of life.

True, but at a cost of overpopulation, pollution and raping the planet of all it's resources.

 

I am strongly pro science as it is by nature a breath of fresh air of honesty and a commitment to excellence. Plenty of other scientists to bring a theory down if it is wrong. The only proviso being that one wonders if our intelligence in making discoveries is greater than our intelligence in dealing with the consequences of the discoveries.

Nuclear power. Social media. Not sure sometimes that our brains can in fact adapt fast enough to our own progress. 

On the issue of the acceptance of science and scientists, I just finished finished Don't Look Up with Leonardo Di Caprio, Jennifer Lawrence and Meryl Streep. About how people might respond to the prospect of a cataclysmic comet crash on earth. A bit obvious in parts, with Streep as a Trump like leader, and the comet as a surrogate for climate change. But it showed well how people can be influenced not to trust  scientific 'intellectuals' and how people prefer the status quo of their faith and feelings to adaptation to an unpleasant reality. 

Trusting science, or any respected body,  for some seems akin to admitting short comings in themselves. 

It has been hugely beneficial, but it has also hastened the eventual and inescapable demise of humanity and in the not too distant future. I give humanity no more than another 10,000 years, at most. 

5 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Beneficial for mankind possibly, but certainly detrimental to the planet and the rest of it's occupants.

Totally get the planet and fellow Earthlings part and I would agree, but the topic specifically states humanity...aka humankind. And even then...only possibly? 

5 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Totally get the planet and fellow Earthlings part and I would agree, but the topic specifically states humanity...aka humankind. And even then...only possibly? 

Possible because science is a two-edged sword. As well as benefiting us, it's also bringing about our destruction.

9 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

It has been hugely beneficial, but it has also hastened the eventual and inescapable demise of humanity and in the not too distant future. I give humanity no more than another 10,000 years, at most. 

Certainly possible and even probable, however by no sure measure a guarantee. 

Science can be used - like everything else - to improve peoples lives or to cause detriment to those same lives.

Same can be said for fire, agriculture, civilization, currency, et al

It is not the science - it is the application. Science is neutral.

4 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Possible because science is a two-edged sword. As well as benefiting us, it's also bringing about our destruction.

Possibly, but not a certainty. 

Like Isaac Newton and gravity.

Many things benefit from understanding this principle.

Dropping a rock on someones head is not the fault of the science, or Newton

science is of great value to humanity. However, the companies that exploit it commercially are a major threat.

9 minutes ago, seedy said:

Science can be used - like everything else - to improve peoples lives or to cause detriment to those same lives.

Same can be said for fire, agriculture, civilization, currency, et al

It is not the science - it is the application. Science is neutral.

Absolutely. Posted this in another thread recently...

 

"Science" cannot be moral or amoral. It is a process. If what you meant by your statement above is, some "unfettered and amoral" people using the discoveries of science for corrupt, questionable, ignoble reasons...then yes, I agree. 

Mostly beneficial, with a number of exceptions, incl. the A-bomb, genetic engineering, immune (disease) enhancement...

17 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Possibly, but not a certainty. 

 There will have to be some radical changes to prevent it, or possibly we will all adapt to living off algae.

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Completely agree. But flat-earthers and anti-vaxers and other nutters are totally trashing science lately. Had a poster on another thread direct this at me just last night...

 

Religion killed untold millions.  I'd say science has killed many more.

 

I couldn't disagree more with his science part. I'd contend science has saved untold millions, increased life expectancy and vastly improved quality of life.

Depends a bit, i mean science allowed millions more to live but also warfare on a far larger scale than before. But if you count the extra lives that were made because of it then it still wins.

 

Anyone who thinks science killed more than religion is a nutter. We grow food better, can cure people better. Just take the standard of living in the Middle Ages vs now. I mean it says it all. Science is beneficial. Religion on the other hand.... mostly beneficial to control people. (Those on the tope make nice money)

 

 

 

 

Not science, per se.......but Occidental civilisations, historically, have been highly detrimental to most everything. 

 

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Completely agree. But flat-earthers and anti-vaxers and other nutters are totally trashing science lately.

I believe Darwin commented on such people.

The mere fact that this question is up for debate shows how far society has sunk into decadence and mass psychosis. The dark ages of book burning are returning.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

The mere fact that this question is up for debate shows how far society has sunk into decadence and mass psychosis. The dark ages of book burning are returning.

Fortunately they are still a tiny minority. It just slays me that some really bright people, along with probably the most brilliant person I've ever known, have bought hook line and sinker into this ????????! Would be funny if not so disturbing. Still funny actually. 

 

3 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Mostly beneficial, with a number of exceptions, incl. the A-bomb, genetic engineering, immune (disease) enhancement...

A-bomb led directly to nuclear power and medicine. Kills cancer, among many other things.

Genetic engineering making great strides in the food production and medical fields. Potatoes, tomatoes just 2 which are not at all like their originals.

Immunology - read of the breakthroughs in 2021 alone, and it has been going on a long time - https://www.life-science-alliance.org/content/immunology-discoveries-2021

Best advance past the 1950's - there ain't no more 'Duck and Cover', no Frankenstein, no monsters under the bed

 

Science have led to less deaths from war and murder!

 

Quite impressive statistics in the article. 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

46 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Science have led to less deaths from war and murder!

 

Quite impressive statistics in the article. 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

Yep, so true. Glad you brought this up. Steven Pinker wrote book about this very thing 4 years ago entitled Enlightenment Now. For those unfamiliar...

 

Steven Pinker is a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, psycholinguist, popular science author and public intellectual. He is an advocate of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.

Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University.