Evolution....of science

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant. 

People here try to present science  as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science.  Nothing is fixed for eternity.

It has also become too 'nose in the air'.

Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'.  They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations.  Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!

If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about  black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

[SusanDoris]

My first thought was to demolish this OP, but I am just shaking my head sadly and returning to the latest unreads.

[Sriram]

My first thought was to demolish this OP, but I am just shaking my head sadly and returning to the latest unreads.

Oh my! How impressive!! 

I am terrified by the force of your intellectual thrust. Ha Ha Ha! Really!!

With supporters like you....these atheist chaps don't need enemies!  LOL!

Thanks for your views anyway!!  (I normally don't bother with you...but sometimes even I get bored). 

[SqueakyVoice]

Just some thoughts.

Having read it, the total amount of thoughts in that post is nil.

The total amount of straw men is 17.

[Bubbles]

Hi everyone,

The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant. 

People here try to present science  as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science.  Nothing is fixed for eternity.

It has also become too 'nose in the air'.

Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'.  They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations.  Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!

If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about  black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

Science, static and stagnant?

Not around me it isn't.

my grandmothers and mothers life was totally different to mine.

Science gave me washing machines, tumble dryers and dishwashers and a host of other gadgets to make my life easier and give me more leisure time.

When I was a child we only had a black and white telly and 3 channels, my children have grown up in a world full of games machines and computers and hundreds of TV channels. Science gave us all those things.

Probably the most important one to me is that science gave the surgeon who performed my life saving operation the skills ( which was groundbreaking enough that the operation had an audience of 30 other surgeons  learning what science and they  could now do). This was a groundbreaking operation for cancer, that not so many years ago wasn't possible.

I think it isn't stagnating so much as accelerating and a lot of things, impossible before, we now take for granted.

Science isn't just about black holes and dark matter.

Even knowledge of that has increased as instruments have got better, but it's only a small part of science.

[Maeght]

Hi everyone,

The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant. 

People here try to present science  as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science.  Nothing is fixed for eternity.

It has also become too 'nose in the air'.

Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'.  They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations.  Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!

If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about  black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

Any evidence to support any of that Sriram because it doesn't seem to match my view of scientists or science? Scientific theories are always open to modification based on evidence and scientists are always looking to explore new areas and to try to understand what we don't currently understand. Certainly not static or stagnant.

[floo]

Since when has science been static or stagnant? It appears to be constantly upgrading.

[Stranger]

Summary for Sriram (who generally can't be arsed to read much): no, science shouldn't incorporate your baseless superstitions.

The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant.

You mean by this....? Let me guess; it doesn't accept your baseless, superstitious assertions.

People here try to present science  as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science.  Nothing is fixed for eternity.

The process of science has proved, and continues to prove, a very effective means of discovering things about the universe we live in. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The contents of scientific theories are always open to revision - that is part of the process.

It has also become too 'nose in the air'.

Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'.  They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations.  Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!

Everybody has talents. Not everybody can write great literature or be a professional sportsperson. Not everybody can be a scientist. Many of those that could, choose not to - which is fine.

There are many scientists who try to communicate science to the general population. There are popular books, TV programs, online courses and self-study textbooks in addition to formal education. If people want to learn and have the enthusiasm and ability, they can.

Having said that, much of modern science is just difficult - and there is no escaping that fact. You cannot claim to really understand (say) quantum mechanics unless you can do the mathematics. That is just a fact. Everybody else relies on those scientists and engineers that do understand to, for example, develop computers and the internet, so you can post nonsense like this on a forum.

Of course, criticising science that you haven't even bothered to learn about from a popular point of view, is stupid. Those that do so richly deserve to be looked down on, not only by scientists but everybody with the common sense realise how daft it is.

If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about  black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.

Yeah, right...   

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant. 

People here try to present science  as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable. But everything changes and evolves and so should science.  Nothing is fixed for eternity.

It has also become too 'nose in the air'.

Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'.  They are the only wise ones aware of reality! This has to definitely change if science is to be taken seriously in coming generations.  Intellectual quest can be obsessive too!

If they don't change scientists will soon become a bunch of relics, talking endlessly about  black holes, dark energy, natural selection and other such....living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

Mostly rant and nonsense. Science has not slowed or become stagnant, rather our knowledge base is increasingly exponentially currently, I see no sign of stagnation or slowing.  We are now peering to the edges of the universe, to the beginning of time, exploring comets and putting robots on planets; we are building replica brains to demystify the mysteries of consciousness; with particle accelerators we probe the fundamentals of matter and energy so that we can now create a narrative for what was happening 1 millionth of a second after the beginning of time.  There is virtually no area of life that research is not peering into to throw light on.

Quite how this amounts to 'stagnation' is baffling. Rather the opposite is perhaps a real concern by which I mean that the rate of acquisition of new knowledge is outpacing our ability to take onboard what it all means.  Human nature changes slowly, at biological evolution rates. 

For instance, it's now 150 years since Darwin suggested that life is an entirely natural process and humans are part of the natural world being an upright ape, but despite that still there are billions of people in the world who have not taken this insight on board, and still live in a pre-enlightenment world in which humans are special, different, spirit beings created specially by some supernatural sky god with special powers.

For another example, physicists learned how to split the atom in the twentieth century; yet almost as soon as the technology was proved we were using it to build bombs and used them to vaporise millions of Japanese civilians.

For another example, climate science has built up a picture of climate change in the past and has established robust models indicating the role of atmospheric gases underlying climate variability and yet despite the knowledge that our current ways of living are putting future generations at risk, many still eat meat, take holidays in the sun and burn fossil fuels in our cars and develop systems of science denial to pretend the new knowledge will go away.

Rather than science stagnating, I think it is going too fast for us to assimilate what it means. At heart we are still cavemen inside; we are like children given weapons of mass destruction to play with.

[SusanDoris]

All responses except Sriram's- brilliantly said.

[Shaker]

The OP certainly gives the lie to claims of a background in science.

[ippy]

Looks like a united front there Sriram, you can add my name to the list.

ippy

[ekim]

torridon
"Rather than science stagnating, I think it is going too fast for us to assimilate what it means. At heart we are still cavemen inside; we are like children given weapons of mass destruction to play with."
Sriram
"science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status. It is too static and stagnant. .......scientist living in their own 'reality' with no relevance to normal life and death. "

I think it is probably better to distinguish between science and scientists.  Science is a well tested method for exploring what could loosely be called the external objective world and has advanced the use of technology to change the influence of humans upon life and death, not always for the better.
Scientists are human beings with no more claim to be paragons of virtue than anybody else.  It might be better if the 'spiritists' didn't dabble in the mechanics of the 'outer physical' world but encouraged focus more upon knowing the 'inner world' in an endeavour to transform the 'caveman' before it is too late (if it's not already).  The inscription to Apollo at Delphi is a good starting point 'Know Thyself', preferably before judging others.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Ekim,

Excellent post

Gonnagle.

[ekim]

Thanks.

[ippy]

Dear Ekim,

Excellent post

Gonnagle.

Whilst the pursuit of science is gradually closing down the gaps, science is doing this as we learn more and more about more or less anything you like to name, out of a thirst for knowledge.

Closing the gaps just happens to be a side effect of gaining more knowledge, more than science is interested in closing down gaps.

Science in itself isn't your enemy Gonners, don't you think it's a good thing for mankind to gain as much knowledge that stands up to test and inspection as can be found?

If not Gonners, why not?

ippy

 

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

What the hell! are you chuntering on about.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

I think it is probably better to distinguish between science and scientists. Science is a well tested method for exploring what could loosely be called the external objective world ...

... and yet the external objective world and the internal subjective world are one and the same in the end, a seamless unity. We're not external to ourselves, surely? We're in it and of it, and can never be otherwise.

[Sriram]

Looks like a united front there Sriram, you can add my name to the list.

ippy

I am far from pitchfork throwing distance....so it doesn't bother me!! Have fun!  I am enjoying myself no end.   

[ekim]

... and yet the external objective world and the internal subjective world are one and the same in the end, a seamless unity. We're not external to ourselves, surely? We're in it and of it, and can never be otherwise.

You could declare that but it doesn't seem to do anything to transform the 'caveman'.  It is more likely to just be added to all the other opinions which go towards making up the inner subjective world.  'Know thyself' has two aspects to it. One is to know the subjective 'self' or ego (or caveman) which commonly the individual identifies with and secondly to 'know' the 'subject' observer of both the outer external world and the inner subjective world and identify with that rather than the subjective self.

[ippy]

I am far from pitchfork throwing distance....so it doesn't bother me!! Have fun!  I am enjoying myself no end.   

Why reply to something, anything that doesn't bother you Sriram?

ippy

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

What the hell! are you chuntering on about.

Gonnagle.

Easy Gonners, your post to Ekim telling him you thought his post was excellent, what other reason would you have to think his post was excellent if you didn't go along with his line of thought other than perhaps, you may have thought it was a great piece of literary art, I guessed the former and I was addressing the thoughts you seem to share with Ekim.
 
ippy   

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Steady old son

The bit where he mentions cavemen, the bit where he mentions,

Scientists are human beings with no more claim to be paragons of virtue than anybody else.

The bit where he mentions,

endeavour to transform the 'caveman' before it is too late (if it's not already).

The bit where he mentions,

The inscription to Apollo at Delphi is a good starting point 'Know Thyself', preferably before judging others.

It all resonated with me.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

I am far from pitchfork throwing distance....

That's a relief.

[Udayana]

You could declare that but it doesn't seem to do anything to transform the 'caveman'.  It is more likely to just be added to all the other opinions which go towards making up the inner subjective world.  'Know thyself' has two aspects to it. One is to know the subjective 'self' or ego (or caveman) which commonly the individual identifies with and secondly to 'know' the 'subject' observer of both the outer external world and the inner subjective world and identify with that rather than the subjective self.

Because of the self-reference here there is a boundary through which we can't penetrate ... the  "observer" is one and the same as the "caveman", maybe wearing a different face.  And the actual "cavemen" (or people) were just as able to realize that as we are.

If we focus on the "external" world - the one we seem to able to communicate about (this is what we call "science"), the better we understand it, the better we will be able to understand the inner.