An Ode to Science

[Rye]

As opposed to having mass casualties and suffering be The Way Things Are. Remember when the average life expectancy was really low, superstition and power politics came together in horrendously unpleasant ways (witch trials, various drawn-out, bloody wars, etc.), and "sanitation" meant bathing fairly regularly? That was before the Enlightenment made people's worldviews and governmental systems more scientific, and before science came along with the knowledge necessary to come up with all sorts of life-improving (and often life-saving) technology.

Which has precisely what to do with my post? People still use science for evil, and the ode does not address that.

Do you know how many mass casualties and how much suffering came from Smallpox alone, partly through primitive biological warfare? Through science, we damn near eradicated it. Now biological warfare is harder, not easier, since we have so much medical science.

Oh, I guess bioweapons don't exist since we have medical science! Oh wait no, medical science is just one application of the same science and technology. Enough of the knee-jerking.

If it is done, I would prefer it to be done cleanly. And modern technology allows quicker, more powerful international responses to such genocides.

The net impact of science has been overwhelmingly positive.

"If it is done" neglects one important thing, that the want to do it is not equal to the ability to do it. That's why genocide amongst native americans was not an industrial effort, like it could've been with access to more science.

As to science being overall a positive influence on the world: did I say different? No. So STFU since this is all a red herring. I'm not saying science is bad, just that the ode is uneven. Which it is. And to disturb the science circle-jerk that everyone was doing. Which they were.

That may be so, but I think the original intent of the ode is to convey the wonder and subtle beauty of science, and the pursuit of knowledge, rather than the dark underbelly of modern knowledge. I like it just fine without it being fair and balanced. That said, of course, there needs to be a counterpoint ode which warns. Maybe I shall write it...

I know, I just wanted to inject some diversity of replies.

[Andrew J.]

Computers? Cell phones? Rockets to Saturn, probes to the ocean floor, PSP, gamecubes, gameboys, X-boxes?

All by scientists.

Uh...wouldn't engineers be responsible for those? I always thought it was scientists that discovered things and engineers that built stuff.

[Drooling Iguana]

Computers? Cell phones? Rockets to Saturn, probes to the ocean floor, PSP, gamecubes, gameboys, X-boxes?

All by scientists.

Uh...wouldn't engineers be responsible for those? I always thought it was scientists that discovered things and engineers that built stuff.

Engineering would be impossible without science.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Computers? Cell phones? Rockets to Saturn, probes to the ocean floor, PSP, gamecubes, gameboys, X-boxes?

All by scientists.

Uh...wouldn't engineers be responsible for those? I always thought it was scientists that discovered things and engineers that built stuff.

Um... engineers are scientists.

[Drooling Iguana]

Computers? Cell phones? Rockets to Saturn, probes to the ocean floor, PSP, gamecubes, gameboys, X-boxes?

All by scientists.

Uh...wouldn't engineers be responsible for those? I always thought it was scientists that discovered things and engineers that built stuff.

Um... engineers are scientists.

No they're not. They have to know science and they use science, and I suppose some people can be both scientists and engineers, but they're not the same thing. Engineers do not create new scientific theories. Scientists do.

[Xenophobe3691]

Uh...wouldn't engineers be responsible for those? I always thought it was scientists that discovered things and engineers that built stuff.

Engineering is Applied Science.

[Darth Wong]

Um... engineers are scientists.

Engineering is applied science. An engineer gets a Bachelor's Degree in Applied Science, not a Bachelor's Degree in Science. This is how humanity goes from ideas to product:

1. Scientists concoct theories.
2. Engineers design products based on aforementioned theories as well as many other factors relating to business, legal, and safety requirements.
3. Technicians build products based on engineering designs.
4. Salesmen lie about product.

That's how it works.

[sketerpot]

Do you know how many mass casualties and how much suffering came from Smallpox alone, partly through primitive biological warfare? Through science, we damn near eradicated it. Now biological warfare is harder, not easier, since we have so much medical science.

Oh, I guess bioweapons don't exist since we have medical science! Oh wait no, medical science is just one application of the same science and technology. Enough of the knee-jerking.

Bioweapons do exist, of course---but now you can't spread huge plagues nearly as easily as you used to be able to, since medical technology (and the medical infrastructure) would impede their progress.

Again, I still think that, overall, it's harder to kill huge numbers of people with bioweapons now than it was, say, 400 years ago.

The net impact of science has been overwhelmingly positive.

As to science being overall a positive influence on the world: did I say different? No. So STFU since this is all a red herring. I'm not saying science is bad, just that the ode is uneven. Which it is.

I'm used to seeing people write articles in which they can't say anything good about science without inserting the obligatory bit about the terrors that science has unleashed upon our ever more perilous world, and either saying or strongly implying that science's net impact is either negative or weakly positive, and I'm sick of it. I interpreted your comment as more of that, and argued against that theme. Now that I know that I misinterpreted your comment, I apologize. It's always a little perturbing to argue against someone on a subject you agree on.

And to disturb the science circle-jerk that everyone was doing. Which they were.

First you accuse people of knee-jerking, and now it's circle-jerking. Make up your mind!

[SirNitram]

It seems a bit one-sided to me. They seem to have conveniently left out how if you're an evil bastard, you can use science's fruits and methods to inflict mass casualties, multiply suffering, and exterminate a target population in a more smooth, clean way than otherwise.

So? The same can be said about religion, social interaction, politics, and taking a shit: All can be used for evil, and often the more refined(Except for taking a shit; you hit a peak there pretty quick), the faster, cleaner, and more ridiculous the killing becomes.

Devil's advocacy needs some minimum logic requirements.

[Darth Wong]

It seems a bit one-sided to me.

More of this "fair and balanced" nonsense? Must show both sides' point of view in anything you do or say? I'm sick of this bullshit. So what if it's "one-sided?" It's called an Ode but it's obviously a fucking argument, goddammit. If I make a post during a debate, would someone retort "that seems pretty one-sided to me; you should also argue my side of the argument for me"?

[Alyeska]

Actualy I called it an Ode. It has no title that I am aware of.

[Kuroneko]

No.Astrology lacks predictive ability,it can't be falsified and it's sterile - it leads nowhere,teached nothing. Really,the most important thing about science is that it works;astrology does not.Someone once called science "The magic that works",and I think that says it all.

On the contrary, the fact that astrology makes predictions is almost self-evident; its core principle is that the position of various celestial bodies at the time of one's birth has some effect on one's life. The claim can, in principle, be tested statistically over wide populations, and this was already done by many studies, some fairly ambiguous and controversial (e.g., Gauquelin), and others more damning of astrology. Furthemore, 'working' cannot be a prerequisite for a theory's scientific status--for every successful theory regarding some phenomenon, there may be several or even many dozens of failed ones that fell by the wayside during scientific investigation. Even if they were proven wrong, it would be ill-advised to regard them as non-science, as there was nothing illegitemate about the research that went into their formulation on the part of scientists.

No, the reasons for astrology being unscientific have more to do with the behavior of its practitioners and the effect of other areas of science--for the most part, they have no interest in verifying or falsifying their own theory and are unconcerned with the problems that have accumulated, both within their theory (e.g., precession of equinoxes) and intertheoretic ones (e.g, the reasoning that astrology is based upon has long been made suspect by other sciences, as well as the presence of competing theories that attempt to explain the same areas [behaviorism, Freud, Gestalt, etc.]).

[Lord of the Abyss]

On the contrary, the fact that astrology makes predictions is almost self-evident; its core principle is that the position of various celestial bodies at the time of one's birth has some effect on one's life.

I'm sorry,I should have been clearer.

The predictions astrology makes are so vague and general that they can apply to just about anyone at anytime.I should have said "Useful or meaningful" predictions.

The ability to predict may not strictly be the definition of a scientific theory,but it's a useful diagostic.If a theory can make reliable predictions (like physics predicting the neutrino or Einstein bent starlight),then it is probably scientific.

[Kuroneko]

The predictions astrology makes are so vague and general that they can apply to just about anyone at anytime.I should have said "Useful or meaningful" predictions.

It is a mistake to confuse newspaper horoscopes with astrology; such a characterization is representative of neither its historical nature nor the practice of present astrologers. Actual natal charts are highly structured, with not just the sun sign, but the ascendant sign, 'influences' of moon and planets, etc., which are claimed to determine, or at least correlate with, personality and fate. As such, they are specific enough for evaluation using statistical methods over large populations, which is an acceptable level of testability. The problem with astrology is not that it is unfalsifiable, but that attempts at verification have been met with decidedly subpar results (along with the various intertheoretic problems mentioned previously).

The ability to predict may not strictly be the definition of a scientific theory,but it's a useful diagostic.If a theory can make reliable predictions (like physics predicting the neutrino or Einstein bent starlight),then it is probably scientific.

Falsifiability is a necessary condition, yes, but the claim that a theory that is falsifiable is "probably scientific" is simply erroneous. Falsifiability is an incredibly easy condition to satisfy--astrology, homeoempathy, psychic healing, and the vast majority of the quackery mentioned in the first page of this thread are quite falsifiable, since they make claims of results that can be tested empirically.

[Max]

Aren't Astologers scientists in a way?

No. Astrology bears about as much relation to science as the following do:

Intelligent design
Creationism
UFOs
Government conspiracy theories
I Ching
Homeopathy
Tarot
Numerology
Dowsing
Touch Healing
Faith Healing
Auras
Perpetual energy devices
Free energy devices
Energy Field Therapy
Bio-energy Healing
The Flat Earth Society
Religious miracles
Astral projection
Psychic healing
Psychics in general
Kabbala
Witchcraft
'Magick' spells

Astronomy is a legitimate scientific pursuit.
Astrology is delusional quackery and pseudoscientific mystical bullshit.

Ok... ok, I was thinking Astronomy when I asked about Astrology.. I apologize for that!