It’s melting polar ice caps which is a result of global warming which in turn is a result of rampant and unchecked scientific, technological and industrial development.
Science produces technological advances.
Technological advances lead to new technology.
New technology leads to to pollution.
Pollution leads to global warming.
Global warming leads to the melting of the polar ice caps.
That’s over simplified, yes, and you need a sense of humor to go with it. But it’s all there, plain and simple, in that photo.
The usual gimmick is that, whenever it’s a good thing, science gave it to us. Whenever it’s a bad thing, it’s whatever entity used the science.
So, science gave us electric power. Corporations gave us pollution.
Science gave us technology to achieve better crop yield. Corporations gave us genetically modified plants.
Scientists gave us tracking computers. Countries gave us smart bombs.
Notice how whenever a scientist – one who is entirely credentialed, active in their field – says something people dislike (denies or supports global warming claims, denies or supports intelligent design, denies or supports claims about autism links to vaccination), people go out of their way not to refer to them as scientists.
Well, one thing’s for sure. If we ever solve these issues, I guarantee you it will be science that does it. I think these kind of discussions are usually pointless since science can’t be good or bad (category error). It’s neutral. Science is just a process. Sometimes its results are desirable and other times they are not. Why can’t we just leave it at that?
@Crude: I haven’t forgotten about our dialogue. I’ve just been busy with college classes, work, life, etc. I have a good idea of what I’m going to say, but I just need to sit down and type it out. I know I don’t need to explain myself to you, but out of risk of seeming like a poor interlocutor, I thought I would.
It will not be because of science that any of the world’s problems will be solved. If that was the case, we would be on the threshold of the promised better day that technology has continually promised us, yet has failed to deliver.
The true problems of the world are moral, and that is something science cannot measure, test or affect, as science is only a process which can only deal with physical and observable, natural occurrences.
Morality transcends the mere physical and natural world, into the spiritual world. And, that’s the realm of religion…love it or hate it. Choose to believe, or don’t, your opinion will not change this.
Science and scientists have a problem with the spiritual because they cannot control it, and that reminds them that they are still a far ways away from mastering the universe.
And to repute, no…religions so far have not done a good job of addressing the world’s problems either. WE ALL have a long way to go on that one.
Will you guarantee that if we ever create problems so massive that we’re unable to solve them, science will or even could be to blame?
No. To put this in perspective, let’s say Islamic extremism one day gets so bad that it’s found that 90% of Muslims believe terrorism is justified in the name of their religion. Would I blame Islam? No. It would just be incoherent to blame something which, by itself, does nothing. Religion and science can’t do anything without adherents and scientists respectively.
I’m not trying to turn this into religion v. science since I don’t think they’re opposed, but I’m just saying that I wouldn’t blame religion if something analogous happened.
Because a lot of crazy people idealize science, and worse, scientists.
True. But again, we need to be careful to blame those crazy people and those crazy scientists, not the agent itself. I would do the same thing in the case of religious extremism.
dale,
It will not be because of science that any of the world’s problems will be solved. If that was the case, we would be on the threshold of the promised better day that technology has continually promised us, yet has failed to deliver.
Science has already been used to do numerous useful things which improve the quality of living (e.g., vaccines, medicines, convenient machines, etc). If you think science has not been used to contribute to the well-being of humanity because we aren’t living in a “better day,” then I really don’t know what to say to you.
The true problems of the world are moral, and that is something science cannot measure, test or affect, as science is only a process which can only deal with physical and observable, natural occurrences.
Agree with the second part (science… can only deal with physical… occurrences), disagree with the first (true problems of the world are moral). I mean, I can see why someone might say that, but that claim just is not justified. There are so many bigger issues (global warming, pollution, global economy, poverty, hunger, disease). I’m not saying one couldn’t make the case for such a claim, but so far such a claim is blatantly unjustified.
Morality transcends the mere physical and natural world, into the spiritual world. And, that’s the realm of religion…love it or hate it. Choose to believe, or don’t, your opinion will not change this.
Sure. In your opinion. To me, morality is an illusion at worst and a human construct at best.
Science and scientists have a problem with the spiritual because they cannot control it, and that reminds them that they are still a far ways away from mastering the universe.
Again, careful with the use of language. Science can’t have a problem with anything, at least insofar as the context you’re using with “having a problem.” I agree that science cannot control the spiritual and that doesn’t make me uneasy in the slightest since the spiritual realm may not even exist.
And to repute, no…religions so far have not done a good job of addressing the world’s problems either. WE ALL have a long way to go on that one.
I would argue that religion has been used for many beneficial contributions to humanity, but obviously not the same type of things science has been used to do. I would never say things like, “Why doesn’t God cure disease when science does? Huh? HUH?”
While you know I’m with you here, replies like yours will never resonate with most atheists because most atheists believe that morality reduces to physical, natural occurrences (whatever the hell that means).
Science has already been used to do numerous useful things which improve the quality of living (e.g., vaccines, medicines, convenient machines, etc).
…or, pesticides, right? I mean c’mon, how much more speciesist can you get here? “Improve the quality of living” for who?
You’re kicking pure intuition here. You certainly aren’t basing this claim on empirical evidence or scientific studies, and it is highly debatable whether these things have improved the quality of living. After all, vaccines and medicines increase the life span, which increases consumption of natural resources and population, both of which currently threaten our entire existence. What about all the money funneling into the oil industry (many medicines require petrol, you know). Is that an “improved quality of living?” What about all the suffering caused to animals via experimentation to produce the medicines and vaccines? Is that an “improved quality of living?” What about all the deaths and side effects, known and unknown? Is that an “improved quality of living?” I could challenge this for days.
…or, pesticides, right? I mean c’mon, how much more speciesist can you get here? “Improve the quality of living” for who?
Look at what dale said and then how I responded to it. Dale originally uses the term we, and by that I’m guessing he meant humanity. I apologize for not considering other forms of life in my consideration, but it’s also true that medicines for dogs and cats exist. Yeah, there are other animals too, and I’m just as repulsed by the meat industry’s treatment of animals and mankind’s treatment of the Earth, but it’s just silly to blame science for this and not scientists and people that demand things from them. That’s really the point I’m trying to get across.
The history of science isn’t rose-colored. Plenty of horrible things have been done in the name of it. And yes, you rightly point out that sacrifices have been made for better or worse.
After all, vaccines and medicines increase the life span, which increases consumption of natural resources and population, both of which currently threaten our entire existence.
Undeniably true, but what’s the alternative? Just let plagues wipe out entire civilizations? This might shock you, but people don’t usually want to die. Completely innocent things like having children rather than adopting also increases consumption of natural resources and population, but I would not condemn this or try to prevent it.
BTW, apologies for bullshitting and saying “quality” rather than “quantity.” That was a pretty dire mistake on my part. A long life is never necessarily a good life, and a good life isn’t necessarily long. However, are you really going to tell me that relieving the symptoms of certain ailments or curing certain diseases doesn’t improve the quality for some folks?
I could challenge this for days.
What would be your goal in doing so? You say you’re enthusiastic about science, but I can’t help but feel you think humanity may have been better off without it (which is totally possible). In any case, I do wish we could keep the internet, computers, television, and video games, and lose the animal cruelty, human experiments, dishonesty, rape of nature, etc.
To me, this just boils down to who is using science, what for, and how so. Science has the potential to do a lot of things and I’ll be the first to admit that it has yet to focus on what it really should.
No. To put this in perspective, let’s say Islamic extremism one day gets so bad that it’s found that 90% of Muslims believe terrorism is justified in the name of their religion. Would I blame Islam? No. It would just be incoherent to blame something which, by itself, does nothing. Religion and science can’t do anything without adherents and scientists respectively.
I’m not trying to turn this into religion v. science since I don’t think they’re opposed, but I’m just saying that I wouldn’t blame religion if something analogous happened.
There’s just one problem. And the funny thing is, it’s the exact problem I’ve been complaining about in this thread.
Take a look at what you said earlier:
Well, one thing’s for sure. If we ever solve these issues, I guarantee you it will be science that does it.
There’s an inconsistency there. When you imagine major problems being solved, you have no problem saying science was the solution. But when I talk about major problems being created or exacerbated, you can’t blame science.
Well, I think you have to take your pick. Is science a thing we can assign praise to? If so, then we can assign blame too. And if we can’t assign blame, we can’t assign praise.
True. But again, we need to be careful to blame those crazy people and those crazy scientists, not the agent itself. I would do the same thing in the case of religious extremism.
It’s about consistency. I have no problem separating science from from people. But for people who think ‘science’ is to be credited for all manner of advancements without qualification, then it makes sense to start talking about what science can be blamed for.
Science has already been used to do numerous useful things which improve the quality of living (e.g., vaccines, medicines, convenient machines, etc). If you think science has not been used to contribute to the well-being of humanity because we aren’t living in a “better day,” then I really don’t know what to say to you.
With every advance that science makes towards improving the quality of life, the side effects of technology take us two steps back, in regards to…
so many bigger issues (global warming, pollution, global economy, poverty, hunger, disease).
When I said “we” in a previous comment, I was referring to those of religious belief. It was an attempt to show to you that I am aware that there is and has been error on the religious side, as well as the scientific side when it comes to deciding what to do with your/my belief structure. More so the historical collective, rather than specific examples.
Not really trying to rile you up emotionally, I just don’t agree with you.
What it all comes down to is that religion and science are man made tools for understanding god and nature. I believe in god and nature, you only believe in nature.
And being that religion and science are merely tools, it’s not these that are the cause of any positive or negative affect or effect, people are. More so, the morality of people is the cause of either.
A vaccine is to a hammer as a scientist is to a carpenter. The scientist and carpenter cannot do good with out their tools, but never has a hammer or a vaccine gotten up independently and done a good deed, let alone brought themselves into existence, nor evolved from a mold or broken tree branch on their own.
Humanitie’s morality is the greatest and worst thing about us. And science has no answer for morality. The best science has done with morality so far is psychology, and I wouldn’t parade that around as a victory for practical and logical science. Prozac anyone?
Well, I think you have to take your pick. Is science a thing we can assign praise to? If so, then we can assign blame too. And if we can’t assign blame, we can’t assign praise.
Yeah, that’s what I’ve been trying to say. It seems everyone is confused by my first statement in this thread: “If we ever solve these issues, I guarantee you it will be science that does it.” My fault for being unclear here. What I meant was that we will probably have to use science in order to tackle those issues. Science can’t actually do anything on its own. It’s a process or a tool used by people in any way they desire. Some use it for respectable ends, others use it for despicable ends. At the end of the day, it’s still just a process or tool that has no standing outside of how people are using it.
I feel the same way about religion, and the reason I brought that up was to show that I’m not being inconsistent. I was not trying to fleet from my original point.
dale,
With every advance that science makes towards improving the quality of life, the side effects of technology take us two steps back, in regards to…
I would agree with you there in some instances, but not all. You’re right that science is ultimately ignoring or incapable of solving larger issues (e.g., poverty, world hunger, pollution, global warming, etc).
I’m sure there is explanation for this, aside from personal emotion?
Because your claim was literally as naked as it gets. You just stated that you think the world’s problems are largely moral and that was it. Am I just supposed to agree with that? Can you tell me why you think the world’s problems are largely moral? The world =/= humans, as cl has politely reminded me, and morality only really applies to humans, so that would be my response in a nutshell.
Unless you’re going to attempt to paint the global economy, pollution, global warming, world hunger, disease, etc as moral issues, I don’t know where else you would go with that claim.
Humanitie’s morality is the greatest and worst thing about us. And science has no answer for morality. The best science has done with morality so far is psychology, and I wouldn’t parade that around as a victory for practical and logical science. Prozac anyone?
What do you mean that science has no answer for morality? Do you mean it has no answer for the existence of morality or that it cannot uncover moral truths?
If the former: That’s not the case. Science has a lot of theories as to why morality emerged among human beings.
If the latter: As you say yourself, science can’t deal with the kind of facts that morality does, i.e., normative ones. Science can only deal with the empirical and descriptive. To say that science has no answer for morality is like degrading a hammer because it can’t do anything with screws.
BTW, psychology has nothing to do with Prozac. That’s psychiatry ;)
Yes, I think the world’s problems are largely moral. Here, I agree with CL’s use of the word world as pertaining to human experience, history, etc. In regards to the word problem, I would define that as being a negative situation which needs solving.
In this world problem category, I would put war, poverty, pollution and global warming, etc. All of these have their direct cause, affect and effect in the actions of humanity. Though we could disagree on what is right morality, how could we say that these are not moral problems?
Unless you’re going to attempt to paint the global economy, pollution, global warming, world hunger, disease, etc as moral issues, I don’t know where else you would go with that claim.
The global economic crisis, pollution, global warming and world hunger could all be rightly categorized as being the results of gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. Maybe lust, but probably not. As far as disease goes, if the disease is spread by the actions of man, then yes, it is a moral world problem as well. Whether we agree on what right morality is or is not, it’s still morality.
If disease is not caused or spread by man’s actions (lust, for example), then it is just an unfortunate and sad natural occurrence of life on Earth. Therefore, it’s not world problems as I am referring to, as the earth and nature are without their own personal morality and seem to be pretty ambivalent to humanities existence.
What do you mean that science has no answer for morality? Do you mean it has no answer for the existence of morality or that it cannot uncover moral truths?
If the former: That’s not the case. Science has a lot of theories as to why morality emerged among human beings.
If the latter: As you say yourself, science can’t deal with the kind of facts that morality does, i.e., normative ones. Science can only deal with the empirical and descriptive. To say that science has no answer for morality is like degrading a hammer because it can’t do anything with screws.
Since we usually credit the carpenter for the building of a house, and not his hammer, I still say that morality will solve the problems of the world, though yes, it will need to use science as a tool. But science alone will not solve anything. To quote Einstein, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
BTW, psychology has nothing to do with Prozac. That’s psychiatry ;)
True, you’re right. That was false on my behalf. But, since psychiatry is even more scientifically technological than psychology, that’s another bad on sciences behalf. ;-)
True, you’re right. That was false on my behalf. But, since psychiatry is even more scientifically technological than psychology, that’s another bad on sciences behalf. ;-)
You’ll be happy to know that I share your disdain for psychiatry. In fact, I despise it.
In this world problem category, I would put war, poverty, pollution and global warming, etc. All of these have their direct cause, affect and effect in the actions of humanity. Though we could disagree on what is right morality, how could we say that these are not moral problems?
We could say these problems have moral components (why don’t the rich donate more to charities, why don’t companies take more ecological precautions, why do human beings fight wars when they cause so much suffering, etc). They undoubtedly do. I was not trying to say anything to the opposite.
I was focusing more on their technical aspects, like: how can we minimize pollution, what is the most sustainable form of alternative energy, how can we avoid wars, can we reverse global warming and if so how, how can we limit the spread of disease, how can we solve world hunger, etc. These are all questions that science can be used to answer. Are there other ways? Sure, and they’re every bit as valid, but I am pointing out that scientists could wrestle with these questions effectively.
Since we usually credit the carpenter for the building of a house, and not his hammer, I still say that morality will solve the problems of the world, though yes, it will need to use science as a tool. But science alone will not solve anything. To quote Einstein, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Cool, I think we’re on the same page now. I agree. At the end of the day, we still need to credit and reprimand individual scientists, as we need to with great people that were inspired by their religions (Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr). To credit or reprimand science or religion is just incoherent. On their own, those agencies are inept. They do nothing without people using them.
Science: It Works!
Mr. Nightstick
says...I don’t get it.
Karl Grant
says...Mr. Nightstick,
It’s melting polar ice caps which is a result of global warming which in turn is a result of rampant and unchecked scientific, technological and industrial development.
dale
says...Mr Nightstick…
Science produces technological advances.
Technological advances lead to new technology.
New technology leads to to pollution.
Pollution leads to global warming.
Global warming leads to the melting of the polar ice caps.
That’s over simplified, yes, and you need a sense of humor to go with it. But it’s all there, plain and simple, in that photo.
Crude
says...The usual gimmick is that, whenever it’s a good thing, science gave it to us. Whenever it’s a bad thing, it’s whatever entity used the science.
So, science gave us electric power. Corporations gave us pollution.
Science gave us technology to achieve better crop yield. Corporations gave us genetically modified plants.
Scientists gave us tracking computers. Countries gave us smart bombs.
Notice how whenever a scientist – one who is entirely credentialed, active in their field – says something people dislike (denies or supports global warming claims, denies or supports intelligent design, denies or supports claims about autism links to vaccination), people go out of their way not to refer to them as scientists.
Thinking Emotions
says...Well, one thing’s for sure. If we ever solve these issues, I guarantee you it will be science that does it. I think these kind of discussions are usually pointless since science can’t be good or bad (category error). It’s neutral. Science is just a process. Sometimes its results are desirable and other times they are not. Why can’t we just leave it at that?
@Crude: I haven’t forgotten about our dialogue. I’ve just been busy with college classes, work, life, etc. I have a good idea of what I’m going to say, but I just need to sit down and type it out. I know I don’t need to explain myself to you, but out of risk of seeming like a poor interlocutor, I thought I would.
Crude
says...TE, no rush at all.
Will you guarantee that if we ever create problems so massive that we’re unable to solve them, science will or even could be to blame?
Because a lot of crazy people idealize science, and worse, scientists.
dale
says...TE,
It will not be because of science that any of the world’s problems will be solved. If that was the case, we would be on the threshold of the promised better day that technology has continually promised us, yet has failed to deliver.
The true problems of the world are moral, and that is something science cannot measure, test or affect, as science is only a process which can only deal with physical and observable, natural occurrences.
Morality transcends the mere physical and natural world, into the spiritual world. And, that’s the realm of religion…love it or hate it. Choose to believe, or don’t, your opinion will not change this.
Science and scientists have a problem with the spiritual because they cannot control it, and that reminds them that they are still a far ways away from mastering the universe.
And to repute, no…religions so far have not done a good job of addressing the world’s problems either. WE ALL have a long way to go on that one.
Thinking Emotions
says...Crude,
Thanks. I appreciate your understanding.
No. To put this in perspective, let’s say Islamic extremism one day gets so bad that it’s found that 90% of Muslims believe terrorism is justified in the name of their religion. Would I blame Islam? No. It would just be incoherent to blame something which, by itself, does nothing. Religion and science can’t do anything without adherents and scientists respectively.
I’m not trying to turn this into religion v. science since I don’t think they’re opposed, but I’m just saying that I wouldn’t blame religion if something analogous happened.
True. But again, we need to be careful to blame those crazy people and those crazy scientists, not the agent itself. I would do the same thing in the case of religious extremism.
dale,
Science has already been used to do numerous useful things which improve the quality of living (e.g., vaccines, medicines, convenient machines, etc). If you think science has not been used to contribute to the well-being of humanity because we aren’t living in a “better day,” then I really don’t know what to say to you.
Agree with the second part (science… can only deal with physical… occurrences), disagree with the first (true problems of the world are moral). I mean, I can see why someone might say that, but that claim just is not justified. There are so many bigger issues (global warming, pollution, global economy, poverty, hunger, disease). I’m not saying one couldn’t make the case for such a claim, but so far such a claim is blatantly unjustified.
Sure. In your opinion. To me, morality is an illusion at worst and a human construct at best.
Again, careful with the use of language. Science can’t have a problem with anything, at least insofar as the context you’re using with “having a problem.” I agree that science cannot control the spiritual and that doesn’t make me uneasy in the slightest since the spiritual realm may not even exist.
I would argue that religion has been used for many beneficial contributions to humanity, but obviously not the same type of things science has been used to do. I would never say things like, “Why doesn’t God cure disease when science does? Huh? HUH?”
cl
says...dale,
While you know I’m with you here, replies like yours will never resonate with most atheists because most atheists believe that morality reduces to physical, natural occurrences (whatever the hell that means).
cl
says...TE,
Jumping in here, hope you don’t mind…
…or, pesticides, right? I mean c’mon, how much more speciesist can you get here? “Improve the quality of living” for who?
You’re kicking pure intuition here. You certainly aren’t basing this claim on empirical evidence or scientific studies, and it is highly debatable whether these things have improved the quality of living. After all, vaccines and medicines increase the life span, which increases consumption of natural resources and population, both of which currently threaten our entire existence. What about all the money funneling into the oil industry (many medicines require petrol, you know). Is that an “improved quality of living?” What about all the suffering caused to animals via experimentation to produce the medicines and vaccines? Is that an “improved quality of living?” What about all the deaths and side effects, known and unknown? Is that an “improved quality of living?” I could challenge this for days.
Thinking Emotions
says...Look at what dale said and then how I responded to it. Dale originally uses the term we, and by that I’m guessing he meant humanity. I apologize for not considering other forms of life in my consideration, but it’s also true that medicines for dogs and cats exist. Yeah, there are other animals too, and I’m just as repulsed by the meat industry’s treatment of animals and mankind’s treatment of the Earth, but it’s just silly to blame science for this and not scientists and people that demand things from them. That’s really the point I’m trying to get across.
The history of science isn’t rose-colored. Plenty of horrible things have been done in the name of it. And yes, you rightly point out that sacrifices have been made for better or worse.
Undeniably true, but what’s the alternative? Just let plagues wipe out entire civilizations? This might shock you, but people don’t usually want to die. Completely innocent things like having children rather than adopting also increases consumption of natural resources and population, but I would not condemn this or try to prevent it.
BTW, apologies for bullshitting and saying “quality” rather than “quantity.” That was a pretty dire mistake on my part. A long life is never necessarily a good life, and a good life isn’t necessarily long. However, are you really going to tell me that relieving the symptoms of certain ailments or curing certain diseases doesn’t improve the quality for some folks?
What would be your goal in doing so? You say you’re enthusiastic about science, but I can’t help but feel you think humanity may have been better off without it (which is totally possible). In any case, I do wish we could keep the internet, computers, television, and video games, and lose the animal cruelty, human experiments, dishonesty, rape of nature, etc.
To me, this just boils down to who is using science, what for, and how so. Science has the potential to do a lot of things and I’ll be the first to admit that it has yet to focus on what it really should.
Crude
says...TE,
There’s just one problem. And the funny thing is, it’s the exact problem I’ve been complaining about in this thread.
Take a look at what you said earlier:
There’s an inconsistency there. When you imagine major problems being solved, you have no problem saying science was the solution. But when I talk about major problems being created or exacerbated, you can’t blame science.
Well, I think you have to take your pick. Is science a thing we can assign praise to? If so, then we can assign blame too. And if we can’t assign blame, we can’t assign praise.
It’s about consistency. I have no problem separating science from from people. But for people who think ‘science’ is to be credited for all manner of advancements without qualification, then it makes sense to start talking about what science can be blamed for.
dale
says...TE,
With every advance that science makes towards improving the quality of life, the side effects of technology take us two steps back, in regards to…
dale
says...To say that in regards to the problems of the world being moral, how is that
though you,
I’m sure there is explanation for this, aside from personal emotion?
dale
says...TE,
When I said “we” in a previous comment, I was referring to those of religious belief. It was an attempt to show to you that I am aware that there is and has been error on the religious side, as well as the scientific side when it comes to deciding what to do with your/my belief structure. More so the historical collective, rather than specific examples.
Not really trying to rile you up emotionally, I just don’t agree with you.
What it all comes down to is that religion and science are man made tools for understanding god and nature. I believe in god and nature, you only believe in nature.
And being that religion and science are merely tools, it’s not these that are the cause of any positive or negative affect or effect, people are. More so, the morality of people is the cause of either.
A vaccine is to a hammer as a scientist is to a carpenter. The scientist and carpenter cannot do good with out their tools, but never has a hammer or a vaccine gotten up independently and done a good deed, let alone brought themselves into existence, nor evolved from a mold or broken tree branch on their own.
Humanitie’s morality is the greatest and worst thing about us. And science has no answer for morality. The best science has done with morality so far is psychology, and I wouldn’t parade that around as a victory for practical and logical science. Prozac anyone?
Thinking Emotions
says...Crude,
Yeah, that’s what I’ve been trying to say. It seems everyone is confused by my first statement in this thread: “If we ever solve these issues, I guarantee you it will be science that does it.” My fault for being unclear here. What I meant was that we will probably have to use science in order to tackle those issues. Science can’t actually do anything on its own. It’s a process or a tool used by people in any way they desire. Some use it for respectable ends, others use it for despicable ends. At the end of the day, it’s still just a process or tool that has no standing outside of how people are using it.
I feel the same way about religion, and the reason I brought that up was to show that I’m not being inconsistent. I was not trying to fleet from my original point.
dale,
I would agree with you there in some instances, but not all. You’re right that science is ultimately ignoring or incapable of solving larger issues (e.g., poverty, world hunger, pollution, global warming, etc).
Because your claim was literally as naked as it gets. You just stated that you think the world’s problems are largely moral and that was it. Am I just supposed to agree with that? Can you tell me why you think the world’s problems are largely moral? The world =/= humans, as cl has politely reminded me, and morality only really applies to humans, so that would be my response in a nutshell.
Unless you’re going to attempt to paint the global economy, pollution, global warming, world hunger, disease, etc as moral issues, I don’t know where else you would go with that claim.
What do you mean that science has no answer for morality? Do you mean it has no answer for the existence of morality or that it cannot uncover moral truths?
If the former: That’s not the case. Science has a lot of theories as to why morality emerged among human beings.
If the latter: As you say yourself, science can’t deal with the kind of facts that morality does, i.e., normative ones. Science can only deal with the empirical and descriptive. To say that science has no answer for morality is like degrading a hammer because it can’t do anything with screws.
BTW, psychology has nothing to do with Prozac. That’s psychiatry ;)
dale
says...TE,
Yes, I think the world’s problems are largely moral. Here, I agree with CL’s use of the word world as pertaining to human experience, history, etc. In regards to the word problem, I would define that as being a negative situation which needs solving.
In this world problem category, I would put war, poverty, pollution and global warming, etc. All of these have their direct cause, affect and effect in the actions of humanity. Though we could disagree on what is right morality, how could we say that these are not moral problems?
The global economic crisis, pollution, global warming and world hunger could all be rightly categorized as being the results of gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. Maybe lust, but probably not. As far as disease goes, if the disease is spread by the actions of man, then yes, it is a moral world problem as well. Whether we agree on what right morality is or is not, it’s still morality.
If disease is not caused or spread by man’s actions (lust, for example), then it is just an unfortunate and sad natural occurrence of life on Earth. Therefore, it’s not world problems as I am referring to, as the earth and nature are without their own personal morality and seem to be pretty ambivalent to humanities existence.
Since we usually credit the carpenter for the building of a house, and not his hammer, I still say that morality will solve the problems of the world, though yes, it will need to use science as a tool. But science alone will not solve anything. To quote Einstein, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
True, you’re right. That was false on my behalf. But, since psychiatry is even more scientifically technological than psychology, that’s another bad on sciences behalf. ;-)
Thinking Emotions
says...You’ll be happy to know that I share your disdain for psychiatry. In fact, I despise it.
We could say these problems have moral components (why don’t the rich donate more to charities, why don’t companies take more ecological precautions, why do human beings fight wars when they cause so much suffering, etc). They undoubtedly do. I was not trying to say anything to the opposite.
I was focusing more on their technical aspects, like: how can we minimize pollution, what is the most sustainable form of alternative energy, how can we avoid wars, can we reverse global warming and if so how, how can we limit the spread of disease, how can we solve world hunger, etc. These are all questions that science can be used to answer. Are there other ways? Sure, and they’re every bit as valid, but I am pointing out that scientists could wrestle with these questions effectively.
Cool, I think we’re on the same page now. I agree. At the end of the day, we still need to credit and reprimand individual scientists, as we need to with great people that were inspired by their religions (Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr). To credit or reprimand science or religion is just incoherent. On their own, those agencies are inept. They do nothing without people using them.