|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Why Science cannot save us.
#7807575 - 12/28/07 02:32 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I have been thinking about this for awhile in bits and pieces and a book I was reading today on history brought it into clarity in my mind.
The reason Science will not save us is because of how we think. A couple of quotes my make my point here and I would like to hear your opinion on this as I believe we are in an inevitable decline or at the end of an age no matter how skillful our technologies.
"The history of science is the history of scientists, just as the history of the universe is the history of man. It is history, ... that explains both how and why the atomic bomb was made. The "causes" of the atom bomb are historical and , ultimately, personal; they are scientific and technical only on a secondary (mechanical) level of "causes." The principal causes of the making of the bomb include the Second World War, Hitler, and the persecution of Jews by the Germans. The bomb was made when it was made, not merely because at a certain phase in the development of science a certain stage of technological know-how was reached, but principally because at a certain time in history in the minds of certain eminent refugee scientists, the fear has arisen that German scientists might be building an atomic bomb for Hitler. Technically speaking, the important stages in the history of the atomic bomb were from December 1938 to August 1945, but the technological character of these stages must not obscure the principal factors in their achievement which, as in every historical event, were the results of personal choices, and conditioned by the political, national, religious, intellectual and ideological inclinations of the minds of responsible men."
"There is the belief that the expansion of the material and intellectual powers of mankind is always Progress. This has its, at first not always visible, limits. And the more the faith in Progress, including its implicit optimism, presses against these limits, the ever greater are the dangers. Perhaps one can illustrate this with a simile. With the seemingly limitless extension of its material powers mankind seems to be in the situation of a captain, whose great ship is so strongly built of steel and iron that his magnetic compass indicates the ferrous mass of the vessel, but not the position of the magnetic North. Such a ship cannot reach its goal; it will sail around in circles and eventually become a subject of the winds and the tides.... This danger exists so long as the captain fails to realize that his compass no longer reacts to the magnetic forces of the earth"
This is to say IMO that without the philosophical and emotional health of humanity no matter what methods we use, however correct, in itself is doomed to failure as it will be used to protect the emotional status quo of our species which is unhealthy and unskillful.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
JoseLibrado
return


Registered: 04/21/07
Posts: 569
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Icelander]
#7808294 - 12/28/07 06:57 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
What do we need saving from?
I see that saving is purely relative.
I dont think we need saving, but ending the struggle for happiness and feelings of self worth is something i would like to in a sense save myself from. But really, whatever it is we are experiencing it nessecary. We need to experience the type of experience that does not work, in order to know and experience the one that does.
-------------------- The mind is a creative tool. It searches to protect you, through message sensations(feelings). It is no different than a computer, you need to make sure its anti-virus program is in check and that it doesnt have a script that limits your experience, because of to much precaution. And remember the computer does not appear to respond to words of anger and frustration - just give it input, in the form of new meanings that you know to be true and its messages to you and the limits it lays out for you, will change. Guilt is an outcome of believing you are the cause of the problems. Yet, we are not a cause to something, we see is negative or bad - Unless you believe your intentions are directed towards a bad outcome....
|
Anarleaf
Teotihualto



Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 156
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Icelander]
#7808334 - 12/28/07 07:17 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
How do you see philosophical/emotional health as our savior? Not saying I don't agree but, just wondering what your opinion is.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Icelander]
#7808341 - 12/28/07 07:20 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
1. 'Science' is merely a method and hence has made no claims regarding saving or not saving - whatever THAT means.
2. Science has already saved us time, effort and inconvenience in many areas. If you choose to go to San Francisco, you may fly or drive instead of walking thus 'saving' several days. Your posting this gibberish has saved you untold years of attempting to deliver this non-message to thousands of readers (though it has certainly wasted our time).
--------------------
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (12/28/07 07:26 PM)
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Icelander]
#7808348 - 12/28/07 07:22 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
What makes you think we need saving. Things are as they should be.
-------------------- "A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
#7808450 - 12/28/07 08:04 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Science is the study of function, that is, cause and effect. To think that we EVER study pure logic, literality, or what things substantially are, is dogmatic. For instance we don't know what a couch is, we only know how it reacts to different, quite limited stimuli.
Science is not movement towards some pure notion or understanding of existence, because it is obviously subservient to our emotions. Science is function, a continual movement towards effeciency of life. We would not pursue science if we did not benefit from it. Science is driven by humanity, whom exists for completely emotional/irrational reasons. The only reason science progresses, is irrational.
The scientific method rests utterly upon hypothesis. Where do we draw hypothesises? From chaos, creativity, art, irrationality, emotion, or God if that is your thing.
I think this is one of the more insightful threads to appear in a while...
|
Ginseng1
Elegant Universe



Registered: 09/02/04
Posts: 3,310
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: daytripper23]
#7808465 - 12/28/07 08:11 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ultimately science can create anything, including salvation, so long as it evolves to the complexity and understading of what that idea of salvation is, and how it can be sought.
-------------------- Flowing through beginningless time since time without beginning...
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Ginseng1]
#7808831 - 12/28/07 10:10 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Eh? Idk about that...how bout an example?
|
jonathanseagull
Cool!


Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: daytripper23]
#7808862 - 12/28/07 10:18 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The Omega Point
--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Awesome! nice to hear that others are into complexity and emergent theory...
I actually really buy into this to a certain degree. I don't think there is any doubt that complexity of being or technology is moving towards something distinct, such as an omega point.
But for myself, I do not believe complexity in itself has much to do with spirituality. It seems to me that any kind of evolution, whether organic (intelligence, evolution) or inorganic (technology) is entirely dualistic, (bigger, better, more x) while spirituality is transcendence of this kind of relativity.
Its not clear cut though! First of all, part of me thinks that transcendence is empowered by complexity of being. We all have this wealth of philosophical and spiritual information right at our grasp due to the internet. Does reading about transcendence, intellectualizing, or studying the varients of relativity, empower the process of overcoming relativity? It seems to... Complexity of being (the intellectual aspect of being) seems to be at least related to enlightenment, even though one cant seem to get there with only intellectualizing.
So, I guess that while I think enlightenment is not an evolutionary process (complexification), it really seems to be at least related to it.
I think now I actually agree with you guys here. If science is not purely logical by nature, if it is genuinely emotive, then perhaps the path to enlightenment could be thought of as a science as well.
Really, everything is elementally logical and artistic. Or in materialistic terms everything is both order and chaos. Just depends on how you look at it.
Idk what do you guys think? It was your idea...
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond



Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Icelander]
#7809497 - 12/29/07 01:29 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I like the analogy with the iron ship and the compass. That reminds me of Jack Sparrow's compass. I tend to use that one.
Furthermore, science has split and separated thoughts by specialising on topics, that's why the topics became alive by themselves, meaning they developed their own dynamics. For me, there only is missing one special science discipline and that is the one, which holds everything together and brings it back in correlation again. Then the single topics are in no more greater danger to develop such a single dynamic to overwhelm the whole system (like the atomic bomb). And yes, it depends on the minds of those who use a tool, not on the tool itself, so a unification of theories in science could help the human mind to see the important points in existence again.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: JoseLibrado]
#7810166 - 12/29/07 10:22 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
To all: I don't think anything needs saving. (Hue you should know that by now.)
And what do I think would "save" us? Non-attachment and acknowledging our death anxiety in healthy ways.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Icelander]
#7810250 - 12/29/07 11:15 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Although I also have qualms with the 'save' word, I think Ice's post brings up a valuable point: the subjectivity and personal experiences and motivations the scientists bring into thier work. There is a popular illusion that 'science' is inherently unbiased, which is obviously a load of shit. The assumptions and ideas popular at a given time will determine the sorts of questions scientist will ask, the sort of research that will secure funding, and the interpretation of results.
Can we please not waste this thread arguing over whether or not we need 'saving'? It was a bad choice of words, but there is a much richer discussion to be had.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7813029 - 12/30/07 10:24 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Right on. I only said "save" because many folk believe science is pure of alterior motive and can fix all the problems we create.
It never surprises me that folk will grab on to a distraction rather than tackle an idea that is a sacred cow.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Icelander]
#7813041 - 12/30/07 10:27 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It never surprises me that people do not clearly and precisely state that which they wish to discuss and get upset when others don't read what they mean instead of what they wrote.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I am more intelligent then you.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Icelander]
#7813096 - 12/30/07 10:39 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I am more intelligent then you.
*sigh* "... than you."
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
This proves it.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Faaip_De_Oiad
as above, so below



Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 1,947
Loc: Malice, Tx
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Why Science cannot save us. [Re: Icelander]
#7813589 - 12/30/07 01:07 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
salvation is a tricky thing to nail down. but I would never put anything past 'science' as someone said earlier, it's just a system of logic really. What's to say that we can't use these same logic tools to get a formula for spiritual growth, and personal happiness.
(Is that something close to your notion of salvation? I figure salvation has a very personal level to it. For instance any christian who considers himself saved IS saved, whether his ideas on morality and the afterlife are wrong or not, if he feels in harmony with the creator HE IS)
Think alchemical, let's mix spirit, art, and science to GET LIFE RIGHT
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I mean "saved" as in keeping humanity at large from pushing itself into extinction with it's emotional immaturity. (wars, pollution, etc.)
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
|