Thank you for commenting. I agree. We judge 'good' and 'bad' based on how scientific inventions are used. You will find more details in my posts below.

I am happy to tolerate science as long as it is accompanied by morality. My problem with Archimedes is that he cared only about science and he had no concept of morality. He was delighted with his invention of the lever, but he was indifferent about whether the lever was used to move a ship out of drydock, or sink a ship by catapulting a missile at it. Archimedes gave us great knowledge but he didn't tell us what is the right way (in moral terms) to use that knowledge.

I understand your concerns about the multiplicity of opinions in philosophy. However, I think it is possible to arrive at objective moral truth. Let us say two scientists each has their own measuring device. One scientist tells us that a rod is 1 metre long, and the other scientist tells us the rod is 2 metres long. At least one of the scientists must have a faulty measuring device. We can check their measuring devices to find out which one is faulty, or if both are faulty. We can replace the faulty device or devices with a reliable one, and we can determine the true length of the rod. In the same way, if we remove all sources of bias from the assessment of morality, I believe we can arrive at objective moral truths, like the moral truth that oppression is wrong. Anyone who disagrees with this moral truth has a 'faulty measuring device', that is a biased approach to morality. We can prove this by identifying what the biases are.

I will consider adding some information to my bio. I avoided doing it so far, because I think people should judge what I am saying based on its merit, and not based on my qualifications or lack of qualifications. If what I am saying is true, it should not matter whether I have a PhD or not. However, I realize that is idealistic, and most people are influenced to believe in or reject an idea based on the qualifications of the person proposing the idea. This is the type of bias that stops us from arriving at objective moral truths. A professor of science could have a faulty ruler, whilst a school student could have a reliable ruler. If we want to know the length of a rod, we should ask the student rather than the professor.

@Imran2022 Now it is clear that your real aim is morality. Morality is discovered using observation and the hypothesis of comparisons . It is usual for morality to take a long time to emerge. Time is measured in lifetimes. People who are not aggressive but are fair and want to draw reasonable conclusions see who has survived life without masses of problems . That is how morality emerges and it takes a lot of work to maintain it. It is 'slow motion' science built on persistence and resilience.

@Mcflewster You are absolutely right that my aim is morality because without morality it is very possible, even likely, that people will use science to destroy the world (through climate change, etc). Morality is not an optional topic, it is vitally necessary.

The point you make about time applies to science as well as morality. A single person starting from scratch with no knowledge of science could not possibly discover the theory of general relativity in his or her lifetime. Newton pointed this out when he said that if he had seen further, it was by standing on the shoulders of Giants who came before him. Scientific progress takes generations, and it requires you to acknowledge and build on the work of people who came before you.

Similarly, you cannot expect to learn morality on your own starting from scratch in a matter of a few days. You need to study morality the same way you study science. Now, you may not be interested in morality, but your lack of interest does not mean it is not important. A moralist will come to a scientist if they want to know the length of a rod. A scientist needs to go to a moralist to learn if something is right or wrong. The difficulty is that moralists don't always agree on what is right and wrong, but I am saying it is possible for them to agree if they learn to exclude all sources of bias similar to the way that scientists always agree by removing all sources of bias in their measuring devices.

@Imran2022
We are NOT asking you to rediscover anything from scratch. JUST ACCEPT IT OR BETTER IT. THAT IS WHAT WE MEAN BY BUILD.

Scientific progress takes generations, and it requires you to acknowledge and build on the work of people who came before you.

@Mcflewster I think you misunderstood my message. I'm not saying you should start studying science from scratch. That makes no sense at all. I was responding to your saying that morality was 'slow motion science'. I was just pointing out that scientific progress has not been fast but rather it has taken generations. If you take the discovery of Archimedes' Principle as the starting point for modern science, it took about 2,000 years to get from there to Einstein's theory of general relativity.

People have been studying morality for a lot longer than 2,000 years. So there is already a wealth of knowledge in this field. As with science, you don't need to start from scratch in your study of morality. You can quickly acquaint yourself with thousands of years of work, and then use that as your starting point for further enquiry. You can also identify which moralists were biased and which were unbiased.

@AnneWimsey You have hit the nail on the head!

I agree. What I am saying is that we shouldn't just concern ourselves with empirical facts (that is science), we should also be concerned with what the possessor of facts does (that is morality). I think if we put our minds to it, we can arrive at objective truths in the field of morality, which are the 'equivalent' of facts in science. For example, 'oppression is wrong' is an objective moral truth. Anyone who denies this is biased (due to religion, upbringing, etc), and they are like the person who denies that the Earth is a globe. We should teach people scientific facts like the fact that the Earth is a globe, but we should also teach them moral truths like the truth that oppression is wrong.

@Imran2022 if you threw in some religious verses with the "teach right from wrong" thingy, you would sound exactly like Any random
evangelical IMO, sorry.
Your "right & wrong" if it deviates from The Golden Rule, (period!) is most likely not mine, and I am not at all willing to conform to your idea(s)

@AnneWimsey Thank you for engaging with me on this. I am not arguing for 'my' right and wrong, I am arguing for 'objective' right and wrong. Please can you clarify what you mean by The Golden Rule? Also, please can you tell me if you agree or disagree that oppression is wrong. If you disagree, please can you explain why. Many thanks again.

@Imran2022 The Golden Rule is "Treat others as you would wish to be treated." IMO that eliminates oppression of any kind right off the bat, no?

@AnneWimsey Great! So we agree that, 'oppression is wrong' is not random, or an opinion, but it is objectively true, in the same way that the Earth being a globe is objectively true. If someone believes the Earth is flat, it is because they are biased, or they have been indoctrinated, or they are influenced by what other misinformed people believe, etc. Similarly, anyone who does not accept that, 'oppression is wrong,' is biased. We should be able to show them what their biases are, and convince them that we are saying is objectively true.

I agree that we cannot put the cat back in the bag. Now that we know Archimedes' Principle, we cannot unlearn it. However, we have a moral responsibility to make sure that the new scientific knowledge we have is used for good and not bad. Scientists have not fulfilled this moral responsibility so far, and I think the reason is that, like Archimedes, scientists are pursuing science to the exclusion of morality. I believe that, if scientists paid a little more attention to morality, then they would realize that objective moral truths exist in the same way that empirical truths exist. Then, they would be passionate advocates of morality as well as science.

@Imran2022 Could not agree more. Morality and a responsibility to education as well. That is why I would like to see more apolitical state funded science, science is too dangerous and powerful to be in the hands of unaccountable, for profits corporations.

Science is the pursuit of empirical knowledge. For example, if Rod A is one metre long, and Rod B is two metres long, then Rod B is longer than Rod A. This is empirical truth. There can be no dispute or difference of opinion about this. Anyone who disagrees can take out a ruler and verify to their own satisfaction that Rod B is longer than Rod A. There is also no moral dimension to this knowledge. The fact that Rod B is longer than Rod A is neither right nor wrong in moral terms. It just 'is'. This is the nature of scientific or empirical knowledge.

Meanwhile, 'what should we do about climate change?' is a moral question, not a scientific question. If you are trying to decide between option A and option B in tackling climate change, you cannot take out some measuring device and confirm that option B is 'better' than option A, in the way that you can measure that Rod B is longer than Rod A. You might say that you can measure the benefits and harms of option A and option B, but you cannot measure benefit and harm empirically. 'Benefit' is not an an empirical quantity like the length of a rod. There is no measuring device to measure benefit empirically. All you can do is try and 'judge' benefit by assessing things like quality of life. However, this judgement is not empirical. Two observers will always agree that Rod B is longer than Rod A, but two observers might disagree about someone's quality of life.

While the scientific method cannot directly answer moral questions, moralists can learn something from the scientific method. If two people disagree about what is the moral thing to do in a particular situation, why do they disagree? If we can identify all the sources of bias in the moral judgements of the two people (including things like religion and upbringing), then we might be able to uncover objective moral truth. Then, we can judge things like benefit and morality in a way that everyone agrees on, in the same way that scientists always agree that Rod B is longer than Rod A.

I think objective morality is possible without science, but science can help some people arrive at objective moral truths. However, scientists also need to learn from moralists. If scientific progress occurs without concurrent moral education, then this is very dangerous. This is why medical students are taught ethics as part of their curriculum. However, there is no ethical instruction in mathematics and the physical sciences. The result is good scientists, but often they have little concept of morality, and they end up working for companies that use science for nefarious purposes.

That is a great defence of science, and I do not substantially disagree with you but.
See my final reply that I was working towards at the bottom of the page. Just posted.

@Fernapple My argument that science is harmful is most powerful when you take a big picture view. Biologists sometimes measure the success of a species by how long it survives. This is because it is a measure of resilience and adaptability. By this measure, bacteria are the most successful organisms on the planet, insects are extremely successful, and dinosaurs were very successful (they would probably still be around today if it weren't for the meteor that killed them).

Homo sapiens has been around for about 300,000 years. Those 300,000 years have by no means been perfect. Humans have faced external threats like disease and famine, and internal threats like false religion and war. However, humans still survived and they deserve credit for that at least from a biological perspective. Nevertheless, today we face the real possibility of extinction due to factors that we ourselves have created, namely climate change and the threat of nuclear war. People have always had self-destructive tendencies, but science has made it possible for those self-destructive tendencies to cause extinction.

You mentioned the ability of an organism to adapt to a new environment. Humans effectively adapted to many different environments and threats in the past. However, the pace of scientific advance in the last few centuries has been so rapid, that humans have not been able to adapt to the introduction of all these new technologies. Our biological and psychological instincts need time to adapt. More science will make that harder not easier. We need to shift our attention from science to adapting ourselves to a new world.

Just to say I joined this site because I thought atheists and agnostics would be more responsive to rational arguments than religious people. However, I am shocked when you say that science is never harmful, despite clear evidence of the harms that have resulted from scientific discoveries. You seem to worship science with the same resolute determination with which many religious people worship their deities. You would do well to abandon your false god and worship reason and truth instead.

@Imran2022 That is good, but I have to say that in a much bigger picture way, I do exactly agree with you. In fact I am one of those people who actually think, that not only science but all of human culture may be in the main, harmful. Not just religion as you would expect on this site, but technology, the arts, politics etc. the whole thing.

The reason being, that no animal can pre-adapt to a new or changed environment, if a creature, from Africa, say, should find itself washed out to sea, and having survived the crossing, lands on the shores of South America, it is unlikely to be well adapted. Few animals however have had such a dramatic and sudden change of environment as humans, when only a few million years ago, we developed language. Which was at the time, no doubt, a useful tool and a great aid. But it brought with it the possibility to create culture, and probably the inevitability of that act. So that we suddenly changed from being an animal living in a natural environment to which we were adapted, to being an animal living in a cultural environment, for which we were almost completely ill fitted. The first great mismatch.

Hence the reason why we so prone to being manipulated by parts of our own culture, like religion, nationalism etc. and why agriculture, gives us super abundant foods, which we can not eat and remain healthy, religion, gives us a super abundance of stories that we can not pick the truth out of, and the media gives us a super abundance of human contact which we can not befriend all of, and so we become hostile.

And also why I am particular to make the difference between, pure science, ( Which is a pre-existing term not mine. ) and applied science. Not only because wisdom is nearly always with the nuanced, and that is the more nuanced view, but also because it is perhaps, only perhaps, the one and only human creation which may have a redemptive power in the end. Without science there can be none of the reason and truth about which you talk, because reason and truth are totally dependent on the scientific method, like it or not, if you are looking for reason and truth in any organized way likely to produce results, then you are doing science. Because that is what science is, just the search for reason and truth given a scruture and framework to help it work better.

@Fernapple Please read my response above. I wrote it in response to this post of yours.

@Imran2022 I have added a bit on the end. Which is the part intended for you, as a reply, I only pasted the main part again for the benefit of others reading.

@Fernapple I think you are confusing moral truth and reason with science. They are not the same thing. Plato was a rational thinker and a moralist. Meanwhile, Archimedes was a scientist. If you study their lives, you will find that they were completely different people. It is not correct to say that they were both pursuing the same kind of knowledge.

Science can give us empirical truths. For example, Archimedes discovered the torque law, which is objectively true. However, Science does not teach us what to do with this knowledge. It can be used for good (moving a ship out of drydock) or bad (building a catapult). Archimedes was a classical scientist because he cared only about the discovery of empirical truths, and he didn't care at all about the consequences of his discoveries.

Plato was seeking a different kind of truth. He was interested in how we should live our lives, and how society should function. This kind of enquiry leads to moral principles, for example the moral principle that oppression is wrong. Moral principles are not the same as empirical truths. They are derived based on human experience and reason. They are not derived using the scientific method. Plato didn't know anything about the scientific method.

Societies can and have survived without empirical scientific knowledge. But societies have always had some concept of moral principles (sometimes flawed). The problem we face today is that our scientific knowledge has advanced too quickly and our moral knowledge has declined. We have all these potentially dangerous scientific inventions, and we misusing them to the extent that we are threatening our own survival. The only way to redress the balance is to place less emphasis on science and more emphasis on morality.

I believe that objective moral truths do exist (not everyone does). Objective moral truths are always beneficial and never harmful. The same is not true of empirical scientific truths.

@Imran2022 Yes human technical progress is a great danger, but technical progress is not all of science, nor even a synonym for it, and we would be completely unaware of the dangers of technical progress and without any tools to address it without science.

There is only one world and therefore only one true model of it, Plato And Aristotle did have different models, and therefore one of them was wrong (or both). Science is not in conflict with morality, quite the opposite, most good modern morality, starts from science and the empirical truths it expresses, and if morality is in conflict with science then clearly that is not the correct morality. You say that science is not a synonym for reason and logic, and it certainly is not, but it is a lot more synonymus with logic and reason, than it is with technology. It is quite impossible to have and manage an understanding of the world, by logic and reason alone, without empirical truth to base it on. For example, if I said. "We should burn all people suspected of witchcraft, because casting spells is evil." It is perfectly logical, reasonable and in line with a well formed moral system. It just fails, because it is not empirically true.

And science is a branch of philosophy, once called natural philosophy, which meant originally only the study of nature. But because nature is complex and unlike the arts and morality not subjective, understanding it required better methods and more discipline to gain results, science thus became the most advanced and disciplined of all philosophies. And at the bottom science means no more than saying. "Empirical truth is not given, if you want to reach it, then it requires work , effort and organized systems." That's it, and nothing more, and if you think that you can get to truth and morality without work, effort, and system , then you are going nowhere fast.

@Fernapple I think we are starting to converge, but we are not quite there yet. You may find my post above in answer to Mcflewster helpful. Plato and Archimedes are not in conflict. They were simply studying two completely different subjects, namely morality (Plato) and science (Archimedes). Science does not answer moral questions. Scientific discoveries may pose moral questions, but you need a system of morality to answer those questions, and that system is not based on the scientific method.

@Imran2022 True but without science, philosophy and morality are adrift and competely at sea. You need philosophy and morality as well, but philosophy and morality are totally dependant on science, they can not work without it. Science is espevcially not in conflict with good philosophy, since science is, by far, just the most advanced form of philosophy, with the most refined rules and best working practices. Morality and philosophy will never help address the issues of global warming for example, simply because perfectly moral and reasonable people do not believe that it exists.

@Fernapple I have reflected carefully on your comments. You made some good points, and I have learned something, so I am very grateful to you sir! I have amended my reply to Mcflewster above. Please take a look and see if you agree.

@Imran2022 Very good. It was a fun debate and I enjoyed it, thank you. Not to be boring but I just added another last comment at the top, which may amuse you.

Thank you for comment. However, I don't agree with your definition of 'quality of life'. Please refer to my reply to Diaco below for my definition of quality of life. We need to agree on the definition before we can discuss this further. I do agree with you that technology itself is not the problem but rather its applications, which depends on our standards of ethics and morality. You will find more on this topic in some of my replies below. Sorry for not replying to you personally, but I think if you read those replies, you will get where I am coming from.

@Imran2022 On the subject of "quality of life" consider that for thousands of years the vast majority of people lived harsh lives, spending the majority of their times simply working to stay alive. Women were essentially property, children had no rights, most people didn't even live to see adulthood due to disease/illness.

In modern industrialized countries, we live in relative peace and safety. Most people have access to food, medicine, and clean water. People have rights and protection under the law. I know that I'd likely be dead by now if I'd lived at a time prior to modern times. My mother would be dead, my niece would be dead, and many others I know would be dead due to illness/disease or other health problems. My mother may have died when she was a child due to contracting rheumatic fever and if not that she would have died 35 years ago due to an infection that damaged one of her heart valves.

So, sure people living in stick huts in the jungle can be quite happy and people living in complete luxury can be miserable, but safety, comfort, health, and the freedom to live your life as you wish weigh heavily on people's quality of life. If you disagree, then try it out for yourself. Give up your modern conveniences and live in a hut in the woods. I doubt you'd want to do that. I know I wouldn't survive long in those conditions.

@Charles1971 Thank you for your thoughtful comments, but I would like to try and disentangle science and quality of life. I agree with you entirely that peace and security improve the quality of life of human beings. However, you do not need science and technology to achieve a peaceful and secure society. In addition, science and technology do not guarantee peace and security because developed nations still have crime and they still go to war.

I agree that modern medicine does sometimes improve people's quality of life. However, scientific inventions can also worsen quality of life. For example, developed nations are suffering from an obesity pandemic, which worsens their quality of life. The obesity pandemic is in large part due to over-abundance of unhealthy foods and a sedentary lifestyle, which have come about from modern scientific farming methods and inventions like the car.

I have never lived in a hut, but whenever I go to the countryside, I find it to be more peaceful than the city. It is quieter in the countryside, people are more laid back and friendly, the air is cleaner, and it is more scenic. This is why many people go on camping holidays, and I think you should try it some time before you judge. So whilst I accept that scientific inventions can improve quality of life, I don't accept that as a rule. Sometimes, scientific inventions worsen our quality of life.

@Imran2022 I don't really feel as if you read my response so I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this particular matter.

@Charles1971 I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm also sorry that we didn't reach an understanding. But I wish you well. Take care.

Thank you for your comment, but I am confused by it so perhaps you could clarify. You disagree with the 'premise' that scientific inventions can be used to harm people as well as benefit them? Are you saying that cars don't contribute to obesity and climate change? Are you saying that the catapult, or the modern equivalent of the nuclear bomb, cannot harm people? This makes no sense to me. When
I say that scientific inventions can be used to harm people, this is not a 'premise', it is a fact as far as I am concerned.

@Imran2022 There are positives and negatives to just about everything. The human element makes choices and it's those choices that determine when something is used in a positive way or negative way.

@Betty Thank you Betty for your comment, and I agree with you. But lerlo seemed to suggest that there was nothing negative about scientific inventions, which is simply not true.

@Imran2022 I agree. Any invention intended to benefit will at some point get used for a negative purpose. Greed, power, and control are powerful motivators when it comes to abuse of any kind.

@Imran2022 my point was that you can say that everything in the world is bad for mankind. Are food and language bad for mankind? Food causes people to be obese not cars. There is very hateful speech that hurts people. Do you really think cars cause people to be obese? Did people used to walk fifty miles to work before cars? Of course not so that is why it's a bad premise. The Catapult is useless if there is no war. So just a blanket statement that scientific progress is bad for mankind is faulty. Insert "food" or "language" where you have scientific progress and maybe you'll understand my point. Everything is good or bad depending on how you look at it. Rockets were bad for Israel until they came up with the Iron Dome. Is the Iron Dome, scientific progress, bad for people?

@lerlo Thank you for your reply. I really want to understand your position, but I am still struggling. I never made a blanket statement that scientific progress is bad. I said that scientific inventions can harm people as well as benefit them. I don't understand why you have difficulty accepting that. It seems like you are making a blanket statement that scientific progress is always good.

Obesity is multifactorial. The factors causing obesity include overeating, stress and inactivity. Cars result in inactivity because many people drive when they could easily walk instead. There is nothing controversial about saying that cars contribute to obesity. But even if you don't accept that, you have to accept that cars cause climate change, and if you accept that then you have accepted that scientific inventions can cause harm.

I think the food analogy is interesting. No food is bad for you, and too much food is bad for you. You need just the right amount of food to be healthy. Similarly, you need just the right amount of science for society to be healthy. At the moment, we have too much science. We are suffering as a result, and when the effects of climate change occur, we will suffer even more.

@Imran2022 I noticed you ignored the language issue. Your blanket statement is that scientific inventions are used to harm people."Scientific inventions are used...to harm them." Which is just wrong. Other than weapons which are used to defend people, no scientific invention is used to harm people. You ignored the Iron Dome example. Cars are not used to harm people. Perhaps a byproduct along with every other thing people do may result in climate change but what about Electric cars? So once and for all, scientific inventions are not used to harm people. There may be a byproduct but that's not what they're used for and that was your blanket statement. And, given the multitude of scientific inventions, the small percentage of weapons again shouldn't be made into a giant generalization that scientific inventions are used to harm people.

@lerlo I am sorry, I am not ignoring what you said about language, I was just trying to keep my reply brief. I am more interested in the general theme of your argument.

I think I am starting to understand what you are saying. You have accepted that scientific inventions can result in harm. However, you are saying that it is not the INTENTION of scientists to cause harm. The harm is only a by-product and therefore scientists are blameless. Here, I must disagree with you.

Car manufacturers and the scientists who work for them are not motivated by a desire to serve people. They are motivated by money. They know that cars are causing climate change, including electric cars, which have a huge upfront carbon footprint. Yet they continue to make cars and sell them to people, knowing that what they are doing is harmful. Their intentions are not pure.

@Imran2022 wow. I understand your bias now. The inventor of the fork didn't expected someone might put it into somebody's eye but it's happened. And what do you know they keep making forks. Must be for the money. Guess we need to blame the caveman. Basically you can't defend your position which is why you ignored why food and language and everything else can have a bad byproduct. Manufacturers of every product in the world do it in order to make money, boohoo

@lerlo If someone put a fork in someone's eye, that would trouble me. I would want to understand why it happened and how it could be prevented from happening again. You might call that 'bias', but I call it concern for humanity and the planet. It sounds like if someone put a fork in someone's eye, all you would do is say, 'boohoo'. However, I won't stop caring about humanity and the planet even if you don't care.

@Imran2022 it's funny when bias changes. Will you worry about how the inventor of the fork will be remembered for creating such a violent invention?

@lerlo If lots of people stabbed each other in the eyes with forks, then yes probably, because that is a nasty outcome and we can eat perfectly well without forks.

What I really want to know is do you care at all about people stabbing each other in the eyes with forks, or obesity, or climate change? If you don't care, then that is the reason why this conversation is not going anywhere. I care about humanity and the planet, which is why I posted my original message. If you don't care about harm to people and the planet, then the post is irrelevant to you.

@Imran2022 this isn't about saving people. You've already indicated that companies are just out to make money. Other than the small amount of scientific inventions that are weapons (which also help people) the intention of every other single scientific invention has been to help people. You think we should go back to caveman days where people are just fine but then the wheel was invented and what do you know somebody got run over. I mentioned all this before and you just ignore it so I'm done. You may have the intention of helping people but what do you know you also take a shit and is that good for people to smell? Wow a by-product despite your good intentions, what a shocker

@lerlo I asked you if you cared about humanity, and you couldn't bring yourself to say yes. I can only presume that at this stage you don't really care. This would explain why you are not seeing my point of view. If, at some point, you do start caring, then I would be happy to pick up the conversation again. Otherwise, I agree that it is best to end it here. I do wish you well. Take care.

Thank you for your message and I agree with you. This is why I put 'good' in quotation marks in the opening line of my original post. It is how science is used and applied that is good or bad, and this is based on whether it benefits or harms. The purpose of my original post was to raise awareness of the harms that can occur if scientific knowledge is misused. If we recognize this problem, we are more like to apply stringent ethical constraints on the application of scientific knowledge.

Thank you for your comment. How about from the viewpoint of society at large?

@Imran2022 What kind of response would you expect? Or, what are you fishing for?

@Imran2022 "society at large?" Society is a collection of individuals, each with their own viewpoint. I see a failure of cognition in your question. /@racocn8

@racocn8 Thank you for your comments. I agree that some people will attest that they have benefited from science, for example a person whose life has been saved by modern medicine. Other people will feel the opposite, for example the families of the victims in the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. So do we just leave at that, and say each to his own? Or should we try to take a broader view?

Some people will claim to have benefitted from religion. However, how much benefit can be said to accrue from believing quaint myths. However, these people are also fully deluded and confused when confronted with a reality that shows them to be lies.

You are mistaken about Uvalde. People are not angry at science for producing the AR-15; kids can buy guns because the Christians have elected those who then protect the gun manufacturers.
People have particular anger at the police for waiting more than an hour before charging the shooter. A good argument can be made that the reluctance to stop the shooter came from the police valuing their own lives above the lives of mostly Hispanic children. Again, that comes from Christian racism.
Finally, the shooter frequented far right websites. These websites also post Christian White Nationalism propaganda and the racism that comes with it.
Christian White Nationalism also disparages public education, and many school shootings are likely due to shooters being conditioned to believe schools should be shot up.

@racocn8 Thank you for your reply, but you are taking the discussion in a different direction. Ignore the example of the shooting in Uvalde, and use a different example of your choosing where someone has suffered harm as a result of scientific technologies. Do we just resign ourselves that this is a matter of personal opinion, and not something worth discussing? If so, I don't think we will ever effectively tackle climate change.

Use of fossil fuels that then cause climate change is a good example of science and technology that have the effect of causing harm and suffering. And yet most of the opposition to the notion of climate change comes from the right wing. Thus, many Christians instruct each other to regard Climate Change to be an error or even a conspiracy. Enacting Christian fascism which would continue using fossil fuels could destroy the human species as so many other species go extinct (loss of diversity).

@racocn8 The example of climate change is great because we both agree that it is a example of science causing harm. I accept that many Christians are climate change deniers, but I don't like to stereotype because I think it is unfair on Christians who are passionate advocates of climate action. In terms of the solution, I find it hard to accept that the solution to climate change is more science, for example nuclear energy, because this does not address the root problem, which is the fact that it is the misuse of scientific technologies that led to climate change in the first place, and nuclear energy has its own risks.

Humanity's chances for survival is a toss-up. Yes, it is unlikely that science can or will 'solve' the problem. While the problem is due to the use of fossil fuel, it is also due to there being way too many people. Again, a problem made much worse by religion exhorting it's believers to have as many children as possible. Fission is dirty and has really ugly risks. Fusion is promising, but the timeline is too slow. Reducing the population is far more likely to practically offer a chance at survival, but it cannot be implemented with our current cultures. Thus, the prognosis is poor, with blame to go around, and not to just blame technology.

@racocn8 Thank you for your reply. I agree that population size is important, but it is also important to consider carbon emissions per person.

Total carbon emissions = emissions per person x total number of people.

So you can tackle the problem by reducing population size, or by reducing emissions per person. For example, the USA has a population of about 300 million, which is modest given the size of the country. But the emissions per person in the USA are way higher than any other country in the world. I think we need to address that. By tackling the overuse of scientific technologies, we can reduce emissions per person, and thereby reduce emissions overall.

The quantity of emissions per person in the US is so great that making any sort of dent in that would never get legislated or otherwise caused. It's not going to happen. It should, but it can't. Even if the military revealed a zero-point energy device capable of producing limitless energy, the US couldn't convert infrastructure in time.

@racocn8 It sounds like you have given up, but I refuse to give up. If I can convince everyone in the US that reducing emissions is important, then legislation will get passed. I will keep trying even if ultimately I fail. I won't renounce the truth even if everyone in the world thinks I'm crazy.

I support your position. It's not that I've given up, but projecting what I see. I would reiterate that Christians represent the primary opposition both politically and in terms of their attitudes and values.

@racocn8 Thank you for your support. I know what you mean by the attitude of many Christians, and it is frustrating. However, one thing I have learned is that it doesn't help to offend them by insulting their religion. That just makes them despise you, and they will never listen to you if they despise you. Therefore, I don't understand the logic of attacking a Christian's belief, say in the Resurrection of Jesus. It doesn't achieve anything except that they stop listening to you. If a Christian agrees to reduce their carbon emissions, then what does it matter if they believe in the Resurrection. I think we need to adopt a more pragmatic approach, in which we are kinder, more patient and less condescending.

You make a good argument. However, while the Climate Crisis poses an existential threat to humanity, Christianity kills people and kills their Humanity. I denounce Christianity as a matter of my own honor and integrity reacting to a philosophy which is pure cancer. It deludes people and with the lure of life after death and gets them to lie to themselves as well as to the rest of us. Research demonstrates that Christianity causes brain damage, probably related to the psychological and cognitive damage we see. I'm not about to withhold denouncing Christianity in hopes that they can be reasoned with. Even now, Christian Nationalists seek to enact another Holocaust in this country because of their insecurity.

@racocn8 Imagine you're stuck on a ship with a crazy fundamentalist. The fundamentalist is thirsty and decides the best thing to do is to make a hole in the hull to access sea water. It's a completely crazy idea because it will sink the ship and sea water is not drinkable anyway. Now you will be tempted to say that this crazy idea is all the result of the person's stupid fundamentalist belief system, but if you do that, I don't think you will survive. For the sake of your own survival, you will have to try and negotiate with the fundamentalist somehow, and in that negotiation you will have to gain their trust by not offending them. When you get to shore, then you can let out all those feelings you kept suppressed on the ship. This is the analogy of climate change. We are stuck on the planet with all sorts of people, and we have to cooperate to survive. When the climate crisis is averted, then people will be free to fight each other again if they wish.

I don't believe the likelihood of success in negotiating with a psychopath is worth abandoning my principles. They would be only too happy for us to degrade ourselves for their sake. My not criticizing Christian infamy is not going to change their minds. Truth and integrity are as close to transcendental values as anything in the Bible. Seeking truth is as close to Purpose as anything can come. I will look toward doing my best to understand physics with the hope something useful could be noticed.

Parenthetically, I was hearing about how Shostokovich was personally threatened by Stalin. To avoid being killed, he lied about what his work meant in describing it to the officials. The professor said that by lying, he was not a hypocrite, but rather a survivor.

@racocn8 I don't believe in lying. I think we should always stand up for the truth. But you can do this in an aggressive way, or you can do it in a tactful way. I don't think there is anything degrading in saying to a Christian, 'I respect your beliefs.' When you say 'respect', it does not mean you 'affirm', it just means that you are acknowledging that person's beliefs. Those beliefs are usually the result of indoctrination, and maybe if you or I had been subjected to the same degree of indoctrination, we would also have the same beliefs. If you respect the Christian, they will respect you, and dialogue can begin. If you hate the Christian, they will hate you, and dialogue will end, and the ship will sink.

Thank you for welcoming me and for your comment. I don't think it is helpful to distinguish between science and engineering because they are a joint enterprise. Engineers invent things using the mathematical and scientific knowledge available to them. Without this knowledge, their inventions are rudimentary by modern standards. Archimedes was both a mathematician and an engineer. He discovered the torque law, then he applied it to invent the lever.

@Imran2022 How can the counting of the number and frequency of species in a quadrat be described as engineering?

@anglophone I believe what you are describing is called empirical data. Science is the interpretation of empirical data. Engineering is the application of scientific knowledge to make inventions. If you collect empirical data, some scientist out there will try to understand it and formulate a scientific theory. After that, some engineer will use the scientific theory to make an invention. In this way, the 'innocent' task of collecting empirical data leads to scientific progress and technological advancement. This is the natural course of events, but of course you could try to deliberately alter this course.

@Imran2022 Now you are getting there. And would it be possible to stop science and its use for engineering even if you wanted to ?

@Fernapple Yes, I think it is possible to intervene if there is political will. Currently, the will does not exist because people assume that scientific progress is always beneficial and never harmful. Remember also that much of the funding for scientific research comes from commercial companies that seek to exploit science for material gain. These companies are not concerned about harm to people or the planet. (The Volvo emissions scandal is a good example of this.) We can change things, but only if we acknowledge the harms that science can cause, which are obvious for all to see in the form of climate change.

@Imran2022 But how would you know about climate change if it was not for science ?

@Imran2022 The collecting of empirical data is part of doing science, it is NOT doing engineering. Your assumptions are flawed. /@Fernapple

@Imran2022 Please justify your statement "people assume that scientific progress is always beneficial and never harmful". /@Fernapple

@Fernapple Most of the people responding to my post seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. I asked the question whether scientific progress on the whole is 'good' using quotation marks around the word 'good'. This is because science itself is neither good nor bad in moral terms. It is simply the investigation of the natural world. However, we can judge the applications and consequences of science as either good or bad based on their benefits and harms. I gave clear examples in the original post that scientific discoveries have been used to benefit people and harm them. I don't see how you can dispute this. If you do not acknowledge that science can lead to harm, then I think we have reached an impasse. It is only if you recognize the harm, that you will be motivated to do something about it. Oppenheimer helped to develop nuclear weapons, but in the political sphere he opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb because he could see that the technology was harmful. You are crediting science with the discovery of climate change, which is correct, but you must also recognize that it is the misuse of scientific technologies that led to climate change in the first place. Action against climate change is feeble if you don't appreciate the root causes.

@Fernapple, @anglophone I never said that the collection of empirical data is engineering. I said that the collection of empirical data is often the first step in the development of new technologies. For example, much scientific research is funded by companies that ultimately want to make money by developing and selling new technologies. These companies are not collecting empirical data because they are curious or because they love science. There is a clear purpose to the collection of data, which is to develop technologies. However, I accept that not all scientific research is like this. For example, people who study black holes know that their research has no practical applications.

@Fernapple, @anglophone Thank you for your comments. I am enjoying the discussion. My statement, 'people assume that scientific progress is always beneficial and never harmful' was based on the responses I have received to my post! I believe that the only way to deal with climate change effectively is to address the misuse of scientific technologies that caused climate change in the first place. However, most people think the solution to climate change is more science, not less. They advocate 'green' energy as a solution, but I am not convinced because this does not address the root cause, and many green energy solutions, for example nuclear energy, are harmful in different ways.

@Imran2022 I do not dispute that science can do harm, if it did not, it would be just about the only thing in the human world which does not do both harm and good. But I do dispute the lumping together of science and engineering/technology, since it is I think indisputable that technologies such as burning coal and oil would have been discovered by accident and pure design, even if we did not have science. But without science, we would not have any idea of the effects of those, and our use of them would probably be far less efficient making the effects worse.

@Fernapple Thank you. I am glad we agree that science can do harm. In terms of lumping together science and engineering, I agree with you that sometimes scientific enquiry does not lead to technological inventions. However, we disagree on how closely science and engineering are linked. For me, the link is much greater than you think. For example, crude oil does not burn and people would never have used it as a fuel unless chemists identified that it was a mixture of many different organic compounds. The extraction of petrol from crude oil is achieved by fractional distillation, which would never have been invented by engineers without the support of scientists. Meanwhile, coal does burn and you could put it on a campfire, but the burning of coal to produce electricity is much more complicated and engineers could have not achieved this without scientific research. An extreme example is number theory in mathematics. For centuries, this was a completely abstract exercise with no practical applications, but in the 20th century it came to be used in cryptography. You are technically right when you say that science and engineering can be separate, but this is the rare exception not the rule.

@Imran2022 I am sorry but while I agree that science and engineering are often together I do not at all think that it is rare for them to be apart,. In fact that is the most common state, and a good argument could be made that science which is conected to engineering or funded by the commercial need for research is not truly science at all, but merely research.

@Fernapple I respect your opinion. We agree that science and engineering are sometimes a joint enterprise and sometimes not. We disagree only on which is more often the case. However, I don't think this affects the thrust of the argument in my original post, which is that sometimes science is used for harm, and we should recognize that and do something about it.

@Imran2022 That is good, but I have to say that in a much bigger picture way, I do exactly agree with you. In fact I am one of those people who actually think, that not only science but all of human culture may be in the main, harmful. Not just religion as you would expect on this site, but technology, the arts, politics etc. the whole thing.

The reason being, that no animal can pre-adapt to a new or changed environment, if a creature, from Africa, say, should find itself washed out to sea, and having survived the crossing, lands on the shores of South America, it is unlikely to be well adapted. Few animals however have had such a dramatic and sudden change of environment as humans, when only a few million years ago, we developed language. Which was at the time, no doubt, a useful tool and a great aid. But it brought with it the possibility to create culture, and probably the inevitability of that act. So that we suddenly changed from being an animal living in a natural environment to which we were adapted, to being an animal living in a cultural environment, for which we were almost completely ill fitted. The first great mismatch.

Hence the reason why we so prone to being manipulated by parts of our own culture, like religion, nationalism etc. and why agriculture, gives us super abundant foods, which we can not eat and remain healthy, religion, gives us a super abundance of stories that we can not pick the truth out of, and the media gives us a super abundance of human contact which we can not befriend all of, and so we become hostile.

And also why I am particular to make the difference between, pure science, ( Which is a pre-existing term not mine. ) and applied science. Not only because wisdom is nearly always with the nuanced, and that is the more nuanced view, but also because it is perhaps, only perhaps, the one and only human creation which may have a redemptive power in the end.