Much of what I could have said here has already been explained very niced indeed by Edward, but I'll have a crack at a few answers myself - sorry if I repeat what anyone has said already, this is mainly a reply to zhao's first post, not to the subsequent replies:
It is nonetheless the case that there IS an intellectual foundation to science. If most scientists don't bother to enquire too closely into this foundation in the course of their everyday work, it's because they're scientists, not philosophers. To put it another way, if mathematicians tried to construct the entire edifice of the basis of mathematics every time they wanted to prove a theorem, they'd never actually any useful maths done.
Define "higher". Science is not about God, or love, or the soul, or the meaning of Life. These are the realms of philosophers, theologians, mystics and poets. Science is about trying to rationally understand and explain the phenomena of the physical universe, nothing more, nothing less. This could mean trying to reconstruct the conditions that existed a fraction of a second after the Big Bang or it could mean sequencing the DNA of bread mould.
I would disagree with this completely. Science works within the doctrine of the scientific method, which is unique in its objectivity and reproducability. If two groups of scientists perform the same experiment and conclude different results, then either one group has done something wrong, or they both have.
I would agree with this as far as it goes, although the word 'game' is unfortunately anthropocentric...
I'm not sure what is meant by 'power structure' here. Sure, there are entrenched norms and establishments in science, and research that goes against that can face stiff opposition, but this is a *good* thing: the established ideas are usually there because they've been succesfull in describing reality. If a new theory wants to strut its stuff, it had better be pretty good.
Erm, I would say 'tool' rather than 'source', but anyway:
Yup, this sounds about right. There's a big difference between the kinds of 'truth' offered by science and religion, though - the former depends on explaining empirical facts using a rational basis, the latter depends on blind faith, dogma and the threat of damnation for the unbeliever. For the ten thousandth time, science is not a kind of religion or superstition.
No, there is no such thing as 'complete' knowledge, only improved knowledge. Not really: some sciences are largely practical, bent on technological innovation for the benefit of mankind - others are much more geared towards searching for truth for its own sake (even if they implicitly admit that The Truth will never be attained).
Scientists work for all sorts of people - some of those funding science don't have the 'good of all of us' at heart. C'est la vie.
[/QUOTE] See above on who benfits from science, and the fallacy of 'total truth'.
I really don't see this one. What about the contraceptive pill, and the billions of women's lives this has improved? Arguably, it was responsible for the great political and social revolution(s) of the 60s more than any other single factor. What about drugs than are helping save lives in the developing world? What about improved nutrition, medicine, renewable energy sources?
Again, this has much more to do with technology than science itself. OK, so I was arguing in favour of technology in the last paragraph - so sue me.
This can in no way be construed as a criticism of science. These kinds of uncertainties are scientifically described and fully quantifiable: they're completly different from the uncertainty that plagued the world when people thought disease was caused by demons and wrote 'Here be Dragons' on the blank bits of a world atlas.
All the more reason for governments to fund science reseach with public money!
Again, this is to do with the economics and politics of science, not science per se.
Again, this is down to the funding of science, its public perception and so on.
The hyper-specialisation of science is a necessary result of the advancement of scientific knowledge. Many of the best scientists are interested in and knowledgeable a huge range of subjects, both scientific and otherwise.
Again, this depends entirely on how the fruits of research are handled.
What can I say? Science is never going to tell you how to be happy, how to love people or how to make sense of your life. Complaining that science doesn't do those things is a bit like complaining that your stereo doesn't wash your dishes for you. It's a straw man 50 foot tall.
Bookmarks