Fear of science will kill us

CNN

American denialism threatens many areas of scientific progress, including the widespread fear of vaccines and the useless trust placed in the vast majority of dietary supplements quickly come to mind.

If every American swallowed two aspirin right now, hundreds of us would die today. Does that mean we ought to ban aspirin? Of course not. It simply means that there are risks and benefits associated with everything we do and with every decision we make.

I thought this was kinda an interesting read

see also:

Micheal Specter"Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens our Lives."

some of this rings very true to me IMHO

Thanks. I saw that article today and thought it was interesting. I think, unfortunately that the utter evil, greed and malfeasance of companies like Monsanto creates a lot of trust issues for any truly helpful scientific advances in agriculture, environment and earth sciences.

I would have to concur with you on that topic. The ramifications run pretty deep.

reply to post by djmolecular


I agree 7 Million percent. People are clinging to old irrelevant religions and beliefs that can only hinder our progress. Its one thing to believe in a higher power, a higher purpose, or a God, but clinging to bronze age belief systems and tout them as absolute truth while ignoring simple obvious scientific fact sets us back. Remember that Darwin movie they wouldn't even release in the USA because of how backwards we are as a nation?

The thing is that many in the anti-science crowd thinks science leads to a cold lifeless existence and some have gone so far as to say Science and Evolution lead to genocide and killing people

Opinions like that frighten me. We need science to learn all we can about life the universe and everything, and maybe figure out what Deep Thought meant by 42

If you really believe in Science let me inject you with some medicine chemicals.

Trust me this is good medicine.

Never mind the fact that 1% of people who take it die horrific deaths.

Never mind the fact you can't sue me when it all goes bad.

A REAL SCIENTIST WOULD REFUSE MY INOCULATION FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY.

WHY?

Because you have NO IDEA what is in that needle!!!

People who accept vaccines/shots WITHOUT a QUESTION are NOT Scientists, they are conformists and followers. They are slaves.

reply to post by muzzleflash



Did you read the analogy about aspirin??? you could die taking that.

Ok say your terminal so your gonna die. Nothing they can do..

Sorry i would take the needle if i were you. If there was a chance at life my friend.





[edit on 13-4-2010 by djmolecular]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by djmolecular

 

I agree 7 Million percent. People are clinging to old irrelevant religions and beliefs that can only hinder our progress. Its one thing to believe in a higher power, a higher purpose, or a God, but clinging to bronze age belief systems and tout them as absolute truth while ignoring simple obvious scientific fact sets us back. Remember that Darwin movie they wouldn't even release in the USA because of how backwards we are as a nation?

Tough break when people can pass off the life-centering beliefs of an entire faith representing millions of people, and billions over the ages who no longer have a voice, in one sweeping generalized comment. Such empathy sir! Have you not studied enough of the history to realize the many church denominations and power structure were infiltrated by Rosicrucian heresy and masonic/Jesuit orders who corrupted the church from the inside, or that the organization of Lucis Trust has been steadily making society medicre and ammoral while pushing doctrine through puppet church leaders to make the people believe it is biblical to break the tenets which used to protect society? I'll wager to say that your present "idolatry" of science won't even stoop to consider such points of relevance as these, let alone the ethical consequences of exploring "everything" in the name of science.

The thing is that many in the anti-science crowd thinks science leads to a cold lifeless existence and some have gone so far as to say Science and Evolution lead to genocide and killing people

Haha how clever. Let's consider everyone who dislikes the present administration of science as "anti-science" and completely invalidate them as if they were non-thinkers. Let's ignore the obvious and have a chuckle about modern science and it's real and present ability to kill people en mass, a reality which happens every day.

Opinions like that frighten me. We need science to learn all we can about life the universe and everything, and maybe figure out what Deep Thought meant by 42

According to you, billions were simply misguided and unknowing, while you show us the true light? I think not. That post was outright bigotry and delusions of grandeur all thrown into one.

Science is subject to manipulation like anything else. We're already seeing science being bought and turned into religion with things like global warming. Scientists are greedy like everyone else and 'facts' can be bought and paid for by any rich/powerful entity that needs them.
Not to mention the fact that the big bang is just religion disguised as science. Even though there is mounting evidence the big bang theory is wrong people on TV still act like its a fact. Just like 'global warming'.

I have said this before on ATS and will say it again.

Religion was/is one of the earliest stages of science.

Theorizing and trying to explain the unknown - exactly what religion has done from the start of time.

Slowly as those mysteries become solved, religion slowly evaporates.

Science covers religion, but religion does not cover science.

yeah but there is nothing wrong with thinking critically about new scientific developments. you cant accept every breakthrough and study with open arms all the time especially in the pace and direction we are taking

reply to post by djmolecular


Yeah, well I didn't take a flu shot and I am just fine. Its not out of fear, it is common sense that any reasonably healthy person shouldn't bother fixing something that is not broken, like their immune system. Now if I was an elderly person with immune problems, history of pneumonia and such, then I would strongly consider it.

I think mistrust arises from deceptive public relations. Science does not need to be defended and those who do come across as pushing an agenda not their own.

reply to post by muzzleflash

In mid April of 1943 while resynthesizing '___', he accidentally ingested a small amount and was made aware of its effects. On April the 19th, he deliberately consumed 250 micrograms and set off on his bicycle to return home...

Albert Hoffman

real scientists are not afraid of science nor do they care about their own safety, as shown in the quote posted above, a real scientist will deliberately put himself in harms way for science.

Reichelt secured permission to jump from the Eiffel Tower by telling authorities he would first test the suit with a dummy. With more confidence in his suit than it warranted, Reichelt skipped the test run and went all out. You may have inferred by now how this ends. After free-falling for almost 5 seconds from a height of 60 meters Reichelt hit the lawn like a sack of potatoes.

Franz Reichelt

the benefits of technology that we enjoy today comes to us through the efforts of men and women who were not afraid of risk, nor did they hesitate to question the status quo, and most of them might be considered "persons of interest" had they been alive in the present. their researches would be a matter of national security in modern times and they would be prevented from doing work.

let me just end this with a thought on what's wrong with science today. the dependence on corporate grants by scientists and the emphasis on return on investment is making a mockery of science and severely limiting the human race. either we surmount this present trend or we resign ourselves to being a spoiled, arrogant species who have no right to consider ourselves as stewards and ambassadors of our solar system.

[edit on 4.14.10 by toreishi]

Slowly as those mysteries become solved, religion slowly evaporates.

Science covers religion, but religion does not cover science.

Nonsense, idle words. The Luciferian doctrines of theosophical belief still firmly governs the policy-makers who control university ideologies. Study harder! It is a rather lassiz-fare kind of religion however, so, anything goes these days.

reply to post by Northwarden

chuckle about modern science and it's real and present ability to kill people en mass, a reality which happens every day.

I'm sorry how is science killing people en mass every day? Most of the people who die everyday are in third world countries many living under religious regimes where science is replaced by superstition and traditional magic. Even here in the States there have been cases of people turning away science in favor or prayer or ritual and then dying (of course). The only people science has killed were test subjects in the early days when ethics were not set up but the instances of scientific experimentation leading to horrific side effects PALE in comparison to the torture, genocide, and tyranny that religion has been associated with.

Everyone who objects to science IS anti-science, how else could you possibly describe them? There's a whole group of religious zealots who reject the scientific method and yet still greedily reap the benefits of our scientific civilization (good medicine, better nutrition, longer life, technology, etc). There is also a group who claims that everything in science is some cover-up of lies despite the fact that there is a grueling scientific peer review which means that no theory is put forth as absolute and that things are only accepted by the community when proven by actual evidence. I fail to see how demanding actual evidence is a bad thing.

I'm aware there are elements both inside and outside of religion who are trying to change behavior, gain power or wealth or control. Social engineering isn't exactly a new idea. I have no issue with the average person of any faith, only the zealots who reject science and tout their beliefs as absolute truth. Science does not deal in absolutes, it forms a theory based on evidence but if enough evidence is found to overturn an idea it is overturned.

It doesn't take a genius to see that religion doesn't have the answers. Sure there are a lot of great philosophical ideas in religion but not much about religion has helped us further our understanding of the cosmos and our place in it. Science has overturned long held superstitious notions and ideas and helped us explain the world around us. Science has helped extend our lives through better nutrition and medicine and has helped us treat illnesses as being caused by germ or mental defect not by spooky spirits and demons.

What stance exactly are you even supporting? A blind religious one? A scientific one? Or are you just here for the kicks of disagreeing with another ATS member for no reason?

When religion was in power people were being burned at the stake for thinking the Earth wasn't in the center of the Universe, the life expectancy was maybe 40 years and people only grew to be a little over five feet tall thanks to terrible nutrition... Yeah, that's far preferable to science

Interesting debate.
I agree that science and religion have lot of common. They have common basic question: Why? But choose different ways how to answer it. At early stages (before modern scientific method was defined) both were holistic: tried to grasp world as whole. Even before modern scientific method was invented there were specializations in science but it was common sense at those days that they are all (counting theology here!) roofed under philosophy.
Today philosophy (humanities) is not "science" under common meaning. Modern natural science somehow escaped from family, where was born. This escape is two-sided: at one hand is modern natural science very effective, at other hand is very dangerous. Both hands have common body: ethics.
From some above posts I understood, that religion is base of ethics. I think this is not right. If I would have really grasp this problem, I'll end up with 100 pages essay. So I'll present just few examples:

1. criminality US/Czech Republic
CZ is highly secular, still crime rate is much lower then in highly religious US
2. 20. century history of Poland/CZ
Poland was and is highly religious country, still share similar history with CZ: Nazi occupation changed by Bolshevik (inner) occupation.
3. mere existence of term "religious war" (there were centuries if this "ethics" here in CZ)

Those examples leads me to conclusion: religions from sociopolitical view are ideologies competing (often bloodily) with other ideologies. Without any discussion I postulate that ideologies may be very dangerous.
Is science ideology? In many respects is. Especially now. Corporations like Monsanto use "science" as ideological club. Marx-Lenin materialism was "scientific worldview". US and Germany eugenics were(are) "scientists" with terrible outcome. On other hand modern science imply on social level self-correcting mechanisms: bad science can not live forever. I'll paraphrase Heidegger here: Truth want to be uncovered. Have Catholic church such mechanisms? I really doubt it. Uhm ... I forgot Holly Inquisition ... That was corrective mechanism of Christianity ...

Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily reflection is occupied with them: the starry heaven above me and the moral law within me.

Immanuel Kant

I'm not against religion/science per se, but I strictly oppose its ideological forms. Both say basically: if we look on phenomenon from our perspective, we gain such meaning of it. There is no non-valid perspective.

Edit to add: Yes, evolution lead to genocide. Without evolution there will be no object nor subject of genocide. Just logic. Reasons of genocides? Not known for me. But from theological point of view arose question: Why our Creator created us with ability and will to do it?

[edit on 14-4-2010 by zeddissad]

reply to post by djmolecular

Denialists replace the open-minded skepticism of science with the inflexible certainty of ideological commitment. It isn't hard to find evidence: the ruinous attempts to wish away the human impact on climate change, for example.

LOL

I guess this guy hasn't heard about climategate, glaciergate, icecapgate, etc.. etc.. etc.. etc..

What a moron.

He's the denialist.

Denying the reality that the scientists have been lying in order to loot the public coffers.

I think the term denialists is great, it fits those who believe in black holes, wimps, machos, multiple dimensions, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, dark flows, cosmic expansion, etc. etc..

Its clear they are in denial that Einstein's theories are a bunch of fairy tale poppycock.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Even though you correct nothing from your earlier nonsense post, I suppose you expect some answer after you took the time to write all this.

I'm sorry how is science killing people en mass every day?

Do you want the in a nutshell version, or an exhaustive recap of 3/4 of the threads on this board?

Most of the people who die everyday are in third world countries many living under religious regimes where science is replaced by superstition and traditional magic.

Look up weasal words on Wikipedia : en.wikipedia.org...:Avoid_weasel_words
Oh really, good to know your factual basis for defending modern science's "wholesome" nature is based on the contrast of it to oppressive third world regimes. You tout religion as the cause of this misguiding diversion, stating the case of your mystery regime as one ruled by ambiguous labels known as "superstition and traditional magic". I'll keep that in mind.

Even here in the States there have been cases of people turning away science in favor or prayer or ritual and then dying (of course).

This statement is priceless. Do you care to elaborate, or shall I?

The only people science has killed were test subjects in the early days when ethics were not set up but the instances of scientific experimentation leading to horrific side effects PALE in comparison to the torture, genocide, and tyranny that religion has been associated with.

Now you're getting somewhere, admittedly it's through psycology over facts. Funny thing is, I thought ethics were around a long, long time. Perhaps the church even used to incorporate ethics in it's science under God, the Creator, but it seems that story had a bad ending. Since were on the topic of fairy-tales here anyway, I have a small one for you. Centuries ago, an evil giant stepped in and formed some places he called universities, then he said that science and ethics must now be separate, and studied separately. But since the giant liked science so much, and detested ethics, he gave them both very very different positions within his new universities. To science he gave his vast stores of wealth, his many children, and much of his attention. But to ethics he gave his anger and his insolence, and kept their classrooms in basement places, full of dark, damp, and cold.The students of science grew up strong and were assigned to important positions, even if they did not do well in their courses. The students of ethics were confused and miserable however, and were left to fend for themselves in the world, even finding their educations left them worse than before they started.

Everyone who objects to science IS anti-science, how else could you possibly describe them? There's a whole group of religious zealots who reject the scientific method and yet still greedily reap the benefits of our scientific civilization (good medicine, better nutrition, longer life, technology, etc). There is also a group who claims that everything in science is some cover-up of lies despite the fact that there is a grueling scientific peer review which means that no theory is put forth as absolute and that things are only accepted by the community when proven by actual evidence. I fail to see how demanding actual evidence is a bad thing.

Objecting to science is anti-science? I think the logical fallicy is to say that people object to science. Science belongs to every last person as a tool to use, and what is missing/what is objected to, is the policy under which that science is used. Break down your labels man, and look past them unless you're simply using them to obfuscate what you're expressing. Your arguements are formless and baseless, they exist only as terms in your mind as expressed above, leaving the reader to only guess at what you're trying to imply. Only your bias comes out : we gather that you really like science, hate religion, consider religions greedy, consider science incomplete, consider science next-to-infallible all the same thanks to peer-editing, and at the end imply that those of religious persuasion do not ask for evidence from their scientific practices.

I'm aware there are elements both inside and outside of religion who are trying to change behavior, gain power or wealth or control. Social engineering isn't exactly a new idea. I have no issue with the average person of any faith, only the zealots who reject science and tout their beliefs as absolute truth. Science does not deal in absolutes, it forms a theory based on evidence but if enough evidence is found to overturn an idea it is overturned.

Thanks for teaching lessons I've already learned, that was aimed to a knee-high. Are you aware there are Christian Scientists, scientists of other faiths who harmoniously incorporate their faith and science into being, and arrive at a sum-greater-than-the-parts result? There are such faith-driven men and women as these to fan even the crustiest mindset into a new flame, but no one with predispositions the size of mountains will have much chance to even draw close. The same barriers of hatred will divideand conquer, insult and subjugate, until all things are closed off except proud, unseeing pig-headedness.

It doesn't take a genius to see that religion doesn't have the answers.

I don't like your answer. Please explain what you mean?

Sure there are a lot of great philosophical ideas in religion but not much about religion has helped us further our understanding of the cosmos and our place in it.

Lol You're rejecting a lot in that generalization. Nevermind man, talk to me again after you've wisened up some. I see only futility in trying to reason with you while you hold your present hatred inside.

reply to post by Northwarden


My original nonsense post as you called it was merely agreeing with the OP by stating that fear of science leads to blind superstition. And that, as it is stated in the OP, will kill us as it has for centuries. The blind ignorance of faith is a tool used to divide and conquer and get us to fight and kill each off. Religion is fine by itself but when used by those in power there is no tool more dangerous.

Religious zealotry deals in myths presented as fact.
Science deals in facts supported by evidence.

That was my entire point ^

In conclusion:

Superstitious anti-science arguments made by religious zealots still frighten me, just as I stated in the OP. The fact that in the modern age when knowledge is a click away people still cling to ideas like demons causing mental illness and the Earth being 6000 years old scares me very much. Many are being misled and brainwashed, others are being willfully ignorant.

Ever see the movie The Mist? It has a good lesson in what happens when superstition takes over our minds and how easily swayed we are by it. Superstition and blind zealotry are bad and scientific progress is responsible for our longer lives and better quality of life ...

Why you disagreed with that is beyond me.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Northwarden

 

Ever see the movie The Mist? It has a good lesson in what happens when superstition takes over our minds and how easily swayed we are by it. Superstition and blind zealotry are bad and scientific progress is responsible for our longer lives and better quality of life ...

I saw it.

Do you mean to say that in those circumstances you could have developed an acceptable and plausible explanation for the giant monsters running around eating people?


*I suppose the first step before formulating any explanation would be to admit that science was wrong and that insect-like creatures of such gargantuan proportions CAN exist in the current atmosphere as can giant octopus monsters, etc.




[edit on 14-4-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1



I was referring to Miss Carmody of course and how easily she formed her murderous little cult ... oops spoiler...

While I'd be scared beepless for sure by the monsters I don't think I'd be sacrificing anyone. I get creeped out enough just hanging around with my fundamentalist Father for too long, let alone someone as off their hinges as Miss Carmody was in the movie.

Its a great look at how things break down... just like The Monsters are Due on Maple Street, if you remember that one

That's one of the negative aspects of relying on science (yes there are a few), once the infrastructure is gone we revert into primitive apes again.