I think he was referring to David, the painter. — Janus
The anti-science responses so far have been trivial — Banno
Knowing stuff is good. Science is about knowing stuff. — Banno
I completely reject the idea of Machiavelli as a figurehead of the Enlightenment. His major work, the Prince - was advice to monarchy on how to retain power. While diabolically clever, there's nothing particularly enlightened about it. — counterpunch
The scheme of the Enlightenment philosophers was roughly this: if they could persuade the rulers to leave them alone to pursue their studies “of the things under the earth and in the heavens” as they wished, free of persecution, the philosophers promised them that their discoveries—those of the nascent “Scientific Revolution”, as Fooloso4 has mentioned—would benefit mankind by offering protection against disease, famine, death from violence, etc, and “ease their estate” generally through the application of the results of that science. — Todd Martin
As others have commented, science is just a tool, it is neither good or bad in itself. — Foghorn
The scheme of the Enlightenment philosophers was roughly this: if they could persuade the rulers to leave them alone to pursue their studies “of the things under the earth and in the heavens” as they wished, free of persecution, the philosophers promised them that their discoveries—those of the nascent “Scientific Revolution”, as Fooloso4 has mentioned—would benefit mankind by offering protection against disease, famine, death from violence, etc, and “ease their estate” generally through the application of the results of that science. — Todd Martin
Not a bad deal, is it? — Wayfarer
That said, science is the poster boy of the rational, no-nonsense mindset that prevails in the West and now also in the East. In that sense, science must be considered good, right? — TheMadFool
I would say our relationship with science is not in a very healthy state. It's too much like the relationship 12th century Catholics had with the Church. — Foghorn
Increasingly we are hearing that science is the source (not solution) of all our problems, - climate change, pollution, technology and the loss of personal liberty. — Tom Storm
Yes, science is the source of climate change and pollution, int the sense that, without it they would not have existed. Science is the source of technology, which is the source of consumerism, pollution, global warming, environmental degradation, soil destruction tion, aquifer destruction, over-fishing of the oceans etc, etc. Science is also the source of increasingly effective technologies that can be used to diminish personal liberty. — Janus
Increasingly we are hearing that science is the source (not solution) of all our problems, — Tom Storm
If we were to edit that claim to read our relationship with science, then the claim has some merit.
Blaming science would be like blaming a hammer for someone's bashed in head. Science is a tool for developing new knowledge. It works. It's us that doesn't work so well. — Foghorn
I don't suppose I can induce you to understand, but there's a difference between an ideological understanding of reality, and a scientific understanding of reality. — counterpunch
Our use of science is the source of technology. We typically seek power to edit our environment, which usually requires knowledge. Science is good at developing new knowledge. The source of technology is our desire to edit our environment. — Foghorn
↪Janus
Yes, science is the source of climate change and pollution, in the sense that, without it they would not have existed. Science is the source of technology, which is the source of consumerism, pollution, global warming, environmental degradation, soil destruction, aquifer destruction, over-fishing of the oceans etc, etc. Science is also the source of increasingly effective technologies that can be used to diminish personal liberty.
— Janus
You haven't got to the root of the problem. Science is not just a tool that can be used for good or ill. Science is also an understanding of reality. — counterpunch
to truly understand human nature, one must have what I would call the “aristocratic experience” — Todd Martin
The most important thing these various philosophers had in common was that they conducted their studies with the pure motive of, as you say Counterpunch, understanding reality...for themselves and their own personal gratification, not necessarily in order to help others. — Todd Martin
The terms “science” and “scientist”, Roman terms, I suspect came into vogue and replaced “philosophy” and “philosopher”, Greek ones, during the Enlightenment, when Latin was the cosmopolitan language of the learned. — Todd Martin
And that’s because the scientific mindset is dominant in secular culture - this is where science has become today’s religion. Not because it is like religion in substance, but because it occupies the role of ‘arbiter of reality’ in the way that religion did previously. — Wayfarer
I really, really do understand that. I make a living as a technical writer, I’ve worked for and with many engineers and software developers. I’m not a rustic peasant, nor an ideologue intent on dragging the world back into medievalism. I really do understand that science and technology are critical to almost every facet of modern life. I comprehend that, understand it, fully appreciate it. — Wayfarer
As regards scientific understanding of reality - science comprises hypotheses and models, which inform and guide technology and further scientific discovery. But as many here have already pointed out, science can be used for good or ill. The decision how to use science, what to research with it, is not itself a scientific question, it is guided by many factors, including curiosity, intuition, patronage, politics, and convention among many other things. Many working scientists are employed by industry for commercial, military and industrial ends. Hopefully they are generally working for positive ends, but there’s no scientific criteria for judging those. That rests on value judgement. — Wayfarer
But you can’t simply assume that it is has an intrinsically privileged point of view. So much remains a question of interpretation, of what the empirical facts mean, and that again is not a matter for science per se. — Wayfarer
I disagree: science is the understanding of certain aspects of reality. Those understandings are not infallible and are always subject to the possibility of falsification. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.