If modern science is so great then how come we are threatening our very existence with technological devices today? — Thinking

It is very evident, that the knowledge of how to make a device precedes the knowledge of how to safely use it. This is mostly because a device must be in use for a period of time before we get an understanding of how it will actually be used. Science itself is very similar, it advances our knowledge at a great speed, and we are very quick to employ the knowledge, without understanding the effects which using that knowledge will have. The destruction of the ozone layer is a good example of this. This makes the ethics of using scientific knowledge very difficult.

Story of Eden. It's not the science it's.. oh never mind. Take joy in the fact we're banned from interstellar travel until further notice and any destruction will be contained. Hopefully.

Humorous. Is it because man started to take things apart and started analyzing it which leads to excavation, rather than elation of nature and life as it is? I think so.

It's true that a lot of the time we can be unaware of the full dangers of using a technology, like the ozone layer example.
But when we do know, the issue is human nature, not science.

If there's an issue with science it is the difficulty of advancing human knowledge now. Many experiments are greatly increasing in expense. And the results they reveal are understood by only people with a postgrad education in a close field.
So the general public often prefer to engage in fantasy; pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and misleading pop articles (e.g. eggs cure cancer or whatever)

We pursue knowledge through science, true. We discover things. Sometimes what we discover is dangerous.

We pursue ends besides knowledge. Sometimes the end we pursue involves using knowledge for the purpose of making money or obtaining power. That often leads to disaster.

Sad, but true.

For one thing, scientists don't mostly run the world. Politicians, lawyers, generals and the rich do. For another, technology is a double-edge sword. Humans choose how they use it.

There are philosophical problems with science in modern culture due to its association with Enlightenment philosophy. The problem is that science assumes a kind of moral authority as an ‘arbiter of what to believe’ - but at the same time, modern scientific methodology can only really consider what is measurable, what is quantifiable, what ‘yields data’. That is why it puts aside any notion of purpose, intentionality and so on. Those are purely methodological steps which are mistakenly then interpreted as ‘statements about reality’ - without taking into account that life, that human existence, is overwhelmingly preoccupied with questions about intentionality and purpose.

What are the problems of modern science? If modern science is so great then how come we are threatening our very existence with technological devices today? Is there a way we can change our modern beliefs in science in order to change the world today? All these questions and more can be discussed........in this discussion. — Thinking

Technology is older than science. We were using tools long before we were basing them on science or driving science to yield them, including tools specifically to kill. Knowledge can't always be held responsible for what humans do with it.

That said, too much science is funded by technology companies and institutions, including military. It would at least help to not make science so dependent on those willing to pay the most, especially when defense is extremely well-funded.

Unfortunately that is the case today. I will say that even if we use science and technology in positive way it would not be a perfect worldview that is beneficial to humans or the planet. It is inherent that all artificially created devices break down over time and are created from the broken parts of nature and the Earth. However the devices and entities of nature are eternal and are capable of recreating themselves through the phenomena of birth and are infinitely more perfect than any device we can create today. This is due to the fact that natures devices are created by a seemingly universal intelligence that is reflected in galaxies and beyond.

So in order to progress humans and their own inherent nature, along with the nature around them it is more important to find every creatures purpose that serves undoubtedly to benefit man. For everything we construct there will always exist a natural analog. An example is that we have created the calculator when most scholars hundreds of years ago were capable of mental calculations at an arguably greater speed than people today. As we perfect living, natural creations it will nonetheless perfect the creator.

The question is not how we can use science in a way to benefit man, but rather how long it will be till these artificial men we are on the way to producing through A.I. research, robots or automatons or whatever else they are being called, will, through their greater durability and intelligence, either enslave or destroy us.

I agree with Stephen Hawking: the greatest threat to mankind is not climate change or nuclear warfare, but rather A.I.

God created man in His own image, and Nietzsche declared God dead; now man is creating digital gods in his image...

modern scientific methodology can only really consider what is measurable, what is quantifiable, what ‘yields data’. That is why it puts aside any notion of purpose, intentionality and so on. Those are purely methodological steps which are mistakenly then interpreted as ‘statements about reality’ — Wayfarer

Science doesn't put anything aside. Science, not some of the people who are doing it, does not have anything to say about reality as such because that is not defined scientifically to be surveyed or to be measurable. If purpose and intentionality could be studied then they would be. Purpose, intentionality, and reality are philosophical constructs in some philosophical languages.

even if we use science and technology in positive way it would not be a perfect worldview that is beneficial to humans or the planet. — Thinking

Is molecular biology not beneficial in having created vaccines for COVID? What about our much beloved smartphones?

Science doesn't put anything aside. — magritte

Of course it does. The first step in studying any subject scientifically is deciding what to exclude.

Purpose, intentionality, and reality are philosophical constructs — magritte

Purpose and intentionality are exhibited by the simplest of creatures. Historically, these were relegated to the domain of 'secondary qualities' by Galileo, hence the widespread view of a Universe 'devoid of purpose'.

That said, too much science is funded by technology companies and institutions, including military. — Kenosha Kid

The Manhattan Project, for example, was huge, and hugely expensive; probably one of the finest examples of a large group of scientists working together toward one goal. Look at the gift it gave us! However, its great success was probably hugely inspirational for the space program which followed, culminating in the Apollo Project, which might have employed even more scientists than the Manhattan Project.

I don't think we get these huge projects of scientists working together toward a common goal anymore, the money is in the hands of private companies, and they compete. Even something like the covid-19 research and vaccine is carried out by numerous different companies in competition.

That's the U.S, where yes its economy is designed to do that it that way, but it isn’t necessary. Japan did it through its Ministry of International Trade and Industry, where government industrial policy was instituted without military spending.

The Apollo project was funded by NASA which was specifically intended to be a non-military, civilian government agency.

even if we use science and technology in positive way it would not be a perfect worldview that is beneficial to humans or the planet.
— Thinking

Is molecular biology not beneficial in having created vaccines for COVID? What about our much beloved smartphones? — magritte

The source and cause of COVID is controversial. I will say to not buy the major narrative media is giving the majority, and to not act out of the fear of it . Virus' for the most part are not a problem in nature and are very beneficial to organisms. Whenever a virus effects a population of deer for example, there is underlying causes that would for example affect the immune system of the subject or an overpopulation. Nature as a whole is very intelligent and has many ploys to restore itself to homeostasis or balance.

I hate to say it but it seems that we are more of a virus to this planet than COVID is a virus for us.

Thinking, you start out with a seemingly straightforward question by someone seemingly interested in the "problems of modern science". And of course there are 'problems'. But then you make a statement like

It is inherent that all artificially created devices break down over time and are created from the broken parts of nature and the Earth. — Thinking

Of course. tools, machines, and products deteriorate.

But then you go on to say

the devices and entities of nature are eternal and are capable of recreating themselves through the phenomena of birth and are infinitely more perfect than any device we can create today. This is due to the fact that natures devices are created by a seemingly universal intelligence that is reflected in galaxies and beyond.

So it would appear that you are more concerned with a 'religious' or 'spiritual' or some such matters more than scientific problems. You don't have much confidence in science at all. So, one wonders, what is your interest in "the problems of science"? It would appear that you have more confidence in "seemingly universal intelligence". Believe what you want, but it would be better if you were more up-front from the get-go about what your position is.

I hate to say it but it seems that we are more of a virus to this planet than COVID is a virus for us. — Thinking

Humans are as much a consequence of evolution as viruses, bacteria, clams, grasshoppers, sparrows, scorpions, kangaroos, and poison ivy. We are part of nature as far as I can tell. Maybe you believe that evolution has a destination, an end, the OMEGA POINT of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?

I

Whenever a virus effects a population of deer for example, there is underlying causes that would for example affect the immune system of the subject or an overpopulation. Nature as a whole is very intelligent and has many ploys to restore itself to homeostasis or balance. — Thinking

I would agree that all of nature is more or less balanced for conditions to be dynamically stable under the circumstances within some limits. The deer population is balanced with the abundance of its food supply. Oak trees go through cycles of massive production of acorn and lean years. Many animals depend on that variance to maintain a sustainable population. People used to be part of that food chain but globalization and technology unbalanced our existence as a species. However, it doesn't take much for more powerful factors like climate change or a supervolcano to wipe out all that balanced stability.

I hate to say it but it seems that we are more of a virus to this planet than COVID is a virus for us. — Thinking

Seems that way.

So it would appear that you are more concerned with a 'religious' or 'spiritual' or some such matters more than scientific problems. You don't have much confidence in science at all. So, one wonders, what is your interest in "the problems of science"? It would appear that you have more confidence in "seemingly universal intelligence". Believe what you want, but it would be better if you were more up-front from the get-go about what your position is. — Bitter Crank

I am giving you a point of view to debate for and against. Also, a lot of what you would call "spiritual" and "religious" is heavily backed up by the science in the more modern day, so try not to be too skeptical as old world-views are changing.

When people linked to genetic science say that there is only a 3% difference between man and chimpanzee, they show an ignorance about the validity of knowledge of genetics. Between human intelligence and animal intelligence there is a global difference that only appears in real experience and anyone can attest to that. But a science, by making a snapshot of reality to answer specific questions, is not able to capture this difference. The scientific process is very simple and ideally mechanized, which produces a lot of results in technological terms but in educational terms the product is weak, not giving science the authority to criticize or overcome the common experience.

To perceive the real world is to perceive possibilities, tensions, expectations. The concept of materialism itself cannot be enunciated without self-contradiction, it cannot even be thought of as a hypothesis. You think there is a material world, and, as we have a brain, we invent things other than the material world, but all that we invent is exactly the presence of the material world.

If reduced to its “material” properties, the world could not even be material. Because what you call material is just an abstract selection of certain properties out of the countless ones that you perceive and that you hypothetically call materials, but that are not perceived separately. They are never perceived separately. All the knowledge that we can acquire from Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge must be obtained through the analysis of real perception, through the analysis of real knowledge, and not through artificial hypotheses.

Real knowledge is that which is obtained in real experience, in actual experience and not in hypothetical experience. What is a scientific experiment? It is a hypothetical experience set up within the realm of real experience and which is only valid within the realm of real experience. When a subject, based on a scientific experience, denies the consistency of the real experience, pretending that the scientific experience has more cognitive validity than the real experience, he is incurring a monstrous self-contradiction. If he actually carried out this experiment, he did it not only within the laboratory, but within reality. Where was his laboratory? If he really did the experiment, he did it within reality. It is only valid when inserted into this field of real experience.

Without this field it has no validity. Never a particular science or the results of all of them can override the common and current perception that we have of reality. We can apprehend, through the analytical examination of the common reception, but we cannot overcome it. Where are we going to overcome it? In the hypothetical world or in the real world?

What Husserl called Lebenswelt — the world of life — in fact, I think this concept is too timid, because Lebenswelt is the only world that exists, and I assure you: the world of scientific experience, considered in itself, does not exist. It only exists as a part of Lebenswelt, which you have decided to look at separately, you are distinguishing mentally, but you are not actually separating. This means that without an Ontology and an Epistemology based on the examination of real experience, no science is worth anything, they only acquire value if properly inserted into this general scheme of reality.

When people linked to genetic science say that there is only a 3% difference between man and chimpanzee, they show an ignorance about the validity of knowledge of genetics. Between human intelligence and animal intelligence there is a global difference that only appears in real experience and anyone can attest to that. — Rafaella Leon

Or maybe they're speaking about the 3% difference between human DNA and chimpanzee DNA, them being geneticists and all.

What Husserl called Lebenswelt — the world of life — in fact, I think this concept is too timid, because Lebenswelt is the only world that exists, and I assure you: the world of scientific experience, considered in itself, does not exist. It only exists as a part of Lebenswelt, which you have decided to look at separately, you are distinguishing mentally, but you are not actually separating. This means that without an Ontology and an Epistemology based on the examination of real experience, no science is worth anything, they only acquire value if properly inserted into this general scheme of reality. — Rafaella Leon

That statement does go to show how important philosophy is so that we treat our experience of reality in the correct ways. Right now the current extremism line of thinking that bred our modern science from our modern philosophy does not seem the right way we should be treating our experience. Our global pollution crises for example. Therefore tracing the problem to its root, there needs to be a fundamental change of sciences worldview today. Similarly with many other subjects as well, such as philosophy and politics.

What are the problems of modern science? — Thinking

The basic problem is that people are putting far too much things in what they regard as "science" and "scientific view". It's either used a sledgehammer or portrayed something with hidden evil intensions. Science is apolitical.

It's just a method.

What are the problems of modern science? If modern science is so great then how come we are threatening our very existence with technological devices today? — Thinking

Since the advent of modern empirical and experimental Science, new Knowledge (What? & How?) is fairly easy to come by. But the Wisdom (Why? & Why Not?) to properly apply that knowledge usually comes from hard experience (negative feedback). The job of Philosophy is to apply untested Knowledge, and unproven Theories, in the form of thought experiments.

Unfortunately, such metaphysical testing doesn't have nearly the impact on human behavior as physical negative feedback. "Once burned, twice shy". The moral lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has put ethical constraints on Nuclear energy that retard both technological progress, and forestall Armageddon. The Nuclear Disarmament Movement is philosophical, not scientific; moral, not technical. :smile:

Einstein on the bomb : Though Einstein worked to warn the world about the perils of nuclear proliferation for the rest of his life, he struggled to make sense of his responsibility.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/06/nuclear-weapons-atom-bomb-einstein-genius-science/

School of Hard Knocks : where you get the grade first, and the lesson later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Hard_Knocks

Leaving out the mental plane, or nonphysical aspect of reality is a great mistake... What can happen but the mental plane runs to seed in proportion to the exploitation of the material? While through STEM (science, technics, engineering, and mathematics) the gaze is turned outward, the inward is in decay. It can't help but be noticed that machine learning has replaced any interest in the phenomena of what would have existed whether or not us humans had. This when only us, the thinking animal, actually has the ability to think, ideate, conceptualize, understand, make meaning, etc. One of the main shortcomings of tech-science: it has no concern for the actual. For whatever reason an emphasis on prediction and repetition have replaced understanding, nothing really repeats inasmuch as the time of an experiment is always different, thus is the space (we're constrained by spacetime in mysterious ways we may never have a grasp on). When, by the beloved peer-review, one scientist attempts to replicate an experiment of another, what he attempts is impossible because he can't take up the same space as other scientists and therefore, is confounded by unrelated spacetime. Science is the most personal activity. It seems in the modern world, scientists have it backwards in seeking to be backed by second-hand information. Truth is first-hand...no one can know it for you. With this in mind, it's clear enough science is going in the wrong direction with so much emphasis on social conformity in peer-review. The Asch Conformity Experiment explained this a long time ago. The unrelenting need for "objectivity" has led scientists to defer to machines as having the ability to circumvent the ground of existence: which is that we ARE NOT separate from the universe: an observation of the world can't be made without your mind being a part of it (machines can't make observations, that takes meaning through conceptualization, very personal).

The problems of science: no science.

The biggest problem science faces is that it is not known by most people.

The second biggest problem is that people who don't know how scientific advances explain things, make their own explanations.

The third biggest porblem of science is philosophy forums on the Internet.

The fourth bigget problem of science is its amorph state; the frontiers of science are a swamp, in which theories sink and emerge, but nobody knows what's below the muddy surface of the quagmire.

The fifth biggest problem of science are humans.

:clap:

If modern science is so great then how come we are threatening our very existence with technological devices today? — Thinking

In essence, because we do not listen to what the scientists say.

The third biggest porblem of science is philosophy forums on the Internet. — god must be atheist

How important we must be!