4 ms·

This is a silly argument. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. All of the negatives you list could be counteracted by giving those involved more knowledge. I'd

by enneff 14y ago

This is a silly argument. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. All of the negatives you list could be counteracted by giving those involved more knowledge. I'd bet that scientifically literate people are less susceptible to "neuromarketing". Or, at least, if the general populace were more well-educated they could create legislation to limit the efficacy of such techniques. The nuclear disasters you mention could all have been averted through a better understanding of risk, materials, procedures, and psychology. These are all scientific fields.

adrianmsmith 14y ago
"This is a silly argument. Science is the pursuit of knowledge." But the original article said more than that, it says "I wouldn't be here without science", implying science leads to positive outcomes. The comment you're replying to simply adds that science can lead to negative outcomes as well. "The nuclear disasters you mention could all have been averted through a better understanding of..." Not "Hiroshima. Fukushima." And if you mean psychology could be studied more to avert the need to use weapons, psychology is not the same type of science as cancer research. We can't conduct experiments e.g. "how will the leaders of NK react, if..." in the same way we can conduct experiments on cancers.
PakG1 14y ago
All of the negatives you list could be counteracted by giving those involved more knowledge. This is a naive argument. Knowledge has no sense of good or bad. It just is. And it can be used for good or bad, depending on who holds it. Whether a corporation sacrificing health of the population in pursuit of profits, a military sacrificing slaughtering innocent members of the enemy in pursuit of victory, or many other things, we have many examples in our world's history where science has been used for bad, sometimes unknowingly and carelessly (or even recklessly), and sometimes knowingly and deliberately.

by enneff 14y ago

adrianmsmith 14y ago

"This is a silly argument. Science is the pursuit of knowledge." But the original article said more than that, it says "I wouldn't be here without science", implying science leads to positive outcomes. The comment you're replying to simply adds that science can lead to negative outcomes as well. "The nuclear disasters you mention could all have been averted through a better understanding of..." Not "Hiroshima. Fukushima." And if you mean psychology could be studied more to avert the need to use weapons, psychology is not the same type of science as cancer research. We can't conduct experiments e.g. "how will the leaders of NK react, if..." in the same way we can conduct experiments on cancers.

PakG1 14y ago

All of the negatives you list could be counteracted by giving those involved more knowledge. This is a naive argument. Knowledge has no sense of good or bad. It just is. And it can be used for good or bad, depending on who holds it. Whether a corporation sacrificing health of the population in pursuit of profits, a military sacrificing slaughtering innocent members of the enemy in pursuit of victory, or many other things, we have many examples in our world's history where science has been used for bad, sometimes unknowingly and carelessly (or even recklessly), and sometimes knowingly and deliberately.