I think he was referring to David, the painter. — Janus

You are probably right, but his argument is still weak. Not only Michelangelo's David, but the Greek sculptures show attention to anatomy.

Aristotle dissected animals. Galen dissected animals. It was not, as he claimed, something that started during the Enlightenment.

I agree, but the divide or conflict, if there is one, is between institutionalized religion and science.

Yes, I have no argument there!

The premise "science is a good thing" could use some refinement. Good for what?

If the goal is the development of new knowledge, then science is clearly a good thing. If the goal is enhancement of the human experience, or the survival of humanity, then the question becomes more complicated.

The anti-science responses so far have been trivial — Banno

Part of the problem may be in the question. As others have commented, science is just a tool, it is neither good or bad in itself.

Hammers are a common carpentry tool. Are we pro-hammer or anti-hammer? This is not a very useful way to consider hammers.

Does this help? What is our relationship with science? What is the quality of that relationship? Is it simplistic, or sophisticated, etc?

Knowing stuff is good. Science is about knowing stuff. — Banno

The premise "knowing stuff is good" would seem to be based on the assumption that we are mature enough to successfully manage any amount of knowledge, and thus power.

A premise "knowing some stuff is good" seems very reasonable. To expand on that without limit seems reasonably questioned.

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

I don’t know enough about this; but I suspect that it was Machiavelli’s suggestion that Fortune can be overcome—at odds with ancient philosophy’s belief that She cannot, but must be accepted on Her own terms—that resulted in the Enlightenment.

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. This was at odds with with the ancient attitude toward philosophy, exemplified by Archimedes who, according to Plutarch, destroyed all his manuscripts describing his practical discoveries, machines of war, etc, as being beneath the dignity of publication and posterity because of their practical as opposed to theoretical nature.

Simply put, the philosophers said to the rulers, “Harken to us and quit listening to the Pope. He may appeal to the ppl by talking about heaven and hell, but the truth is everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. We know how to keep ppl from dying and make their lives easier here on earth, and if you leave us alone, we’ll do our deep thinking, and what we discover will benefit not only them, but also you, because you were wise enough to neither kill nor exile us as former unenlightened rulers did, but instead left us alone to practice our philosophy; and that will endear you to the ppl and cause them to support you against the church and the nobles”.

In other words, the philosophers became transigent, willing to compromise with the arbitrary rule of tyrants by buying them off. This their ancient kin were either unable or unwilling to do: unable, because science had not progressed far enough—though I suspect that it had: Archimedes’ war machines were quite impressive—unwilling, because they did not believe that Fortune could be overcome...

...the Enlightenment philosophers’ announcement that Fortune could indeed be overcome was good news to both the ppl in general, and to the rulers whose rule could now be based on the favor of the ppl (as opposed to cow towing to the priests and noblemen). By contrast, Plato’s appeal to the aristocracy in his writings in response to Socrates’ unjust execution involved no quid pro quo: it was rather a rhetorical appeal to that class in order to establish his preceptor among the heroes; to make Socrates the new Achilles in their eyes.

That is why the modern philosopher, the scientist in his lab-coat, is ambiguous: does he really only want to discover the truth about nature, or is his real motive the profit of mankind? Can it be both at the same time? Fauci is impressive, but he seems not to take the economy sufficiently into account. Does he take account of anti-vax sentiment? If he does, it’s not according to the principles of his science. Socrates would have looked at both sides of the issue from a much broader perspective.

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?

Not a bad deal, is it? — Wayfarer

It's not a bad deal only if it delivers, without simultaneously delivering a whole raft of negative outcomes.

As others have commented, science is just a tool, it is neither good or bad in itself. — Foghorn

A surgeon's keen scalpel can neatly cut out a tumor; taken to the jugular, it's a different story. :up:

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?

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

Insofar as that occurred, it is a bad deal.

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.

A scientific understanding of reality was supressed by accusations of heresy, even while science as a tool, was used to drive the industrial revolution.

That's the mistake we're still making today.

The G7 are meeting now, to discuss climate change - and seem to think that, having admitted the bare fact of climate change, they can and should then act on that bare fact - as their ideological interests dictate!

The consequence is sub optimal technologies, that won't meet our energy needs; that imply authoritarian government imposing green poverty as a matter of policy, and so set a course for economic, political and environmental failure.

Looking at the problem in terms of a scientific understanding of reality, this is completely unnecessary. There's limitless amounts of clean energy available from the massive heat energy of the earth itself, that might be used to extract and sequester atmospheric carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate sea-water to irrigate land, recycle, and so on.

Using science as a tool, while supressing science as an understanding of reality to maintain religious, political and economic ideology - unreformed in relation to truth, is a very bad deal indeed. Monkeys with machine guns, bad!

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

To me, the simplistic nature of the question is a problem. Debating whether science is good or bad is like debating whether religion is good or bad, or whether human beings are good or bad.

I do think our relationship with science can be labeled good or bad, just as a relationship with religion or human beings can be. 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.

We imagine a great divide between religion and science, a topic of incessant fascination on philosophy forums. What I see is that much the same mindset we used to aim at religion has just been redirected at science. Science is the highest ranking authority, science will provide the answers, science will lead us to the promised land, science is the one true way, scientists are the new holy clergy etc.

We're like children who want to believe their parents are kind and all powerful etc, so that we the children will be safe. When our first set of parents gets divorced and discredited, we aim the same needs and desires at the new parents. A better plan would be to grow up, and realize that all parents have their pros and cons.

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

That is certainly a very common view. I think it misses something. I would argue that the average person knows and cares little for science and often fears it (atom bombs/climate change/whatever). Over the years there's been a plethora of news articles about why people ignore or hate science. 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.

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.

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

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.

Science as an understanding of reality was suppressed - even while science as a tool was used to drive the industrial revolution. That - ideological mis-application of technology is the cause of climate change and pollution, and the proof of this is that, scientifically and technologically, climate change and pollution are not necessary!

We used the tools without reading the instructions. That's the problem. If we put the science out front, we can follow along very profitably, but if profit leads the way, we cannot secure the future.

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.

Science is the source of technology — Janus

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.

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

The salient point is people disparage science and aren't interested in the subject - I find that interesting in a so called science obsessed society.

G7 to agree tough measures on burning coal to tackle climate change
By Dulcie Lee & Joseph Lee
BBC News
Published 1 hour ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57456641

Again with the same green commie fallacy that sustainability requires sacrifice - imposed by authoritarian government. Malthusians to a man!

Malthus was wrong. Just as we invented tractors and fertilizers, and food production far outpaced population growth, by applying the right energy technology we can transcend the limits to growth equation.

Harnessing (effectively) limitless clean energy from magma, we can defeat climate change; not merely mitigate it, but overcome it - and allow for a favourable balance between environmental sustainability and human welfare, going forward from where we are.

There's no need for authoritarian governments imposing energy poverty to reduce demand if economic activity were based on plentiful clean energy. It's there, the big ball of molten rock beneath our feet contains limitless high grade clean energy, surely not impossible to harness in face of this global existential threat.

Burn less coal - and make us pay more for energy for the sake of that sacrifice! That's the height of their ideologically limited ambitions!

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

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.

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.

And whether science sees things as they truly are - that is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. You’ll be aware that there are huge controversies over the interpretation of quantum physics, there are enormous anomalies in physical cosmology, and many unsolved questions and profound conundrums in many fields of science. Some will be solved, some might be insoluble, but that is really not the point. The ‘scientific worldview’ now is vastly different to the ‘scientific worldview’ of 1920 and it will probably be vastly different again in 2120. Science is not arriving at complete enlightenment about the nature of reality anytime soon, and maybe never. Not that this actually matters from a practical point of view, many things can be done in its absence. 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.

Here's an example of how the challenges presented by science arise not from science itself, but from our relationship with science.

Knowledge development feeds back on itself, leading to an accelerating rate of knowledge development. As example, once we learned how to build computers we could then use the computers to enhance research in to many other topics. AI will presumably further accelerate the knowledge development process.

It seems important to reflect on what acceleration entails. It seems to mean that we will be developing ever more knowledge at an ever faster pace. And, ever more knowledge at an ever faster pace will often translate in to ever more power delivered at an ever faster pace.

Such a process promises to bring ever more benefits at an ever faster pace, further adding to the many proven benefits we've already received, so naturally this is an appealing prospect.

So what's the problem?

An embrace of such an accelerating knowledge development process would seem to be built upon a typically unexamined assumption that human beings are capable of successfully managing ever more power delivered at an ever faster pace, seemingly without limit.

Is it true that human beings can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate? Any amount of power? Any rate? If not, then doesn't an ever accelerating knowledge explosion present a significant challenge to our future?

============

Here's a concrete example to illustrate. As you likely know, Jennifer Doudna recently won the Nobel Prize for her work on developing CRISPR, technology which makes gene editing considerably easier, and thus more accessible to more people. One of her often stated goals is to "democratize" CRISPR, that is, make it widely available.

While CRISPR is probably still too complex to be universally accessible, the stated purpose of the project is to make it ever more accessible to ever more people.

Doudna's team allowed me to play the role of philosopher on their Facebook page, and politely challenge this game plan, almost daily for about a month. And then without warning all my posts vanished.

https://www.facebook.com/igisci/?ref=page_internal

Point being, here's a leading scientist with a game plan that seems ripe for challenge, and yet challenge is not really allowed. I politely asked them to engage the challenges, and they politely declined, in spite of their repeated statements regarding the importance of dialog with the public.

Doudna has good intentions. She's definitely not evil, and need not be demonized. And the Nobel Committee concluded she is an excellent scientist, which I see no reason to question.

But in spite of good intentions and great scientific skill, is she in reality a lousy philosopher? Is her relationship with science in need of serious repair?

QUESTION: Do you want millions of Trump voters cooking up new life forms in their garage workshops? That's not possible today, but that's what's coming, as led by science experts. Sound like a good plan to you?

Yes, it's science.

But is it reason?

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.

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

That's not exactly how I'd put it, but I don't disagree.

↪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

I think you have gotten to the root here, Mr. Contrapuncte. Allow me approach this situation from a linguistic perspective...

...the understanding of reality according to reason was an invention (and I use that term in the Roman sense of a “discovery”) of the ancient Greeks, who didn’t call it “science”, of course, but rather, “philosophy”. Later, when a distinction was made between, say, a Thales and a Socrates, the term “natural philosopher” was used to describe the former. 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.

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. This indicated that the natural philosopher had replaced the philosopher as the paradigm of the thinker. Philosophy eventually became relegated to “the humanities”, a conglomerate of disciplines that are supposed to elevate and enrich the human soul, but which got placed on the back-burner in favor of the “hard” sciences, those that could faithfully predict outcomes and that could conduce to the material prosperity of the plebs. When science did venture out into the arena of the things of the soul, it did not get named according to its blood ancestry, as “philosophy”, but according to its Latinized version, the “social” SCIENCES.

The Enlightenment project which appealed to the masses over the heads of the kings and barons and priests and taught us the prejudice that all men are created equal not only compromised the ppl by conducing to a depreciation of high culture, it also divided the thinkers, the very ones who initiated this project, into separate camps, into “scientists” and “philosophers” who have arguably different motives.

This whole artificial distinction between science and philosophy has something to do with the loss or banishment of the aristocracy: to truly understand human nature, one must have what I would call the “aristocratic experience”. For though it not be hard science, nevertheless it is necessary to complete our understanding of ourselves.

to truly understand human nature, one must have what I would call the “aristocratic experience” — Todd Martin

Laughable.


To truly understand human nature, one must have what I would call the “disabled experience”. It's the bungled and botched who know where it's at. Chinless numbskulls be damned.

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

However, as the 20th C European philosophers discerned, the sense in which modern science frames the question of ‘what is real?’ has a distinguishing characteristic. That is the division of phenomena into the realms of primary and secondary attributes, on the one hand, and the division of subject from object, on the other. The implications of this division are articulated in Husserl’s posthumously-published book The Crisis of the European Sciences, but the theme is carried further in later phenomenological literature. The criticism here is that science is no longer concerned with the philosophical question of the nature of being or human existence, but with the manipulation and mastery of nature for human purposes (whilst at the same time denying the reality of purpose in a transcendent or teleological sense.)

I think the point about this, as that these divisions are so thoroughly embedded in our culture, that we tend to look through them. It’s very difficult to look at them. Already earlier in this thread, some have insisted that there can be no such thing as ‘scientism’, on the grounds that science is simply the unclouded perception of reality. The only problem can ever be not understanding this fact, or failing to recognise its truth. 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. But the philosophical criticism of scientism is something outside this philosophy’s terms of reference.

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

The term ‘scientist’ came into vogue around the 1830’s in the salon of Charles Babbage, who is credited, along with Ada Lovelace, with being the original inventor of what was to become the computer. (Source - Walter Isaacson, The Innovators.)

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

Yes, agreed. To call science a religion is to bend the word religion too far. But it seems completely fair to claim our relationship with science is quite similar to the relationship we've long had with religion. I came up with the phrase "science clergy" not to describe scientists so much as our relationship with them. The term applies to scientists too, to the degree they share that relationship.

Dawkins comes to mind here, but there are many examples across the net, in my experience. Dawkins assumes that because he is an expert in some narrow field of technical study, he is also an expert on reason, and religion, and probably many other things. That is, he's not content to just be a great scientist, he apparently wishes to promote himself beyond that to some kind of High Ranking Authority, with a capital "A". That is, much the same role the clergy used to inhabit when they were the only educated people in the culture.

Science does what we ask it to do, it develops new knowledge. So in that sense, "science is a good thing". A tool that works, I don't see a problem here.

Our relationship with science seems something else entirely.

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

You say you understand, but the point is not that:

"science and technology are critical to almost every facet of modern life."

The point is that there's a difference between an ideological understanding of reality, and a scientific understanding of reality.

Do you understand that?

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

No, you do not! Immediately, you reduce science to a loose collection of tools to use for your own ends! And that is the very reason we are threatened with extinction. Using science as a tool with no regard to the understanding of reality science describes, allows science to be used for ill.

We can argue about the objective fact/ subjective value - is/ought nature of sustainability if you like, but we hardly need to derive moral order from fact to prioritise applying clean energy technology over burning coal, for instance!

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

Yes, you can assume science has an intrinsically privileged point of view, and you do so all the time!

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

To suggest that science can only be valid knowledge if it is a complete description of reality is incorrect. As a matter of methodology, all scientific knowledge is held to be provisional in lieu of the possibility of further evidence - that may as yet, be unaccounted for. That's only good and proper. However, to imply therefore that science doesn't know anything, or that scientific knowledge claims are uncertain, is to misunderstand.

I ask that you compare a scientific understanding of reality, with an ideological understanding of reality. One is factual, the other conventional. In one, the world is made up of sovereign nation states in political and economic competition. God, flags and money. This is the reality you see; and it's on this basis we develop and apply technologies - and what I'm saying is, an ideological worldview excludes possibilities that exist, only if one adopts a scientific worldview.

The world described by science is a single planetary environment; occupied by human beings, who are all members of the same species, and presumably, have a common interest in sustainability! The earth is a big ball of molten rock that we could tap into, to meet all our energy needs, and more!