Science delusion?

[Khandro]

Despite millions (billions?) of pounds spent on funding prestigious institutions and mega-projects, ask what these scientific 'breakthroughs' add up to and clear answers seem elusive.
By the time science has (it hopes) solved the big questions of the origin of the Universe and how the galaxies and our Earth were formed, could what comes after be an anticlimax, and of no relevance whatsoever to the condition of humanity?

[joko]

well what about the money wasted on religion?
over the years it must be well into the billions.

money spent running, churches, mosques, etc heating and lighting them, paying the religious leaders, printing bibles, korans etc, ceremonies etc...

why not sell all the paraphenalia inside these places - gold icons etc etc and use that to help feed them?

lets turn all mosques, churches and the vatican into a giant hostels for the homeless and sell off all the lavish stuff in inside...?
that would feed a few starving people.

i am being facetious of course, but there is just as much 'frivolous waste' in religion as in science ... at least with science we may get something good out of it at the end - rather than the disappointment and nothingness of religion

[Joolee1980]

What are the "these scientific breakthroughs" you refer to in your question?

[jomifl]

Millions(billions?) of pounds are spent every year on the acquisition of of prestigious works of art and university art courses. Should I complain? some of that money could be spent on prestigious scientific research projects which might have a benefit to humanity.

[Khandro]

jomifl; In the last 2020 million years it has been estimated that there has been around 40 asteroids collisions with the Earth capable of making a crater larger than 20 miles, I agree that they will not have fallen at regular intervals, but it averages out at about one every 50 million years. My common sense, which you question, tells me that this is not one of humanities present greatest threats.

[jomifl]

Khandro, don't know the size frequency distribution of asteroids but my commonsense tells me that an asteroid that produces a crater 20 miles across would be a disaster for a lot of the life on the planet. I would hazard a guess that smaller asteroids capable of producing a crater only 1 mile across would be about 1000 times more frequent ie. every 50,000 years. Now I'm not worried sh1tless by the odds but that it will happen is a near certainty and the results will be disastrous for mankind. Every 50,000 years doesn't mean it won't happen for 50,000 years it could happen next week, then a bit of a wait for the next one :-)

[Khandro]

To put it all in context, we, (me and thee) won't survive the 21st century, but along with Martin Rees, I'm worried that neither will anyone else. He says ' I think it is most unlikely that we will wipe ourselves out completely, but the risk of a global nuclear war should not be dismissed.' His greatest fear is that a small band of fanatics - he calls them the global village's 'village idiots' - will get hold of world-altering technology. 'And their idiocy could have global consequences if they are schooled in the kind of biotechnology that may be developed in the coming decades.'

It's hardly a reassuring outlook, but I think asteroid attacks are somewhat low on the agenda.

[jomifl]

Khandro, I share your concern about the 'global village idiots' and agree that they constitute a far greater threat than an errant asteroid. We have to be vigilant in all directions.

[Old_Geezer]

Folk have worried themselves about the end of the world since humans were able to think that deeply. It's as well to discover the risks, but unwiseto argue against the way one finds out about them, and how one might tackle them. Besides genies can not be put back into bottles; and either your culture discovers something or you leave it to another to get the edge on you.

[Khandro]

Of the new book by Rupert Sheldrake; 'The Science Delusion' it has been said, "The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality. The fundamental questions are answered, leaving only the details to be filled in. In this book, Dr Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows that science is being constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The 'scientific worldview' has become a belief system. All reality is material or physical. The world is a machine, made up of dead matter. Nature is purposeless. Consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain. Free will is an illusion. God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls.
Sheldrake examines these dogmas scientifically, and shows persuasively that science would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun."
To anyone believing in any of the dogmas above, all I can say is, go read - you might be surprised!

[vascop]

I have looked at Sheldrake's website. Didn't read it in detail, but first impressions are that he is a total nob head, as Brian Cox would say.

[jomifl]

Science should above all be fun but to dip into the world of thought for a moment I think the 'scientific world overview' as summarised is mostly realistic save for a few small quibbles. The scientific method etc. still seems to work OK. If Rupert Sheldrake's innovative ideas have any merit they will by the process of natural selection be propagated until they in turn are replaced by more innovations.

[jomifl]

Khandro, I supect you understand science as much as I understand art :-)

[Khandro]

vascop ; //I have looked at Sheldrake's website. Didn't read it in detail, but first impressions are that he is a total nob head,//

That's a pity, because he sees you as something of a role model.

[jake-the-peg]

Frankly I really can't be bothered to read yet another of these ludicrous websites or books - the place is teeming with them telling people what they want to hear.

They usually start with a "straw man" argument about a mechanistic Universe and go on with some twaddle about quantum mechanics often with the many worlds interpretation.

They'll normally find it impossible to resist some semi-mystical quote from Einstein because although he's been dead half a century most people still think he was the greatest genius to have trodden the Earth.

I personally think a lot of it comes down to people who have been unable or unwilling to dedicate the many years of learning needed to reach a proper scientific understanding of current learning.

They resent the authority of those who have and like to think that they are somehow more knowledgeable.

The best vehicle for this is from something inherent about them, something "spiritual" open to all - it's a deeply democratic notion that true knowledge is open to all who open up to receive it.

It's also profoundly wrong

Knowledge is hard won and there are no shortcuts - you have to work for it it doesn't come from sitting under a tree chanting

[jomifl]

Khandro, in your (intellectually unencumbered) attempt to be offensive to Vascop you have been cavalier with the truth to devise a not very clever insult. Therein lies the difference between your philosphy and the philosophy of science, the truth is inviolate, mess with it at your peril. If you know any history you will understand.

[solvitquick]

Khandro, when I read your question, I believed you were anti-science but reading your later comments I do not believe you are. Indeed I may be a contributor who agrees with you. It depends on whether you are grateful for the few examples below: (i) based on the early research of Edward Jenner's research of cowpox/smallpox, the World Health Organisation's expensive funding of the world-wide elimination of Smallpox; (ii) Fleming, Chain and Florey's discovery of our first antibiotic Penicillin; (iii) Banting & Best's discovery of Insulin, leading to Diabetic Management; (iv) Double Nobel prize-winner, Fred Sanger's discovery of the way to sequence proteins and DNA; (v) The discovery of Sreptomycin as the first means of treatment of Tuberculosis leading to eventual virtual elimination of TB: (vi) NASA and USSR [now RUSSIA]'s exploration of our OWN SOLAR SYSTEM; (vii) the recent government agreement to fund a unique agreement of a collaborative agreement by our greatest competitive drugs companies to tackle the problem of "Superbug" Resistance to antibiotics.
These are pragmatic examples apart from many examples already correctly cited above.
I hope you are for all of these Khandro. HOWEVER I AGREE WITH YOU OVER ALL THE NONSENSICAL "RESEARCH" INTO THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE: indeed all related projects. Typical is the multinational project on the France/Swiss border: The Large Hadron Collider, meant to identify the theoretical Higgs Boson - so far failed - even if it mattered!
None of this waste of resource will save a life, help make a better mouse trap or anything worthwhile.
Good Science Research has always be feet-on the ground and pragmatic about what's happening in the real world even if future uses have not been identified completely.
I hope this is your message Khandro!

[Old_Geezer]

Evidence of a problem needs to be strong, convincing, to change minds, or else the prevailing belief would be changing all the time. But that said there are plenty of examples where an old belief has been abandoned in favour of an explanation that better fits the facts.

Dogma is not dogma just because someone says it is so. I'll not jump to support someone else's belief simply because they indulge in such name calling.

Besides many of the things criticised aren't even scientific beliefs.

[jabuchanjx]

They wish to disprove the bible and undermined the belief of a higher being. Poring so much money into this type of research will have no effect of helping anything in todays life. (if they ever get any type of an answer). Its like my government spending 1/2 a million on research of a shrimp running on a tread mill!!! That is a true money grant the US paid. Just what does that help or prove?

[Old_Geezer]

You would need to ask those who petitioned for a budget to do the investigation as to what they hoped to prove. You have a link to the research ?

[jomifl]

Jabu, How does putting a shrimp on a treadmill disprove the bible?