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?

[Khandro]

solvitquick; Yes.
jomifl; From your usual position as a spokesman for 'science', up there on your high horse, you attack, but contribute little. You wish to defend those who are confused about facts, and others who refute without enquiry.

[jomifl]

I'm not responsible for your perceptions Khandro. With us both on high horses you would think we would have similar vewpoints, however we seem to be looking in different directions. Thank you for telling me what my wishes are, I'll return the compliment some time. Meanwhile could you say what you mean without resorting to insinuation and vague inuendo then perhaps we will have something to discuss.

[jomifl]

The UK has spent less on CERN than Max Factor and Rimmel spent on advertising eye makeup in 2007.

[Khandro]

jomifl, It may well be right that I too am on a high horse, but I think mine is several hands shorter than thine. It appears to me you defend posts; 11:34 Sat. 26th of May, to which I find it difficult to avoid jocularity, describing it as by the intellectually unencumbered, and 17:12 Wed. 30th May - after a cursory look at a website, he enlists the name of Brian Cox to give credence, without knowing what B.Cox. thinks about Sheldrake my joke about role-models. Most surprising though is 20:27 Wed. 30th May, this poster I have some respect for, but he dismisses my quoted source as ludicrous, along with the confession that he hasn't even seen it!
'Show me your friends, and ............' :-)

[solvitquick]

Thank you Jomifl for your info about UK/CERN/Max Factor/Rimmel investment which I believe supports my own and Khandro's stance. At least the cosmetic firms are spending their own money and profiting from their investment. What's the UK got back from CERN?
Also, you quote only the UK investment but CERN and similar pie in the sky projects are a massive global cash-drain on a world in financial crisis!

[Khandro]

Thank you Katiekonker for your helpful contribution.

[jomifl]

Solvitquick, where do you think the cosmetic industry's money comes from? The point that I was making though apparently not pointed enough was that the CERN budget is a drop in the ocean compared with expenditure on luxury goods. There is more money spent on mobile phones every year in the UK than the entire CERN budget. We managed perfectly well without mobile phones......

[jomifl]

Khandro, If you want to call someone a dimwit why don't you have the courage to do so, instead of hiding behind phrases like 'intellectually unencumbered,
Re. Rupert Sheldrake, if you are taken in by his nonsense then you are a dimwit. In your world of art how long does it take you to realise that a painting lacks merit? Do you have to examine every brush stroke? No? Similarly pseudo-science is easily recognised.
I suggest you follow Katiekonkers advice

[Khandro]

jomifl, There you go again, huffing and puffing without substance. Please give an example of R.Sheldrake's 'nonsense'.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Money for research? - certainly, but let us address first and foremost the problems humanity is suffering here on Earth first.//

This is confusing. You don’t want research to stop, but you want to cure the ills of the world before spending any more money on it, which must mean you want research to stop until the ills of the world have been cured. What exactly do you want?

[jomifl]

Khandro, construct a rational argument to support your opinions and I will respond. You could start by explaining Sheldrake's revolutionary discoveries to those of us who are to encumbered by reality to appreciate them fully.

[Khandro]

naomi: I see how you have interpreted my badly written sentence, I take your point, apologies. What I'm saying is that there must be research (natch!) but let it be biased toward problems to aid humanity and all life on the planet Earth. As I have said earlier; there are vast sums being spent on trying to discover the origins of the universe etc. and even if we did, (which I personally doubt) might that be of much help, when some think that mankind will be lucky to survive the century.

[naomi24]

But surely we don’t want to halt progress, do we? That amounts to stifling knowledge. Isn’t it ultimately beneficial to mankind to understand how the universe works? You’re concentrating on ‘now’, but I think we have to cast our minds much further than that. Stephen Hawking, among others, says that eventually mankind will have to evacuate earth and move home, but without continuing research that will be impossible. If we take your route, we may well end up with healthy, well-fed people, but if indeed the planet is doomed, there will be no hope for their future at all.

[Khandro]

The planet isn't doomed - well not for a very long time - but if we carry on as we are, it is US that will go the way of countless other species. Evacuating the Earth for another planet is hubristic nonsense.

[naomi24]

//Evacuating the Earth for another planet is hubristic nonsense. //

If that's true, perhaps before reaching his conclusion, Stephen Hawking should have consulted you, Khandro.

[Khandro]

Good idea naomi, but I doubt if he would listen to me any more than you do :-) One thing S.H. and I do agree on though, is that if we find there is life out there, we would be well advised to leave it alone.

[naomi24]

Khandro, I do listen to you, but I think your ideology, whilst a noble concept, is unrealistic.