posted
First things first, let me state that I am a fan of science. That being said, science is not the one and only answer to everything. There is no such thing. We need science just like we need philosophy and art.
Ever heard of the phrase "Can't see the forest for the trees?". Sometimes people can get lost in the details and loose the big picture. This particularly true for science as it is so very subdivided into specialties, as well as that science deals very much with data, variables, control groups, etc, or to put it another way, a lot of details.
I'm not saying that there is something inherently wrong with science or scientists. What I mean is that to be a full rounded human one must hold more then one ideal as important.
A person who ignores science and only thinks in terms of philosophy will not be able to function on any meaningful level (ever read A Confederacy of Dunces?). And conversely, someone who abandons all emotional endeavors in favor of science will be in danger of loosing their humanity. Sometimes the question is should we do this, not can we.
To Rakeesh...I do not mean that understanding devalues things. I do believe that a balance must be struck and anytime we are too over balanced one way or another that we will lose sight of something vital and important.
quote:Personally I think 'wonder' is only valuable if it drives us to attempt (and hopefully succeed) to understand something.
I couldn't disagree with you more. There is a magic to the unknown, to the possible, which sparks the imagination and soothes the soul.
I am not saying that we should be deliberately left in a state of ignorance, but instead we should not only value knowledge.
"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globes of gas atone. Nothing is 'mere'. I too can see the stars on a desert night and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination - stuck on this carosel, my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light... For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined! Why do poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia, man must be silent?" --Richard Feynman
1. He has a point. 2. I notice his particular imaginary antagonists are the poets, not the pious. 3. Why isn't there more poetry about science? Poor Tom Lehrer can't carry the whole bag. Or is there and I missed it? 4. I can't imagine worrying myself much over whether other people are feeling what I want them to feel when I want them to feel it, especially when it comes to their choice of mirabilia.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And conversely, someone who abandons all emotional endeavors in favor of science will be in danger of loosing their humanity.
What you're actually saying is:
quote:someone who abandons all emotional endeavors will be in danger of loosing their humanity.
Which is true (for one definition of human, anyway). But framing the question in terms of "science," you are inherently suggesting that science is for some reason more likely to do this than other things. That science is the *cause*. and if you are going to make statements like that, you need to back them up.
That said, I mostly agree with what mr port just said [edit: 2 posts ago]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:someone who abandons all emotional endeavors will be in danger of loosing their humanity.
This isn't even possible. Short of a stroke affecting parts of the brain, there isn't even a remote danger of human beings suddenly losing all emotions. That's not how people work - emotional endevours are our lives' works. Our driving forces. That someone doesn't say "oooooo" very loudly before looking in a microscope doesn't mean they've turned into a robot.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:3. Why isn't there more poetry about science? Poor Tom Lehrer can't carry the whole bag. Or is there and I missed it?
This is a question I've been trying to answer for the past month. Part of the answer is "there's more than you think." But another part of the answer is "a lot of it kinda sucks" and I am trying to fix that. My goal for the year is to produce/acquire a collection of songs (ranging from funny to serious) that explore the beauty of science and humanity, that are designed to be sung communally.
quote:4. I can't imagine worrying myself much over whether other people are feeling what I want them to feel when I want them to feel it, especially when it comes to their choice of mirabilia.
Would you be worried if it was a common misconception that people who felt the way you do about things *are in danger of losing their humanity?*
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are common misperceptions out there that I belong to a delusional cult that brainwashes people and makes you grown horns. There is a common misperception out that my gender is inherently bad at endeavours requiring intelligence and that my dearest cherished ambition is to provoke desire and after I can't do that anymore, I may as well die. There is a common misperception that I belong to a nation of infidels whose lives are worth nothing. There is a common misperception that my state of origin means I'm an ignorant racist too dumb to notice when I'm being condescended to.
Were that misperception to exist, it would be the least of the lies people tell each other about aspects of me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a question I've been trying to answer for the past month. Part of the answer is "there's more than you think." But another part of the answer is "a lot of it kinda sucks" and I am trying to fix that. My goal for the year is to produce/acquire a collection of songs (ranging from funny to serious) that explore the beauty of science and humanity, that are designed to be sung communally.
My only contribution would be my high school chem's teacher song teaching about moles:
Mass over formula weight That's the way to make the mole Then divide the largest by the smallest Push the little buttons is your goal Multiply it, multiply it, multiply it 'till its whole.
It's not "Ave Maria", but I still remember it and can do the calculations.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
While I am sure you are a pretty pretty girl, I stand by what I said (just because I want you to keep trying).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Where does this idea come from that a scientific understanding of the universe makes things less wonderful and awe inspiring? I direct you to xkcd as definitive proof of my point:
posted
I seem to see many more refuations of the idea that science makes the world less awe-some than actual proponents of that idea.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I highly recommend the book "Science and Poetry" by Mary Midgley. It's a delightful and thought provoking read and gives a great deal of insight on the history and evolution of the divide between the humanities and the physical sciences.
[ April 04, 2011, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
