Ignorance of science often seems to turn people against science in a knee-jerk sort of manner. Technology, the application of science, benefits everyone on a daily basis in ways ranging from medicine, to eyewear, to information to defend individual rights, and more. Yet, technology, and the science behind it is often villified. This seems akin to situations wherein a celebrity is exhalted for their humanitarian efforts, but people pounce on the celebrity like vultures when one mis-statement is posted in the media. So, what do you think: is science "evil" incarnate and the cause for great trepidation about the next dawn?
2006-12-06
07:41:57
·
8 answers
·
asked by
William P
3
in
Society & Culture
➔ Other - Society & Culture
Interesting how technology and science are often confused, as it is so easy to do. Cloning is an application of science using particular technology, but cloning, in and of itself, is not necessarily science. Indeed a lab mouse clone for medical research is far different than a pet dog cloned for a millionaire at a private, COMMERCIAL firm.
To Jenn: The use of celebrities in the question was there by way of analogy and did not imply a direct link between science and famous people. I think perhaps you misread or misunderstood the context of the materials presented.
2006-12-06
09:33:36 ·
update #1
A fear of the unknown is indeed normal / natural to our human condition, but science is meant of expand into the unknown, mysterious realms of nature and discover their workings. This means that there is less unknown in nature, and hence less to be feared. Scientists are the pioneers opening this frontier and paving the way for the rest of us to homestead in the comfort of the technology that developes therefrom. A different path might be to live in mud huts with a life expectance of 25 years, no medical system, and the fear of the dark outside the fire light. The Dark Ages of Europe must have been a fun period, eh?
2006-12-06
09:37:28 ·
update #2
STOP. I DID NOT state that science is "evil incarnate". That is a gross misreading and misrepresentation of my views on this topic. I am a huge booster of science and a rereading of the question is highly warranted by anyone who would think otherwise.
2006-12-06
09:39:19 ·
update #3