For those of you who DO value scientific progress -- at what point do you disregard it, and for what reason?

Answer 1

I'm unclear of context... AFAIK, I don't / can't "disregard" it. There's *nothing supernatural* I accept - from Gods to luck.

Answer 2

There are times when "scientific progress" is erroneous, and it is at those times that I disregard it. Some examples - cold fusion, the early Greeks believing that there are only four elements, the idea that the Sun revolves around the earth. Don't kid yourself, just as in the past science was mistaken, there are things taken for granted today that will be disproved a few centuries from now.

Answer 3

I don't disregard any scientific progress. I've figured out that I don't completely understand anything. I gather information, be it scientific or religious, and make adjustments to previous beliefs accordingly. Then I continue to look for further information that could lead to a clearer understanding than I currently have. In short, I keep an open mind.

Answer 4

I can't think of a specific situation that would call for disregarding scientific progress. We may face ethical decisions in which we *choose* not to use certain technology, but to deliberately turn away from progress doesn't sound like a good idea. Ever.

Answer 5

I don't disregard science as a way to knowledge at all. Others have mentioned things that are not about science, such as ethics, public policy and technology. Science is just about knowledge. If there are experiments that we shouldn't do for ethical reasons, it's not science that says do them anyway. Science works with the data that we supply it. It is a method to gain knowledge. That's all.

My guess is that the questioner has a scenario in mind that he's not sharing, something that would make this question more meaningful. I hate when questioners believe in telepathy. There is no such thing, you know. Researchers have looked for it scientifically.

Answer 6

At first I was going to say I never disregard it, because even in the midst of its failures, something can always be learned from science. But then I returned to reality.

Science that progresses at an ethical cost to life cannot be condoned. The ends cannot justify the means. The problem is, we still can't agree on what is ethical, so I guess science will just have to continue to stumble along, and we'll each have to continue to judge it on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I weight costs vs benefits because to ninja, the ends do justify the means (cloaked grin.)

Answer 7

When it becomes politicized I think that I have good reason to second guess it. Like Global Warming.

When the Global Warming Activists hit the street and conducted demonstrations headed by a politician, I knew that I was on the right track. Politicians want power and influence. Older career politicians desire a legacy. Those are the one's to watch out for the most. Science is but a new stage on the political scene to control for the gains of politicians.

Now there are some scientists that do not conduct themselves in that manner. It is those scientists that have clout with me, as long as I can not percieve a political angle on their 'study'.

Answer 8

Progress is good, but people are biased. I find that a lot of things I took for granted growing up just simply aren't true. We learned scientific facts that are now obsolete.

Point being that science changes all the time ... so present me with something new and I'll wait for the revised version in 10 years.

Answer 9

When it attempts to explain something unexplainable. For a while now there has been an attempt by many scientist to come up with a universal theory for everything. This is certainly an example of scientific oversimplification. Sometimes science can become to scientific if that makes any sense. We function in a world that is for the most part pretty simple. Human behavior cannot be measured with numbers or with equations. There is a term for this, can't remember what, I guess you can call it greedy science.

Answer 10

At no point, because it makes no claims that can't be verified.

It is the agendaless pursuit of knowledge and understanding for the sake of knowledge and understanding.

If this knowledge and understanding contradicts religious beliefs, or is used for less than moral purposes [often with a religious premise], it is purely circumstantial.

There is more to learn about the REALITY of our world and the universe, and that is the exciting bit. There is already more accumulated knowledge and factual data that any one mind can comprehend, hence the many fields of specialisation, which incedently all cross reference each other and concurr with the mainstream scientific concepts of the natural world.
Explain that christians..!!

There is no scientific agenda to disprove god..

Answer 11

disregard it might not be the right word, but maybe some things should have been trashed.

nuclear power might be an example. Time will tell if the toll of nuclear bombs is more the value of nuclear electricity.

Science has made other mistakes as well. Things like Asbestos, lead paint, DDT, I could go on.

hopefuly we will learn from them