View Full Version : Frankenstein!!
11-29-02, 08:56 AM
I am leaving sciforums and dont know when ill be back.Im quite sure i will be back though. i just wanted to say this. I have respect and admiration for certain sciforumers ( ;) ) even if I have been somewhat 'quick of the mark' on occasions.I appreciate the new light i have come to see things in but as my parting shot i would like to say this.
I did actually think that there was a Doctor Frankenstein who tried to recreate a man and give it life with electricity (:rolleyes: ). This was until about 18 months ago. i have recently come to realise that it was a fictional tale warning of the dangers of science (i am correct arent i!?? :( ) While science has moved humanity on and undoubtedly increased our standard of living i wonder if it has done more harm than good. How many people have been saved by a mobile phone and how many people have been harmed by them but which we are still unaware of. How many people have been saved by electricity and how many people have been effected by it (could be a contributing factor towards cancer etc)?? Wasnt it science that created the atomic bomb!?? :( I cant help but think that there is a certain design to our brains so there is nothing that we can do to escape the fact that we are nothing (in the eyes of god??) i.e. humanity discovers science yet this thinking has just moved problems into other areas. Overcrowding for one. We cure diseases and stronger forms come back. New diseases crop up. WE SHOULD NOT TRUST SCIENCE 100% (IMO) CIAO
EDIT-Minor errors.Words left in, smileys not working etc
Yes dear that's quite right! Bye then.
11-29-02, 02:59 PM
Well... here's an interesting thing.
In my local paper there was an artical about researchers trying to get approval to test human stemcells on mice. OOOhhh creepy... Of course you couldnt get anything too disturbing or it would kill the mouse.
12-04-02, 09:11 PM
I read in a Time magazine a few years back: science has come to the point where the question is not "could we?" but "should we"?, talking about stem cells or cloning i believe. but when you mentioned electricity--it has saved more lives then killed. medical machines, radar systems to prevent bombings, etc.
12-06-02, 11:15 AM
But what about the long term effects platzapS ?? I saw this programme where this family who lived in the countryside thought the near-by pylons were causing cancer! I cant remember the full story but it looked like they were. There could be loads of electricity (or something undetectable to us at the moment) in the air caused bu all those wires spanning the country. I do agree that science has given us a much better standard of living but i think it will do more harm than good one day. They are genetically modifing crops now!! i had heard about it on tv etc but i didnt think they were actually doing it!! It shouldnt be allowed and whoever wrote the book frankenstein will be right one day.
12-07-02, 11:45 AM
as much as i love science, i don't and never will trust science 100%.
see ya around...i know you'll be back this way again. no one can stay away for too long. bye.
12-07-02, 10:41 PM
As long as some vibrant and growing sapient species exists and continues to do so little else matters in the greater scheme of things. Just about any mistake we make now will be repaired and forgotten in 1000 years as long as the species continues.
12-09-02, 07:54 AM
since when do we trust science 100%
12-09-02, 04:14 PM
Genetically modified crops--it is kinda scary, but I'm for them. if we could modify crops to grow easily in harsh areas, that would be great--but you're right, there are dangers. I've heard they've already made plants that cause infertility--imagine if that broke loose from the lab. I dunno.
12-10-02, 07:39 AM
by spurious monkey:
since when do we trust science 100% Since we have decided that we should genetically modify crops! We have enough food so why do it!??
12-10-02, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Neville
by spurious monkey: Since we have decided that we should genetically modify crops! We have enough food so why do it!??
i think it is because of a combination of natural curiosity and the lure of profit. You may decide yourself where this balance lies.
12-10-02, 08:55 AM
And aside from that spurious monkey we have trusted science wholly since most children (i would say) laugh at the idea of god from a very early age. in fact i would say that the general concesus is that there is not a god because many people do not even take the time to put some serious thought into the matter. We have had 100% faith in science since evolution has become accepted. Evolution took away the variables of the soul and God and looked purely at the organism. Evolution has a scientific basis and people have hailed it as 'truth' and since, it has been believed that this is the way forward. Science will create a monster though (IMO). Maybe AI will spontaniously appear on the internet! :eek: Who knows. Now that would be really good! (if we were around long enough, which i think we would be). However this is a different topic so i will leave by asking your arguements for how we dont have faith in science.
12-10-02, 09:12 AM
personally (as a biologist) i would think it is a bit silly to think that science holds the absolute truth, since this statement would autmatically mean that science has come to its end.
I think that one characteristic of science is that it seeks the truth, but this is not the same as holding the truth. You may put your faith in science, as long as you keep in the back of your mind that scientists can be wrong. This is nothing to be afraid of, this is just how science works. Otherwise we would never see any change in the collection of theoretical frameworks of science. And as you may know these things do change.
The theory of evolution has been around for a long time. Evolution was even a scientific concept before natural selection was put forward by Darwin. The fact that this particular theory still stands strong gives us an idea of the 'truth content' of the idea. The idea remained unchallenged for more than 100 years. We can therefore assume that this idea is based on 99.999999% of the truth. In a daily conversation or on a forum like this you may round that up to 100%.
Another thing about faith in science then. In science you learn two things. You can have faith in scientific authorities (important scientific leaders/ideas/theories) and at the same time you should never have faith in authorities and question them constantly.
How does this work in practice. For instance, we have accepted evolution as the basis for all biological work, hence it can be considered as an authority we do not question. It would be very tiresome to go through every aspect of the theory every time you do an experiment. We assume it is true, since there has been so much evidence. At the same time we do question smaller things about the theory of evolution, because otherwise we would never figure out the details. Sometimes a theoretical revolution takes place, but these events are rare. And once again the longevity of the theory of evolution be means of natural selection gives us an idea of the possible truth content of the idea. It would be a major coup for a scientist to be able to challenge this idea. But it hasn't happened.
The great difference with theism here is of course that they never question any authority. Hence it is impossible to discuss scientific matters with them. They simply do not understand what a scientist means by truth. And I am quite tired of explaining it to them. For the general people I would just like to point out the essence of this story: One characteristic of science is that scientistis seek truth (not that they hold THE truth).
12-12-02, 05:41 AM
I agree with you spurious monkey except on one thing:
The idea remained unchallenged for more than 100 years. We can therefore assume that this idea is based on 99.999999% of the truth So because the majority of people agree with a theory this makes it true?!
12-12-02, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Neville
I agree with you spurious monkey except on one thing: So because the majority of people agree with a theory this makes it true?!
no...because iof the majority of evidence supports the theory it is probably true.
12-14-02, 11:50 AM
A lack evidence does not make something false or even unlikely to be false. it is exactly what it says*: a lack of evidence. If one man punches another and there were no witnesses around to see this then does it mean that he didnt hit him? No. In court it just means there is a lack of evidence which must surely be inconclusive