"Science" did not "give us" that jump: it mostly human pluck, courage and engineering, which is not the same thing as science at all, gave us that jump.
It is absurd to claim this. Science is a methodology--a mode of inquiry--and nothing more in and of itself. It is like saying that observatories give us astrophysics.
What you indulge in here is not Science but scientism.
Science is morally neutral and does not speak to the same issues at all--in deed it cannot. Science is not concerned with meaning. Science can tell us at what the temperature water boils at; it cannot tell us what this means.
If there is a "point" to this post it is a rather obtuse and juvenile one. It most certainly misses entirely what fundamental roles religion has played in the course of Mankind's history and how it has advanced his consciousness.
Certainly with out the logical tradition of Scholasticism and the foundation of universities there would have been no modern science at all. (and please spare us the usual slanders about the Church and Galileo)
So the statement is not merely a strange philosophical error: it is an historical one as well.
scholasticism? ooooh .... talk about abstruse, Trev
you probably got a cute title for your reasoning also, the type which tells an injured motorist that ambulances are not necessarily good becasue sometimes they run someone over on the way to the hospital :)
5 comments:
Love it. That's almost PC standard :)
what else has science given us?
oh, thats right: chemical weapons, gas chambers, the atomic bomb...
golly, how may deaths can be chalked up to all those wonderfull scientific achievments?
"Science" did not "give us" that jump: it mostly human pluck, courage and engineering, which is not the same thing as science at all, gave us that jump.
It is absurd to claim this. Science is a methodology--a mode of inquiry--and nothing more in and of itself. It is like saying that observatories give us astrophysics.
What you indulge in here is not Science but scientism.
Science is morally neutral and does not speak to the same issues at all--in deed it cannot. Science is not concerned with meaning. Science can tell us at what the temperature water boils at; it cannot tell us what this means.
If there is a "point" to this post it is a rather obtuse and juvenile one. It most certainly misses entirely what fundamental roles religion has played in the course of Mankind's history and how it has advanced his consciousness.
Certainly with out the logical tradition of Scholasticism and the foundation of universities there would have been no modern science at all. (and please spare us the usual slanders about the Church and Galileo)
So the statement is not merely a strange philosophical error: it is an historical one as well.
scholasticism? ooooh .... talk about abstruse, Trev
you probably got a cute title for your reasoning also, the type which tells an injured motorist that ambulances are not necessarily good becasue sometimes they run someone over on the way to the hospital :)
Wow~! Your post is the briefest most accurate statement on the eternal issue ... ever.
Predictable knees jerked, though. 'Twas ever thus: don't stop.
Post a Comment