Why is Science Important to You?

Because without it we're stupid and we die.

Stupid or not, we die regardless..... eventually....

I mean, as a species.

But strangely, no other species have dies out.

ORLY?

That'll be good news to the dinosaurs.

Are you postulating that the dinosaurs died out because of the lack of science?

If so, what about alligators and crocks? They are directly from dinosaurs.

How long does it take for a species to go extinct without science? For instance, dinosaurs lived for millions of years before going extinct. However, Homo sapiens are only about 150,000 years old.

Additionally, out of those 150,000 years we only have 10,000 or so years of recorded history, which seems to point out that only the last 10% of our current lifeline has employed useful science as a mechanism of life, if that.

Where I am going is that I am trying to show that science is not a prerequisite for species survival. I can't dispute it is a useful tool for extending it, but not mandatory.

Yes, the dinosaurs died out because of a lack of science. Mankind is still here because we have used science to adapt to our ever changing environment.

Turn 6 billion humans loose on the planet with no science and they will last about a week - or until the grocery stores are emptied, which ever comes first.

Science includes tool making, hunting and agriculture. Without it we're doomed.

DOOMED, I SAY!!!

Well, I can not agree with your logic.

First, prove that dinosaurs died out because they lacked science.

Second, how do you explain all the other species that exist without science?

What about bacterium, or viruses, or even insects?

Third, in the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs have been around orders of magnitudes longer than homo sapiens have.

Forth, it is very possible that we could wipe ourselves out (become extinct) through a number of processes. You could make a claim that science insures extinction in that case.

I thought it was obvious - dinosaurs (and all other extinct species) died out because they could not adapt to their changing environment, or food supply, or disease, or asteroid, or whatever. If they had science - and a brain to use it - they could still be around.

Sure all other species except homo sapiens exist without science. They live in balance with their natural environment. People, OTOH, live in an artificial environment propped up on the skinny legs of science. Knock those legs away, and we fall.

Maybe a few tens of thousands will remain, living like apes in some jungle somewhere, but they won't be humans anymore, just apes.

There's some opinion that humans are indistinguishable from apes now. I refer you to my brother-in-law as a fine example of how blurry the line can be.

However, one of your arguments has me curious. Where do you draw the line at "science"? Toolmaking? Several animals are known to make tools. Hunting? All animals hunt for plants, animals or both. Sometimes they employ those tools to that end.

At some point, in some limited fashion, don't these animals actively employ the scientific method?

1. They define a problem ("I'm hungry and I can't reach the yummy bug down that hole")
2. Form a hypothesis ("If my finger was longer, I could reach it")
3. Observed the physical world at its disposal ("That stick is longer than my finger")
4. Formed a testable hypothesis ("If I used the stick, maybe I can reach bug!")
5. Perform the experiment and record the result. Although instead of graph paper they record it by adding a few fat cells.

I'm not so sure about agriculture though. I don't know offhand of any animal that actively puts seeds into the ground with the firm notion that it will come back to that exact spot to reap the rewards. But that doesn't just require science - it also requires the ability to conceptualize time and plan for long-term events.

Excellent post!

Sure - some animals use tools, and that helps them survive. But monkeys and birds use tools very rarely, and don't depend on them for survival. But - to make my point - if the only way for a monkey to feed itself was to make a stick, and you took the ability to make a stick away, the monkey will die.

As for agriculture - you prove my point for me. If we had to depend on the agriculture of 10000 years ago we'd all be starving. There's more to modern farming than "put seeds in the ground, come back later". We have developed agriculture into a science that allows us to feed the whole world with relatively little land or effort (we may choose not to feed the whole world, but we have the capacity).

As for science - I define that as the ability to observe, conceptualize, test, refine, and pass that knowledge to someone else. So yes - that would include the first guy to chip a flint or bake a clay pot.

There are a number of ant species that practice agriculture. There are species that herd and milk aphids (cows apparently being a bit large for them to handle). Leaf cutter ants don't eat the leaves- they use them as a growth medium for the mold that they do eat. I find it difficult to identify any specific activity that is purely human...Termites are better architects (much grander scale with respect to body size, and, arguably, much more exquisite in detail), spiders weave better threads, more and more species are discovered using tools (from dolphins and their nose sponges to chimpanzees and their fishing sticks to gorillas and their walking sticks). It is difficult to evaluate the intelligence of other species without an ability to communicate with them- just because they don't speak "human" does not make them stupid...

Give us a break. Of course it does.

Hi, Guest!

We have a variety of pest here that is really nasty. It's a very small brown ant, about 1/4" to 1/2" long. It cultivates a wood-dwelling fungus that eats into wood at an alarming rate, then chomps into the wood following the fungus-caused deterioration, creating tunnels where it establishes its colonies. Occasionally, they can be seen planting bits of the fungus into new areas of wood.

The ant plants the fungus and eats it. Cultivation.

'Nuff said.

Mark

If the first premise is true, that if they had science they could have survived, then what level of science is required at a minimum to guarantee survival?

In an earlier post you include science as toolmaking, hunting, and agriculture. So, to be science, does it mandate that a species does all three or two out of three or any one?

All hunters hunt. Birds use and fashion tools. Agriculture may be one that is unique to our species, but I think that the definition of science, as you postulated it, is a little undefined, but if we use the dictionary as a guide it states:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

Using those definitions it could be said that many species posses some or most of those qualities. So, what level of science is required to assure species survival?

Here is another spin. So far, in the history of Earth, humans have only been "here" a very short time compared to most other species. Every species will go extinct (as far as we know). What track record or empirical evidence do we have that suggests science can overcome extinction?

Do we have proof or even overwhelming evidence that science will prevent extinction rather than hasten its arrival?

Interesting subject that you have brought up, no?

I never said that science guarantees our survival - that idea is demonstrably false. What I said was that without science, we would perish.

The better your science is, the better chance you have at surviving. Unless you destroy yourself, of course.

I'm surprised no one caught the source of my original comment. It's from Bladerunner.

Roy: There's only two of us now.
Pris: Then we're stupid and we'll die.

... who, of course, were the two humanoid robots who - unable to acquire the science they needed to alter their preprogrammed life cycle - were thus unable to avoid their own extinction.

Well, if you broaden the definition of science wide enough, then all cognitive living creatures require it to survive. However, all species will become extinct, too. Non-cognitive creatures also become extinct as well.

I think that the best you can say is that the application of science will improve the species chances for survival, but you can't say it is an absolute requirement since many more creatures have survived for millions of years before extinction.

Since homo sapiens have only about 150,000 years of history behind us we are just the new kid on the block and there simply isn't enough historical evidence that supports that we have any better chance at the survival game than any other species. The jury is still out.

If we suddenly lost all our modern technology and even knowledge to develop it we would be woefully ill equipped to live at the same level our species did 100,000 years ago, but I doubt that all of our species would be wiped out.

If you and I die, do the others really matter?

Not to us!

"Yes, the dinosaurs died out because of a lack of science"

Don't knock dinosaurs, according to the geological record they were around for an extremely long time . . . and by comparison, just exactly how long (with or without the benefit of science) have we been here?

This is a bogus argument. You can't compare our span to the dinosaurs until we're extinct.

And really - you can't compare one species against a whole family of species. If you compare our family - mammals, against the dinosaurs, you'll see that we have been around just as long or longer.

Then, after we're extinct we still can't compare ourselves with the dinosaurs. QED

Much as the importance of anything (science not excepted) to one person among others, or as opposed to its importance to the family of persons, extant and extinct, is a bogus comparison.

Not all dinosaurs died out- the smart ones got whole lot smaller and learned to fly...The world is full of their progeny...

Julie,

Somewhat off topic, but thanks for the info on Brian Greene. Embarassed to say I've never read him. I liked the quotes - especially the one beginning "Science is a way of life". Simply could not have said it better. Definately going to look into his book(s) and writings.

A problem is that theology doesn't have a way to independently determine if its description of reality is even approximately correct.

One group says their God made things his way, another a different way. Both answers are equally valid (as theology) since, after all, Gods don't have to follow any natural processes. I assume that's the point the FSM religion is making.

Science at least assumes that natural processes are at work. So theories are thrown up all the time but then tested against observation.

Yes, there are elements of science that are dogmatic, but eventually it'll change. Compare that against theology (there are STILL people who seriously believe the Earth's only 6000 years old).

Nice (even handed) post... (I did get around to reading it, whilst Mrs Cat is changing to go out...so I had plenty of time )

I particularly liked this phrase.... '
Climate change is a religion, man caused it, and man must be punished for his sin against earth. And to argue otherwise is heresy.'
... we all need a damn good puritanical thrashing .

Del (GA)

But you'll not get the thrashing del, cuz you're a CAT.

milo

All very good; but what does science mean to you?

Hi,

You didn't ask me directly, but I will give you my answer anyway ...

Science: knowledge gained by observation and experiment

Therefore, science is discovery. Human nature is to explore, and ask "why?" Science, by it's definition faciitates that.

Further, the discoveries through science serve as the foundation of more discovery. That which has been revealed thus far is somehow orderly, and such order allows for the theories and predictions of future discoveries.

Science is imprtant to me because it 'scratches my itch' for exploration and discovery, and it comforts me in knowing that not all is chaos, but instead is somewhat predictable.

What is amazing to consider is, is there a limit to discovery? Is there a limit to the depth of the knowledge? Is the depth of knowledge infinite, or just so vast that we can not comprehend the 'end'?

Not in my lifetime, and certainly not within the limited depth of my ability to learn

Yeh.. it scratches my itch too.

It's just a fancy name for good old fashioned natural curiosity which the education system knocks out of kids rather than nurturing.

Sit still stop fiddling with that and pay attention .

Del

You've opened a whole new topic, friend.

Only thing I can quickly contribute to that was a FIRM and often REPEATED teaching to my three kids that, "it's okay to fail", "failing doesn't make you a failure", and that "the only person who never fails is the one who doesn't do anything".

(maybe I changed my mind a little bit when they decided to climb on the barn roof ... they're not CATS, you know ... then again, that was a hundred years ago ... now they can worry about THEIR kids ... and Grandpa can just laugh and say, "payback time".)

I assume you are talking to me... from the second paragraph of my previous post:

Based on your quote, Dr. Greene considers science a way of life, a perspective. I agree, science is important to me because while most of the people in this world go through life focused inwardly on themselves, people who engage in science look outward and engage in the wonder of the universe, rather than constantly focusing the day to day drudgery of life (simple survival for the villager in Africa, or getting through to 5:00 for a white collar New Yorker working at an investment banking job she hates…)

There is a tendency in man to turn inward, and selfishly get wrapped up in problems of the individual. Any tool, (science, religion, philosophy, art, music, literature) that turns people outward and prods them to consider that which is outside of themselves is important. Important for the development of man, important for development of community, and important for our future.

Because it's enjoyable to see a bit of the beauty in the universe.

Because it connects me with others who have laboured to understand the world.

Because it helps me build stuff.

It's like someone else listening to your favorite music. If they have to ask why it's good, they probably won't really understand your reasons.

I believe that the answer is somewhat spiritual. Now, before all of you who believe that word is somehow anti-science, here me out.

For me, whether spiritual or totally atheist, I believe it is human nature to be encouraged by realizing they are part of a greater 'whole'. For the spiritualist, that means a part of a greater 'plan' ... to the atheist, possibly it means a part of another 'greater', but it really doesn't matter.

In the case of a person, somewhat isolated, somewhat alone, this realization is more profound ... more meaningful, whereas, for most of us with our daily routines, activities, entertainment (distractions), and problems (more distractions), that realization is not so evident. We may be amazed at the power of a storm, or the vastness of the night sky, when, indeed, there is as much wonder in a grain of sand, or a blade of grass ... we just don't notice it.

For me, there is no reason or logic for a division between that which is spiritual and that which is scientific, for one substantiates the other, but regardless, one, if they are presented with the true wonders of science, the organization of the universe around us, the frailty yet complexity of life, amid power that is beyond our comprehension, can't help but be encouraged by it all.

I am not surprised at the soldier, surrounded by the hopelessness of human conflict, found solace in reading about science.

Pretty cool ...

The article and the discussion starter attest to the success of "science" (whoever that may be) at developing itself into a formidable propaganda machine. Like any "religiosity," though, it has always been behind the times; and always will be. Its catechism respecting "enhancement of lives" in general is a dubious one. That said, science has its place...a thing best never forgotten.

Science is important to me because it is fun.

Hi, cwarner7_11!

I'm in agreement with you. And the fun these entries are having with developing answers to why it's important illustrates the point very nicely.

Mark

Science is the way that i have grown.

It is the means of continuous improving my knowledge by giving me a means for placing experiences in context.

It is the way that I add value at work, by design of experiments or intelligent management of risk through application of facts and data by repeatably demonstrated principles.

It is the Joy Of "aha!"

Aside on the education aside: We home schooled our three from first grade through freshman year of highschool.

No brag: just fact: two of the three were in top ten in their graduating class. Oldest has masters which was paid for by merit scholarship. Middle daughter just graduated from prominent military academy in ComputerScience/Electrical Engineering; Son just graduated High school and starts college this fall. We home schooled based on the deplorable focus on Bring every one to average (elevating the herd) as opposed to teaching at the students ability. We spent no more than 4 hours each day doing school work, then the kids did charity work three days a week at red cross, United way, local museums etc.

People thought we were nuts, but it has proven to be a wise choice.

And they do a much better job than I on Capitalizations and typing.

PS: It wasn't necessarily the teachers fault, its just a crappy system.

milo

To my opinion science does not need be specially romanticized or idealized in no way as it is romantic and ideal notion itself. People of science or scientists are devoted and very courage people, very honest and so often they are very naive and distracted as they have own system of values where cornerstone is not a money, power and other like things, but searching for the truth. Scientific truth is not a dogma it should been proving continuously, it has to be considered as temporary close approach/method for contemporary explanation of nature's laws.

Yes, scientific society from one side is isolated one, but at the same time it is very opened for everyone who is ready to accept scientific community code and of course has researching talent and skill.

I make difference between Science and "official science" and some "scientific institutes" as well as between scientists and people who uses scientific institutes for only their own gain --- like money, business and career. For instance the friend of mine who never had got any formal sci degree really considered by me as scientist as he'd developed and made a lot of unique projects and devices (in geology and geophysics field) in contrary to a crowd of professors who never did something valuable regardless their endless ranks , diplomas and awards.

Unfortunately science society code could be contaminated and real achievements of science could be wrong used. It's true.

As for me I would vote for scientific approaches in everyday needs as a basement for everyone over the world though it looks like utopia right now.

I think science is important to me because it relies on careful observation and accurate reporting...this can be summed up by one word.

Truth... , a concept sadly lacking in society, politicians, marketing men, just about everyone either can't be bothered with the truth or can't distinguish it from fantasy/speculation or guesswork..

We are at the mercy of psuedo scietist like 'Economists'
(Economist = man who can tell you tomorrow why his predictions of yesterday didn't come right today)

Even the news is guilt of reporting probability and speculation as 'fact'.

Whew ... rant over (for now )

Del

Hi del.

Great rant.

The issue with "truth" is that Science is just considered to be one way of learning the "Truth."

Difficulties arise when alternative means of learning the "Truth" and Science's description of "Truth" (as currently established) collide.

Economists, Shaman, "Intuitives," Mystics and many others all claim a hold on the "Truth" through their differing lenses. When their views disagree with the confirmable and demonstrable claims of Science, that is where the difficulties lie. But their systems seem to work for them in their circumstances too.

And of course, Lawyers have created a wonderful system where "truth" can be "sacrificed" on the altar of procedural orthodoxy and rules permitting the supression of relevant evidence.

So have a good day. It was nice to get your take.

milo

Hi Milo,
Karl Popper has some good stuff to say about truth, objectivity, falsifiability etc...

I realise 'truth' isn't cast in stone...just ask two witnesses to any event...but at least science tries to be objective.

One thing that really upsets me is when 'scientists' have been found falsifying data...that is such a no no...and cuts to the very core of what we believe.

I learned a very salutary lesson when doing an HNC project once...I found I'd interpreted (rounded) data towards my 'expected' result (I'd expected the wrong thing...and the data had been fine!).
However I deliberately showed the data and added the conclusion that it demonstrated one's natural tendency to look for what you want to see.... I got a good mark for that piece of work.

That incident has stood me in good stead over the years...

Del (may the snake gods smile on you )

Great lesson to have learned.

milo

I try to take a 'forensics' approach to research ... let the data create the hypothesis, rather than creating a hypothesis, then trying to substantiate it with data. Then other issue is good DOE. I am always faced with folks telling me 'this or that' when it was either just their 'opinion' or their 'testing' methods were poor, either with too many simultaneous variables, or no controls. With some, its a hard 'rope to push' to get valid data.

Of course there are always the times when you must rely on experience and 'best guesses' ... as it is said, "it's hard to remember the goal was to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators". STILL, even then, at least be HONEST that you were just 'guessing'.

Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee : I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth!

Sir, I didn't say I didn't FILTER the results ... I don't lie, but if I tell ALL, then the whole process seems to get LONGER and L O N G E R because I have to THEN spend time defending or educating them about my conclusions.

Jack / Jessep was right in some cases ... they can't handle the truth

(where's my magic decoder ring?)

I have noted over the years that lawyers and politicians reserve the right to redefine truth to suit their present pursuits...Wouldn't it be nice if we could redefine scientific proofs to meet our goals?

Del, your lesson is one that should be taken to heart by all engineers, scientists, and others purporting to offer up truth. We are all guilty of filtering data, applying statistical analysis, linearizing non-linear processes, and extrapolating beyond viable bounds, in our attempt to grasp reality. We must always question whether the results are dictated by our expectations, or whether our expectations are driven by legitimate observation...

hy im wendilyn carpio