Why do we need science?

[dblack]

You're joking, right?
The average lifespan of hunter-gatherers and up through the dark ages who had minimal to zero science, was about 35 to 40 years. The most common non-combat killers were injuries, disease, parasites, and poor nutrition. Many died in childbirth. A simple scratch could easily get infected and eventually kill the person via gangrene.
Superstition ran supreme and innocent people were frequently murdered after being falsely accused of crimes. People declared witches were murdered. Travel was arduous and dangerous. Got a dying tooth? C
Cope with the awful pain until it finally does die and fall out.
People have this fanciful belief that life in the distant past could be a "bit" difficult, but overall, satisfying. In reality: It was extremely dangerous, and your life was likely to be quite short.

The Good Ole Days!

 

[Foxfyre]

To eat the fruit of the tree of the "knowledge what's good and evil" catapulted us out of the paradise. The main problem which I see in this context: Now we are not able to live without real justice - but real justice is a rare good here in this world.

Justice is immaterial if there is only good and no evil.

In my opinion--and I do not discourage others their own belief/interpretation--the Garden of Eden story is allegorical to explain a) that evil and the bad/wrong choices that go with it exist n the word and b) how sin came to be in and spoiled God's perfect creation.

The story is believed to be from one of the oldest manuscripts that made it into what we know as the Bible. And while in itself it has nothing to do with the OP, I think it important to know that all the science that exists now also existed then. The people then had not discovered as much of it as we have in our own time.

 

[Votto]

To eat the fruit of the tree of the "knowledge what's good and evil" catapulted us out of the paradise. The main problem which I see in this context: Now we are not able to live without real justice - but real justice is a rare good here in this world.

To eat the fruit of the tree of the "knowledge what's good and evil" catapulted us out of the paradise. The main problem which I see in this context: Now we are not able to live without real justice - but real justice is a rare good here in this world.

Man rejected God and made his own justice.

Again, rejecting the wisdom of God and bitching about the wisdom of men is a bad look.

 

[zaangalewa]

Justice is immaterial if there is only good and no evil.

The problem is not what to say about justice - the problem is we need it.

In my opinion--and I do not discourage others their own belief/interpretation--the Garden of Eden story is allegorical to explain a) that evil and the bad/wrong choices that go with it exist n the word and b) how sin came to be in and spoiled God's perfect creation.

The story is believed to be from one of the oldest manuscripts that made it into what we know as the Bible. And while in itself it has nothing to do with the OP, I think it important to know that all the science that exists now also existed then.

Not really. This what natural scientists for example speak about today existed and exists "since ever". But before the scientific concept which is normally called 'game theory' was born no one was able to say with knowledge "shit happens [also sometimes without any concrete reason]". The concepts of probability changed a lot in our view of the world. Not for everything what is evil exists for example a reason. But it could be that for everything what is good always exist reasons. On the other side we see more or less only what's going wrong - and we err us upward - but we don't see what's really good. We are somehow like fish who don't know what's water.

The people then had not discovered as much of it as we have in our own time.

"We" have a lot of knowledge - and this knowledge is still growing and will forever grow - but I fear most people don't use this knowledge. Most people think they will be like gods when a time machine will bring them into the stone age. But a stone ager will perhaps only be astonished why this idiot who suddenly appeared in the middle of them knows nothing what's senseful and helps to stay alive.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is not what to say about justice - the problem is we need it.



Not really. This what natural scientists for example speak about today existed and exists "since ever". But before the scientific concept which is normally called 'game theory' was born no one was able to say with knowledge "shit happens [also sometimes without any concrete reason]". The concepts of probability changed a lot in our view of the world. Not for everything what is evil exists for example a reason. But it coud be that for everhtign what is good always exist reasons. On the other side we see more or elsl nyl whatsü gopind wrong - and we err us upward - but we donät see what's really good. We are somehow like fish who don't know what's water.



"We" have a lot of knowledge - and this knowledge is still growing and will forever grow - but I fear most people don't use this knowledge. Most people think they will be like gods when a time machine will bring them into the stone age. But a stone ager will perhaps only be astonished why this idiot who suddenly appeared in the middle of them knows nothing what's senseful and helps to stay alive.

I distinguish between 'knowledge of science' and science itself. Science isn't invented by knowledge. Knowledge is obtained by observing and coming to understand science. Science is unchanging and eternal. Only how we perceive and use it changes.

 

[zaangalewa]

Man rejected God and made his own justice.

You can see this very clear when you say "With every abortion dies a human being". If you say so many people will hate you because this sentence will let break down castles in the air with millions of corpses. And nobody wants to stand in this rain.

Again, rejecting the wisdom of God and bitching about the wisdom of men is a bad look.

What is science rejecting?

 

[zaangalewa]

I distinguish between 'knowledge of science' and science itself. Science isn't invented by knowledge. ...

Science - as this word is used in the English speaking world - is the same as "natural philosophy". The German word for science is "Wissenschaft" and means very easy "Wissen schaffen" = "creating knowledge".

 

[skews13]

ncient humans lived for thousands of years without any conception of modern science, and seemed to get along well-enough? So why do modern humans need science, especially considering how miserable some of them are in spite of many technologies being made available to them? If they'd be happier without it, then they'd be better off without it.

And those people died in their 20's. The ones lucky enough to make it into their 20's. They also lived in constant fear and sickness.

There was no happiness. You are an idiot.

Which is why I would be happy if as many people that think like you, went back to living like ancient people.

It would get rid of magatrash, and religious nutjobs.

Which would create real happiness in the world, with the people with brains would live long, comfortable lives based on science.

 

[Foxfyre]

Science - as this word is used in the English speaking world - is the same as "natural philosophy". The German word for science is "Wissenschaft" and means very easy "Wissen schaffen" = "creating knowledge".

Then it is defined erroneously. The Earth revolves around the sun whether or not anybody on Earth understands it that way. The science exists with or without human knowledge or understanding of it.

 

[Dante]

Ancient humans lived for thousands of years without any conception of modern science, and seemed to get along well-enough? So why do modern humans need science, especially considering how miserable some of them are in spite of many technologies being made available to them? If they'd be happier without it, then they'd be better off without it.

Ancient humans lived for thousands of years...with magic.

 

[zaangalewa]

Then it is defined erroneously.

I never define anything. I say what I think - that's all.

The Earth revolves around the sun whether or not anybody on Earth understands it that way.

But this is "only" nature and not science. It becomes science the moment someone asks "What for heavens sake is this? How is it working?" and so on. The other part of science is philosophy (=~friendship to the truth). Sometimes I say for example: Mathematics is the spirituality of physics. Try to do physics without mathematics then you will see physics is very simple - if it is existing at all.

The science exists with or without human knowledge or understanding of it.

I guess I'm able to imagine what's your problem. It's "Humans are the measure of all things" and you think the same time human beings are not able to find out what's true - and to think so leads easily to the strange anti-philosophies a) "true is only god" or b) "truth not exists". And typically for the way how the English speaking world thinks is also "everything or nothing" (what always will lead to nothing). But in case of a) "true is only god" <-> "Now we understand in parts and one day we will understand fully" and in case of b) "truth no exists" - this atheists just simple capitulated. They are not able to imagine that god is no liar and the world is really real. I often ask myselve how such people are able to understand how a chirurg is able to repair a broken foot if he not is able to find out what's "true" (sane) and "not true" (insane) in this foot. Not to know everything not means to know nothing. People who deny the existence of truth at all deny also that human beings are able to be reasonable. But because god is truth their belief in atheism would show similiar paradoxa as is showing the belief in god. But atheist are in very most cases not able to accept that atheism is "only" a belief - so they believe not to be able to believe in the wrong things. Nevertheless human beings are able to live with paradoxa and mysteries without any need to let it be to be reasonable. So to find truth is not only an inner process ("Seeking" "Learning" and so on - truth is also all around us - otherwise we had nothing to find so we had also nothing to seek and we also had nothing to learn and could not be wrong. Sound like to be a dream if it would be so ... but who dreams such a dream awakes perhaps often only in a nightmare.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ancient humans lived for thousands of years without any conception of modern science, and seemed to get along well-enough? So why do modern humans need science, especially considering how miserable some of them are in spite of many technologies being made available to them? If they'd be happier without it, then they'd be better off without it.

To say ancient civilizations weren't modern, rather undermines your overall position as making an intelligent point.

Yes life was different in the past, how does that prove that understanding the natural world, God's creation, is something to avoid?