Incredible new stuff: Paintable Li ion battery!:

Originally posted by humy

do you really want me to argue the immense damage that the net has done?

Any misuse of technology is OUR fault and not the fault of science.

If you are against the net and think/say it is wrong then isn't it hypocritical of you to use it for sending this post?
By using the net, you are actively supporting it.

[quote] the reliance up ...[text shortened]... ce has given us modern medicines that have saved countless lives and that this is a good thing?

science without morality is a far more dangerous proposition than the meanest
medieval monk could ever have imagined in his visions of hell!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
science without morality is a far more dangerous proposition than the meanest
medieval monk could ever have imagined in his visions of hell!

science without morality is

why would science exclude morally? -it clearly doesn't. We can have morality with or without science.

What would, according to you, be the barrier to us using science in a morally responsible way and, if we DO use science irresponsibly, how would that be the fault of science and not us?

Originally posted by humy

science without morality is

why would science exclude morally? -it clearly doesn't. We can have morality with or without science.

What would, according to you, be the barrier to us using science in a morally responsible way and, if we use science irresponsibly, how would that be the fault of science and not us?

because as the poet once said,

The machine guns are roaring
The puppets heave rocks
The fiends nail time bombs
To the hands of the clocks

what percentage of the worlds scientists are involved in weapons programs? designed,
for, yes, you guessed it, for the betterment of mankind, nope, for engineering ways of
killing people and dont even try to moralise it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because as the poet once said,

The machine guns are roaring
The puppets heave rocks
The fiends nail time bombs
To the hands of the clocks

what percentage of the worlds scientists are involved in weapons programs? designed,
for, yes, you guessed it, for the betterment of mankind, nope, for engineering ways of
killing people and dont even try to moralise it.

because as the poet once said,

ye right -'reason' or 'counter-argue' via poetry.
Perhaps you think you can make an 'argument' with a dance?

what percentage of the worlds scientists are involved in weapons programs?

no, the question should be, why do WE employ so many? It is not the fault of science if we misuse it.
This is not a problem of the sciences but of politics.

Anyway, what about modern medicine that has save millions of lives? That is absolute proof that science gives us the opportunity to do extreme good.
How is science used to save millions of lives a bad thing or at least not a good thing?

Science is our only hope for a better future.

engineering ways of
killing people and dont even try to moralise it.

I don't. Nether does science -get it now?
Science does not tell us what we morally should do. How we act is up to us and not science and if we make the wrong choice then that is only our fault and NOT the fault of science.

Originally posted by humy

because as the poet once said,

ye right -'reason' or 'counter-argue' via poetry.
Perhaps you think you can make an 'argument' with a dance?

what percentage of the worlds scientists are involved in weapons programs?

no, the question should be, why do WE employ so many? It is not the fault of science if we misuse it. ...[text shortened]... and if we make the wrong choice then that is only our fault and NOT the fault of science.

nice dodge, Roger the Dodger, cannot bring yourself to admit that there are at present,
one in four scientists engaged in weapons programs. Poetry was provided in an
attempt to stimulate your thinking, i see it failed, oh well.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nice dodge, Roger the Dodger, cannot bring yourself to admit that there are at present,
one in four scientists engaged in weapons programs. Poetry was provided in an
attempt to stimulate your thinking, i see it failed, oh well.

nice dodge, Roger the Dodger, cannot bring yourself to admit that there are at present,
one in four scientists engaged in weapons programs

why would I deny this? I OBVIOUSLY don't so no “dodge” there as you claim. So one in four scientists engaged in weapons programs ( which is something I am against ) -so what?
Why would this be the fault of science? It is clearly is not. It is OUR fault . PEOPLE choose to do this, NOT science. Science doesn’t choose to do anything. Get it now?

Poetry was provided in an
attempt to stimulate your thinking

what kind of thinking? Rational thinking? -no. Clear thinking? -no. Relevant thinking? -no.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there are at present, one in four scientists engaged in weapons programs.

I find that somewhat hard to believe. Do you have any references? I suspect whoever came up with that statistic included things like NASA as a 'weapons program' and anything army oriented too.
I do realize that a large percentage of money is spent on the army and arms, so maybe you should boycott using money?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find that somewhat hard to believe. Do you have any references? I suspect whoever came up with that statistic included things like NASA as a 'weapons program' and anything army oriented too.
I do realize that a large percentage of money is spent on the army and arms, so maybe you should boycott using money?

I read it somewhere, but cannot find the reference and I cannot be bothered trawling
the net trying to find one. What the governments do with taxes is their business, not
mine.

you could try here,

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#WorldMilitarySpendingOutDoesAnythingElse

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I read it somewhere, .....

Well I am fairly sure it is an incorrect statistic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I am fairly sure it is an incorrect statistic.

Even if 99% of scientists were employed for military research, this would be missing the point.
Science does not say/imply we should do military research and there is no reason why science cannot be used for good.
Science cannot be blamed if the moronic 'logic' of the politicians who lack the compassion and intelligence to get together and agree to world peace instead of directing money into the military research.

If it was up to only the most intelligent scientists and not the politicians, we probably have a world wide ban on all military research ( which I would totally agree with ) and all research would be for only productive things that benefit humanity instead of wasting money on such things as the military and putting people into space when there are people starving here on Earth etc. etc.

Originally posted by humy
Even if 99% of scientists were employed for military research, this would be missing the point.

Yes I agree. I just thought it important to point out that the statistic itself is almost certainly wrong not that it in any way says anything about whether science is good or bad.

If it was up to only the most intelligent scientists and not the politicians, we probably have a world wide ban on all military research
I rather doubt that. Scientists - even the most intelligent ones, are often patriotic and often support the military both as defense or offence. I think that you will find that many top scientists have been involved in military research and often willingly so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nice dodge, Roger the Dodger, cannot bring yourself to admit that there are at present,
one in four scientists engaged in weapons programs. Poetry was provided in an
attempt to stimulate your thinking, i see it failed, oh well.

That also means 3 out of 4 scientists are NOT developing weapons.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That also means 3 out of 4 scientists are NOT developing weapons.

you dont say. . . . . . . Now i will take your confessions, it was hard for Humy to
confess to the crimes of science, even yet he is still in denial, pinning his hopes on
some forlorn materialistic vision, of technocrats ruling the world, ticking boxes,
measuring our happiness and feeding the data into a computer, to be interpreted by
men with thick rimmed glasses, all reading from the same recipe book.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I agree. I just thought it important to point out that the statistic itself is almost certainly wrong not that it in any way says anything about whether science is good or bad.

[b]If it was up to only the most intelligent scientists and not the politicians, we probably have a world wide ban on all military research
I rather doubt that. Scienti ...[text shortened]... ll find that many top scientists have been involved in military research and often willingly so.[/b]

even the most intelligent ones, are often patriotic and often support the military both as defense or offence.

arr no, I was talking about the really REALLY intelligent scientists; like Albert Einstein 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you dont say. . . . . . . Now i will take your confessions, it was hard for Humy to
confess to the crimes of science, even yet he is still in denial, pinning his hopes on
some forlorn materialistic vision, of technocrats ruling the world, ticking boxes,
measuring our happiness and feeding the data into a computer, to be interpreted by
men with thick rimmed glasses, all reading from the same recipe book.

it was hard for Humy to
confess to the crimes of science,

science is scientific method and knowledge gained from scientific method ( anything else said to be science is false science ) . So can you answer just these three questions:

1, How can scientific method itself commit crimes rather than the crimes involving people committing crime?

2, How can knowledge itself from scientific method ( or, for that matter, any piece of knowledge ) commit crimes rather than the crimes involving people committing crime?

3, If the answer to both 1 and 2 is “it cannot”, then given science IS scientific method and knowledge gained from scientific method, how can science commit crimes?


IF what you mean by “crimes of science” is when science commits the crimes and not people then there logically cannot be such thing as “crimes of science” ( as you stated above ) and therefore science is never to blame for any crime, only people are to blame.
I challenge you to give us just ONE example of a 'crime of science' that was NOT committed by people!........ANY example would do.....