Topic: Scientists wants to clone a mummified mammoth from 39000 years ago

[TheouAegis]

All major changes are like death. You can't see to the other side until you are there. In the past, pure scientists took a snobbish view of business. They saw the pursuit of money as intellectually uninteresting, suited only to shopkeepers. And to do research for industry, even at the prestigious Bell or IBM labs, was only for those who couldn't get a university appointment. Thus the attitude of pure scientists was fundamentally critical toward the work of applied scientists, and to industry in general. Their long-standing antagonism kept university scientists free of contaminating industry ties, and whenever debate arose about technological matters, disinterested scientists were available to discuss the issues at the highest levels. But now science is the belief system that is hundreds of years old. And, like the medieval system before it, science is starting not to fit the world any more. Science has attained so much power that its practical limits begin to be apparent. Largely through science, billions of us live in one small world, densely packed and intercommunicating. But science cannot help us decide what to do with that world, or how to live. Science can make a nuclear reactor, but it cannot tell us not to build it. Science can make pesticide, but cannot tell us not to use it. And our world starts to seem polluted in fundamental ways---air, and water, and land---because of ungovernable science. Discovery, they believe, is inevitable. So they just try to do it first. That's the game in science. Because the history of evolution is that life escapes all barriers. Life breaks free. Life expands to new territories. Painfully, perhaps even dangerously. But life finds a way. They see the immediate situation. They think narrowly and they call it 'being focused.' They don't see the surround. They don't see the consequences. Geniuses never pay attention. A hundred years from now, people will look back on us and laugh. They'll say, 'You know what people used to believe? They believed in photons and electrons. Can you imagine anything so silly?' They'll have a good laugh, because by then there will be newer better fantasies. Although personally, I think cyberspace means the end of our species.

[Lelygax]

 Its only a "fantasy" until you can prove its true or false, we have proven its true so think straight please. Other than that, it was a good reading for me

 Cyberspace is being used so the majority of people are domesticated like in a zoo, think about it, some people rarely come out of their houses. Im not telling that everyone is like that or that cyberspace was created only for that purpose, but it seems that its being used for that very well in some cases.

[Gecko]

this can be wrong if a error in cloning makes them assexuated, them they can lay eggs without a partner

Exactly.
I couldn't let a thread like this go without a Jurassic Park reference.

[Ratty]

Not sure if you were completely joking or not but in case you weren't...

But now science is the belief system that is hundreds of years old.

There's the fundamental flaw in your reasoning here. Science is not a belief system, it is a method to discover more about the natural world which, through continual use, is self-correcting. Certainly use of science is based upon a few assumptions, namely that matter exists and that not everything we observe is an illusion. But I would hardly say those necessary assumptions constitute a "belief system". Materialism and science are not 1:1. Materialists might embrace science, but the scientific method does not rule out the possibility that there are things which cannot be observed or tested, merely that if such things exist they fall outside of the purview of science. Sure the scientific method doesn't tell us what to do with it, but neither does the method you use to play an instrument dictate exactly which songs you should play. If we kill ourselves it will be our fault for failing to rise above our baser instincts and misusing science. Not the fault of the method itself. This SMBC from a few days ago seems relevant.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3058#comic

[Lelygax]

This comic is really fun and its cool to see that you also understood what I meant.

[TheouAegis]

Well, at least I'm glad no one down-voted my Jurassic Park quote. That would have just made me very sad seeing as how that was where the topic was veering off toward.

[Mooning Freddy]

But now science is the belief system that is hundreds of years old. And, like the medieval system before it, science is starting not to fit the world any more.

Sorry to say that, but you sound like a horrible romantic here. Romanticism is all about acknowledging the limits of humanity and talking in terms like "fate", "fortune", "magnificence". It fundamentally demands the individual to bend to forces greater than him. That is the opposite of Enlightenment which is trying to understand the world through reason. 

The problem with romanticism as a philosophy is that it doesn't try to make the world better. While you are right that science does not teach us ethics or morals, when Nietzsche said that "god is dead" he did not exactly mean the death of religion- he talked about the death of universal truths which cannot be proved through scientific tools. Believe whatever you want to believe- just don't tell me I should believe that because it is "beyond my capability to understand".

[FireSeraphim]

*Insert Irrational antilogical ramblings*

TheoAegis, I thought you were smarter than that. Smart enough to not be fooled by religious bigots and their anti science rhetoric. You are aware that without science your ability to program, let alone programming itself wouldn't exist, right?

Science is not a belief system, it is a method to discover more about the natural world which, through continual use, is self-correcting. Certainly use of science is based upon a few assumptions, namely that matter exists and that not everything we observe is an illusion.

Exactly my point! so if you cannot be bothered with logic or reason, then you shouldn't be handling a computer let alone working on a Castlevania III engine for Game maker since that require the use of logic and science, both things which you oppose.

[TheouAegis]

Religious bigots? The basis of that entire post I quoted was that there is no God, that religion is bunk and science has taken over as the new dominant religion, that science has essentially mutated into a religion in its own right. It's not at all against science, it's against science in the popular modern sense. People moved from worshiping gods to worshiping microbes and nucleotides; where the cosmos were once the domains of the gods, they've replaced Heaven and Nirvana -- space exploration the path to transcendence. Science is now less about discovering truths and instead about seeking salvation and attaining godliness.

And really, you guys are getting so riled up over a Michael Crichton quote... It's entertaining. 

[Lelygax]

 Science is based in facts, religion is based in beliefs, even if you say that science is becoming a religion because people believe it, it cant simply because they are believing in facts and so even if they dont believe it still a fact.

 You can call me crazy, but even after that I want to hear more arguments from you and try to understand your point of view.

[Ratty]

Religious bigots? The basis of that entire post I quoted was that there is no God, that religion is bunk and science has taken over as the new dominant religion, that science has essentially mutated into a religion in its own right. It's not at all against science, it's against science in the popular modern sense. People moved from worshiping gods to worshiping microbes and nucleotides; where the cosmos were once the domains of the gods, they've replaced Heaven and Nirvana -- space exploration the path to transcendence. Science is now less about discovering truths and instead about seeking salvation and attaining godliness.

And really, you guys are getting so riled up over a Michael Crichton quote... It's entertaining. 

If people really are "worshiping microbes/space" (though I've not seen any evidence of it really) then that's still not worshiping science though, that's nature worship. I think what you're saying is that people are becoming more secular and materialistic. While this might be a more or less direct result of scientific progress, it is often more effective to go to the doctor than to just pray you get better for example, I don't think it's an instance of science itself replacing religion.

Because the scientific method is almost the exact opposite of religion in a few ways. For one while it is a method that may be utilized by nature worshipers in the same way that meditation for Buddhists or Communion for Catholics increases their understanding of their faith, like in those instances the devotees don't worship the acts themselves. Second and more importantly science is all about doubts and constantly re-checking the apparently true based on the best physical evidence, whereas religion is based on the word of authority. Scientific thinking says "This appears to be true based on the best current evidence, but might not be." Religious thinking says "This is true because the divine says it is." As for Michael Crichton well, he was a good author but he excelled most at making the absurd sound plausible.

[TheouAegis]

In one sense, the scientists aren't the religious fruitcakes. They go about their business asking questions and studying the universe around them, breaking laws of humanity once in a while and always in search of more knowledge. The populace however views the scientists in much the same light as a parishioner views a pastor, bishop or pope. While many may question the sensibilities or statements of one scientist or another, another scientist's word may be held as truth in the same light as the Pope's. One scientist will say global warming is a fallacy and people will stand behind his statements, quoting him in arguments against global warming. Another scientist will say global warming is a real resultant of industrialization and his supporters will stand behind his statements, quoting him in arguments about global warming. In this way there are scientific crusades much as there are were (are) religious crusades. Religion isn't about gods, it's a set of beliefs concerning the foundations of the universe around us, the universe we know and the universe we don't know. A scientist may or may not believe his findings are fact, just as a pontiff may or may not believe the religion he espouses is truth; yet both men may preach to the populace as such. In such a way can it be said that science is among the new religions. 

Man is inevitably drawn to religion. Those who want to turn away from the nature of man spit at religion, but modern science is little different from the lore of early men. Did Raven create the celestial bodies through trickery? The Pacific Northwest natives perceived nature and thus the Raven and from watching the raven one of them devised a story to explain how the world was created. Eventually chemistry gave men another excuse for where the sun came from. Many creation myths involve sex or at least couples and magic because after watching the world around them, they noticed sex was everywhere and all life was created through sex. It's not the most common creation myth because early people were blind, but because they saw clearly where life came from. ... Sure the fertility gods were a bit crazy--. Interestingly, a Zuni creation myth has touches of evolution in them. The first people weren't human at all, but amphibian; and depending on interpretation also had references to tectonics. The myth of Hermopolis focused on the dark chaos that existed before our sun and when the eight gods converged the Sun was pushed up. Early knowledge of fusion (ALIEN THEORISTS, GO!)? And what of the many myths regarding the cosmos? Early people looked to the stars more than many people do today because back then they didn't have street lights to blind them from the universe. While many did settle for the stars just being gods or the realm of the gods, that's not to say that there weren't people dissatisfied with that notion, or were satisfied with it as a placeholder for observations.

The foundations of theologies were science in its earliest sense. The laziness of man turned the early sciences into religions, the scientists grew complacent in the powers anointed upon them by the populace, and the world's religions grew. The religions of the old ones have lost their charm, the stars have become hidden, the grains at our hands have become nothing more than goods to be bartered for. The populace turns to modern science because the truths espoused by ancient scientists no longer hold meaning. In the past, man looked for something greater, something to humble him and, in some cases, make him feel better about himself. When the gods treated all life the same, men were humble with natures. When the gods doted upon humans, men were above nature. Over time there arose a school of thought that man was not above nature, that nature was not special, that the universe was made up of countless possibilities as evidenced by the innumerable stars in the sky. From thence the scientists stopped looking for a grand macrocosm and turned their attentions toward microcosms. Observations of society, both human and animal, would have suggested that there were other such microcosms at work. The world existed as it did not simply because some great being willed it so, but because the world was made up of things the blind naked eye cannot see. Maybe man wasn't made from mud, but man was made from something -- not just man, but all else in the world. One celestial body is larger and brighter than the others, but it didn't take a genius to know that objects appear smaller at a distance, and soon modern astronomy took root. Spirituality and science go hand-in-hand. There is no religion without science. While no doubt there was science without religion, it could be argued that the foundations of modern science would have never taken root without religion. The beliefs of the populace empower the attentive and curious to seek higher truths.

[X]

While no doubt there was science without religion, it could be argued that the foundations of modern science would have never taken root without religion.

I have to disagree with this statement to an extent (correct me if I'm wrong). The church repressed science. Religion was notoriously brutal when it came to early sciences. Many if not all who's discoveries clashed with church views found themselves under house arrest for the remainder of their lives (Galileo is a good example), tortured into confessing that they were possessed by the Devil who made them say such blasphemous words, burned alive or killed in whatever way was decided if they didn't not concede to church authority. It was only through the changing of the times when humanity became too large in numbers for the church to hold continuous control that modern science was born. And on a side-note Religion and spirituality are not the same thing. Spirituality is about the self and self-discovery while religion is about the gathering of followers because more followers means more money, power and control. But you are right about this:

Spirituality and science go hand-in-hand.

They are two sides of the same coin. One based in logistics and the other in emotionalism. Just like Male and female. You cannot fully know the whole picture of this mighty and grand universe without both in equal standing. Science is only 50 percent of the puzzle and it can only carry you so far before you feel somewhat amiss about certain aspects that just seem to escape explanation by any scientific methodology. That's where spirituality comes into play. The only unfortunate part of spirituality is that it requires the individual to 'believe' in order to see while many of us, in order to believe must 'see'. And that's usually when such conflicts arise.