The benefits of science being treated like they are objective, and similar problems

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I am sure that there is not a name for it. It is not scientism. Scientism, as I understand it, is simply seeing all of reality through a scientific worldview.

No, what I am talking about is people's attitudes and values with respect to science and technology, not how we view the relationship between the physical world and reality.

It seems like no matter where I turn in the modern world almost everybody--theists, atheists, liberals, conservatives, and every other kind of person--speaks of the "benefits" of science as if they are an obvious, undeniable, objective reality. Anybody who does not share at least the basic appreciation of the benefits of science that the majority of people in the modern world have is either out of touch with reality, in denial, a hypocrite, or all three.

It should be pointed out that when such people talk about the "benefits of science" they probably almost never have things like intellectual satisfaction, greater wisdom, greater consciousness of and understanding of one's self and the world, etc. in mind. No, they invariably are referring to technology.

Speaking of the obvious, at the risk of stating the obvious I would like to point out some things about the benefits of science:

1.) They have not been distributed equally to people across time and space.

2.) They are experienced subjectively, not objectively.

3.) They have come with costs that are largely ignored.


Concrete examples:

1.) A common theme in the discussion of the benefits of science is modern medicine. Well, I have not really seen the research literature on the topic, but I think that it is safe to say that if you could pinpoint a place in time where modern medicine began and quantify the degree of access to it around the globe from that point forward you would find that an overwhelming majority of humans have had access to very little of it.

2.) An advance in technology can undermine some people's well-being and happiness while enhancing other people's well-being and happiness. It is not a market externality kind of phenomenon that I am talking about. It is not things like people in affluent countries enjoying the benefits of batteries while people in poor countries have their bodies poisoned because they are the ones who dispose of those batteries. No, I am talking about technology in the same situation affecting people differently. For example, bed scanners and hand-held scanners that retail stores and other enterprises use hurt my eyes and my head. Apparently they only have that effect on me--everybody else simply talks about how they make things more efficient, how they get you in and out of the store faster, etc.

3.) Market externalities, basically. Forget for a moment about the biosphere (pollution, loss of biodiversity, etc.). Think about the social and psychological costs. We may have all kinds of technology that makes us more efficient and productive, but people are more isolated socially, parents have less and less influence on their children, there is less and less sense of community in most places, etc.


And that leaves out all of the injustice that has contributed to the development and marketing of a lot of that technology.

Like I said, I don't think that there is a name for it, but I experience it. If, say, you are more impressed by traditional societies then you are said to be romanticizing the horrible past, turning people into "noble savages", etc. To suggest that wisdom comes from having a basic appreciation of pre-scientific and non-scientific human experiences is asking to be vilified. President George W. Bush said "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists". Similarly, the dominant attitude seems to be that you are either for science or against science.

The part about being a hypocrite if you "enjoy" the benefits of science but at the same time criticize science is especially problematic. A lot of those "benefits" are public goods and there is no way to keep from benefiting from them. If the federal government taxes everybody, gives some of that money to the CDC, and in the process I am saved from infection with hepatitis, I can't change any of that. Public health measures are a public good, just like national defense. To say that a person who benefits from public health measures is a hypocrite if he/she does not appreciate science is absurd. Even when the benefits of science are not public goods most people do not have a choice. How can anybody say that I "enjoy" benefits of science such as the telephone without asking me what the telephone has meant to me? I would gladly live without a telephone, but if you want a job--if you want to to survive--you have to have one.

I now read almost constantly. I am increasingly starting to see that this view of science and its benefits is not inevitable. But if I was to bring up my sources and what they have to say they would be vilified, along with me. I don't know of a name for it, but this condescension, vilification and negative moral judgement directed at anybody who does not bow before the altar of modern formal science gets tiresome.

 

[Paradoxum]

I am sure that there is not a name for it. It is not scientism. Scientism, as I understand it, is simply seeing all of reality through a scientific worldview.

No, what I am talking about is people's attitudes and values with respect to science and technology, not how we view the relationship between the physical world and reality.

It seems like no matter where I turn in the modern world almost everybody--theists, atheists, liberals, conservatives, and every other kind of person--speaks of the "benefits" of science as if they are an obvious, undeniable, objective reality. Anybody who does not share at least the basic appreciation of the benefits of science that the majority of people in the modern world have is either out of touch with reality, in denial, a hypocrite, or all three.

Or dangerous, apathetic towards the suffering of others, anti-truth and so on.

The benefits aren't objective, as in you can't point to them, you have to use your brain and heart. The same could be said of the benefits of some morals. You can value the life of the 'brave Übermensch', murdering and raping whoever they like because morals are deniable. We will still hate such people though, and you can't really complain about that.

Perhaps too harsh a comparison.

It should be pointed out that when such people talk about the "benefits of science" they probably almost never have things like intellectual satisfaction, greater wisdom, greater consciousness of and understanding of one's self and the world, etc. in mind. No, they invariably are referring to technology.

True, though those things are good too.

Speaking of the obvious, at the risk of stating the obvious I would like to point out some things about the benefits of science:

1.) They have not been distributed equally to people across time and space.

2.) They are experienced subjectively, not objectively.

3.) They have come with costs that are largely ignored.


Concrete examples:

1.) A common theme in the discussion of the benefits of science is modern medicine. Well, I have not really seen the research literature on the topic, but I think that it is safe to say that if you could pinpoint a place in time where modern medicine began and quantify the degree of access to it around the globe from that point forward you would find that an overwhelming majority of humans have had access to very little of it.

What is your point? That if not everyone should benefit at once, then it isn't worth it for anyone? Modern medicine has helped alot of people, and will continue to help more and more people. It has got rid of diseases such as smallpox.

If you think that it should be available for everyone, doesn't that show that you think modern medicine is a benefit?

How can you not value preventing death and suffering?

2.) An advance in technology can undermine some people's well-being and happiness while enhancing other people's well-being and happiness. It is not a market externality kind of phenomenon that I am talking about. It is not things like people in affluent countries enjoying the benefits of batteries while people in poor countries have their bodies poisoned because they are the ones who dispose of those batteries. No, I am talking about technology in the same situation affecting people differently. For example, bed scanners and hand-held scanners that retail stores and other enterprises use hurt my eyes and my head. Apparently they only have that effect on me--everybody else simply talks about how they make things more efficient, how they get you in and out of the store faster, etc.

Well if you are in the shop, then I'd think it helps you out with efficiency too. I don't see how this is a serious problem.

3.) Market externalities, basically. Forget for a moment about the biosphere (pollution, loss of biodiversity, etc.). Think about the social and psychological costs. We may have all kinds of technology that makes us more efficient and productive, but people are more isolated socially, parents have less and less influence on their children, there is less and less sense of community in most places, etc.

You can still go outside and talk to people if you want. Technology doesn't stop you.

Perhaps loss of community is an important loss, but there a more benefits. You can still be part of communities.

And that leaves out all of the injustice that has contributed to the development and marketing of a lot of that technology.

Like I said, I don't think that there is a name for it, but I experience it. If, say, you are more impressed by traditional societies then you are said to be romanticizing the horrible past, turning people into "noble savages", etc. To suggest that wisdom comes from having a basic appreciation of pre-scientific and non-scientific human experiences is asking to be vilified. President George W. Bush said "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists". Similarly, the dominant attitude seems to be that you are either for science or against science.

You can say that trying to combine science with more natural/ communal living would be good.

The part about being a hypocrite if you "enjoy" the benefits of science but at the same time criticize science is especially problematic. A lot of those "benefits" are public goods and there is no way to keep from benefiting from them. If the federal government taxes everybody, gives some of that money to the CDC, and in the process I am saved from infection with hepatitis, I can't change any of that. Public health measures are a public good, just like national defense. To say that a person who benefits from public health measures is a hypocrite if he/she does not appreciate science is absurd. Even when the benefits of science are not public goods most people do not have a choice. How can anybody say that I "enjoy" benefits of science such as the telephone without asking me what the telephone has meant to me? I would gladly live without a telephone, but if you want a job--if you want to to survive--you have to have one.

Why don't you go join the Amish or something?

I now read almost constantly. I am increasingly starting to see that this view of science and its benefits is not inevitable. But if I was to bring up my sources and what they have to say they would be vilified, along with me. I don't know of a name for it, but this condescension, vilification and negative moral judgement directed at anybody who does not bow before the altar of modern formal science gets tiresome.

Well it looks like you are against truth, good health, pain prevention, and opening up greater choice of ways to live.

Just saying