Science, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, has shaped humanity.
Discuss.
>>5608
The Bible has shaped humanity.
Discuss.
>>5645
I don't argue that in the slightest, but this thread is about science's contribution to human history.
>>5608
Yes but it has not shaped humans, most people are still very ignorant of the scientific community and its achievements.
>>5757
>he says as he uses a box of sand and metal to communicate with light pulsing through glass tubes to someone who could possibly be on the other side of the world, all in under a second
>>5608
I guess discovery leads to more advanced structures and devices being constructed, ones which affect society in a very direct way and therefore force it to change. T.V for a more modern example.
>>5757
Even so, the work of engineers has advanced humanity quite a lot.
>>5879
I don't need to understand who, when or how it was invented to use it, that's the difference.
>>5879
Did you write that before hand and was waiting for an opportunity to post it? Pathetic.
>>5757
>changed the day cycle with artificial illumination
>changed the way empires are controled by revolutionizing movement
>MOTHERFUCKING INTERNET
Yeah sure.
>>5949
And yet you still use it. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it hasn't affected your life.
>>5608
>110 years since we discovered flying
>Exiting the atmosphere is a trivial matter
>Flying is common
Yes, yes it has.
>>5949
Most people don't understand the bible and it has shaped humabity nonetheless.
Hell, the oficial stance of the catholic church is you CAN'T understand it.
>>6025
>65 years between getting off the ground and getting to the moon
>50+ years doing nothing of significance
>>6108
Yes it has indeed, the bible has also shaped human behavior and culture which I don't agree science has done to the same degree.
>>5673
I know that, anon. I'm just shitposting.
>>6362
Science has done as much for humanity technology-wise as the Bible has culturally.
>>5757
Philosophy and sociology are even less popular among most people and have arguably influenced humanity much more than science did.
If you ask random people in the streets you surely will meet more people who can explain scientific concepts like electricity on a basic level that people who can explain the main ideas by Hegel/Kierkegaard/Weber/Foucault.
>>6130
>What is modern computing
>>6762
>Philosophy stopped being relevant the moment we had a basic understanding of how the world worked.
So you are saying moral question don't exist anymore? Or that these questions can be answered by science? Are you saying metaphysical questions can be answered by science? Because that's fucking retarded. Science is nice and useful but it will never be able to answer every question.
>>7026
You're assuming that you can answer moral questions with any form of certainty, that these moral questions have answers in the first place, or that the moral questions even exist. Sitting around thinking about what the world may be like hasn't helped humanity since we got the basics of the scientific method.
>>6362
>>6432
How do you measure how much each of those things has done for humanity? Moreover, are you counting simply how much something has affected humanity or are you considering whether the contributions are harmful or beneficial? And, is it fair to weigh science (however you might define it) against the only the bible (whichever edition you are going with), or should the contributions of science and the bible be weighed against those of other world religions and philosophies as well?
>>5757
That's very relative. The average person in the 21st century likely has a grasp on the basics of science far outstripping that of, say, a medieval peasant. But, our collective scientific knowledge now is far more than it was back then as well.
>>6762
You're right. Law and religion are totally irrelevant. They hardly influence humanity in any way.
>>7213
>You're assuming that you can answer moral questions with any form of certainty, that these moral questions have answers in the first place
there are no definitive 'correct' answers, but you can put up good reasoning and that is what philosophers/sociologists do. So you want to stop thinking about ethics entirely because there is no certain correct answer? That's totally childish. "Oh, there is no clear correct answer on whether we should allow abortions, so let's just not think about it, lel."
>or that the moral questions even exist
I really don't know what to say if you really claim that moral questions don't exist
> Sitting around thinking about what the world may be like hasn't helped humanity since we got the basics of the scientific method.
The idea of how a state should be run is not useful? The idea of seperation of powers? The social contract? There are tons of examples that show that philosophy or sociology have had an immediate positive impact on humanity.
>scientific method
The modern view of the scientific method was literally formed by Karl Popper, a philosopher. Also you could even debate about the usefulness of the scientific method (see e.g. Feyerabend for a pretty extreme view on it).
It just seems that you have never read any philosophy and have no idea what you are talking about, no offense.
>>7242
You don't really measure it, you can't quantify it exactly, but qualitatively both of them have 'advanced' humanity forward, for better or worse.
>>7721
>So you want to stop thinking about ethics entirely because there is no certain correct answer?
No, I'm saying that, because there is no certain correct answer, you can argue either side for eternity, and doing so wouldn't benefit humanity in any way.
>I really don't know what to say if you really claim that moral questions don't exist
What I mean by that is that is that it may be a human invention, much like math. You could argue (and people do) about whether numbers actually exist as much as you can argue about whether good or bad exists.
>The idea of how a state should be run is not useful?
We've spent thousands of years debating this. If philosophers could actually come up with a way to implement a worker's communist society or a society ruled by philosopher-kings, then everything would be nice and dandy, but so far all we've had are theories on how things should run. Hell, we don't even know if democracy actually is a good idea or if it's guaranteed to become mob rule.
>It just seems that you have never read any philosophy and have no idea what you are talking about, no offense.
I can't argue with that, the only experience I've had were required ethics classes in college.
>>8253
>You could argue (and people do) about whether numbers actually exist
People really argue if numbers exist? seriously? Is there any reason to believe they don't?
>>8426
What is a "one"? How much more than a "zero" is a "one"?
>>8426
>People really argue if numbers exist?
Do they? What about negative numbers? Can you have negative of something? What about imaginary numbers? Can you have imaginary amounts of something?
As far as I can tell they're just a convenient way of quantifying things we observe. Otherwise they're somewhat arbitrary.
>>8426
Son, you need to look up Peano's axioms for arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, and in particular the well-known construction of the natural numbers starting with the empty set. You got no idea what you're on about, and once you do maybe you'll see why "do numbers exist?" is a serious philosophical question.
>>8426
Since the rules of mathematics are made up it makes sense to discuss whether its tools also are.
>>8426
the Greeks used to talk about this a bit if I remember correctly, but it's not been discussed on a broader scale since.
>>9006
The moment you claim numbers are just the product of axioms then you also claim that numbers are merely the product of the human mind (not saying that I disagree with that, Kant iirc argued differently though)
>>8253
>>The idea of how a state should be run is not useful?
>We've spent thousands of years debating this.
And we've made considerable progress since then (at least in the western world). The state of our society/government we live in right now are surely much better than it was a couple of hundred years ago, that is a product of sociology and philosophy.
>>I really don't know what to say if you really claim that moral questions don't exist
>What I mean by that is that is that it may be a human invention, much like math. You could argue (and people do) about whether numbers actually exist as much as you can argue about whether good or bad exists.
It doesn't really matter whether ethics exist without human thought it's still an important topic. Similarly mathematicians don't give a fuck about people discussing whether numbers are real or not.
>>I really don't know what to say if you really claim that moral questions don't exist
>What I mean by that is that is that it may be a human invention, much like math. You could argue (and people do) about whether numbers actually exist as much as you can argue about whether good or bad exists.
Firstly, a discussion is always helpful and helps understanding the question even if no conclusion is agreed upon.
Secondly there are a lot of moral issues that people can agree upon, and that is often a result of philosophy/sociology, e.g. the declaration of human and civil rights. If you asked a guy from the Middle Ages about freedom of religion he'd probably argue against it. Philosophical thought have resulted in a society in that pretty much everybody agrees on freedom of religion.
>>6762
>Philosophy stopped being relevant the moment we had a basic understanding of how the world worked.
Your ignorance hurts.
So much scientism in this thread.
Humans shape science, humans change science, afterwards science shapes humanity, but human's are still working on the permanent beta. So let's not be so quick to reduce it to science, "something true out there that we discover", because that image is obviously not corresponding with how science actually gets done.
I'm doing a minor on Philosophy of Science. It has been an eye opener for me. I understand science a lot better now.
>>9168
>the Greeks used to talk about this a bit if I remember correctly, but it's not been discussed on a broader scale since.
>what is kant
>what is berkely
>what is analytical philosophy
>>9168
holy fuck, sorry for my shitty english in this post, should have proofread.
>>9316
Kant only discussed maths as a deductive method I think, not numbers as 'objects' in particular (in the part about analytic a priori statements).
Granted, I don't know shit about analytic philosophy past its beginnings, so I might be wrong there.
>>9513
>Granted, I don't know shit about analytic philosophy past its beginnings
More importantly, you don't seem to know much about the history of mathematics, in which field the discussion is properly placed.
>>6762
No, we don't understand how the world works. We only have explanations for phenomena that seem to be at least predictive, acceptable and coherent. Meanwhile most of them are not worth to get called 'true'. Too many anomalies, observation problems, methodological shortcomings etc.
Duhem-quine thesis basically destroyed the truth-value of experiments. Kuhn (& Lakados, Laudan) described how the scientific praxis in particular domains change. And with it how the notion of science changes, it's aims, uses, assumptions. You can't compare two paradigms, they use the same 'word' in a different ontological world. e.g. notion of mass changed in every physical theory about movement.
>>9652
what do you mean exactly? examples?
>>7026
>So you are saying moral question don't exist anymore?
Maybe he's saying that the moment we started to understand our world and its place in the universe a little better, we realized that nothing will ever provide us with answers to moral questions, neither philosophy, nor religion, nor anything else.
>>9796
My post was intentionally arrogant to irritate you, but my point is that mathematics since the 1850s-1870s has looked extensively into what "numbers" are and how they can be defined, and while the philosophy of mathematics isn't itself mathematics (arguably), you will probably get better answers to the question of the existence of numbers if you start from the vantage point of mathematics rather than philosophy.
