This place sure goes in "spurts"

[Donn]

On Tuesday, 21 July 2009 19:22:43 Ari Torhamo wrote:
> ti, 2009-07-21 kello 14:11 +0200, Donn kirjoitti:
> > On Tuesday, 21 July 2009 14:02:03 Ari Torhamo wrote:
> > > > Is there morality to be found in Science? Yes, profoundly.
> > > > Is there compassion? Abundantly.
> > > > Is there respect and wonder? The beaker overfloweth.
> > > > Is there love for each other in it's hallowed laboratories? Of
> > > > course.
> > >
> > > You are confusing things. Morality, compassion, love, etc. are not
> > > properties of science (scientific method). Individual scientists may or
> > > may not carry them, but that's another matter.
> >
> > That scientists carry these properties is obvious.
> >
> > That science as a human
> > exercise can propose values and ethics is a simple truth. That religion
> > will refuse to hear it is a sad truth.
>
> You are shuffling.
Let's rewind to your words, in a tone that implied you didn't like it:
"It seems that for many people science has taken the place that used to
belong to religions"
I am saying that science has indeed taken the place of religion: it grew out 
of religion and then kept growing -- because it is *better* at explaining 
things.

The simple fact is that "science" is just humans thinking incrementally and 
correcting mistakes. With this thinking comes new and better reasons for 
ethics etc. So, it's not a bad thing that science is replacing religion.

> I assume by this you mean
> "advance") different ethical and valuable aims by providing practical
> means to achieve them. 
Yes, well put.

> That doesn't in any way make those qualities part
> of the scientific method 
I see that you are trying to make some distinction between discovery (of 
properties) and something -- but I totally fail to follow you.

> important to keep in mind the difference between science and scientists
> as persons.
Why? 

\d