SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - New Charles Darwin film is 'too controversial' for religious American audiences

Skybird · 09-14-09, 10:36 AM

I agree with your criticism of science business today, it's what I meant went criticising the academic routine of science. scientists make a living of their profession, they are not only polishing their narcissistic egos, but also are under pressure to come up with some reuslts and so and so many publications if they want to keep that job as professor, and with most, I think, it is like the latter. That such factors do not help the quality of academic work and scientific reasearch, must not be explained, then. Even more so when considering that universities are under immense pressure by interest groups from both the economy and politics to not approach a theme unbiased, but to produce the wanted confirmation for a wanted thesis, or results that already are packed and advertised and just need to be put on the shelves for sale and making profit from them as fast as possible.

Science must approach it's chosen objects unbiased and open-minded, and it must constantly counter-check and compare it's findings. Theories are no final words on the issue, but temporary working thesis that are constantly worked on. Scepticism here means not to take anything for granted, and not to prematurely ruling out things one cannot (or does not want!) to imagine. In the end, the attitude in which a scientist should approach nature is that of a child, that gets lost in contemplation for reasons of pure curiosity, and this curiosity is the basic drive. Knowledge may lead to technical innovations and new products, yes, but it has no obligation to exclusively focus on that, for knowledge is a value in itself. The systematic effort in the scientific work process just comes as a needed part of doing the job well.

Ultimate answers that will last for the rest of eternity I do not expect from sciences. What science gives us is to see the everchanging nature of our perception of what we call a universe, and to understand that we cannot differ between it and us but that we are a part of it that feeds back on it and gets influenced by it, and that the relation between "it" and "us" is ever-changing.

And that is almost in every aspect the complete antithesis to institutionalised religions.

09-14-09, 10:36 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,714 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I agree with your criticism of science business today, it's what I meant went criticising the academic routine of science. scientists make a living of their profession, they are not only polishing their narcissistic egos, but also are under pressure to come up with some reuslts and so and so many publications if they want to keep that job as professor, and with most, I think, it is like the latter. That such factors do not help the quality of academic work and scientific reasearch, must not be explained, then. Even more so when considering that universities are under immense pressure by interest groups from both the economy and politics to not approach a theme unbiased, but to produce the wanted confirmation for a wanted thesis, or results that already are packed and advertised and just need to be put on the shelves for sale and making profit from them as fast as possible. Science must approach it's chosen objects unbiased and open-minded, and it must constantly counter-check and compare it's findings. Theories are no final words on the issue, but temporary working thesis that are constantly worked on. Scepticism here means not to take anything for granted, and not to prematurely ruling out things one cannot (or does not want!) to imagine. In the end, the attitude in which a scientist should approach nature is that of a child, that gets lost in contemplation for reasons of pure curiosity, and this curiosity is the basic drive. Knowledge may lead to technical innovations and new products, yes, but it has no obligation to exclusively focus on that, for knowledge is a value in itself. The systematic effort in the scientific work process just comes as a needed part of doing the job well. Ultimate answers that will last for the rest of eternity I do not expect from sciences. What science gives us is to see the everchanging nature of our perception of what we call a universe, and to understand that we cannot differ between it and us but that we are a part of it that feeds back on it and gets influenced by it, and that the relation between "it" and "us" is ever-changing. And that is almost in every aspect the complete antithesis to institutionalised religions. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.