>>6641354 Saying sir doesn't make you sound smart. Science is not a person or an organization. Politics decide how science is used in the national and international level. War, medicine, entertainment, all applications of science funded by government or private entities, not ''science''. As if its a secret club of smart bourgeois who exploit humans as mere resources. Please kill yourself, not joking, you shouldn't even be alive in nature, you only made it this far because of SCIENCE.
>>6641372 Well. I don't think you know the meaning of science properly. What you're doing is pseudoscience if you are just slaves to the politicians desires. What, or whom, do you think you -should- do science for? I'm pretty sure it's perpetual humanity, but I'm looking forward to hear your answer.
>>6641373 >Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.
You seem butthurt because STEM people are smarter than you, make more money and have better lives.
>>6641378 Yes, that's the definition, but for what reasons do we study the universe? Why do we search for knowledge? The answer to this question, given by a scientist, is, 'politicians and their funding'. The natural answer would be, "perpetual humanity". If after your observation you forget to predict that the waste we produce will one day cause a lot of suffering for future humanity, primarily children, then you're not doing science properly.
>>6641416 I won't believe that every scientist is like you, but I'm sure the Government shouldn't fund anyone who thinks that way. If they do, then it's but another evil in society that needs to be dealt with.
>>6641443 I'm not trolling, but why do you respond if you think it's a troll. Aren't you just a teacher or really self-obsessive adult who monitors this board and makes sure none discuss anything that's not on the Government prospectus?
There's no intellectual discussion because you haven't said anything worthwhile to discuss. Literally all you said was "hurr science is evil why?" which is fucking retarded and a question that nobody will take seriously.
>>6641475 Actually my question was written properly and with intellectual discussion in my. It's your slander only that creates the illusion to others that I'm not being serious. Wow, once again, you don't want to discuss or allow others to; you're either a teacher or self-obsessive student/adult.
I've had a sudden realization. This board is full of trolls, and it's not the religious, philosophy or 'deep' threads, it's the ones who constantly come in flaming and derailing threads that don't agree with their beloved education.
>>6641484 >>6641488 OR maybe your post is just stupid? Did that ever occur to you? Of course not, because you know the truth and those who disagree are part of a conspiracy to silence you! Fight that brave fight anon!
>>6641492 Science is also a body of knowledge, but this body of knowledge is biased toward politicians desires, and not perpetual humanity. I'll ask again, why do we seek knowledge of the universe? And why do we want to understand it? For what reasons? Vision is the process of the eyes, I could say, "why does your vision not care about the prosperity of humanity?" and it makes sense. The process is accompanied by the processors. Science is the process of analysis, what I'm asking is, why isn't your analysis for the prosperity of humanity?
>>6641503 Why are you so defensive about it? I think that's a sign of weakness. The janitor is probably a teacher, you're probably one, or again, a child-murdering faggot adult. You spend time reporting this thread over and over again until it does get deleted. This is because you want to prevent other people discussing. Why even post in the thread if you think it's a troll, it's easy to hide and go to another thread, but you're obligated to others, to stop them discussing, why? (Cause you're a teacher or troll adult).
>>6641506 You haven't provided any evidence or argument that science is done for the prosperity of humanity. Can you show me scientific knowledge that doesn't advance humanity's knowledge? You aren't making any sense at all.
>>6641371 What? >>6641373 >What you're doing is pseudoscience if you are just slaves to the politicians desires. You usually request government to dedicate certain part of federal reserve to your research, wait until approval and perform the said research. What's wrong with it? You can use alternative forms of funding in case of disapproval but good luck with that, your issue is rarely relevant enough to gain enough public interest. Moreover, you're not forced to do a specific research just due to governmental request - it's all voluntary, and if you bring some silly argument like "wage slavery" then you are an idiot. >What, or whom, do you think you -should- do science for? For: 1) [Most importantly] Personal achievement 2) Public good 3) Wage
>>6641513 Yes it does, because it has a source. You can see waste happening all around you, why on Earth don't your eyes care about this when they see it? This makes sense. Why on Earth doesn't science, when it observes the natural world, care about the waste output it discovers? Why does it move so quickly onto other, less-important things. This is a matter of life or death, you must be a pretty shit scientist if you overlooked this major problem. This is the behaviour of the natural world, so why haven't scientists got on the case to prevent the suffering of future humanity, which are the ones affected by our plunder of the Earth?
>>6641533 Your eyes are physically incapable of "caring," so no it make no sense at all.
>Why on Earth doesn't science, when it observes the natural world, care about the waste output it discovers?' Why on Earth do you think scientists don't? There's in fact an entire branch of science devoted to exactly that. It's called environmental science.
Why do you keep posting pictures of young boys and ranting about adults? You seem to have schizophrenia.
>>6641532 Thank you for the serious response. Who decides this? Was a question that was answered by you on the off-hand. You said that, by request, politicians lend you money, but I'm sure they won't give you money if it doesn't bring them some kind of profit. You're still a slave... It's just a mutually-agreed slavery, no whips or shackles needed.
I don't agree with your answer for why you should do science. Personal achievement, why? It does nothing but make you serve as a memory, it's increasing your fame, but doing nothing for the world. We want to do science to increase our understanding, keyword OUR. "We" are a MAJOR part of science. Why would WE not UNDERSTAND the fact that we're killing ourselves? And why is this knowledge not important?
>>6641546 So how do politicians profit by funding, for example, the Large Hadron Collider? Hm?
>You're still a slave... It's just a mutually-agreed slavery, no whips or shackles needed. Isn't slavery by definition something you DON'T agree to? If you agree to do something, that's the opposite of slavery.
>Personal achievement, why? Because the moment we start saying science should be done for so-and-so reason, you are introducing biases. Science should, first and foremost, be done for the sake of science. Scientists should strive to do science well. And when that happens humanity prospers as a result,
>>6641543 But your eyes are part of a sentient being, so they can care. Why would you look at one thing and not the other, either because you cared more about it, or you had to. Why don't you care when your eyes see waste output. Why don't scientists care, when your analysis reaches the conclusion that future humanity will perish due to waste output in a much shorter time period than was originally intended? Why don't scientists care about humanities prosperity when they conduct science? Why doesn't science care about Humanity's prosperity?
>>6641556 That's like saying your hand cares. You care, that doesn't mean your body parts care. Regardless this is an idiotic semantic argument. Once again, why do you think scientists don't care about humanity? Where is your proof?
>>6641555 Make your mind up, before it was to gain knowledge, now it's purely for science? Again, why? Fun? What's the point in science if it has no attribution? And no slavery is when you are out of control of your actions and you are to work for the one's imprisoning you. Ever heard of the slave market, I imagine some had agreed to their slavery. And they probably thought the LHC would prove their ideology correct, or it may have found some new resource.
feel concern or interest; attach importance to something. "they don't care about human life" synonyms: be concerned, worry (oneself), trouble oneself, bother, mind; More feel affection or liking. "you care very deeply for him" synonyms: love, be fond of, feel affection for, cherish, hold dear, treasure, prize, adore, dote on, think the world of, worship, idolize, be devoted to; More antonyms: hate like or be willing to do or have something. "would you care for some tea?" synonyms: like, wish for, want, desire, prefer, fancy, have a fancy for, take a fancy to, feel like; More 2. look after and provide for the needs of. "he has numerous animals to care for" synonyms: look after, take care of, tend, attend to, mind, minister to, take charge of, nurse, provide for, foster, protect, watch, guard
>>6641546 >I'm sure they won't give you money if it doesn't bring them some kind of profit. Depending on the state we live in. I've seen a lot of research from Scandinavia concerning cultural and social issues which in no real way could have possibly profited the state. Moreover, if managed properly, the primarily purpose of political and scientific activity is usually philanthropy. You can also request aid from private foundation if you disagree with political proposals if interests of you both match, or attain the maximal amount of freedom using crowdsourcing. >Personal achievement, why? Maslow hierarchy of needs. >It does nothing but make you serve as a memory, it's increasing your fame, but doing nothing for the world. Scientific research in mature fields is incredibly collaborative subject these days, aside from theoretical fields. Usually specific institutions are given credit, not key people.
>>6641564 Science is gaining knowledge. Try to keep up.
>What's the point in science if it has no attribution? Knowledge is pretty useful, maybe you should get some.
>And no slavery is when you are out of control of your actions and you are to work for the one's imprisoning you. Yes, so how is the aforementioned slavery?
>And they probably thought the LHC would prove their ideology correct, or it may have found some new resource. The LHC has nothing to do with ideology, and it has nothing to do with finding a new resource.
>>6641587 >Usually specific institutions are given credit, not key people. Still, it's immaturity, conducting science for reasons of fame. If I conduct science, I do so with humanity in mind. What could I possibly create that would help humanity? Are the type of questions I'd ask.
>>6641606 This is a troll. We have billions of cars in the world which all take to the road every day and burn poisonous gasses into the air. Tons of nuclear waste are buried underground for future humanity to inherit. This is to name but a few 'waste outputs'.
>>6641608 >We have billions of cars in the world which all take to the road every day and burn poisonous gasses into the air. Tons of nuclear waste are buried underground for future humanity to inherit. This is to name but a few 'waste outputs'. Yes, and why do you assume scientists don't think about this or care about it? There are in fact millions of scientists who work on those very problems. Only someone completely ignorant of current science or someone with an obsessive mental disorder would claim otherwise.
>>6641592 >conducting science for reasons of fame Research is not conducted for the fame, credit obviously is not the initial point of scientific research, it's just, well, there. >If I conduct science, I do so with humanity in mind. So do those scientific institutions mentioned earlier. Had they went for fame or for money they would have had way better opportunities in completely different fields, but they have dedicated their time to science.
>>6641615 I don't see any action being taken. The problem only seems to be getting worse. More nuclear waste producing plants are built, more vehicles and technologies are made, etc. A couple of wind farms doesn't help enough. The people and their safety, comes first, before the advancement of reality. And if the reality is going to kill us one day, it's time to end it. It would be the 'scientific' thing to do.
>>6641603 >Why is waste output overlooked? It isn't, but preventing major waste producers from producing waste is a terrifically bad idea from economical standpoint which would cost the economical state of millions of people - look at what EU "green" policies did when they have lasted, for example. >And what kind of help does it give humanity? It fosters economical growth, what is a very important aspect of human life.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.