Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (83760)	7/13/2000 2:48:29 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I don't imagine that science is equipped to even begin to tackle the the questions of "purpose", "supposed" or "superior". The latter two are moral questions; the former hinges on an engaged creator/companion - to wit, God. It's been established that God has left no unmistakable signature upon material observables - and science necessarily restricts itself to material observables. It seeks pattern and consequence within these observables, and the conditions are only two: 1) The pattern must be internally consistent, i.e. logical. 2) The pattern must be consistent with the observables. Science in its current form is unequipped to tackle moral questions. The oft-bruited "morality of science", typified by the question "should scientists build nuclear weapons?" is not about science or technology at all, but about human moral capacities and limits. Conversely anyone who uses science to support the faith that all is just machine is as arrogant an idiot as the one who earnestly complains that the fossil record is a Satanic trick. My current impression is that at their current levels of advancement, science and the moral questions you raise do not make contact. Thus far science always boils down to the How of things and not the Why.