Book Burning

[Thorne]

In former times nobody noticed gravity, and sickness was certainly not connected to small small beings in people's bodies. My whole point was that there was (and undoubtedly is) lots of stuff we are not researching because we haven't noticed it or thought of it yet.

How do you NOT notice gravity? What goes up, comes back down. You may not know why, may not even know how to measure it, but you know it happens. Yes, people take it for granted, but the effects are still seen. Same with sickness. Whether they knew what caused it or not, the effects of sickness were known, seen, showing its presence to everyone.

Still, it can be true that there are things we haven't noticed yet, because they have no effect on us. They don't interact with the world as we know it. This does not, however, mean they are gods, or that there are gods at all. Just things we don't know. Yet.

I only know there is more about mind-body connection than is researched at this point. And I think it comes from religion as culture, when body and mind was really seen as two different things.

Such as? I mean, if you know there is more you must have some idea of what they're missing. As far as I have been able to determine, if there's something real happening, they're researching it somewhere. Out of body experiences? They have, and are, researching. Near death experiences? They have, and still are, researching. But even if we could accept some of these mind-body connections you mention, how are they evidence for gods? Just because we don't understand something does not mean gods are responsible. All it means is that we don't know!

the object of research is to make money, not to increase knowledge.

That's a rather simplistic view. Yes, the HOPE of some who fund research is to learn new ways to make money. But not all, not by a long shot. And it's not a guarantee, either. Sometimes the results of research are negative, which is still good for science and knowledge, but not so much for making money.

Animal use in reseach. Biological warfare. Weapens.

I have personally benefited from the results of animal use in research. Chances are almost anyone who has taken medicine of any kind has benefited from such research. If it ultimately saves human lives I don't care how many lab rats and rhesus monkeys have to die. And having worked for a company which used lab rats in its research, I can tell you that some of those who work with them struggle with what has to be done every day.

As for biological weapons, or any weapons, yes, the ultimate aim is to find more efficient ways of killing people. Blame your elected officials, not the scientists they hire to make the weapons.

You used the word 'progress'. Did you mean anything by it?

Yes, I meant it in the context of moving forward, advancing our understanding. It's not necessarily good or bad, just a general movement towards more understanding.

We? You are not talking for me here. Pure science, as was done in universities mostly, is cut off, and what is left is now sponsored by industries, and guess what they want? Science is not a quest for knowledge, but for products which can make money.

Again I disagree. And again I point to the science going on right now in space. We are gaining vast amounts of information and understanding of our universe, with no prospects of financial gain at all. What of those studying earthquakes and volcanoes. Where's the profit there? Or weather. Or anthropology. Or any number of other sciences. And universities are still doing pure research. It's just that so much of it involves things which have very little connection to our daily lives that we seldom hear about it.

True, industries use scientific research to find new ways to make money. So what? That's what they're in business for. Why is it wrong for them to make money?

You talk as is scientists are mostly paladins, pure of heart as opposed to others, mysteriously totally objective regardless of their culture and their own situation - a trick which nobody else can manage. And what about what use their science is meant for? Do they have nothing to do with that?

LOL! No, scientists are no more noble than anyone else. They're not necessarily smarter than everyone else. Except possibly in their field of study. And the uses their science is meant for is not necessarily the uses to which they are put. Einstein did not develop his theory of relativity so that other scientists could make atomic weapons. Alfred Nobel did not develop dynamite so that it could be used to kill soldiers. Others took that knowledge and perverted it, if you will. Some of those others were scientists. Some were soldiers. Some were politicians. It takes ALL kinds.

In my opinion science is misused so much we really have to stop and use common sense instead of claiming that quest for knowledge is a holy cow noone may touch or even discuss.

And whose common sense shall we use? Shall we accept the "common sense" of some religious people who claim that women should be persecuted for the sin of Eve? Shall we use the "common sense" of those who feel that Africans are inherently inferior and not good for anything but slave labor? There is nothing so uncommon as common sense.

Ideally, science is the search for truth. Objective truth. Yes, it can be perverted. Yes, it can be dangerous. Like any other human activity, science is far from infallible. But it is a far better method of determining how things really work than any other endeavor to date.

Money is power, not just survival. And there are power mongers out there who wants to control everything.

Yes, there are, and they will use any means possible, including science and religion and the media, to get and maintain that control. In fact, religion has long been the best means of controlling a population. And getting money from them. Why aren't you complaining about that?

How about freedom of speech? Does it also contain freedom from speech, meaning you cannot create situations that force people to listen?

I would have to say yes!