Bad astronomer: Why Science is Important

Phil Plait, the bad astronomer himself, answers the question “why is science important?” One of many answers to this question from high profile scientists, writers and teachers at www.whyscience.co.uk

Duration : 0:4:44


[youtube U53NgRAtpus]


Comments

Bad astronomer: Why Science is Important — 25 Comments

  1. @Eidolon1977 No, ” …
    @Eidolon1977 No, “why are we here” is a scientific question, which has been answered, ever better and better by evolutionary biology (or biology for short), our modern world works because of the scientific principle, finding out why thing go, and making things go our way.

    If you extend the question “why” to include some kind of purpose, you’re at a loss in science, since you can’t answer silly questions with science, that’s for religion to fill. The green corner with bloussards.

  2. Phil, I really love …
    Phil, I really love your movies but this one is a bit over the top. What are we made of and where are chemical elements formed are both scientific question, sure. But “why are we here” clearly is not one. Get your epistemology right or say belief system instead of science, either way.
    A (bad) astronomer

  3. Great video Phil! …
    Great video Phil!
    “Support Science, Not Superstition”

  4. Does science …
    Does science presuppose a form of philosophy? Science isn’t more than the practice of, “I’ve observed this phenomenon. What causes this? What predictions does this make?” It’s not really philosophy.

    Science is great because with it you can make deductions and predictions. Skepticism is helpful for discarding the countless absurd claims thrown at us on an almost daily basis. Science as a construct is objective. Religion and politics have skewed the meaning of the word, “truth.”

  5. French author …
    French author Rabelais said it “Science sans conscience n’est que ruine de l’âme” but… I actually and unfortunately do not say that ! I say : looking for knowledge seems incredibly cool (I do it all the time) and not evil at all … apparently. I just would advise people to go further : get knowledge about the idea & act of getting knowledge itself. Why we do it and what are the consequences ? Seems waste of time but is not & answers the question “Why Science is important ?”

  6. Great job Phil. I …
    Great job Phil. I would say science is the pursuit of the Universe to understanding itself. It’s a curious thing that this unintended pursuit has led to misunderstandings and ideological perceptions. It’s as if our consciousness will do whatevers necessary to obtain a all knowing state. Natural selection must favor the ability to comprehend its own function.

  7. Yea the reason is …
    Yea the reason is social, but that doesn’t mean existing mating habits are stupid or bad…
    But banning condoms/contraceptives without banning premarital sex is just retarted. You either ban both or allow both.

  8. Right… So what …
    Right… So what other ‘absolute knowledge’ is possible besides science?
    I think what you’re trying to say is that science is good but it must be used responsibly… Besides science you need responsibility in the world.

  9. Don’t you realise …
    Don’t you realise we can use more science to solve the unexpected problems brought about by previous scientific developments? -.-
    (e.g. use science to build taller buildings, grow more food, etc. to solve overpopulation)

  10. You’ll be surprised …
    You’ll be surprised how many retards out there see science being used for negative means and say science is bad and should be abolished.

  11. Erm, 10mintwo …
    Erm, 10mintwo doesn’t sound like a teenager at all…
    Anyway what does he claiming he is 31 have to do with anything?

  12. The main reason …
    The main reason behind our ‘population explosion’, is our ‘procreational behaviour’. Although, science does help to insure that we live to be old enough to procreate, the main reason for our population growth is our ‘mating habits’, that are based on ignorance, stupidity and religious ideology. The main problem behind our current population explosion, is social; not scientific.

  13. “Over ‘pop levels’ …
    “Over ‘pop levels’ does not have anything to do with science”. Are you kidding ? Do U think that it is pure coincidence that pop levels went through the roof (exponential growth) just as the same moment that industrial revolution arose ? (and hygiena and medecine with it).

  14. The ‘proof’ is in …
    The ‘proof’ is in the fact that we have access to information in ways we didn’t 100 years ago (the Internet). Science has given us the means to refrigerate our food, cook our food, preserve our food, it gives us the means to heat our selves, etc. Over ‘population levels’ doesn’t have anything to do with science, but rather ignorance, and in some cases religious beliefs (The church’s outlook on Condoms for example). Also, if people go hungry, that because of politics; not science.

  15. Yeah I´m sorry bout …
    Yeah I´m sorry bout that. I was under the influence of really bad philosophy by the time I wrote that, so, forget it.

    I was correct in the sense that I did not see science as the ultimate method of truth – science already presupposes a form of philosophy to uphold it. So, philosophy is where you start. Didn´t realize it at the time in the same way I do now.

    Epistemology is a notoriously hard subject. I recommend however that you look up the philosopher “Ayn Rand”, she makes alot of sense.

  16. @PITIREY No fallacy …
    @PITIREY No fallacy, cause I do not say that Lorenz is a “proof” of whatever. It is the just the introduction of MY arguments. You say humanity is better now than 100 years from now thanks to Science but I want PROOFS !
    More and more SCIENTISTS fear for our immediate future and think world population might crash soon.
    See another irony : thanks to Science (hygiena) there were less and less babys dying (good) => so they lived but … hungry (FAO : 1.02 billion people hungry in 2009) (bad).

  17. Truth and facts are …
    Truth and facts are interdependent. In the same way that truth is supported by facts, you can’t have facts that don’t represent some truth. It’s possible that you can know everything (within the limits of human perception) through science, including consciousness.

    Though I don’t understand your notion to “look it up.” Look what up?

  18. by the way, ccd …
    by the way, ccd means charged couple device, it’s an important advance.

  19. Wait, you forgot …
    Wait, you forgot that the ccd was developed for the Galileo mission to Jupiter.
    You also forgot that we are arguing our view of reality against that weird history of religion. You need to understand religion before you can teach the important lessons you are trying to teach.
    I need you, you need me.

  20. I believe science …
    I believe science is both practical; enjoyable; but in no way can science be “everything” – As his philosophical viewpoint here is. Science is not about the search for “truth” but the search for facts – as you may have heard.

    If you want the “truth” about the meaning of life, whatever that is, you gotta look inside YOU. Your conciousness is not a logical construct, but an experience.

    Ask any philosopher and they will laugh at the idea that you can know everything through science. Look it up.

  21. BeHereNow21: We …
    BeHereNow21: We have already answered that question, at least the beginnings of it. Our consciousness arises from the interactions between individual neurons in our brain. If you are asking about our individuality and personalities then that comes from the way our neurons are connected to each other.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *