Should Anti-Scientists Be Denied Things Derived From Science?

[Guest xandrani]

Should people who are anti-science be disallowed anything that was created because of science?

 

e.g. Should they be disallowed the use of:

 

1) Mobile phones

2) Antibiotics and medication in general

3) Television

4) Computers

5) Cars

6) Planes

7) Food produced using farm machinery

8) Electricity

 

Well the list goes on, but to be fair if someone is anti-science should they be allowed it's fruits? I personally think they should be denied all these things.

[Shyone]

Should people who are anti-science be disallowed anything that was created because of science?

 

e.g. Should they be disallowed the use of:

 

1) Mobile phones

2) Antibiotics and medication in general

3) Television

4) Computers

5) Cars

6) Planes

7) Food produced using farm machinery

8) Electricity

 

Well the list goes on, but to be fair if someone is anti-science should they be allowed it's fruits? I personally think they should be denied all these things.

Interesting thought. You could add genetic engineering to that list (with #7).

 

The problems are manifold. Who decides? What specific criteria (e.g. do Global Warming Deniers qualify)?

 

How about those that "accept" science, but also add the magical mystery stuff like ID? They accept every discovery science has to offer, but say "God did it."

 

What if they don't believe in electrons, but they believe in protons?

 

If they accept Newtonian physics, but not relativistic physics?

 

Too complicated.

[FourDogBrewing]

Amusing thought, I will give you that.

 

I have often thought to myself, so they don't believe evolution, big bang, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but yet they obviously must believe in the science that brought them all of this technology, so how does that reconcile?

 

Denying people access to the benefits of science because they don't believe a part of it would be like denying a person eternal life because they don't believe a part of it .... oh wait .... lol

 

If nothing else, they should be allowed to reap the benefits because the global science community aren't a bunch of idiots like modern organized religions are.

[buffettphan]

I've thought about that quite a bit too. They don't mind USING science and technology for their own benefit, that's for sure. But come to think of it, they don't mind USING other people either, xtian or not, for their own benefit. Maybe one of these days a few of them will come around, appreciate science and technology for what they are, and actually contribute something worthwhile to humanity.

[NimbusBirdMgp]

This last week I met a Tenant Guy from my Apartment complex in the Recreation Room. It was the day of the first Flight of Boeing's 787 and I made a remark. "Boeing's Now flying the 787. I'm finding it pretty exciting right now." The Guy playing pool tells me "I don't give a crap about that! They should be making more living places for the homeless. And they should stop having the Space Program as well."

 

Yet at another time he was telling me how much he liked "Star Trek". You don't get something like "Star Trek" without trying to do the real stuff. Crazy!

[hereticzero]

I wouldn't deny someone the use of things scientific. It may actually make them think about what they believe by using it. If science improves our life, then it should improve theirs as well. If they want to believe in Santa-Iesus, that is up to them.

[BlueGiant]

Absolutely not, so long as their money isn't counterfeit, they are welcome to buy into the stuff like anyone else. See, one of the reasons non-christians are superior to (some)christians: we don't care if you're an idiot, we'll help you anyway.

[R. S. Martin]

Should people who are anti-science be disallowed anything that was created because of science?

 

e.g. Should they be disallowed the use of:

 

1) Mobile phones

2) Antibiotics and medication in general

3) Television

4) Computers

5) Cars

6) Planes

7) Food produced using farm machinery

8) Electricity

 

Well the list goes on, but to be fair if someone is anti-science should they be allowed it's fruits? I personally think they should be denied all these things.

 

Might be a good debate topic with one of those Christians. I don't like the idea of depriving children of necessary medical care and that is what would happen if the adults would be required to abstain from the advances of medical science.

[qec]

I personally think they should be denied all these things.

 

Absolutely. Let's toss them into the gulags too while we are at it.

[Vixentrox]

What exactly is anti-science? Someone opposed into research of biological weapons? Someone opposed to say, eugenics or phrenology which used to be widely accepted? How about medical science that said being gay was a mental disorder till the early 70s?

[Thurisaz]

The thought has its appeal for sure, but indeed the devil's in the details. Only thing I would personally insist on is that no one must be denied any life-saving benefits of science. No need to get as inhuman as the morontheists et al.

[Vomit Comet]

What exactly is anti-science? Someone opposed into research of biological weapons? Someone opposed to say, eugenics or phrenology which used to be widely accepted? How about medical science that said being gay was a mental disorder till the early 70s?

 

You hit upon something I was pondering.

 

I'm against the ideology that science is purely objective, detached from human prejudices or short-sighted instrumental rationality.

[Vixentrox]

What exactly is anti-science? Someone opposed into research of biological weapons? Someone opposed to say, eugenics or phrenology which used to be widely accepted? How about medical science that said being gay was a mental disorder till the early 70s?

 

You hit upon something I was pondering.

 

I'm against the ideology that science is purely objective, detached from human prejudices or short-sighted instrumental rationality.

Yes indeed. Science is self correcting but to think that it is infallible, even when there is a great agreement is foolish. Science theories are man made and of course, subject to mistakes. History is replete with examples of widely accepted theories in various scientific disciplines that have been found spurrious or in some case, the opposite, psuedoscience being proven as true. Claiming unfallibity of science is just as dogmatic as adherents to religion. Scientists themselves have often been the targets of ridicule for going against the grain of other scientits only to be proven correct later.

[qec]

What exactly is anti-science? Someone opposed into research of biological weapons? Someone opposed to say, eugenics or phrenology which used to be widely accepted? How about medical science that said being gay was a mental disorder till the early 70s?

 

You hit upon something I was pondering.

 

I'm against the ideology that science is purely objective, detached from human prejudices or short-sighted instrumental rationality.

 

I agree with both of you, and it's fucking amazing. I still think that people who are anti-scientists should be put to work in gulags; I mean you might as well put all that stupidity to work afterall enh? Who cares if a few ten million die? (j/k)

[Yaoi Huntress Earth]

The way I see anti-science are those that believe it "never proved anything" or "did any good on any kind of level." They bash science for not always agreeing with the bible and/or trying to kiss up to the religious right to makes themselves look more Christian.

[Thurisaz]

"Never proved anything" is a wonderful indicator of whether it's worth your time debating anything with the claimant by the way. Anyone who is that (willfully) ignorant couldn't get any reasonable point if she wanted to.