Tamsuan wrote:
Wayne, I don't have time this morning to answer all your points but let me start with:
"How is that if the basis for the determination is factual rather than personal opinion?"
To consider any and all determinations of science as unquestionably "factual" is an example of irrational faith rather than objective reason. Here's an example from my own life to give you some idea of what I mean;
As a young man I endured repeated exposure to a chemical called pentachlorophenol. This compound does not occur in nature and was created by chemists (scientists). At that time it had been scientifically determined that this pesticide/preservative could be safely used (with precautions) and released into the environment. From your point of view, as I take it, this was a "fact".
Yes, as far as you took it. The safety was only for short term use not long term because there was no time to do such a long term study and those who had paid for the research wanted to get on with the use of their product. That is how business operates.
Quote:
Later it was withdrawn from public use in Canada and many other jurisdictions and now;
Surely not because science had anything to do with it, of course. Science continually looks and uses new evidence to modify existing knowledge.
Quote:
http://www.iitc.org/wp-content/uploads/News-Release-ACAT-and-IITC-COP7-5-18-15fin_web.pdf
It has been globally banned under the Stockholm convention because of the harm it does to people and to life in general. I'm glad it's now banned because it's horrible stuff but it took a lot of years for the scientific "facts" to change and that's unfortunate.
It does take time to gather long term data and there is a cost to do so, which no business wants to pay and most governments do not either.
Quote:
Of course this is just one tiny example out of probably thousands which reveal a patternthat we should recognize.
Here's another example before I have to go:
Some people say that CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing serious climate disruption. Scientific discoveries in the 1700's and developing to the present day have enabled humans to vastly increase their power to alter the environment by harnessing this ancient solar energy. There was great enthusiasm for "the wonders of science" as we devised steam driven pumps to take water out of coal mines, then steam locomotives, steam ships. Later,scientists found ways to refine petroleum so that gasoline and diesel could be used to power transport and excavating equipment. Dams could be built to generate electrical power or, failing that, we just burn coal.
Yes, people USED what science discovered as they wanted the short term benefits and it was not until the late 1800s that science was able to examine the effects of that use over time and to determine the cause and effects as they knew them at the time.
Quote:
So scientists are now alerting us to the dilemma that science got us into in the first place (similar to the pentachlorophenol example). We shouldn't have invented all those machines and burned all that fuel; oops! it was a mistake! But how do we get the Genie back into the bottle now?
So science should not give you anything unless they have tested it for all conditions for a few centuries? That would mean that you probably would not be alive now as all of the medical science advancements would still be in study and not practice.
Quote:
Now, if I was condemning all science as evil that would indeed be bias, but that's not what I'm saying. However, to join the chorus of praise and faith that anything scientific must be unreservedly good is also an irrational bias.
Science is neither evil nor good it is knowledge, evidence, and exploration. The USE of what science discovers may be good, bad, or neutral depending on the person or persons involved.
Quote:
Sounds too much like religion to me! No, I'm just saying that the knowledge which science gives us should be applied with a lot more caution and evaluative wisdom than has hitherto been the case.
Exactly, the "knowledge science gives us should be applied with more caution" because science is not involved with how we apply the knowledge WE are.
Quote:
One relatively new and extremely important branch of science is ecology; a ray of hope!
Not according to some. It impacts some people's ability to make a living and they consider that just as bad as your prior examples.