RE: For science and peace

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

I always believed science could go beyond the various conflicts happening on the planet, and help to contribute to peace.

It sounds to me that you need to rethink "science."

Science is not a belief system. It is a method of inquiry. Yes, one can use the scientific method to investigate the outcomes of different belief systems, but science, in and of itself, does not lay the foundation of society.

In political science, politicians learn how to use the scientific method in their pursuit of political power.

A political scientist is a person who will study a population and figure out how to gain political power by pitting different groups against each other.

A political scientist judges the effect of his efforts by the amount of power his group garners in society.

Unfortunately, this game of political science creates deeply fractured communities.

In theory, Marxism is the application of science to economics and politics. The ideas is that mankind progresses through a scientifically predictable series of conflicts. So, the goal of the intelligentsia is to discover and lead the community through these conflicts. There ends up being a huge amount of bloodshed in this process.

You might want to read "The Blackbook of Communism" and "Death by Government." Both books tally up the hundreds of millions of people killed by this pseudo-science.

As for you decision to cut out all Russian scientists from your professional circle, I would like to point out that communication between people is probably the best way to ease international conflict.

I suspect that a primary reason that Putin engaged in this atrocity is because he, along with numerous Russians, felt isolated and put off by the West.

Science is just a method of inquiry. It is not a belief system. Numerous Russian scientists are engaged in the question of how to apply science in an effort to suppress Ukrainian nationalism. The best way to stop this nonsense is to get people to question the underlying belief system which led them to believe that such violence was a proper path forward.

Scientists tend to appreciate reason and are more prone to questioning underlying assumptions than the public at large. Including Russians in non-violent scientific inquiry positions peaceful elements in the scientific community to address the problems.

stem
0
0
0.000
4 comments
avatar

Oooh I think there as a big mis-understanding of what I meant. I should probably have been clearer. Let me explain.

To being with, I don't think I should rethink science. I meant "science" in the sense that it brings people from different horizons to work together and know each other better. It allows some to learn about other cultures. In this sense, it drives peace. This is the only point I wanted to raise. Nothing more and nothing less.

As for you decision to cut out all Russian scientists from your professional circle, I would like to point out that communication between people is probably the best way to ease international conflict.

I agree. This is the reason why I have said that I will cease institutional communications. At the private level, this is a different story and I will continue to exchange with my colleagues as done up to now. This is one of the few existing ways to introduce and share information outside the official circles by the way. Moreover, my colleagues are probably among the best informed people in Russia as they have access to external sources of information. They are those standing up against the current regime, and need to be supported.

I hope this clarifies. Cheers!

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar
(Edited)

Good things can happen in any field where people communicate with each other on a personal level. It can happen in science, business, travel and even religion.

People who develop relations across borders are often in a position to ease tensions on both sides of the border.

Each of the subjects that I mentioned is a double-edged sword. People who use these disciplines to concentrate power can created intractable divisions that lead to war.

Science, in and of itself, does not lead to peace any more than religion, in and of itself, lead to peace.

One has to look at the way that things are applied.

Moreover, my colleagues are probably among the best informed people in Russia as they have access to external sources of information. They are those standing up against the current regime, and need to be supported.

Scientists are often the agents of peace because they are informed. A good scientists understands both the benefits and dangers of modern technologies and actively pursue the best use of technologies.

The tendency of the scientific community towards peace comes from the character of the scientist.

!BEER

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Science, in and of itself, does not lead to peace any more than religion, in and of itself, lead to peace.

This is true. The shortcut I took is probably abusive. Science only contributes in the way it may help different people to know each other better. And this contribution to peace is probably (very) small. It is however non zero (at least in my opinion).

Scientists are often the agents of peace because they are informed. A good scientists understands both the benefits and dangers of modern technologies and actively pursue the best use of technologies.
The tendency of the scientific community towards peace comes from the character of the scientist.

Additionally, I must admit that the big game changer is definitely what you raised at the end of your previous comment. I didn't think about it initially, but it is true that a (good) scientist can assess pros, cons and the global situation from the very nature of their job.

Thanks for your valuable replies to this post!

0
0
0.000
Reply