Why does modern science scares you?

[runvardh]

I'm worried we won't be able to develop ourselves fast enough to keep up with what we are developing. That we will create things that are amazing and wonderful, but utterly out of our control because we, in our excitement, lacked any long-term foresight.

I wonder, sometimes, if we are going to ever create a computer that will work better than our own brains. What will that mean? Of what use would a computer more efficient, intelligent, and creative than us be? Is it because we wish to experience the new? Would we then, in the creation of our newfound super-efficient-intelligent-creative computer, find ourselves able to observe a being (because by that point it probably would be a reasonably sentient machine) that is "better" than us? And in observing this being would we then attempt to reassert intellectual superiority over it because we have now found something to apire to?

"It was inevitable that you would lose; however, the irony is that the first true step you can possibly take towards me would be to realize the futility of your attempts."

 

[Nocapszy]

OH MAN... I was sos carred Bby the large hydrigen collinder I THOUGHT IT WOULD GOING TO blog up I mean suck up the world.

But I gess God said he didn't want the mad phsisists, bendt on blowing up i mean sucking up The Earth in a vacuum so HA! take that physics, we win and God wins.

 

[mippus]

Could someone please correct the error in the title? That 's' makes me so nervous...

 

[miss fortune]

the scary part of modern science? politicians getting thier hands on it, misinterpreting it and doing something incredibly stupid... so yeah, the news is scary

 

[Not_Me]

There's nothing to fear but scary stuff itself.

 

[millerm277]

I'm worried we won't be able to develop ourselves fast enough to keep up with what we are developing. That we will create things that are amazing and wonderful, but utterly out of our control because we, in our excitement, lacked any long-term foresight.

I wonder, sometimes, if we are going to ever create a computer that will work better than our own brains. What will that mean? Of what use would a computer more efficient, intelligent, and creative than us be? Is it because we wish to experience the new? Would we then, in the creation of our newfound super-efficient-intelligent-creative computer, find ourselves able to observe a being (because by that point it probably would be a reasonably sentient machine) that is "better" than us? And in observing this being would we then attempt to reassert intellectual superiority over it because we have now found something to apire to?

It's quite possible. It's also....about as far off as us colonizing another solar system. I think current AI is around the level of a mouse's brain. That's not exactly heading for world domination anytime soon.

Modern Science doesn't scare me at all....modern politicians manipulating the facts and interfering with it scares me greatly.

 

[miggies]

the one thing that i have been finding is that the general public is scared of that fact that science is by definition the exploration of how things work on a microscopic scale and that people fear that they will distroy/alter the bases for our being and in which would make humans capible of god like abilities in essence, the general public has been brain washed with the ideals that science is the devils work and goes against nature, when is fact if you think about it we are a race that is forever evolving to "deal" so it is only natural that what we do on a daily basis evolves also, for example if science had not evolved to the state that it is now we would all still be like the cave man who discovered fire for, it is in our genes to build better to be lzier and more profecient.

People are also scared because of the fact that we build to distroy, if you don't believe me then you have to look at the fact that you wouldn't need a cure for something that wasn't first created...

I'm all for science, i want to be able to see these tech advances that people are always talking about like the flying car or deep space travel, but that can't hapen if scientists are being shut down everytime they create and A-bomb

 

[rhinosaur]

I wrote this the other day, then came back and couldn't find the thread.

The negative portrayal of science in mass media gives me an uneasy feeling.

At first I almost blamed sensationalism, which makes people afraid of science (or, more precisely, technology). The recent fears of black holes destroying Switzerland come to mind. However, sensationalism also gets people interested in science. A kid who sees and hears an explosion from a hydrogen-filled balloon learns about a chemical reaction. One day, this kid could grow up to win a Nobel prize. No, sensationalism istelf is not to blame. Instead, I suspect that the root cause of these negative feelings stems from a disconnect between the scientists and the journalists.

As scientists, we are sometimes interested in things fundamentally. For example, I want to know how the electrons in a conductor behave, simply because I find it interesting. Other times, we are interested in things because they may have an application to another area of research. For example, I want to know what affects the size of metal nanoparticles, because I want to use them in a different experiment later.

Journalists, on the other hand, are interested in the big picture ideas that affect normal people. Even if they aren't, they want to get their story published, so they ask lots of big-picture questions. What technologies are made possible with this science? What effects could this technology have on society? Would the government need to regulate it? Could it destroy the world?

Most of the time, the scientist isn't prepared for these kinds of questions, unless they're in a field like cancer research, for which the answers are obvious. Even if they've thought about the big picture, the day-to-day details of research are so far removed from the big picture that they have just as much perspective as anyone else. It's not that they "can't see the forest for the trees," it's that the forest doesn't even exist yet -- they're still planting the seeds!

The end result is that when the journalist asks some hypothetical question about a virtual "nuclear meltdown" scenario, the scientist blurts out some random musing about black holes, which gets published, feeds peoples' imaginations, and makes everyone think the world is going to end.

 

[Venom]

i think the problem is that science has gone so far beyond lay people that they simple either:

a) accept it for what it is and dont care

b) accept it as the truth but are mislead by what this truth might entail according to someone refered to as "they". as in well "they" say that now "they think ____ is ______ for you....etc

c) are irrational and dont accept any of it because they dont understand it...even though they have no SCIENTIFIC objections to what the scientists say.

d) they have an agenda or conclusion they really like (read religion), and thus must reject any premise which goes against the premise they must hold for their beliefs to be true. often science goes against these foundations of religion.




bottom line: there is nothing scary about science, only people (including me) who dont fully understand how much (in some areas) and how little (in others) scientists know or can actually create.

 

[Nonsensical]

I really really dislike mathematical terms..maybe because I'm still in High School..but of all sciences I know, the ones involving strict mathematical equations probably is least to my liking..