Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
To answer this question, it is necessary to recall the context in which it was asked: the closest source is Max Weber's article “Science as a vocation and as a profession” (1917), in which the famous German sociologist cites these words as a point of viewLeo Tolstoy on science: “it is meaningless, because it does not give any answer to the only important questions for us.”: “What should we do?”, ” How should we live?””.
Moreover, Weber himself, as if agreeing with the great Russian moralist (“the fact that science does not give an answer to these questions is absolutely indisputable”), immediately notes:: “The only problem is in what sense it doesn't give' no ' answer. Maybe instead, she can give something to someone who puts the question correctly?” But then the master goes into lengthy arguments, which cause a seditious guess that he himself did not have complete clarity about the possibility of science to answer philosophical questions.
Weber's answer can be summed up and summarized in different ways (bringing different aspects to the fore); this is how it turned out for me: science cannot prescribe a meaningful goal for a person (this is its difference from religion), but it can suggest / create means to achieve this goal – conceptual, methodological and technoscientific-after a person has determined it for himself, guided not by scientific motives at all (but, say, faith, insight, or an example of a “significant other”). Science, according to Weber, can also help a person distinguish those means that lead to the practical implementation of specific life-meaning values from those that do not lead to them. As Weber writes about it: “some practical attitudes with internal consistency and, therefore, honesty can be derived – in accordance with their spirit – from such and such a final worldview position (maybe from one, maybe from different ones), but from others – it is impossible.”
No, I don't agree. Science has answered a lot of really important questions. Moreover, it is thanks to science and these answers that we live in a technological age, with ethical norms and more opportunities. Smartphones, television, communications, medicine, industry, and energy… this is only a small part of the benefits and opportunities that we have received thanks to science.
This, of course, does not mean that we should oppose religion and sacred teachings to science. It's just stupid. Each area deals with its own issues. But once again, science has made a huge contribution to our life and the history of mankind. Without it, we would not have been able to develop, become “more civilized”, and move forward. And by the way, if you search even on the Internet, you can quickly see that science is now reaching such limits of knowledge that breakthroughs can make the most fantastic things a reality. Further increase the capabilities of humanity. For example, such as quantum mechanics, which opens the door to a wonderful world where the usual laws of physics do not work, and those laws that are functional at the subatomic level can allow us to understand (get new answers) the structure of the universe even better, and get new opportunities that seem almost limitless in our time (for example, teleportation, new ways of communication due to quantum entanglement, not subject to delays and the speed of light, and much more).
However, while respecting scientific discoveries and knowledge, we should also be aware of the fact that we have received a lot of answers, but even more questions have arisen. Is it bad? No, it's just that the world is boundless and multi-faceted, and it's great that you can study it almost indefinitely.
Actually, the question is formulated incorrectly: what does the term “really important” mean? First, what is important and what is not, and how to determine it? Important or not important is not an absolute concept, but a relative one: some people consider some issues important, while others do not consider them at all, but others. The addition of “really” suggests that there are, like, important questions, but it doesn't seem to be real… But that's not all. The problem is not only that each person determines the importance of an issue in their own way, the problem is also that we are often not able to assess how important this or that is. We may think something is completely unimportant, nonsense, and then it may turn out that this is a very significant topic. Example: a person does not pay attention to a newly appeared mole-nonsense, and then it turns out that this is a malignant formation… Another example: when scientists were working on creating a laser, most people on Earth thought it was just a toy, they did not understand how this discovery would change the world in the future. Therefore, we must understand that the majority simply cannot assess what is important and what is not, and in this sense the question does not make sense. On the other hand, we must also understand that scientists are not children playing with toys for their own pleasure, not realizing that their activities are of no importance. Just like those who finance science are not idiots either, and they don't throw their money away by solving unimportant issues. Everything is exactly the opposite: science, developing, i.e. expanding its ideas about the world and its laws, each time formulates anew the questions that it considers important, and seeks to answer them. Sooner or later, it gets these answers and/or formulates new questions of paramount importance. The importance of a question in science is a variable value, it changes depending on the knowledge it receives. However, important questions are regularly answered and new important questions are asked. The whole trick is that when the answer is already found, the question loses its importance, another question becomes important, for which there is no answer yet. If we keep this in mind, then we can say that important questions really do not have answers simply by definition, simply because once a question is answered, it loses its importance. However, it is incorrect to say that science does not answer important questions. On the contrary, science is constantly answering important questions, turning them into irrelevant ones and making others important.
I agree:
What I do: with respect and cum grano salis to those who answered, with a wish for all the present – to the questioner. All the best!
It's funny – the very variety of answers to this question makes it meaningless without specifying- ” Important for whom? “
For a scientist who aspired to discovery – undoubtedly yes.
The others should be asked)
I would paraphrase – modern Science is not able to answer even the most elementary question: what is the purpose of continuing scientific research in our lost world? How to solve the simplest tasks of society-to defeat diseases, feed the barren, shelter the poor, eliminate injustice and wars.. And I'm afraid that she will never be able to answer simple problems without talking about immortality, levitation, and other wonders of the future that may or may not exist)
So what's the question?
Not the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, I hope?
The answer to it, I remember, was “42”.
)
Outright nonsense. Wake up and look around. Science has dramatically changed the world around us, and it continues to change rapidly.
What other evidence is needed to prove the validity of science?
And the fact that you are dissatisfied with science – so it does not care. It's not focused on you personally.
I don't agree. Science has answered a huge number of important questions. From ” How to treat smallpox?” before “How to build a house so that the roof doesn't fall on your head?”.
I guess that by” really important “questions the author means existential-ideological ones like” What is the meaning of life?” or ” How long? “or” What kind of Pokemon are you?” But here, too, science (and above all philosophy) has made a huge contribution by distinguishing between the objective and the subjective, the concrete and the abstract, facts and opinions, and proposing criteria for the answer, thus defining the range of questions that can be theoretically answered and which can't.
Science is an activity that collects facts and critically analyzes knowledge and ideas about our world. And the question immediately arises-what is the science of ants, or bees(those insect species that are similar to human society)?! Can human words or scientific formulations describe the processes of being what is happening around?!As humanity gains intelligence,science increases its role as a tool for understanding everything that exists,and so that people can realize their place in this universe.Science is not perfect, just like human society, because of its lack of intelligence, so it cannot answer all the questions and ideas that arise….
What's the important question? people have a lot of questions, and many of them are important.
The problem with a person is that he, an asshole, doesn't want to solve anything for himself.
Ideally, he would be given a piece of paper right from Christmas, what to do, how to live and what to hope for, and even write this piece of paper so that he likes it.
AND THAT'S IT! he's happy. he doesn't care about anything else, as long as he doesn't set a goal for himself.
You know. perhaps religion is the very first and BEST MARKETERS on the planet.
They've been selling certain things to millions of people for thousands of years. moreover, people protect their marketers.
Moreover, the most interesting thing is that marketers do not sell the PRODUCT, they sell only hope.
Literally the first virtual currency in the world that you can pay for a lot of things, but which you can't touch
No, of course not. Science is neither a God nor a servant. It only collects and connects facts. And so, I still gave some answers. Corrected the culture of Europeans. This is pedagogical and psychological knowledge. How to be healthy and happy. How to become successful and how to work. How to manage society and business. How to follow the road of progress. And the question of how to live and who we are should be answered by culture. This is an area of conflict. Struggle and competition. Whether we are friends or merchants, this question is not for science. It only helps to collect universal ideas and put together some kind of philosophical structure
Everything, i.e. any questions are important, each at its own level of knowledge has a versatility that depends on the subjectivity of the approach to the question.
Science answers important questions, but often makes mistakes, so after a while it gives an answer to the same question that contradicts the previous one. This is similar to the process of science accumulating knowledge through its own experience, which means that science is young and still needs “life experience” to know its essence.
“Knowledge is art, science is methodology.”©
The meaning of any art is to achieve Beauty, the essence of which is in the harmony of the principles of creation.
When science gains an understanding of scientific knowledge in its synthesis, as subjective with objective, without giving preference to one of them, it will become harmonious, close to art, i.e. to Knowledge.
It is not a matter of science to answer a question, but to formulate it correctly, I think… The exact statement of the question does not need to be answered as such. Let religion handle the answers – it's pretty good at that, I've heard…
No, I do not agree with the fact that “none”. Why did science, to the best of its abilities and increasing knowledge and technology, answer many questions? It is a pity, of course, that not everything is true and not always true. But let's hope that something will change for the better over time. After all, we owe the development of civilization to science.
I don't agree. The author considers important questions like ” what is the meaning of life?”, ” why all this? “what do we live for?” Well, okay.
In ancient times, the idea of the universe was formed as an Earth with celestial bodies rotating around it, and all this splendor is surrounded by a fixed sphere with stars. Far from reality, but still I can't help but admire some similarities – spherical bodies rotating around a central body.
After many centuries, Nicolaus Copernicus introduced the heliocentric system to the world – the same thing, but everything revolves around the Sun. Earth isn't the center of the universe, not bad.
Then, William Herschel came up with a completely new concept: The universe is the Milky Way, a huge cluster of stars similar to the Sun with worlds orbiting around them. It is hard to imagine how people then adopted this view – just a few centuries from the center of the universe, to a body orbiting a star among countless other stars.
In the 30s of the 20th century, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered something amazing – he discovered the Andromeda Nebula. Another galaxy, even larger than our own. Of course, he immediately realized that the universe does not consist of 2 galaxies, but of a huge variety. Then Hubble studied the motion of galaxies relative to each other and came to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. Based on his findings, the big bang theory was put forward. Then it turned out that it occurred ~14 billion years ago.
It is science that allows us to understand our place in the universe – and it is not central or key. This may upset some people. But what does this information give me personally? This knowledge completely devalues my past and future (what are billions of years compared to tens?). And at the same time, it makes the current moment priceless.
So, based on scientific knowledge (interpreting it in my own way), I create my own worldview and answer the author's important question “what is the meaning of life?”. Life is short and only one, you need to squeeze everything you can out of the present moment.
I agree. Despite the huge discoveries and achievements in science, people still do not know how to live, what is the meaning of life, where they come from, where to go, how to learn to live with each other, how to build normal relationships between peoples, groups, genders, generations, and so on. The further the problems of a person and the diseases of society progress.�
Just as at the end of the Third Reich, the Nazis hysterically inspired the population with hope for New weapons, so now, at the end of humanity's life on earth, when the problems of humanity and the planet become global, “techies” inspire faith in a high-tech breakthrough from all this and relocation to Mars, probably. Ihmo.
The questions “How to increase the average life expectancy by three times” and “How to reduce child mortality by an order of magnitude” were fully answered by science. Of course, you may find them completely unimportant.