Modern Science is purely quantitative and materialistic.?

Question

It thinks of nature purely as a system of levers and pullies. This is one of the causes of the modern ecological crisis.

Answer 1

no, science does not claim to know everything with each new discovery like somebody else said. that's why they are called theories and not absolute truths. scientists don't work on faith of the knowledge obtained by their predecessors. scientists know the conclusions of their predecessors and the methods they used to arrive at those conclusions. were it simply a matter of faith that would mean that no new science could be discovered. as it happens new discoveries dramatically change original views, though they cannot change the outcomes of the experiments made previously, it can alter the conclusions so as to accommodate a new theory as well as the observations made that mislead previous thinker to incomplete conclusions. faith is exactly the opposite method of science.

science does view the universe as a system of levers and pullies, except some scientists don't think that way when it comes to quantum mechanics. they believe that there are random events. but personally i think that these events are not random, but merely not as yet understood properly or explained.

but i wouldn't say purely quantitative or materialistic. there is lots of philosophy that goes into science. science is like a subcategory of philosophy, and it utilizes philosophy. measurements, observations, isolation of variables , math, and all of the methodologies of science are tools philosophy uses to discover the nature of the universe.

einstein had trouble convincing people of his theories because they were not observed until after he had made the predictions. he used a lot of philosophy in his theories. later on people discovered through experiment he was right, and much of what he learned is used today in many different applications. he developed equations, but there is much more to his theories than just the math, there is philosophy in there.

a theory that fails to predict things or which is not disprovable is not science. usually for predicting you need math. anything that fits these requirements is science anything that does is not. so science can include things that are non material such as is energy in most forms and time as well as other things. if you want to go into non-quantitative that is a little more tricky and you would need to look into quantum physics where things are still not quantitatively explainable, or predictable so i guess not really scientific. though still some theories can predict and explain without specifics in numbers. most of those have been now we are more into fine tuning, except for quantum physics.

Answer 2

Yes, Because modern science is restricted entirely to the category of study the material energy only, trying to improve the conditions of material life concerning to enjoy the senses and material body to  the best capacity.  Therefore is materialistic.

The materialistic conception of life multiplies material desires, which lead to the over-development of industry and technology, and to a ravenous, urban-consumer economy. Social scientists are nearly unanimous in warning us that the continuation of this trend will lead to ecological and social disaster. Therefore, the return to a simpler life style (one in harmony with nature's laws) has emerged as the highest priority. A spiritual society automatically achieves this end by offering people higher and more enduring satisfactions. Hence, the motto of Vedic civilization is "Simple living and high thinking."

Answer 3

Science is a tool that seeks to understand the physical world. Why would it be anything but materialistic?

Nonquantitave measurements are prone to large subjective biases. Science quantifies to eliminate as much bias as possible.

Science starts with the idea of an objective physical world: that the world is the way it is, and no amount of hoping and wishing will make it otherwise. Based on this assumption and a clearly delineated process, science builds models for us to understand the processes of the universe. That's it. It doesn't take "how we feel" or "what we want to be true" about the world into account.

Answer 4

I hate to say it but it has always been like that even in the past.

Past doctors did learn how to disect people and animals  live or dead and they needed the money to do so. Even Leonardo da vinci did it .

Looking at the past history of science, we wouldn't have known about the things we do know now if it wasn't for quantitative and materialistic science.

You have to have the bad to have the good we just try to paint a nicer picture of it.

Answer 5

No, modern science believes it knows everything with each new discovery, but if it did, there would be no new discoveries.  Modern scientists take a lot of previous work on faith, probably because they know scientists are infallible in matters of theory and knowledge.  This is a sarcastic comment by someone who remembers that it was written that the fruit in the garden of Eden which caused man's downfall came from the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.  Not all knowledge is necessarily good.

Answer 6

Well, since Newton it has been ASSUMED that all natural phenomena can be explained in quantitative terms. That belief is really an article of scientific faith which has, over time, become self verifying. Now we demand that if something cannot be explained in quantitative/mathematical terms then its very existence is doubtful. Hence, we push out of existence anything that does not fit our explanatory model.

Answer 7

It shouldn't be any other way. If it didn't deal in specific numbers, it'd be too vague. There's no scientific proof that there is anything besides the material world, and science doesn't deal with fantasies. How does science cause any ecological crisis? What ecological crisis is there? Give  arguments for such broad statements as this. The category is Philosophy, after all.