Is there such a thing as the "Scientific Mind"?

The scientific mind is in some ways over rated. It's true the scientific method and logic works. However, there is a lack of wisdom that tends to go along with scientific advances. Many technological breakthroughs are inspired by warfare. There is also the political aspect, often tyrannical and elitist in nature.

For instance. I watched a documentary on gene editing last night ( PBS ). The ethics of editing genes is called into question.

Several scientists talk about the idea that it is a good idea because it could be used to eradicate certain genetic diseases and fight viruses as well. The problem with this reasoning is, once a gene is edited and introduced into the breeding population what will be the long term affect? Scientists have come up with lots of ideas in the past, introduced foreign flora and fauna into ecosystems and ended up totally screwing everything up. Oil spills, nuclear waste, air pollution are all the result of "great ideas."

One talked about increasing the intelligence of the population and extending peoples lifetimes; very idealistic. Some of the elite of our societies don't want these things at all, this guy didn't get the memo. They want people to have lifetimes compatible with their productivity and not have to support older people who don't carry their weight, not longer lifetimes. If people were too smart they would figure out some of our leaders are full of !@#$ and would be more difficult to govern. Someone has to take out the trash and fry the burgers. If someone is too smart they might not be satisfied with that kind of career.

If we breed the "ultimate warrior" what happens? We could do like the Nazis and try to breed a perfect super race that would be more powerful, but might they also be tyrannical? What happens when they have children and those genes get spread into the gene pool? Later, history and experience show that meddling with the natural world seldom works out to our advantage.

I think you are confusing the "scientific mind" with the "politically motivated mind" and the "money making mind" and the "take advantage of the weak" mind and the "power grabbing mind"... etc.

But maybe I am wrong...

What I'm saying is the scientific mind is all good and well but, politics, greed, superstition and short sightedness sabotages all that. Our priorities are wrong and our wisdom is not keeping pace with our advances in technology.

It also seems that philosophy for all its aspiration hasn't achieved a great deal either. If more of that thought were put to practical purposes instead of navel gazing and daydreaming, some actual achievement may come of it.

I don't deny that there are any number of things which have become abused by those of scientific capabilities mostly for reasons of profit or war. I'd put that point to those who have... on this very forum... criticised me for objecting to military invasions carried out by our countries. They (say they) object to science being used for war, but criticise those who object to war itself. Where's the thinking in that...?

Albert Einstein refused to partake in the development of new and innovative weaponry when called upon to do so by the German government during the first world war. He objected strenuously to the development of poison gas for use on the battlefield. He was ignored.

He was openly opposed to German militarism, racism, nationalism, and the use of violence in foreign policy. But he was in a minority. When the war started, 100 members of the German cultural elite wrote a public manifesto in support of German nationalism and patriotism. Only a very few scientists didn’t follow this line. Einstein, together with two other prominent scientists, tried to publish a counter-manifesto, denouncing the war. But none of the German newspapers would publish “unpatriotic” texts. That's not the fault of scientists.... it's the fault of publishers who are supposed to objectively inform, not censor for political purposes.

Many discoveries and innovations are made by the most intelligent of people, with the intention of enlightening society but have later been abused by others for unethical purposes completely outside the ability of the discoverer to prevent.

Things can happen beyond an individuals control despite their best intentions. Einstein was a lifelong pacifist and yet, he found the equation that led to the development of the atomic bomb. He had no control over how E=MC2 would be used once the genie was out of the bottle, but at the time its discovery it was breathtaking.

And whenever science is abused for profit or war the excuse is always the same: "If we don't discover / invent / find this first, our enemy will".

Scientists discover and invent things. That is our role. Discovery and advancement is our motivation. It's politicians and business that abuse these discoveries.

My feet are firmly in the Einstein camp of pacifism.

And what I'm saying is that politics, greed, superstition and short sightedness ARE NOT PART OF THE "SCIENTIFIC MIND".


It's a very simple idea.

Yep. A very simple and true message. I've seen it written as "There is no bad science, there is only bad USE of science."

Make of that what you will.

A sudden burst of enthusiasm for this thread! I must admit to having been otherwise occupied recently, seeking to untangle the latest Government rules on Covid 19. "Who shall untangle this tangle?" said the Buddha in another context. Yes, I was musing upon the fundamental relationship between The Family Bubble and the new Rule of Six. Not having a Degree in Theoretical Physics I'm floundering a bit.......I think you need the type of mind that can grasp the essential point that two different things can be in two different places at the very same time.

Anyway, I'm waffling as usual, sitting in Costa's with time on my hands.

Looking back through history I think it is possible to see that those who have advanced human knowledge have been those who are willing to see and think beyond the then current "world views". This for me is self evident. New "world views" emerge and then we have minds that simply accept the current paradigm, who can apply it, smooth the rough edges and earn a good living.

Currently, we have what I would call Scientism, which for me has nothing at all to do with the "scientific mind". Broadly speaking, it sees "matter" as fundamental and seeks to explain all reality in terms of it. All things currently unexplained will eventually yield to further investigation and experiment. Which is faith/belief.

As I understand it from my own reading of various "popular science" books, there is now a growing build up of theories, of results of experiments that test current hypotheses, that begin to suggest that Scientism is very questionable as a basis for any dogmatic pronouncement on the "meaning of life". A new paradigm is being called for. Minds that can genuinely question our world are called for, the true "scientific mind".

So, yes, there IS such a thing as the scientific mind. It is the human mind, any mind that can see beyond any current horizon that seeks to restrict the human spirit to preordained conclusions and simply devises tests and experiments to support it.

I absolutely agree but they do affect science in the application. In other words when we take science and use it in a practical sense the other things take priority in our societies and that is a problem. I wonder if Einstein, given the opportunity to go back, might keep the theory of relativity to himself.

I don't disagree with your over all point, but that way of thinking is not part of the "scientific mind".

It is another mind way of thinking.

Sidestepping for a moment into another recent thread you started, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" sprang to mind.

And we know how badly that ended.

Not a chance. For a start, he was too much of an egotist to keep anything he discovered out of the public domain.

And even if he hadn't put Relativity forward, his (first) wife Mileva Maric undoubtedly would. Opinion is divided over her merit as a scientist because after marrying her, Einstein ruthlessly kept her out of the public gaze. Some say she was his equal as a genius, others deny that assertion.

She undoubtedly collaborated with him in his research into relativity (while keeping his house and bearing him two sons, as women do) but it will never be known to what degree because no written evidence exists to support the claim, however he did verbally acknowledge that she "assisted him", though even that admission had to be wrung out of him. They were going through a bitter divorce when his Nobel was announced and after much pressure from Mileva, Einstein conceded that their separation settlement would include a clause that gave her the money provided that she agreed to the prize being awarded in his name only.

The money wasn't what she really wanted. She'd had to struggle like hell to overcome physical disability (she had a club foot) and the rampant sexism of the day to even be allowed to study at Zurich Polytechnic (which was where she first met Einstein). She wanted recognition for women scientists and her desire to be included in the credit for Relativity was motivated by that. She also publicly compared his treatment of her unfavourably with that of Pierre Curie who, when informed of his Nobel, told the committee that he would not accept the prize unless his wife, Marie, was included in the citation and given equal credit. He, unlike Einstein, praised his wife in public for her work and her part in the discovery of Radium.

Marie Curie has her place in history.

Mileva who...??

Einstein was brutal in his treatment of Mileva and he left her to conduct an affair - and eventually marry - his cousin. This left Mileva a broken woman with his two sons, one of whom developed schizophrenia - the costs of his care exhausted the money she was given by Einstein - and destroyed as a scientist.

Even if an extreme egotist like Einstein himself hadn't announced relativity, it is certain that Mileva would have. But not for reasons of ego. She would have done it for all women scientists.

Pride, ego, vanity, personality flaws and anger...? Certainly.

Politics in science again....? For sure.

Scientists are humans too, you know.

Those are interesting points. Basically we could question if Einstein had a perfect scientific mind because if he did he would have known his theories would have been misused.

Would the "perfect" scientific mind care?

Now you seem to be fusing the "perfect" scientific mind with the humanitarian mind.

genius: einstein was tv mini series that national graphic channel, which was really interesting from einstein's childhood to his death. jennifer did explained his life pretty well. every season, genius produce six parts tv mini series of a famous person. it is fascinating storylines about famous people, who are boring reading in our history books.

I haven't seen that, Darkman. It sounds interesting. We get Nat Geo Channel as part of our Sky package, but I don't get to watch much TV these days and when I do it's either news, movies or sport. Boring eh..?

But thanks for the tip.