Recently I posted an article on a forum entitled “The laws of physics and chemistry don’t kill people, guns do.” The intention of the title was to emphasize the difference between science (laws of physics and chemistry) and technology (guns). Some readers took the second half of the title literally! In reply to the comments of those readers, I wrote this article], in which you may be interested.
I believe it is extremely important to differentiate between science and technology because many influential social critics of science confuse the two and attack science because of its destructive technology such as nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, etc.
I don't think we can separate science and technology too much.
Science is the thought processes and procedures for acquiring knowledge about how reality works and the body of knowledge created by the use of such techniques.
Technology is the practical or impractical application of that knowledge. Just because we know how to do something does not mean we must do it. Suppose we have the technology to make cars last 60 years. Who decides whether or not to use it? Why don't we have mass produced turbine cars?
How many ways can technology be implemented that might work better but would be less profitable.
The application of technology may be a whole separate issue from science but we may not be supplied with enough info to discuss it.
psik
Recently I posted an article on a forum entitled "The laws of physics and chemistry don't kill people, guns do." The intention of the title was to emphasize the difference between science (laws of physics and chemistry) and technology (guns). Some readers took the second half of the title literally! In reply to the comments of those readers, I wrote this article], in which you may be interested.
Good article!
But... even technology is not exactly good or bad, not even guns. Of course, killing (man or animal) is generally wrong, but there might be some cases in which it is justified. (Of course I think it is nearly never justified, so I see no reason at all why private persons should be allowed to own guns...). Even atomic bombs may be useful (just think about the movies 'Armageddon' and 'Deep impact'). Maybe somebody might even find a scenario where the use of nervous gas, or torturing techniques, might be morally right? (I can't think of them now, but maybe?).
But many forms of technology are prone to be misused (yes, guns, atomic bombs...), or have bad consequences by their massive overuse by us (think about all the causes of environmental pollution). So if technology would only be used wise people, being fully aware of all consequences (also on the long term!) of their use of technological gadgets, then there would not be any bad technology at all.
But given that cars are made for fast moving over long distances, and that people love to do be able to go anywhere at any moment, and cars are so a perfect tool for people, they seduce people tu use them. So under this respect, by massively seducing people to use them, cars are a perfect example of bad technology, because they belong to the biggest polluting technologies we have.
Unwise people using technology, that is bad.
And that explains why I love science, but are always in struggle with technology.
There’s also a strong feedback between science and technology. Developments in fundamental science that lead to new technology can result in further scientific breakthroughs made possible by using that new technology.
All we need to know is the obvious–guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people–many people. No physics or chemistry is necessary to come to that incontrovertible fact.
Lois
Another thought. The Fort Hood shooting. People who think there should be no laws against gun ownership often say thatif everyone were armed such shootings would not occur because a large number of people would be armed and able to shoot the perpetrator. But where in the US are many people more likely to be armed and trained to use guns, along with many weapons freely available than on an army base? Yet no other shots were fired other than by the crazed killer. So much for safety where there are large numbers of armed people. Think of that the next time someone says school kids would be safer in school if the teachers were armed.
Lois
Another thought. The Fort Hood shooting. People who think there should be no laws against gun ownership often say thatif everyone were armed such shootings would not occur because a large number of people would be armed and able to shoot the perpetrator. But where in the US are many people more likely to be armed and trained to use guns, along with many weapons freely available than on an army base? Yet no other shots were fired other than by the crazed killer. So much for safety where there are large numbers of armed people. Think of that the next time someone says school kids would be safer in school if the teachers were armed.
Lois
Lois, I usually respect your opinions, but this one is not based on facts. Soldiers are not allowed to carry firearms on military bases. Your premise is false.
That said, I do agree with your opinion that arming teachers is a bad idea.
The OP wanted to discuss about the difference between science and technology, which is an interesting topic.
We have several ‘gun threads’ already.
Otherwise I will try to make this thread a free will thread. :coolgrin:
“Stop texting during class or I will shoot!”
GdB, we are now back on topic, discussing how people use technology. Guns and cell phones can be deadly in the wrong hands.
Another thought. The Fort Hood shooting. People who think there should be no laws against gun ownership often say thatif everyone were armed such shootings would not occur because a large number of people would be armed and able to shoot the perpetrator. But where in the US are many people more likely to be armed and trained to use guns, along with many weapons freely available than on an army base? Yet no other shots were fired other than by the crazed killer. So much for safety where there are large numbers of armed people. Think of that the next time someone says school kids would be safer in school if the teachers were armed.
Lois
Lois, I usually respect your opinions, but this one is not based on facts. Soldiers are not allowed to carry firearms on military bases. Your premise is false.
That said, I do agree with your opinion that arming teachers is a bad idea.
Not even military police and the people at guard stations? I have visited many Amy bases, though not in the past few years, and there were always people around with holstered guns, just like cops, right out in the open.
Why do you suppose that soldiers are not allowed to carry firearms on military bases? What could possibly be the rationale? What if they have to defend themselves? Should they have fewer rights than civilians? Is the 2nd amendment suspended on Army bases? And for what purpose? Are guns too dangerous for trained military to be trusted with?
Lois
That said, I do agree with your opinion that arming teachers is a bad idea.
Well if the teachers only shoot students that would drop out anyway then it would reduce the drop out rate. :lol:
psik
Indeed it would! Let's do it!
Lois
The OP wanted to discuss about the difference between science and technology, which is an interesting topic.
We have several 'gun threads' already.
Otherwise I will try to make this thread a free will thread. :coolgrin:
Are you saying that threads should not be allowed to evolve naturally?
Lois
The problem with arming teachers so they could shoot the poorer students is that the students would also be armed so the good students would shoot all the poorer teachers, and the weaker students would shoot the rest. I guess that’s one way to deal with the reduced education budgets. :lol:
Quoting GdB:
Otherwise I will try to make this thread a free will thread.
I know Doug would get upset with me, but I’ll bet that I can delete your posts trying to switch this thread to free will as fast as you can write them, GdB.
Occam
Are you saying that threads should not be allowed to evolve naturally?
Well, eh... no, not specially. But is this an example of natural evolution?
Until a certain posting everybody was on the topic, but then there was something that was more like a cataclysmic event. Now cataclysmic events can be seen as part of natural evolution, but you could also see them as an interruption of it. What would have become of the dinosaurs if this f__ meteorite wouldn't have fallen on earth? At least the meteorite was not an object that was part of the developing tree of life on earth, it was more a foreign, external element, that had a great destructive influence on life on earth.
I know Doug would get upset with me, but I'll bet that I can delete your posts trying to switch this thread to free will as fast as you can write them, GdB. :snake:
Of course I would do my best to let it look like natural evolution. You know, I would try to be like an intelligent designer in the evolutionary process.
But as the OP does not seem to be interested in a discussion about this topic anymore, we can also turn this thread in one about evolution. Or we can talk guns, or free will; or stick to science and technology?
This thread is entitled: “Do guns kill people?”
I can see this as attracting people who wish to argue the gun debate.
GdB, are you familiar with a phrase here in the US that states “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”?
It’s popular among the pro gun crowd. it’s on bumper stickers and such. This title evokes that phrase, hence the “evolving” gun debate here.
Of course we know that guns don’t kill people…bullets kill people!! :lol:
Does cyanide kill people?
Do heart attacks kill people?
Do trains kill people?
This thread is entitled: "Do guns kill people?"
I can see this as attracting people who wish to argue the gun debate.
Of course, I see that too. But just reading the postings it becomes clear that the title of the thread was a kind of marketing trick. For me it worked, I looked into it, discovered that it was about another topic that interests me even more than the guns discussion, read the article linked by the OP, and reacted on it. Others do not read, and, well, shoot immediately from the hip. :zip:
GdB, are you familiar with a phrase here in the US that states "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."?
It's popular among the pro gun crowd. it's on bumper stickers and such. This title evokes that phrase, hence the "evolving" gun debate here.
Sigh... Do you really think I needed that explanation? You underestimate me.
Of course we know that guns don't kill people....bullets kill people!! :lol:
Philosophically seen: no. It is the event of a bullet entering a body with enough energy that kills people. A bullet lying around usually doesn't kill anybody (except maybe when somebody stumbles on it, and makes a very unlucky fall...). Objects do not cause anything. Events cause other events. :zip:
Does cyanide kill people?
Do heart attacks kill people?
Do trains kill people?
No. People doing stupid or immoral things kill. (Ha! We are slowly nearing the free will debate. Thanks for this opening, VYAZMA!)
Another thought. The Fort Hood shooting. People who think there should be no laws against gun ownership often say thatif everyone were armed such shootings would not occur because a large number of people would be armed and able to shoot the perpetrator. But where in the US are many people more likely to be armed and trained to use guns, along with many weapons freely available than on an army base? Yet no other shots were fired other than by the crazed killer. So much for safety where there are large numbers of armed people. Think of that the next time someone says school kids would be safer in school if the teachers were armed.
Lois
Lois, I usually respect your opinions, but this one is not based on facts. Soldiers are not allowed to carry firearms on military bases. Your premise is false.
That said, I do agree with your opinion that arming teachers is a bad idea.
Not even military police and the people at guard stations? I have visited many Amy bases, though not in the past few years, and there were always people around with holstered guns, just like cops, right out in the open.
Why do you suppose that soldiers are not allowed to carry firearms on military bases? What could possibly be the rationale? What if they have to defend themselves? Should they have fewer rights than civilians? Is the 2nd amendment suspended on Army bases? And for what purpose? Are guns too dangerous for trained military to be trusted with?
Lois
Lois:
Many years ago, when I was in the service as an MP, we could only carry guns or have guns in our possession when we were on duty, when we were off duty they were kept in an arms room, even in Viet Nam. The reason for this was to avoid accidents. Even among experienced combat veterans who have first hand knowledge of what their weapons can damage and kill, accidents happen. I was witness to two both resulting in death. One died when he shot himself another killed a young man who was doing no more than riding a bike past the barracks when a M-14 went off accidentally and he was hit.
It seems that the basic premise of the original poster was incorrect, and that started the whole thread in multiple wrong directions as pointed out by GdB.
I suggest that the underlying reason anyone kills anyone else is mental defect. Some less obvious ways are self-defense because the person one is defending against is demonstrating an antisocial mental defect. (Zimmerman was demonstrating the mental defect even though he used the legal argument of “self defense”.) Although it’s the military which kills during a war, I suggest that the government leaders who started the war are the one with the mental defect. This may be based on wanting to take the property of another, which is also a demonstration of this defect.
The techniques for this killing range from primitive physical beating, up through the steps of technology (developed based on scientific work) from using a rock or a stick, a knife, an arrow, a gun, arsenic, sodium cyanide, a nuclear explosion, or nerve gas. (please don’t nitpick because I didn’t list some methods). A second factor is the need for the person to have the power to accomplish it.
Science is the observation then development of knowledge. Technology is the use of that knowledge. They are obviously closely related, but I don’t see how one can assign more or less responsibility to the technology of the building of a gun or the science of discovery of chemical reactions and oxidation.
Occam
