Technologies and Science is not your enemy

The great philosophers of the Enlightenment and the age of logic were all scientists. Not only that, but most of them also did significant work in mathematics, physics, and medicine. In fact, they all presented many scientific theories regarding human nature. In a way, these people were neuroscientists, because they explained human thoughts and emotions under the physical principles of the nervous system. These people were experts in evolutionary psychology, they thought about life and animal instincts, and they were also experts in social psychology. Because he thought about ethics, looked at human selfishness, and wrote about his limited thoughts, which sometimes make even our best plans fail.

How Could They Invent New Ideas?

These philosophers (including Descartes, Spinoza, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Leibniz, Kant, and Smith) are revered because they gave birth to these ideas at a time when there was no formal science. Only such facts were known, on the basis of which new theories could be formed. Mathematical theories such as information, arithmetic, and game theory were not yet invented. The man was unfamiliar with words like neurons, hormones, and genes. As I read these, I always wish I could go back in time and teach them the basics of the 21st century. If these people had the knowledge today, how could they invent new ideas?

Context Of Different Theories:

We do not need to speculate much in this regard, because today we are living in an age in which we have access not only to the work of these great intellectuals. We also have the sciences of science that they may not even think about. There has never been a better time in the past for men to understand than today. We can better understand the work of past intellectuals today in the context of theories of neuroscience, genetics, and evolution.

Nowadays with the help of modern technology, we can better research on these theories. Modeling from genetic engineering, for example, neurons that can be controlled by light, and modeling the promotion of ideas through ‘data mining’ is just a few links to this research.

In such a case, we may be right to think that non-scientific writers will not only be happy with the revolutions in science, but will also be motivated to write more, but unfortunately, this is not the case. When science prescribes a cure for diseases, monitors environmental pollution, or when it can be used to condemn opponents, everyone appreciates science, but when it comes to things that matter from the humanities, then science seems to be called bad. Especially when the logic of science is applied to religion, many writers who may not even believe in God themselves. They claim that science is unable to answer these ‘big questions’. Many popular journals accuse scientists of being victims of determinism, reductionism, essentialism, positivism, and, above all, scientific.

The Left, for example, commented on Sam Harris’ books in 2011:

‘Scientific thinking and reality Social Darwinism (in which the domination of the powerful over the weak was justified as a natural process), racial discrimination on the basis of science and evolution on the basis of evolution provide logical justification. It was with this in mind that the ‘Eugenics’ movement flourished, in which inferior race people were forcibly sterilized for better evolution. Every child today is familiar with the devastation of the twentieth century that has resulted from these ideas. The two great wars, the massacre of innocent people, the terrible weapons of war, the massacres, etc., are all the result of modern science invented technology.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *