Scientific advancement or cultural advancement?

In light of reading Forever's thread about Newton and Shakespeare, I decided to attempt to contribute something. I know, me, never. Which do you think is more important? Scientific advancement or cultural? By cultural I mean society having many artists, authors, musicians, etc. and those people creating their respective products and bettering them.

I personally think scientific is more important. I'd rather have an easier life with science than listen to some music. Without science we'd have no instruments or paint or many other things used in cultural advancement in the first place.

But without culture, we'd live in some gray fucked-up 1984-type world.

You pose an interesting question.

This is because I am the most interesting man in the world.... not.

But I thent, eventually there would be someone to creatively use to to advance culturally.

imo, scientific advancement is needed, but i'd go with cultural advancement. without it, we would have no names, since no one would have the ability to define themselves and live a blank and grey life like robots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gabe

In light of reading Forever's thread about Newton and Shakespeare, I decided to attempt to contribute something. I know, me, never. Which do you think is more important? Scientific advancement or cultural? By cultural I mean society having many artists, authors, musicians, etc. and those people creating their respective products and bettering them.

I personally think scientific is more important. I'd rather have an easier life with science than listen to some music. Without science we'd have no instruments or paint or many other things used in cultural advancement in the first place.

---

Scientific advancement is easily more important. If it weren't for scientific advancement, there wouldn't be paint, Internet, television, computers, MP3 players, compact discs, or cameras - all things "cultural advancement" (by your definition) needs. Not to mention the amazing, non-entertainment things that come from scientific advancement.

I really don't see a comparison between the two.

To be honest, I didn't either, but after seeing people say Shakespeare's more important, I'd like to see their reasoning to this one.

I guess you could say that science and culture go hand-in-hand, then. Advances in one lead to advances in the other.

I think that maybe some cultural things inspire some inventions but that mainly scientific comes first and then cultural follows.

Culture is far more importaint; without culture you wouldn't know basic things like love thy fellow man since religion is a form of culture; without religion the world would be more worse off then it already is.

That's highly controversial. Who's to say the world wouldn't be the same without religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Culture is far more importaint; without culture you wouldn't know basic things like love thy fellow man since religion is a form of culture; without religion the world would be more worse off then it already is.

---

Gah! Nobody is going to win this argument.

Anybody ever read 1984? That's what a world with no culture is like. There's science, but so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rundeer

Gah! Nobody is going to win this argument.

Anybody ever read 1984? That's what a world with no culture is like. There's science, but so what?

---

There is also a movie for those of you who find books too boring.

how about this; anyone here like christmas? halloween, easter? we wouldn't have any of these without culture since they are all based on religious events.

And culture generally comes after scientific advancement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

There is also a movie for those of you who find books too boring.

how about this; anyone here like christmas? halloween, easter? we wouldn't have any of these without culture since they are all based on religious events.

---

And math, physics, theory. All things that have nothing to do with culture, but we couldn't live without them.

Scientific advancement to make our live easier
And it would eventually lead to cultural advancement
Just like people add voice effects to music due to scientific advancement which is in the software

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

There is also a movie for those of you who find books too boring.

how about this; anyone here like christmas? halloween, easter? we wouldn't have any of these without culture since they are all based on religious events.

---

No they're not. In fact, Christmas and Easter are based on scientific events - the Winter Solstice and Vernal Equinox, respectively. Do a little research before making bogus statements that end up supporting the opposing argument.

A life devoted to the advancement of scientific theory seems very bleak. We are humans. It could be argued that our pursuit of incomprehensible knowledge is a fallacy. We do not have the capacity to understand everything. When you look at it in terms of the unknowns in life, science is laughable. In addition, science has yet to define what matter is. I don't want to live under some jaded pretense that suggests infallible understanding of the world around me.

That was a complete moot point. While disagreeing with one side, you did not take either. The whole idea of the thread was to choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gabe

That was a complete moot point. While disagreeing with one side, you did not take either. The whole idea of the thread was to choose.

---

No; my post in itself implies that I take the cultural side. Although I don't see how you could invariably choose either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Massacrist

A life devoted to the advancement of scientific theory seems very bleak. We are humans. It could be argued that our pursuit of incomprehensible knowledge is a fallacy. We do not have the capacity to understand everything. When you look at it in terms of the unknowns in life, science is laughable. In addition, science has yet to define what matter is. I don't want to live under some jaded pretense that suggests infallible understanding of the world around me.

---

I like how science never claims to be infallible, and you imply that science - although not capable of 'understanding everything' - is also incapable of expanding. Because modern medicine and almost every form of entertainment that you enjoy didn't develop as a result of scientific advancement. No, Shakespeare's writings are the reason you live so comfortably in your electric- or gas-heated house, typing on your computer (holy shit!), and heat up your refrigerated, processed foods in your microwave.
Science certainly had nothing to do with these useful things that we use daily to improve our lives, and science certainly isn't going to get us anywhere in the future. No, we've reached the peak of scientific advancement, and nothing has ever or will ever come from it that can be used to improve human life. I mean, we don't even know what matter is - lol! - so why would we expect science to ever achieve anything worthwhile?

gb2amishCountry

You have several levels of culture and all but one is fleeting and meaningless so I would ignore them and in doing that culture and science become connected but disconnected. I mean you get discoveries like that of germs and that changes the culture's view of cleanliness but such events aren't happening everyday. Also I would separate technological advancements from science Apple makes the Ipod and everyone becomes a music junkie, but I don't think the Ipod counts as science effecting the culture for two reason: the ipod is only effecting the pop-culture and the ipod isn't a real advancement.

The base core culture and science seem unrelated and related. Culture is different from place to place and has an effect on what is acceptable in the practice of science while at the same time science has the ability to alter the culture. I'd say they are of equal importance in the grand scheme of things. Without culture in the way I'm defining it you lose your humanity and without science we're in the stone ages. Also you need the culture to support science otherwise it doesn't get pursued.
The loss of culture can easily lead to the loss of knowledge and science, that's what the Dark Ages was. Science and knowledge though often allow for power and money that allow culture to grow.
The two feed off each other, control, and drive each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

I mean you get discoveries like that of germs and that changes the culture's view of cleanliness but such events aren't happening everyday.

---

It doesn't have to happen every day for it to be meaningful. Look at where we are today compared to just 100 years ago. Compare that to 100 years before it. In your lifetime, you'll have seen things your parents hadn't even dreamed about.
At the same time, cultural advancement does not happen every day. If it did, we wouldn't still be reading Shakespeare. I'm not sure if you're trying to say scientific advancement isn't as important because it's not happening "every day" - it sounds like it, but that just doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

Also I would separate technological advancements from science Apple makes the Ipod and everyone becomes a music junkie, but I don't think the Ipod counts as science effecting the culture for two reason: the ipod is only effecting the pop-culture and the ipod isn't a real advancement.

---

Because pop culture isn't a form of culture? How about the ability to spread culture in mass? Why are people in America listening to Japanese music and vice-versa? Would that be possible without scientific advances in technology? It's because of science that we know what we do about different cultures - the things that influence our very own.

Quote:

---

The base core culture and science seem unrelated and related. Culture is different from place to place and has an effect on what is acceptable in the practice of science while at the same time science has the ability to alter the culture. I'd say they are of equal importance in the grand scheme of things. Without culture in the way I'm defining it you lose your humanity and without science we're in the stone ages. Also you need the culture to support science otherwise it doesn't get pursued.

---

I'm not sure I follow your last statement? According to what you said before it, culture dictates "what is acceptable in the practice of science," yet without culture, no one would pursue science? I hardly believe the latter, while I see the former as a negative aspect of culture - you can't do something because you were taught otherwise. That may sound fine if you were the one taught that way, or teaching that way. But think about the advances we'd have if Amish people would use computers, or if Muslim or Japanese women could easily pursue careers. When you believe otherwise, and you see cultural influences that are so obviously wrong, culture can have a very negative aspect to it.
But more importantly, I hardly see culture as a necessity for scientific pursuit.

Quote:

---

The loss of culture can easily lead to the loss of knowledge and science, that's what the Dark Ages was.

---

Could you be more specific? The Dark Ages is a huge topic. I've heard references all about it in many forms about many topics. It's not that I know otherwise or doubt it, but I'd love to see sources as well, so that said references will make more sense in the current topic and in future topics.

Quote:

---

Science and knowledge though often allow for power and money that allow culture to grow.

---

culture =/= economy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

It doesn't have to happen every day for it to be meaningful. Look at where we are today compared to just 100 years ago. Compare that to 100 years before it. In your lifetime, you'll have seen things your parents hadn't even dreamed about.
At the same time, cultural advancement does not happen every day. If it did, we wouldn't still be reading Shakespeare. I'm not sure if you're trying to say scientific advancement isn't as important because it's not happening "every day" - it sounds like it, but that just doesn't make sense.

---

I'm not saying that any thing is unimportant I'm saying tey're equally important and in a symbiotic relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

Because pop culture isn't a form of culture? How about the ability to spread culture in mass? Why are people in America listening to Japanese music and vice-versa? Would that be possible without scientific advances in technology? It's because of science that we know what we do about different cultures - the things that influence our very own.

---

Pop culture means nothing in terms of grand scheme. It changes daily, weekly, monthly, and the things over written are forgotten. From the anthropological stand point pop culture is garbage and while at times some what informative about the base culture, like the pop culture during Regan's presidency was indicative of the core culture of the conservative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

I'm not sure I follow your last statement? According to what you said before it, culture dictates "what is acceptable in the practice of science," yet without culture, no one would pursue science? I hardly believe the latter, while I see the former as a negative aspect of culture - you can't do something because you were taught otherwise. That may sound fine if you were the one taught that way, or teaching that way. But think about the advances we'd have if Amish people would use computers, or if Muslim or Japanese women could easily pursue careers. When you believe otherwise, and you see cultural influences that are so obviously wrong, culture can have a very negative aspect to it.
But more importantly, I hardly see culture as a necessity for scientific pursuit.

---

I said culture has influence over science and vis-versa. You don't do cloning in the US because people find it morally reprehensible. Look at stem cells, same issue. Morality in the general nonreligious sense is part of culture and hold sway over what a scientist will study and won't. Newton with held several theories and discoveries because he was conflicted by his religious beliefs verses his pursuit of science. If a culture is based in a religion or the idea of security, like a culture in some tribe in Africa that condemns outsiders and advancement/change. Then you have science not being pursued because no one is allocating time or resources to it. Those that try are ostracized or discriminated against. There has to be a drive, reason, reward for doing something. Culture is often the source of this, if not directly then indirectly. Greeks valued wisdom, so science was pursued. Europeans valued power so science applicable to weapons was pursued.
Person values helping his fellow man because he's indoctrinated by his culture to want to he learns things that allow him to come up with something that helps his fellow man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

Could you be more specific? The Dark Ages is a huge topic. I've heard references all about it in many forms about many topics. It's not that I know otherwise or doubt it, but I'd love to see sources as well, so that said references will make more sense in the current topic and in future topics.

---

Dark Ages, time after the fall of Rome and Greek Culture? You know where Europe set itself back science, knowledge, culture wise by a few hundred years. People lost all the knowledge the Greek and Romans had after the fall of Rome. The Renaissance is when Europe rediscover all of the Greek and Roman knowledge and culture via the Muslims and the crusades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

culture =/= economy

---

The culture in Florence during the Renaissance encourages one to try to be middle class or better and that it was a sign of wealth to fund the arts and the sciences. Culture in may ways is linked to the economy. Thing about a culture based with socialism values versus one based off capitalism. They way the culture views wealth and possessions will have profound effect on the economy.

Finally:
What is with your need to dissect and pick apart every thing I post? Seriously every time I make a post in GD I'd rather not have to engaged you in some long winded debate. If I don't quote you then I don't want to talk to you, go pick apart other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

I'm not saying that any thing is unimportant I'm saying tey're equally important and in a symbiotic relationship.

Pop culture means nothing in terms of grand scheme. It changes daily, weekly, monthly, and the things over written are forgotten. From the anthropological stand point pop culture is garbage and while at times some what informative about the base culture, like the pop culture during Regan's presidency was indicative of the core culture of the conservative.

---

What cultural advancements are equal in importance to modern medicine and mass communication? What cultural phenomenon has 'meant something' in the grand scheme of things?

Quote:

---

I said culture has influence over science and vis-versa. You don't do cloning in the US because people find it morally reprehensible. Look at stem cells, same issue. Morality in the general nonreligious sense is part of culture and hold sway over what a scientist will study and won't.

---

Firstly, I didn't deny that. Secondly, those are very religiously influenced decisions. It's nice that you're trying to leave religion out of culture here, but it seems as though you're arguing for religion when you argue for culture. Thirdly, my statement was that culture is hindering scientific advancement. Culture (religion or not) is preventing cloning advancements, stem cell advancements, etc. That doesn't make culture a good thing, nor does it make it equivalent to scientific advancement. If science is a horse, culture is the chariot. A horse can progress without its chariot, but the chariot will go nowhere without its horse. And together, the chariot just slows the horse down, albeit offering guidance [to progress the will of the chariot, not of the horse]. Whether or not that's a good thing is debatable, but it doesn't in any way make the chariot equivalent in importance to the horse.

Quote:

---

Newton with held several theories and discoveries because he was conflicted by his religious beliefs verses his pursuit of science. If a culture is based in a religion or the idea of security, like a culture in some tribe in Africa that condemns outsiders and advancement/change. Then you have science not being pursued because no one is allocating time or resources to it. Those that try are ostracized or discriminated against. There has to be a drive, reason, reward for doing something. Culture is often the source of this, if not directly then indirectly.

---

You just stated how culture is the drive to not pursue scientific advancement. To be honest, I believe scientific advancement is something that will be pursued by default. It is the culture that slows it down, as my previous analogy states. If it weren't for culture, there would be stem cell research. If it weren't for culture, there wouldn't be tribes in Africa that condemned change. Culture doesn't push science forward. It just slows it down at variable levels.

Quote:

---

Greeks valued wisdom, so science was pursued. Europeans valued power so science applicable to weapons was pursued.

---

What areas of science that are pursued is affected by culture, yes, but science nonetheless will be pursued. Culture can point science in a direction, as a chariot. But that doesn't mean that science will, by default, not be pursued.

Quote:

---

Person values helping his fellow man because he's indoctrinated by his culture to want to he learns things that allow him to come up with something that helps his fellow man.

---

It does not take culture to help others. It's evolutionarily preprogrammed into us. I have very little culture attributed to me, that only goes so far as to dictate where hair is physically acceptable on the body. I feel I could easily transfer to another country of separate culture where dancing, waking hours, eating habits, roles in society, and the like are all different. Yet I still would desire to help my fellow man, because mankind evolved to require that trait.

Quote:

---

Dark Ages, time after the fall of Rome and Greek Culture? You know where Europe set itself back science, knowledge, culture wise by a few hundred years. People lost all the knowledge the Greek and Romans had after the fall of Rome. The Renaissance is when Europe rediscover all of the Greek and Roman knowledge and culture via the Muslims and the crusades.

---

How is it that "loss of culture" led to loss of science in this example (as you stated two posts ago)? Europe deliberately eliminated both science and culture at the same time. They didn't eliminate culture and science followed. They were both deliberately eradicated. At least, according to what you just said.
What made Europe decide to get rid of a few hundred years worth of science and culture?

Quote:

---

Finally:
What is with your need to dissect and pick apart every thing I post? Seriously every time I make a post in GD I'd rather not have to engaged you in some long winded debate. If I don't quote you then I don't want to talk to you, go pick apart other people.

---

Other people aren't making bogus statements that need to be picked apart; otherwise, I address it. Apparently you didn't bother checking to see that I also quoted three other people in this topic alone.
If you aren't aware, I don't even read usernames when I reply to messages, unless necessary (e.g. when I had to find your post two posts ago in this topic; however, after I post, I plan on forgetting your username, as I do forget everyone's). I merely reply to the message. That said, I don't know who you are [outside of the handle "C0FFINCASE"] or what other posts of yours I've bothered replying to.
Remembering who said what has never been an interest of mine, excluding trolling newbies in the Junkyard.
I don't know the difference between Fag, iFresh, and one other person that I don't even remember the name of. I just know they frequently IM me, and I have no clue what I've told any of them, 'cause I keep thinking they're all the same person. Along with Suske. I have no clue who that is, but he's on my buddy list.
So, don't take it personally. I apparently just think you're wrong a lot, if I feel the need to reply. ;)

Cultural advancment and scientific and technological advancement ar equally important, because there really cant be one without the other. Technology directly impacts the culture for which it is being developed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Souleater~

Cultural advancment and scientific and technological advancement ar equally important, because there really cant be one without the other. Technology directly impacts the culture for which it is being developed.

---

I'm not sure how to take this statement. I'm assuming you mean that one can't advance without the other? This is very true in terms of scientific advancement. However, how does science advance when culture advances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

I'm not sure how to take this statement. I'm assuming you mean that one can't advance without the other? This is very true in terms of scientific advancement. However, how does science advance when culture advances?

---

That is generally what i meant. It becomes clear that when culture advances it becomes more curious and science is the gateway to what they want to know. Think about the dark ages when all scientific and medical advancement basically halted. Once people began to accept that it was necessary to advance science, the culture advanced.

If things like the Enlightenment or industrial revolution (In terms of the scientific aspects) never took place, we would all still be living in huts made of straw and mud.

I have to go with scientific.

(looking at my country's cultural advancement (India) I feel a bit ashamed)