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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
