Science needing to be without a Goal.

It's obvious conventional science needs to be without a goal. Such is the developed contingency of empirical investigation. The scientist compares the reality of the observation to the design of the new instrument, and determines his required discovery according to the value of the market. We can count on new conventions to be mathematically worked upon with the purpose of improving the quality of Life in the socio-economic world. But the science itself, the presence of canola farmers with planting instructions, patented by and for the use of inventive farming equipment (all this for instance), must be an interaction between freedom oriented mankind and the community of living beings of the natural world. That is utter doubt beyond anything a Man could want to do with Nature.

To say I am environmentally biased and believe that humanity can live with nature and actually discover that the socio-economy live co-operatively with that environment has the purposeful content of science. My question thus is perplexed about the future of mankind: will the goal of falsification in social science and economics correspond? Politically we are amazed. And it is beyond deciding whether to become diligent and hard-working or not.

Science is with a goal to reject in social Man; OR is science without a goal (needs teleological solutions for Nature) and has to find that goal in the failure of Man to work and prosper on the face of the Earth?:sunny:

<not just feeling good and insane>

 

There are so many corrupted scientists, they already get bought and corrupted by the corporations in university.

 

Science dismisses magic with the best intent for its many goals. Goallessly, and with no degree of guile in the conscientiousness, the openness upon which it's contingent, it awaits ( : D ) itself.

I sometimes wish I was a scientific man! : D

 

It seems now that major CEO's like Murdock and Black no longer have to make that bad impression for being pushy. It's the scientists which are pushy; is that it?

 

Then you vote for the Pope. Have we progressed?

 

Science is a method...

A method that a technocracy has grown around and become as midguard says.. corrupt.

I agree

Those of the technocracy fit what is desired into the mold of fact and corrupt it.
When Fact should come from nowhere but objective observation.

What cannot be disproved by humanity.. is fact
that is the be all and end all

 

willedwill:

You misunderstand what I mean by saying I wish sometimes I was a scientific man?

 

Eco-science is full of baked facts.

There has always been corruption in science though. The most important part of the scientific process is strong peer review and criticism.

Therein lies the biggest problem for our modern times. The government can be too quick to act based off of studies, without proper review; and the mainstream News never analyzes, and often further misrepresents the work.

There just isn't enough care for knowledge or skepticism, too much sensationalism and reaction.

 

Science has only had a goal in a few select cases

Ist was the Manhattan project.

2nd.. Landing on the moon

3rd The ability to destroy targets on other side of planet with ICBM's

Other than that science 'the establishment is' is a tool for government' fractured and payed in fools gold.

A few like Einstein cared naught for government or patriotism. Imagineering understanding without first being nailed down by math and proper thinking.

A Jewish patent clerk revealed more in one lifetime about the nature of reality than all science the 'ivory tower' had in 50
[except newton]
Thats an inspiration to us all