0
Science has not done more harm than good. If it were not for science we would still be fighting with wooden sticks, be using leaches to cure diseases, and would be drilling holes in people's heads when we thought they were possessed by the devil when in fact they only had a fever.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoThe question makes an assumption with which most people would disagree.
Science is neither good nor bad, it is the use to which it is put.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Do you believe that science and technology currently do more harm to our youth or do more good for our youth?
While it is true that science has proved to be a mixed blessing, which has made possible global warming among other unfortunate developments, I still think that science and technology on the whole do more good than harm for our youth and the human race in general. I personally have no desire to return to the stone age, and certainly if the human race were to abandon science and technology and live by hunting and gathering, almost all of the current world population of seven billion people would die of starvation and disease within a matter of months at the most. We need our science and technology.
Television programmes do a lot of harm to students?
Some studies show that certain television programs do more harm than good to students. Some television programs distract students from their studies.
How has Science has done more harm than good to the earth?
Science is a process of trying to determine the truth. Using the scientific method, one investigates a question, conducts experiments, and makes the results available for others to evaluate and attempt to duplicate. Using science we are able to find out the truth about the would around us. Science is the best way we have to determine the truth about our universe. Most people would agree that understanding our universe is a good thing and that ignorance can be quite harmful. Many negative things, that get attributed to science, like pollution, are actually not the result of science, but of ignorance. Once people learned, through science, that the use of certain technologies was causing harm, then science was applied to the situation to try to mitigate the problem. Most of the remainder of this answer is really about "technology" not science, which is appropriate because I suspect that the original question was intended to ask if advancing technology has caused more harm than good.A:No and yes because science has made the survival rate go up and no because it has also created some bad things like the bomb. A:The answer to this is subjective, and even philosophical. Science has caused some atrocities, however it is also solely responsible for the survival of the sheer majority of the population. It can be argued that modern weapons, negative environmental impacts, and other applications of science have been harmful. On the other side, science has been responsible for extending life expectancy, reducing childhood death and disease, providing for the crops necessary to feed the world, and similar positive impacts.While the balance of harm and good can be debated, science is generally neutral, what matters is how humans have applied it.A:This part of the previous answer sums it all up, Quote:- '''While the balance of harm and good can be debated, science is generally neutral, what matters is how humans have applied it'''. Unquote. Science then is the study of the physical and the natural world. It is that which we all are compelled in some way and at some time to ask the questions Why and How. Though nearly all of us are bewildered by the posed scientific theories or findings I quote again "What matters is how humans have applied it". Science is the discovery and application of knowledge gained, and for better or worse this world and all which it contains is there for the asking, for us to leave it alone or to change it for the betterment or ill of mankind.A:Unanswerable. "Science" is a branch of knowledge. "Harm" and "good" are relative terms and are usually grammatically connected to an object. It's a nonsensical question, like asking if it would be better to know pain than pleasure. A:Although science did create the atomic bomb. In world war two USA dropped two on Japan. Together they killed about 200 000 people. Although that seems like a lot, the USA were putting together a operation to invade Japan with 800 000 men. Then the Japanese had just under 2 000 000 men. The causality rate was one American soldier for seven Japanese soldier. So there fore there would have been an estimated 2 300 000 casusalities. Which was 10 times as many as the two atomic bombs which ended the war. So in that sense they saved more lives than they killed. Although it was a terrible use of science it did some good. A:'It was a terrible use of science' . . yes, that is the point it was a ''use'' of science and the blame if any goes on to those who used science to make the weapons. Science is the logical study of the world round us, and it's always up to us what we do with that knowledge. State your units of measurement, and people will give you a more accurate answer. A:The foregoing answers are good, but I want to emphasise the point that science never did any harm (and arguably did no good either). People did both the harm and good. It is wrong to say that science created the nuclear bomb; people did. To do so, people could not use teeth and stones, they needed tools to make the tools to make the tools to make the bombs. They could not make the bombs without hammers, saws, fuel, chemicals and many other things; does this mean that hammers, fires etc are more harmful than good? The people were the ones responsible for both the harm and the good. To be able to use all those tools and resources to make bombs and carry bombs and drop bombs, people needed knowledge; you can't just make a bomb or a plane by piling mined ore together -- it takes know-how, and to know enough to know how takes finding out, and nothing helps finding out like science does. And science is necessary for finding out how to do all sorts of things and how all sorts of things work. Putting to work the knowledge that we have won through the use of science, we call technology, not science. Technology is what enabled us to produce machinery, medicine, music, literature, food, art, you name it; everything that distinguishes us from savagery, from being animals is based on finding out. All those things, the very slates and paper on which we write the music or draw our pictures, are the products of technology and the science that permits it. Science has shown us how to create more food and shelter and health than any other human activity, but not a solitary bit of good or evil ever has been anything but the doing of humans. If it weren't for science and technology we would not have advanced even far enough to ask such questions. Philosophy, ethics and leisure depend on the products of science and technology as much as TV, trains, computers and rock festivals. Squatting cold and hungry while biting lice like hunter-gatherers is also an evil; ask anyone who has tried.Science has caused some atrocities, however it is also solely responsible for the survival of the sheer majority of the population. For example. A single ammonia producing process (for fertiliser) discovered by science is now responsible for feeding 40% of the worlds population. That is about 3 billion people sustained by a single scientific process. However modern weapons would not exist without science. Science has been mostly applied for good, however there are a large amount of evils as a result too.Science is neutral, what matters is how humans have applied it.
What science project can you do for a science fair?
A good idea for a science fair project is to do a project where you test which plant food will be the most effective. also, you can do which orange has more vitamin c. and who is the fastest kid in your grade or best speller.
What are some titles for a science fair project using makeup?
Does makeup make a person more attractive?
Has ICT done more harm?
debate ( I.C.T. has caused more harm than good. speak for the motion)
How politicians done more harm than good?
they have done bribery ,corruption etc
Has technology done more good or harm for man kind?
I believe that that is a matter of opinion.
Has ICT done more harm than good?
yes i .c.t has than more than good
Facebook done more harm than good?
it depends on how you use it.
Why did Jesus do more harm than good by dividing and polarizing people for or against him and teaching people to do the same and hate not love if you follow his example as he says to do?
no he done more good than harm
Are military strikes ever justified?
Yes, they are justified if they will help more than they will harm and if they are done with good intentions.
What is a good sentence for lightweight?
Brendan would have assisted his friend in the struggle, but he was somewhat of a lightweight, and would probably have done more harm than good.
Did Reconstruction do more harm or more good?
Reconstruction is more good.
Did imperialism do more harm than good in Africa?
Yes, imperialism did do more harm than good in Afria.
Does a free press do more harm than good?
harm
What can you do if more harm was done due to a lapse in time on medical decisions by workmanscompensation?
If more harm was done by a lapse in time by Workman's Compensation, then you need to get an attorney who specializes in that area. There is little you can do without an attorney.
