Science or Politics?

[mathman101]

I would have to say both are equally needed for a consistent progression and growth.

Politicics is what keeps society civil and ordered so that science can be found and discoveries made. But on the other side science it what discovers new things and finds unknown stuff to make our lives easier so that we have more time to work towards order and civility as a society.

I see it as a two-way street, each one benefits the other and vice versa so that progress can occur in a steady manner.

[кłøḱ♭ṧ]

Of course. They wouldn't have been able to kill people with such effectiveness without science, is my point.
Railroads. Concentration camps. An effective and organised method of murdering people using advanced armaments. Organised famine. Without these, you ain't having a genocide that effective. Sames goes for Stalin, and to a lesser extent Mao.

Science, bitches. It works, regardless of how it's used.

I see your point, however I prefer Science cause I can get a more stable career in life, if I went into politics my source of income would be more unbalanced. Plus Science is fun and Politics requires lying and lying = bad person = Hitler. I would prefer not to be the next Hitler. I'd prefer to be the next Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Patient... stop using current examples of politicians to prove your point, it is clouding your judgement. A true politician speaks of his goals and aims for the country truthfully such as Obama. Also the fact that you compared politicians to dictators is complete nonsense. Dictators, despite their political skills aren't politicians, their really just the first three letters of their title (add a k if you wish). Also scientists don't just become Neil Degrass Tyson straight out of Uni. They in a way, work harder than politicians to make the necessary discoveries that puts them in the spotlight. If anything, political careers are more reliable than science careers.

[CactusKing]

If anything, political careers are more reliable than science careers.

Are you saying politicians are more reliable than scientists?
There will always be careers in science -each new discovery poses new questions - so in a way science is the most reliable career there is.

[Blacksmith]

I would have to say both are equally needed for a consistent progression and growth.

Politicics is what keeps society civil and ordered so that science can be found and discoveries made. But on the other side science it what discovers new things and finds unknown stuff to make our lives easier so that we have more time to work towards order and civility as a society.

I see it as a two-way street, each one benefits the other and vice versa so that progress can occur in a steady manner.

+1

Now we could also raise the question. What is meant by "human race to prosper?" is it scientific development, a just society or something else?

[Linkcat]

Both are vital for people to progress. Irregardless of which one provides a greater benefit, they are both equally important.

[ARTHANASIOS]

I voted "Other" and I think that "Other" thing is Religion. I believe Religion had an impact on society (both positive and negative) that was far greater than the impact of Politics or Science.

[CactusKing]

I voted "Other" and I think that "Other" thing is Religion. I believe Religion had an impact on society (both positive and negative) that was far greater than the impact of Politics or Science.

Ahh... religion. I knew this would eventually come up. It can get in the way of both science and politics. While it's undisputable that religion's impact on the world over the millennia has been massive, is it really so important for human progression now?

[Blacksmith]

I need to strongly suport politics. A simple thing as choosing a leader to organize people 10K years ago is politics. Without that we'd be nowhere even if someone invented something. Science can only flourish in the right circumstances and can only become a part of society with the right system. Science also becomes limited after a while without active leadership. Simply since major changes in the way we live must be organized before it's added.

The existence of religion has to do with 99% politics and 1% belief. The reason is because to spread a religion you need to organize people, you need a leader and a plan. To do that you need politics.

[CactusKing]

Religion was used to organise people, Politics was used to organize people. The two helped each other take control of the masses. The difference was that religion was generally opposed to science because it was giving rise to ideas that conflicted with that of the scriptures, whereas politics helped spread new discoveries (in cases where religious leaders didn't hold enough political power to stop them).

[Aves]

Nono, it's not a strict dichotomy like that. You don't have to be one or the other. It's not a trichotomy, either.

For the purposes of this discussion, you can think of religion as a type of politics, along the lines of what blacksmith proposed, since we're talking about the aspects of religion used to direct people to make certain decisions/actions.

Religion is also not directly opposed with science. You can interpret religions as an early way to explain why things happened. Science is a systematic or organized way to explain why things happen. The two are not mutually exclusive. You could have religious scientists studying various sacred texts and records and comparing them with natural phenomena(Aha! We conquered the barbarians! Only a divine people could have done this, so we must be descended from gods!) and investigating why said phenomena occur, and that counts as performing science. For a more concrete example, consider why religious entities have some of the largest archives/libraries.