User:Jmelchio

Is science synomymous with progress?

1. Introduction.

Is science really synonymous with progress?

From the Greek Antiquity, philosophy was considered as the most important doctrine, and was the model for people's behaviour.

But the 17th century underwent an important ideological change. Indeed, thanks to people like Newton and Galilée, science started its incredible development.

Nowadays, science occupies a dominating position in our society: in communication, transport, etc.

However, we can wonder if science is really the answer to all our problems.

This is what we will try to debate in the next few pages.

2. Interview.

We have interviewed Romain Bodard to have his opinion about the influence of science on our society. Here are the main points of the interview.


 * Science has improved our quality of life considerably :

e.g. - We have lots of electrical appliances for the household tasks

- Some types of manual work ( harvesting, milking etc.)are done with machines

- Cars, etc. make travelling easier.


 * However, there are always side effects :

e.g. - In agriculture, the chemical fertilizers used to increase productivity make the rivers more acid. Therefore, purification stations are needed, and this costs a lot of money.

- Cars pollute the Earth's atmosphere. Moreover, cars need petrol, which is transported in oil tankers. If these oil tankers sink, enormous pollution problems follow.

- Weapons are another example. They are more and more precise, efficient and lethal. So if they fall in the hands of terrorists, it can have dramatic consequences... At the start, weapons were designed to protect and defend people, but now, they are used to attack and destroy.

Let's take the example of medicines : the inhabitants of poor countries do not have access to them. In general, the development of new medicines targets rich countries.
 * Another important point to make is that scientific progress is not accessible to everybody.

research could be devoted to other purposes, for example, help to poor countries. In this respect, let's consider space research : its usefulness is not very clear. It could help develop medical research in the long term... But at the moment it mainly has commercial aims.
 * In addition, the money invested in some very costly scientific


 * Science brings good things, but also bad ones. Generally, the good aspects can be seen from the start, whereas the negative side effects are often only discovered later. Scientists then work to reduce the negative aspects, but this usually implies many costs. Sometimes also, personal interests are involved, and they outweigh the interests of mankind.


 * On the whole, on comparing the advantages and disadvantages brought by science, we can say that there are more good things than bad things.

3. Argumentation.

According to Hottois, science is more a way of life than an improvement. Our whole civilisation is articulated around science. One would not exist without the other. We can then have 2 different points of view : science is positive for the advantages it brings, but it is negative if we consider its disadvantages and restraints.

According to Gusdorf, science used to be separated from other disciplines such as literature and philosophy. Today, science is not isolated any more and is linked to the other disciplines. He also says that hope is our objective, and science is our hope, so reaching our objective means progress. In this respect, science is synonymous with progress.

However, this progress did not happen overnight. Galilée and Kepler, for example, had to fight against religion to see their scientific ideas recognized. At that time, religion was considered as more important than science, which had no rights. Now the trend has been reversed, but it should not be to the detriment of religion. The fact that science has enabled people to broaden their views and mentalities to evolve can also be seen as a kind of progress.

4. Counter-argumentation.

As we have seen, Hottois's opinion can be analysed in 2 different ways. It is either an argument in favour of the fact that science means progress for man, or it is the opposite. Indeed, he links science to civilisation, and civilisation has good and bad aspects. Therefore, this idea can be an argument or a counter-argument. We can give as examples the negative consequences of some technical inventions.

5. Our position.

In the light of all the documents read and opinions collected, each member of the group has developed his own opinion. We have put all our opinions in common and tried to find a 'happy medium'.

The general opinion is the following : from a strictly scientific point of view, science contributes actively to progress. (let's consider our present comfort)

However, there are negative aspects, e.g. pollution.

Science can also be dangerous, e.g. the catastrophy of the Space Shuttle Columbia, in which 7 people lost their lives.

The group's opinion is mitigated. Science is a source of progress, but which should not be pursued at any cost : we should always assess the possible consequences in advance.

The evolution of science is sometimes too fast, and in some areas, it can cause incontrollable drifts, e.g. cloning, in-vitro fertilization etc.

The development of science must be done in a thoughtful and consistent way. Then, it will be total progress.

6. Link with the job of engineer.

An engineer is a person qualified in applied sciences, so a person able to use the different scientific domains put at his disposal and apply them to different situations.

All the technical progress of our modern world is linked to scientific discoveries. Engineers must exploit these discoveries to help others in their daily lives.

However, it is important to set the right priorities and to make the right choices. Profit should never be put above other values, like social development. To sum up, we can quote some words by Rabelais : "Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme." Our future choices will have consequences, and we will have to measure these consequences.

An engineer is above all a scientist who asks himself the right questions and who uses his knowledge to the best benefit of the whole community.