Is science a Boon or a Bane?

I was unable to answer this question properly until a few months back. I have the answer now.

To answer the question we need to separate two aspects of this question:

1. Is the knowledge of science boon or bane? AND
2. Is the application of science boon or bane?

Often, the confusion in answering the Boon-vs-Bane question stems from not making the above distinction.

Knowledge of science is certainly good. It helps us understand nature better. This understanding increases our chances of survival.

As far as application is concerned - it is to be noted that we cannot answer the question at a 'fundamental' level. This is because human beings have volition. They can choose to apply science on either making an atom bomb, or inventing electricity.

So, those who say that science has been a bane, need to be told that the conclusion to be drawn (even if this is proved to be a historical fact) is not that we need to discard science, or that we were better off without science. The conclusion to be drawn is that we have progressed well on knowledge of nature. But, we may not have made the right 'choices' on how to use that knowledge.

The historical observation that science has led to destruction, pollution, etc does not imply that things had to be that way. Human beings have volition and can choose to use science constructively. The core issue is lack of a proper philosophy (mainly ethics). The progress on this front has not kept pace with that on natural sciences.

I was discussing this issue with an uncle of mine. He recently got a pacemaker installed, and was saying that science has not helped mankind. I told him that it is because of science that he is alive. To which he said that what was the use of his life. Hence, he made his negative conclusion on science. I could not counter his argument properly that day. Today, I understand how to do that. Science offered him the possibility to live (by using both scientific knowledge and its proper application - in form of the pace maker). Now, if he thinks that his life has no meaning and he was better dead, then it is his fault and a result of his choices. Science will not offer man a better life, unless he chooses it himself. Science will maximize his chances of survival; but is up to man to use his life productively. If he fails here, then it is his own volition that should get the blame - not science.