Men on the moon, a rover on Mars, a probe in deep space slinging around Saturn; unmanned drones dropping smart bombs on secret caves 8,000 miles away; a manned submarine (Trieste) photographing life in the Mariana Trench seven miles down -- and a hole terminally leaking oil.
6 comments:
I'm relatively sure you would have faced opposition to the activity if one had consulted scientists prior to the war or oil spill (assuming they were not expressly hired by Lockeed Martin, BP, etc.).
Also, I feel I need to express a point I found particularly enlightening. Science is inherently harmless, just as religion is inherently harmless. Each is a pursuit of truth, a human attempt to cut a path towards something greater.
There are no "mad scientists," just as there are no ruthless men of God (as any such person is clearly not truly on the path set forth by any faith I have found). If someone seeks to, say, create a death ray... he has ceased to truly be a scientist. In point of fact, he is a "mad engineer," as he is not performing any sort of experiment, nor is he pursuing any sort of higher truth.
The danger I see in "science" is not so much related to science itself, but instead to rash human action. We cannot simply do something for the sake of novelty. There must always be a reason, due consideration of the consequences, and redundant safety measures. Science also has a tendency to be viciously wielded in times of war, which adds pressure on us to limit our military operations.
Frankly, I think you missed the scariest: the unintended consequences of medicine compounded with evolution. MRSA is only the first prominent case of what may become the dangerous future of infectious disease.
The problem is... none of these problems have extra-scientific solutions. We can't pray away diseases, nor can we apparently use religion to soften humanity (how much longer do they get to keep trying?). What's more, science is always changing, which is what keeps it relevant in an evolving world.
I don't know if science has any sort of place, let alone a rightful one. I imagine it will just be around forever, like religion.
Ginx,
Are scientists hired by BP, Lockheed, etc. less honest than those hired by others? Every scientist works for someone. Must we assume that those who work for large-ish companies have sold their souls to the board of directors? If that is so, then have not the scientists in the employ of advocacy organizations or universities with strongly left-leaning faculties also sold out to ideological interests?
Both may be true. Or neither. It seems to me that it is incumbent on all of us to develop critical thinking skills (learn to recognize logical fallacies) and become as well informed as is possible. This may mean being willing to reject notions that we have held for a long time if it turns out that the data on which they were based are flawed ('Global Warming' comes to mind). It certainly means holding the work of those whose positions we defend to a very high standard of truth and integrity.
That said, I applaud the measured tone of your post. You have probably echoed concerns that many of us feel.
Incidentally, MRSA is not the result of evolution unless one restricts the definition of that term to natural selection only. The resistant 'strains' certainly existed before the advent of antibiotics, but the unrestricted or over-eager use of them created an environment in which only the resistant individuals would survive. It is, indeed, a scary scenario.
Avoid hospitals when possible. They are dangerous places. Avoid doctors when possible; they are -- or can be -- dangerous people. (Ditto lawyers.)
Must we assume that those who work for large-ish companies have sold their souls to the board of directors?
I'm comfortable saying they sold oversight of their results to the board.
If that is so, then have not the scientists in the employ of advocacy organizations or universities with strongly left-leaning faculties also sold out to ideological interests?
And by left-leaning you mean... reality observing? Colleges only seem liberal because there are people there whose job it is to study things. Conservative ideology only makes sense if you have a real job and no time to learn shit about anything. That's just what I have observed, I could be wrong.
I think criticism is important, and it's especially important to simple look at the facts. If the world's leading scientist says X, I would hope no one believes X until he has evidence. If X is really weird, it better be good evidence. That said, I don't think "democratic" science has much place in the debate. It's good to see what all scientists think, but those news reports of them interviewing people in mall parking lots about evolution makes me want to devolve back into a feces-throwing chimp.
There is pretty good evidence that there are strains that did not exist prior to the use of antibiotics, and that the natural tendency of living things to mutate allowed for the natural selection of mutations that resisted antibiotics. Luckily it takes the bacteria decades to gain immunity, during which time we develop a half dozen new antibiotics.
I like doctors. Most of my college buddies work in health sciences, from pharmacy to surgery. I think there needs to be more oversight into some of the prescription practices and diagnosis of various pseudo-diseases, but otherwise I am glad to be alive at a time when I'm far more likely to die as a result of my own stupidity than because of disease.
Ginx,
Your remarks about science and scientists pretty much mirror my own thoughts. There is no such thing as "settled science". OK, the earth is not flat, but not much else can be called settled.
There is much dispute among scientists who are qualified to have an opinion regarding mutations. Little evidence that random mutation is likely to provide any benefit. Also, the nature of the subject makes it impossible -- or very nearly so -- to come up with evidence either for or against. Until recently at least, the only example of a mutation that provided such an advantage was a virus for canine encephalitis that began infecting horses (although I may have that backwards).
It was a doctor from whom I first heard the remark about doctors and hospitals.
And finally, your opinion of conservative ideology is obviously derogatory (you make no effort to hide this), but it would depend, again, on how you define it. Liberals tend to define 'conservative' quite differently from the way conservatives do, and I'm pretty sure that door swings both ways as well. I'm conservative, I have (well, had) a 'real job' and I can say without boasting that I know a lot about a number of important subjects.
Perhaps we are really defining our terms differently.
The last 'Anonymous' post was by me, Uncle Rick. I just pressed 'Enter' while the worng radio button was selected.
Dear Ginx,
You wrote in your first comment in this thread:
Frankly, I think you missed the scariest: the unintended consequences of medicine compounded with evolution. MRSA is only the first prominent case of what may become the dangerous future of infectious disease.
I may have "missed" it here, but I did not miss it in an essay I wrote after Mr. Obama's inauguration speech.
You also wrote:
The problem is... none of these problems have extra-scientific solutions. We can't pray away diseases, nor can we apparently use religion to soften humanity (how much longer do they get to keep trying?). What's more, science is always changing, which is what keeps it relevant in an evolving world.
Perhaps you will find this essay interesting, or the ensuing discussion at this interesting blog (Talking Squid) of that very essay (discussion begins near end of Squid's post, and continues in comments).
Peace.
Post a Comment