Yes, Virginia

[Tom Stanton]

> Murthy Yenamandra moves the discussion forward by asking:
> "Why does giving ethics/culture control over science automatically result
> in all sorts of caveman scenarios? Science is already subject to ethics
> and culture - all we're looking for are better guidelines...
 
> Stefan Schuber wrote:
> ... I maintain that it's dangerous to declare that the charge 
> on an electron is such-and-so because the gods, disenfranchised 
> Boomwadians, or any other group says so. Social/political
> factors may determine how much money is available to fund research to
> determine the charge with greater accuracy, but I don't believe that
> social and political factors exercise a "controlling vote" over the
> outcome.

Are we using "science" and "scientists" interchangeably & possibly
incorrectly? "Science" is what Schuber has described: an objective
observation that does not depend on the social role of the obser-
ver. Is there any arguement here? But "Scientist" are those folks 
who make the observations. They need funding. They may belong to
churches. Some are very aggressive and, in cases like Von Braun,
will prosecute their vision no matter what the cost. It is the
scientists that TRP skewers, not the science. TRP doesn't denounce
behavioralism, he denounces the practicioners who excuse their
cruelty as objectivity. We'll see the St. Veronica scenes as a
foreshadow of the concentration camp scenes later (Pokler).