and one more thing, john doe

[Kyle]

On 10/11/05, Oscar <chimpo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think you are confusing science with engineering. Engineering is
> applied science.
>
> Regardless, the problems you speak of aren't new problems. I would
> argue that the world revolves and has revolved around competition
> since the dawn of time. Do you think Napoleon/Hitler/Gengis Kahn (who
> was possessed by a supernatural sheep, BTW) wanted to conquer the
> world because they wanted to make it a better place? No, they wanted
> to be #1. They wanted to rule the world. Do you think that all of
> the drug companies are working on products to cure diseases so they
> can feel good about themselves? While I'm sure there are people out
> there like that, I'm more sure that money is the driving factor.
>
> The idea that the problems in the world today are new problems is what
> I like to call the 'rose colored glasses' syndrome.
>
> "Science is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry"
>

You're right that the world has always revolved around competition, but it's
not necessarily true that those rulers you mentioned
(Napoleon/Hitler/Genghis Kahn) didn't want to make a better world.
Righteousness is obviously a subjective thing. They thought that by ruling
the world, they could make it their better place, and basically that the end
would justify their means.

But back to science, I think there has been a difference; engineering
(applied science) and science used to have much less of a distinction. The
Greeks, for example, chose to effectively ignore parts of science that
didn't apply directly to its practicality (Plato had a sign above his
academy claiming "Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here.", as geometry
is the ultimate in applied science). The world was more like this in the not
too distant future, as well. People like Ben Franklin, Henry Ford, and
Thomas Edison are obviously revered because of their combination of science
and applied science. And their findings were, at the time, just as
scientific as applicable. Certainly their motivation came from selfish
desire for beating the competition (as is everything we do as humans), but
the truth was that their inventions were popular because it was more widely
agreed that their contributions made life not only easier, but better. I'm
saying the difference (with exception for war science, it has always been
around and always been frowned upon) is that now with most of engineering
science the claim that such science is improving our lives is much more
questionable, while the claim that the other kind of science (the science of
curiosity) brings many to question if there is a need for it at all. Though
I think that today's 'curiosity science' is tomorrow's applied.

--
-kyle b
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20051011/17fed51a/attachment.html>