and one more thing, john doe

[John Doe]

Michael Faraday, for one, and Kepler for another,
prayed fiercely to God so that they could understand
how the universe worked, not so that they could
compete or dominate anyone...especially Faraday, who
was ernest about doing his science "in order to better
serve others"....what I keep getting out of this is it
seems that many Lit Crit people seem to have no grasp
or even a vague notion of how a person , while looking
through a telescope say, would get inspired to
just...want to know how it all works...that sense of
wonder seems lost to them...and they become irascible
science-bashers because they cannot viscerally relate
to that wonderfull feeling...basically its just
pissing on people's cornflakes for all the wrong
reasons...

--- Kyle <kybrow at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com