The ugly truth of science

[Antonin Scriabin]

Note: this isn't to say that scientists can't be immoral, or specifically
and gleefully aiming towards developing weapons to hurt their enemies.
Again, though, this isn't a critique of the scientific spirit or method;
it's just someone being an asshole.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Antonin Scriabin
<kierkegaurdian at gmail.com>wrote:

> "Often that destructive power goes to the most corrupt, avaricious and
> sociopathic elements of society."
>
> I wouldn't quite say that it "goes to" those elements, but is forcibly
> co-opted by them.  Scientists didn't make the decision to drop atomic
> weapons, or even build them.  Politicians and military leaders did.  This,
> of course, isn't a scientific issue, but a political one.  The real
> question in regards to ethics here for the sciences is whether or not
> researchers should keep information to themselves if it becomes clear
> weaponization is possible or likely.  Or perhaps halt certain lines of
> inquiry altogether when danger becomes clear.  What would be a better
> solution, though: backing off from discovery and invention to be on the
> safe side, or using the unprecedented power of the sciences to cultivate a
> society in which weapons of mass destruction aren't an issue?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>>  I would be happy to have a discussion about what is the nature of
>>  Humanity.
>>
>> It isn''t the most enlightening phrase to say science is the subset of
>> the nature of humanity. I guess you could call human nature a set.  But
>> even if roughly true,  unchecked science is still a particularly dangerous
>> subset . Science is a cumulative group effort drawing on previous knowledge
>> that can  and often has focused mental and physical resources to produce
>> deadly technologies which confer new degrees of destructive power.  Often
>> that destructive power goes to the most corrupt, avaricious and sociopathic
>> elements of society.   That is just one example of misapplied science. The
>> ethical logic of science is nothing if not flexible there are plenty of
>> excuses why Hiroshima Nagasaki, Agent orange, Drone strikes etc. were
>> necessary but none for the V2s or Guernica.  More human nature.  Science is
>> also being used to tell us about human nature and they are moving right
>> along after figuring out that we are neither pigeons nor mice nor adding
>> machines.
>> On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:09 PM, David Morris wrote:
>>
>> > Your argument is with the nature of Humanity.  Science is its subset.
>> >
>> > Solve that, I dare you.
>> >
>> > On Sunday, June 16, 2013, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>> >
>> > The conversation is too polarized. I have the sense that what I am
>> actually saying is being turned into something far more extreme than it
>> really is. I don't think there is any evidence Kai, myself or even the more
>> extreme  aw posts are promoting a disdain for science, and I'm fairly sure
>> we all see that science is a process with many benefits and great potential
>> for the human endeavor. But its evolution has yielded enormous power, and
>> in some ways that power is so dangerous as to potentially nullify its
>> benefits and even  life itself. That is a power that has to be reckoned
>> with. Humans have not evolved ethically  at the same rate as science  and
>> that is a discord that is a global problem.  Science has become a godlike
>> force and we are still territorial primates with an inclination to link our
>> territories to beliefs. Unfortunately, what this means is that science has
>> become something of a modern religion and critical discussion is not a
>> dispassionate process.
>> >
>> > The critique I am trying to put forth is about the ways, psychological,
>> social and technological science is historically and currenty linked to the
>> destructive abuse of power. This is no more indicting all science or all
>> scientists than it would be to indict all teaching or all teachers  for all
>> the bad stuff that gets taught and what happens as a result, or indicting
>> all written and graphic communication systems  for its inherent distortions
>> of reality, broken treaties, the dishonest accumulation of wealth. My
>> intent  is a matter of thinking about all these things in such a way as to
>> know the potential dangers  of how we do all these things and be better
>> able to avoid those dangers.
>> >
>> >  JZ. Comparing anyone on the list with the
>> rightwing-xenophobic-fundamentalist-fascist Michelle Bachman is not what I
>> would call an astute or credible observation. Instead of calling people
>> anti-science, maybe it would be more respectful to engage on the level of
>> responding to the actual words and ideas. How, for example have the
>> descriptions of science on the list been inaccurate?
>> >
>> > What alice wellintown is saying about science seems to me to be about
>> showing the inherent psychological appeal of getting new knowledge and
>> extending one's power,   that  it is not inherently benign, and has a dark
>> side. The issue is that science is a human activity.
>> >
>> > Perhaps something about the role of science in my own life and family.
>> I like science and talked about it with my adopted step daughter and 2
>> birth children often while they were still home. I don't think any of them
>> would say I maligned science. My oldest daughter  has become a director of
>> science curriculum at a large school district, my son, the youngest, is
>> working  for a silicon valley entrepreneur on a prototype of an electric
>> work truck, collaborating with Siemens and using Darpa developed batteries
>> . My other daughter just graduated from Smith with a degree in
>> environmental policy.  I continue to try to master the practical science of
>> food gardening and working with glass as an artistic medium. Recently,
>> along with literature, news and commentary I have been inclined to read
>> about permaculture, mushrooms, soil science, global climate change,
>> environmental issues, and the science of hot glass. I teach art glass every
>> year and talk about surface tension, the random molecular structure of the
>> glass as opposed to the crystalline structure of most minerals, the
>> coefficient of expansion as a factor in the compatibility of fusible glass,
>> the practical use of geometry in design for architectonic ornament and
>> other things that boil down to the science that is helpful to know for
>> joining art and glass.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jun 15, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
>> >
>> > > As a fellow scientist I don't get the anti-science rants either. I'd
>> recommend recognizing that half the anti-science content comes from one
>> poster. But even so I've come close to dropping this list because of that
>> poster.
>> > >
>> > > - Joe
>> > >
>> > > P.S. U. Pitt! I am a CMU grad but from long ago (1990).
>> > >
>> > > On 6/15/2013 9:03 AM, JZ Stafura wrote:
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >>
>> > >>   Been a lurker on this list for a long time, haven't felt like I've
>> had the time to contribute to the list, given the fine minds here. While
>> I've enjoyed the discussions, debates, and thoughts for years now, the
>> latest anti-science talk sounds more like a Michelle Bachman speech than
>> the intelligence I'm used to on this list. As a junior scientist (who just
>> must be bought and sold by the powers that be - those evil folks who want
>> to find ways to help children with language impairments through
>> non-pharmacological instructional techniques - gasp!), the level of
>> discourse on science here has been depressing, small-minded, and reveals
>> how little my 'kind' are thought of here. Yes, scientists are aware of the
>> dangers of science, most of them are like me, curious and amazed at the
>> world around us - and not stupid enough to take money to study things just
>> because the money is there. It sounds like everyone on this list has there
>> mind made up, but what if scientist lumped all literature students in the
>> same pile (I also have a lit degree) - we could say something like lit
>> theory has offered nothing new for over 50 years, which is why the programs
>> are drying up - it isn't the worlds fault, it's yours. I don't believe this
>> at all, but it is as accurate a description of humanities as the
>> descriptions of science have been on this list over the last month or so.
>> > >>
>> > >> Take it or leave it, I don't mind, and I'll always enjoy reading
>> what the brilliant folks on this list have to say.
>> > >>
>> > >> Joe
>> > >>
>> > >> Joseph Z. Stafura
>> > >> U. Pitt
>> > >> iPhone (apologies for the brevity and mistakes)
>> > >>
>> > >> On Jun 15, 2013, at 11:16 AM, alice wellintown <
>> alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Look into a Astro-Biology textbook, or into an Astronomy Webpage,
>> and you will see beautiful artwork. Artistic simulations of what the data
>> from distant space probes fed into computers is adding up to. With the
>> space probe, the computer, we can build entire worlds, above and beyond the
>> confining fact of nature, and these built worlds are nothing next to the
>> transformation wrought by science and technology, which has extended our
>> bodies to manipulate and change the world to fulfill its very own, often
>> evil and cruel plans for it and its unwitting inhabitants. Much as
>> Science/Technic claims to educate and warn, Science and Technology has
>> shown how to destroy before we understand. In P we have several
>> unmistakable examples. We have the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>> This, of course, is the Science/technology destruction that continues, even
>> after we exit the Theatre/Theater to hover above our heads in equations we
>> can't understand, but in common sense parlance, it's the fucking bomb, and
>> Science and Technology is only a hindrance to our grasping the
>> sphincter-tightening reality.   Science/Technology has altered what is to
>> be a human by giving the species the capacity to totally denude our Earth
>> with war that escalates to madness and chaos. Remember WWII? madness.
>> Chaos. GR is a reminder and a warning. Isn't it? Even if the anti-bomb folk
>> are now pro-bomb for everyone folk, even Iran and N Korea have a right to
>> the bomb, no? Even if the MAD men are now Peace Men who want to prevent
>> proliferation while maintaining a huge advantage, even if the threat keeps
>> the peace or whatever...we have been transformed by the bomb.
>> > >>>  McCarthy does delve into this, BYW. _The Road_ is set after some
>> kind of holocaust that burns the Earth to a crisp.
>> > >>>    In any event, the Earth, the Planet Earth no longer seems a home
>> that we can live on forever. Science played god, and so we poor preterit
>> must accept a home, a garden that is not eternal, but has an end to it.
>> > >>>  The Second Coming of Science-Technic is Modernity without
>> Restraint.
>> > >>>    But don't worry poor fellow, Science-Technology will make you
>> immortal, ship your frozen head to a new planet or to a space station. The
>> limitations of Science and Technology, once we see that it has extended our
>> capacity to Destroy Earth and holds out space stations and frozen heads as
>> compensation, are clear enough to a common thinker who reads and thinks,
>> and who knows it's OK to be a reader and thinker even if this opens one to
>> accusations of Luddism.
>> > >>>  Science a
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130617/6bccff75/attachment.html>