babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Science and Politics: A New Hippocratic Oath ???

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Science and Politics: A New Hippocratic Oath ???
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 21 November 2007 09:19 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Edwin Salpeter posted an article today ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3139 ) on the history of nuclear astrophysics, and in it he went on a two page tangent on science, politics, and ethics. I thought it was interesting so I'm posting it for discussion.

quote:
I have spent so much time on unpublished work to emphasize that we should discuss at meetings not only successes but also failures and that failures are often due to a lack of "follow-through". Hans Bethe has given examples of follow-through: After military work leading to nuclear weapons and Nagasaki during World War II and soon after, he went on to work for test-ban treaties and disarmament instead and more recently went on to make a speech (1995) that scientists should now "cease and desist from further weapons work". His increasing pessimism stemmed partly from him having lived through the Weimar Republic, i.e. Germany just BEFORE Hitler and before World War II. He noted that intellectuals then were not necessarily against democracy nor for war, but just did not take the time to get involved
in politics. What worried him particularly in his last few years in Ithaca was the increasing apathy of U. S. intellectuals in the face of increasing threats to civil rights – reminiscent of the Weimar Republic.

I did not witness the Weimar Republic myself, but I also feel strongly that U. S. scientists should take more time out from their own work to speak out on public issues. This is especially true for topics where we have some technical background (even if not direct expertise) such as environmental remedies for global warming or for depleted uranium. A few of us might even get involved in part-time research toward improving alternative energy sources, for instance, but we all have the right background to note the technical pitfalls in some government proposals. Two glaring examples are Ballistic Missile Defense and deep penetrating Bunker Busters. The Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org), an organization funded by private donations, puts out reports on these and similar topics from time to time. The Center for Constitutional Rights (www.ccr-ny.org) is similarly active on legal matters. I feel scientists should even speak out occasionally on political matters where they do not have expertise, only objectivity. The disasters
which would follow any kind of U. S. attack on Iran, for instance, are so enormous that we should all protest.

Even apart from military work, we should consider the potential harm which scientists might cause with their own work, even if it sounds beneficial. Martin Rees has pointed out potential dangers especially from nano-technology, computer-advances and genetic engineering, but there must be others as well. Maybe we should start considering some kind of Hippocratic Oath" to be undertaken by practicing scientists. Such considerations might also point out previously unknown potential dangers.



From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 25 November 2007 10:07 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After WWI settled down into a war of attrition in the trenches, Chemist Friz Haber came to the fore with a "secret weapon" that would bring things to a quick, and of course, victorious end for Germany.

It was reasoned, or rationalized that the heavier than air mustard or phosgene gas would seep into the trenches, kill the men there, and open a wide door for the Germans to speed their way to Paris.

It was thought that, horrible though the deaths might be for those comparatively few soldiers in those trenches, it would save the lives, limbs and untold suffering of men on both sides of no man's land.

Of course it didn't. But that, and the suicide of his wife on this point, didn't stop Haber. Amoung his credits was the post WWI development of Zyklon B. As a pesticide-- which were all German chemists were allowed to work on at the time. Of course, the SS later tweaked the formula a bit to change the delivery system.

An "hypocratic oath" might help, but knowledge in the hands of a sociopath like Haber is a dangerous thing no matter what.

What is needed most is a population literate in science, and a population that has the legal right to decide how scientific innovation is to be used.

Leaving it just to scientists is not going to help.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 25 November 2007 10:39 AM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And let us not forget this war crime.

http://www.counterpunch.org/du.html

excerpt:

quote:
"The desert dust carries death," said Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, an oncologist and member England's Royal Society of Physicians. "Our studies indicate that more than forty percent of the population around Basra will get cancer. We are living through another Hiroshima."

Most of the leukemia and cancer victims aren't soldiers. They are civilians. And many of them are children. The US-dominated Iraqi Sanctions Committee in New York has denied Iraq's repeated requests for cancer treatment equipment and drugs, even painkillers such as morphine. As a result, the overflowing hospitals in towns such as Basra are left to treat the cancer-stricken with aspirin.

This is part of a larger horror inflicted on Iraq that sees as many as 180 children dying every day, according to mortality figures compiled by UNICEF, from a catalogue of diseases from the 19th century: cholera, dysentery, tuberculosis, e. coli, mumps, measles, influenza.

Iraqis and Kuwaitis aren't the only ones showing signs of uranium contamination and sickness. Gulf War veterans, plagued by a variety of illnesses, have been found to have traces of uranium in their blood, feces, urine and semen.



From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 November 2007 11:13 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The role of scientific professionals in advancing the imperialist "war on terror", including the facilitation of torture and black ops, has raised serious questions about professional ethics.

The skills of medical doctors, psychologists, and pharmacologists, for example, are employed to advise on how to increase psychological duress on detainees, sometimes by exploiting their fears; to force-feed detainees who refuse to eat; and to keep victims alive and conscious in order to prolong their interrogation/torture. They also receive research funding from the Pentagon and the CIA to develop new techniques of torture.

quote:
"Their purpose was to help us break them," one former interrogator told The [New York]Times earlier this year.

Now comes news the U.S. Army is recruiting anthropologists to help in the war on terror - and it's causing an ethical controversy in the American Anthropological Association:

quote:
As Canada presses other countries to take on larger combat roles in Afghanistan – another two Canadian soldiers died there last week bringing the total to 73 – our role may focus more on development, and experts say winning the support of locals will become even more important.

This is why anthropology, the study of the cultural origins and social practices of humans, has suddenly shot to the forefront of military awareness – and become embroiled in a bitter dispute shaking the core of the discipline itself.

In the United States, a controversial new military program called the Human Terrain System (HTS) embeds anthropologists with combat brigades in Iraq and eastern Afghanistan. Their job is to study local customs and help commanders reduce the use of force.

Proponents feel it's a way to lessen bloodshed. Others say it can only undermine the primary responsibility of anthropologists to, above all, do no harm to those whom they're studying.

The debate will come to a head Wednesday in Washington at the annual meeting of the influential American Anthropological Association (AAA) – of which there are many Canadian members – as a special committee issues its final report on the ethical questions of co-operating with military and intelligence agencies. The association's executive board has already expressed disapproval of the HTS.

"There are ethical standards, and even with the best of intentions, the risk of not being able to meet them is just too high," says Monica Heller, a University of Toronto anthropologist who is an executive board member and sits on the special committee.

For instance, she says, "To what extent can you be sure the information you gather won't be used to target populations? The conditions of HTS set things up so that the possibility is there, and it seems difficult, if not impossible, to do anthropological research which respects the AAA Code of Ethics."....

Many anthropologists are vociferously against the HTS. Some go so far as to say it "prostitutes" the social science to the military.

Some are worried the program is too secretive. They're also concerned it will make all anthropologists in the field suspect as spies.

The ethics questions are numerous. The major one is that the HTS anthropologist, after gathering information on a tribal who's who, for example, gives the information to the brigade commander, who then decides what to do with it. Opponents say that lack of control could be dangerous to the sources.

Anne Irwin, a University of Calgary anthropologist who studies the Canadian military and has spent time in Afghanistan, says proponents "are quite naïve" to say they can be in a position to help soldiers avoid civilian casualties because, while they may point out who not to target, "there's a corollary to that." They may be identifying the ones to target. David Price, an anthropologist at St. Martin's University in Washington, and also a member of the special committee, says embedding social scientists could perpetuate war.

"In an occupation, at what point are you just reducing casualties, and at what point are you enabling an occupation?" In spite of all the concern now, it could be argued that anthropology got its start in war.

It's no coincidence that the discipline has been known as the "handmaiden of colonialism," in which empires took pains to study – and subjugate – the people under their rule. Price, in a new book to be published in the spring called Anthropological Intelligence, outlines the discipline's intimate links to U.S. efforts in World War II, from studying enemy culture to involving themselves in propaganda. In the 1950s, the AAA itself collaborated with the CIA, Price notes. The Vietnam War also saw the military use data from a French anthropologist to determine village structure. After that war debacle, anthropology maintained a strained distance from the military, until recently, and critics fear history is repeating itself with the HTS.

"It's the reason why we take this so seriously," the U of T's Heller says. "Indeed, the origins of the discipline come out of the very vexed colonial history, which everybody is hyper aware of."



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 25 November 2007 03:47 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
After WWI settled down into a war of attrition in the trenches, Chemist Friz Haber came to the fore with a "secret weapon" that would bring things to a quick, and of course, victorious end for Germany.

It was reasoned, or rationalized that the heavier than air mustard or phosgene gas would seep into the trenches, kill the men there, and open a wide door for the Germans to speed their way to Paris.

It was thought that, horrible though the deaths might be for those comparatively few soldiers in those trenches, it would save the lives, limbs and untold suffering of men on both sides of no man's land.

Of course it didn't. But that, and the suicide of his wife on this point, didn't stop Haber. Amoung his credits was the post WWI development of Zyklon B. As a pesticide-- which were all German chemists were allowed to work on at the time. Of course, the SS later tweaked the formula a bit to change the delivery system.

An "hypocratic oath" might help, but knowledge in the hands of a sociopath like Haber is a dangerous thing no matter what.

What is needed most is a population literate in science, and a population that has the legal right to decide how scientific innovation is to be used.

Leaving it just to scientists is not going to help.


Good response.

I wonder how realistic you are however. The general population has trouble with trivial mathematics on the level of the quadratic equation, and with distinguishing between a mean, a mode, and a median. What are the prospects for having a genuinely educated citzenry on the current and soon-to-be politically hypercharged scientific issues: climatology, genetic engineering, nanotechnology; et cetera. What happens when third world countries sue first world countries in fifty years to help pay the costs of GW-induced warming - will their cases be judged by western juries? Will we allow cosmetic genetic engineering?

One thing I think might be a good idea would be to require all undergraduate students pursuing a bachelor of arts, business or law to take a blended science minor. A bare minimum would be statistics, biology, geology, physics... It would be met with fierce resistance though.

Five hundred years ago, the body of human knowledge was so small, that those who were experts were experts on nearly all subjects. Nowadays, there is a serious fragmentation. In physics for example, you can take a string theory class and publish papers on cosmic strings without knowing particle physics. It gets worse once you take a step back and look at all the life and physical sciences.

***

Interesting you call Haber a sociopath. Nobody writes that about the Manhattan Project scientists, and the quasi-universal perception is that their work reduced total suffering.

History is written by the victors.

[ 25 November 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 26 November 2007 02:06 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I chose Haber because his life story furnishes perhaps the most dramatic example of the "mad scientist".

I do believe that the general public, equipped with a high school education could know enough to participate in scientific discussions, at least at a point where they could most often discern how a technology or discovery should impact their lives.

And I do not believe it is any accident that today we do not equip people with this kind of education.

Either way, no system is ever perfect. We are only left with the least imperfect solutions.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
spillunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14242

posted 26 November 2007 10:16 AM      Profile for spillunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We should not call him a sociopath. I think it gives us an easy out. How much better to try to understand Haber as a real person, and see ourselves and other scientists today reflected in his confusion, and yes, his near-sightedness.

I work in geology, not usually a field regarded as the cutting edge of weaponry (except maybe during the stone age )

Haber was a renaissance chemist who dabbled in every area of his field and accomplished a million-and-one things, including the fertilizer process that feeds hundreds of millions of people.
His life simply cannot be distilled down to his work on chemical warfare. Yes, his work did bring it to fruition. Remember that at that time, the rhetoric surrounding chemical warfare was all about saving lives by bring the war to a speedier end. Everyone can see the absurdity in that argument, and yet the rhetoric was repeated over and over for many kinds of weapons. It still goes on today. Should we write Einstein off as a sociopath too? The Manhattan physicists?

To call him a sociopath, besides being completely unfair, also strays from the real issue, that well-meaning people, and well-meaning scientists can have their work and even their whole lives hijacked for the worst ends imaginable. Nobody is immune to this risk, whether youre a physical scientist, an anthropologist (thanks for that, M. Spector), or anything else. I think hippocratic oath for scientists is a great first step and I'm very interested to see where this goes.

[ 26 November 2007: Message edited by: spillunk ]


From: cavescavescaves! | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 November 2007 10:21 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why don't we just call society sociopathic? I mean, when one compares the budgets for death as opposed to the budgets for health and education, well, its obvious we are collectively insane. The rest of you would recognize that too, if you weren't starkers.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 26 November 2007 03:09 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
To call him a sociopath, besides being completely unfair, also strays from the real issue, that well-meaning people, and well-meaning scientists can have their work and even their whole lives hijacked for the worst ends imaginable. Nobody is immune to this risk, whether youre a physical scientist, an anthropologist (thanks for that, M. Spector), or anything else. I think hippocratic oath for scientists is a great first step and I'm very interested to see where this goes.

Besides the unanswerable question about whether Haber was a sociopath or not-- I have mine, and you are quite entitled to yours-- what in what you said essentially differed from what I said?


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
spillunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14242

posted 26 November 2007 07:28 PM      Profile for spillunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
knowledge in the hands of a sociopath like Haber is a dangerous thing no matter what.

From: cavescavescaves! | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 27 November 2007 02:14 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I said besides that. Your defense of the inventor of Zyklon B falls to the agreed upon idea that inventions, discoveries and innovations can always be used for good or ill. And, an hippocratic
oath taken by scientists is probably a good step.

But the next and better step is to democratize the way science and technology is used. How many Habers are working for Monsanto, now? We'll never know. And we'll have little or no say in anything they, or other companies utilize technology. Hippocratic oath or not.

There's the problem.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 30 November 2007 11:26 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is needed most is a population literate in science, and a population that has the legal right to decide how scientific innovation is to be used.
Leaving it just to scientists is not going to help.

Right to the point!
Actually, several points, which is what will get you into trouble.

One: scientists are people, living in their own time, place and culture; susceptible to faith, patriotism, emotional climate and scientific fashion... peer-pressure. They are just normal, ordinary people with exceptional IQ's but not superhuman judgement.

Two: money doesn't grow on trees. No way can a scientist be totally independent of the interests who fund his research.

Three; It's our money, going into projects that would give us nightmares, did we care enough to find out the results.

A Scientists' Oath, starting with "Do no harm" would certainly be beneficial, and would certainly make a lot of conscience-owning scientists sleep better - assuming the politicians and beurocrats who own their ass would ever let them take it.

Public oversight would do a lot more to protect us from scientists. Back in primitive times, everyone in the village could see when the resident wierdo moved on from dissecting frogs to dissecting pigs, and could stop him before the next logical step. Now, an educated public is not possible: too much complexity, too much secrecy and far too many layers of reportage. Too big an effort: if the public didn't care about Bush's lies, they're not going to care about the space-age weapon that accidentally destroys the universe.

So, it's pretty much up to them, to the people who know what they're doing and are smart enough to conjecture where that may lead and moral enough to care. If enough scientists grow a conscience and backbone fast enough, we may survive.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 01 December 2007 02:02 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now, an educated public is not possible: too much complexity, too much secrecy and far too many layers of reportage. Too big an effort: if the public didn't care about Bush's lies, they're not going to care about the space-age weapon that accidentally destroys the universe.

I would disagree with that. For one, it's very easy to forget that most people in fact didn't vote for Bush-- that Bush gained office from a Supreme Court Putsch, and kept office by either the narrowest of margins, or by some creative electioneering in Ohio.

Water under the bridge, of course, but it's not as if everyone in the U.S.-- even a majority-- swallowed Bush's idiocy.

But, I will acquiesce on the point that many people are not engaged-- pointedly disengaged, in fact, from scientific debates on new technology.

But I would argue that is due to our media-- and many scientists that pat people on the head and tell them not to worry, it's too hard for their feeble brains to comprehend.

Which it isn't.

Already we have environmental movements that are, or appeal to the, Luddites, that would throw out the baby with the bath water in the field of genetic engineering.

And that's only possible because scientists don't feel obligated to explain the issues. So we end up with slogans like "Frankenfood".

Scientists cloistered in dark places should not be surprised when the ignorant villagers come knocking with torches and pitchforks. And they should blame no one but themselves.

[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 02 December 2007 07:29 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let's not quibble and argue about 'oo voted for 'oo... The vote is irrelevant. There have always been, and always will be, tyrants who take control by one illegal means or another. And they always control the useful (the ones who invent new weapons) scientists.

It's the conspicuous lack of pitchforks i'm concerned about. After this many blatant lies, screw-ups, injustices, civil and military disasters, one might expect some opposition from the most egalitarian and heavily-armed populace in the history of the world.
The people don't care enough to depose bad leaders until they're starving and have nothing to lose.

The people couldlearn more about what science is up to, could understand the implications - and there usually are a few science-literate do-gooders around, eager to explain in layman's terms.... if only the public's finger were slower on the remote; if only education could compete with The Next Supermodel for the public's attention. If it ain't bread or a circus, they don't care.

The only thing you can count on The People for is to let you down. They'll cheer at your burning and, three years later, organize a pilgrimage to your shrine - seamlessly.

Cynical? Sure. Read history, live in the world for 6 decades. Elites make things happen - the people follow.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 03 December 2007 03:03 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry, if you don't want to quibble, you are at the wrong message board.

As for the pitchforks, give it time-- I think it's in the works.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 03 December 2007 04:04 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

And that's only possible because scientists don't feel obligated to explain the issues. So we end up with slogans like "Frankenfood".
[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Scientists have put in a lot of effort to refute irrational fears like that of genetically modified foods. There's only so much scientists can do when there's always rorgue scientists and failed scientists looking to carve a niche. Not to mention the media and misguided activists.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 04 December 2007 02:07 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, the problem there is in science education.

While I think the type of education I had is important-- the rote memorization of cell division, the periodic table of the elements, and physics laws and equations, it's not very powerful without a good solid education on scepticism.

The problem in science education isn't that we are graduating young adults from high school that can't tell lanthanoids from actinoids, or deliver an opinion on what nature of celestial beast we should proclaim Pluto to be, but that we are graduating young adults who don't know how to tell shit from shinola, or their ass from a hole in the ground.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 04 December 2007 02:54 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Well, the problem there is in science education.

While I think the type of education I had is important-- the rote memorization of cell division, the periodic table of the elements, and physics laws and equations, it's not very powerful without a good solid education on scepticism.

The problem in science education isn't that we are graduating young adults from high school that can't tell lanthanoids from actinoids, or deliver an opinion on what nature of celestial beast we should proclaim Pluto to be, but that we are graduating young adults who don't know how to tell shit from shinola, or their ass from a hole in the ground.


Skepticism has more of a place in a philosophy class than in a science class. High schools, as far as I know, don't usually teach philosophy.

An assumption in your posts is that with better education, we can all have a better grasp of subjects. I'm not sure this is true. I've acquired some number of subjects in my life... but almost never everything the teachers taught, because I was never that smart. Are you sure that the average person, someone with an IQ of 100, could be educated to the level where he could have an informed opinion on global warming, on genetically modified foods, on pandemics, on endocrine disruptors, et cetera? On babble, a relatively smart crowd I'm sure, we've had people confuse median and mean, and not know the definition of random, among other things. Additionally, far greater levels of knowledge and rigour are required when an issue becomes ideologically sensitive. Conservatives reject evolution and the big bang, whereas some liberals embrace the tabula rasa and the noble savage rather than a human nature...

I also think that, for any average level of intelligence, knowledge and reason; it will be impossible for the public to be informed properly in all relevant subjects, since these subjects were developed by experts who are not only brighter but have spent decades working on these subjects.

I'm of the opinion you need control from the top.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 December 2007 01:00 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My middle daughter took a philosophy course at high school. She thought I could help her out with it. She was sadly mistaken.

It's funny to call modern scepticism a "philosophy" when so many sceptics have so many bad things to say about philosophy these days. But perhaps you are right. Maybe scepticism is the philosophy of science.

I look at it more as a tool. The shame of our lack of education concerning scepticism is that it isn't just for evaluating scientific hypothesis, it's just as handy for digesting the news, for assessing politics, and indispensable for determining value as a consumer.

quote:
An assumption in your posts is that with better education, we can all have a better grasp of subjects.

I think I said quite the opposite, actually. With a different education, people would have a better ability to assess different subjects-- a skill that is dangerously absent in too many people.

I'm not sure that I.Q. scores are valid for anything but telling how well a person does on I.Q. tests. Intelligence is an abstract concept, like art or music, and very situational.

But if us non scientist, non professional dullards need anything, it's help with our thinkerizin'. That's why and how I found scepticism.

I need all the help I can get.


quote:
I'm of the opinion you need control from the top.

Well, there's nothing new under the sun. When societies have tried this approach before, how has it turned out?


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 05 December 2007 01:52 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And that's only possible because scientists don't feel obligated to explain the issues. So we end up with slogans like "Frankenfood".

One of the big problems the biotech industry ran into was that it was quicker for them to bring out products like bovine growth hormone and round-up ready crops than things like golden rice. The former helps out farmers, but does nothing for the environment or health, the latter improves the health of children at risk of blindness and death from vitamin A deficiency (and the seeds are free and always will be, yet still people like Vandana Shiva and groups like Green Peace have taken completely ridiculous and irrationaly stupid positions against it). Bringing them out in that order allowed activists to use scare tactics far more effectively than if it had been the other way around.

Unfortunately, it is pretty easy to scare well fed westerners (right and left) who have little knowledge of biology and place greater concern on whether they are protected from imaginary fears than the health of poor children in third world countries. Not too long ago I watched an anti-gmo video at a friend’s place. A lawyer, Andrew Kemmel (?), was screaming that the world would come to an end one minute because GMO-crops would reproduce and outcompete native crops. The very next minute he was screaming that the world would come to an end because GMO-crops could be manufactured with terminator technology and would be sterile. Well, shit, Andrew which is it?? But don’t worry the next minute he was talking about how eating genetically modified foods was dangerous to human health, based on no evidence or health or biological reasons. And a minute after that he was talking about the disasterous BT-cotton crop in India in 2002, while forgetting to mention that the reason why farmers have increased BT-cotton planting by 5000% since 2002 is because the yields since then have been extremely good, pesticide use is a tiny fraction compared to conventional cotton and profits for these poor farmers are up substantially.

Environmentalists and progressives have really dropped the ball on GMO. They could have pushed to ensure that GMO concentrated on reducing environmental impacts, improving health and reducing poverty in the third world. Instead they went to war against biotech largely based on misinformation being duped by scare tactics.

quote:
Skepticism has more of a place in a philosophy class than in a science class. High schools, as far as I know, don't usually teach philosophy.

I think that skepticism should be taught and would be one of the more popular classes in high school if it is done right. There is a class of skepticism at Lakehead University (and I am sure most other Universites), it is under the philosophy department. Deals with mainly pseudo-science, pseudo-history, religion, new age and the occult as far as I know.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 16 December 2007 09:49 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
if you don't want to quibble, you are at the wrong message board

I think maybe you're right... Had hoped you'd recognize source of misquote, which might have been a giggle. Taking babble off favourites list now.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 16 December 2007 10:51 PM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
nonsuch:

quote:
...Taking babble off favourites list now.

Don't do that. Giggle and quibble away. It's what we're about.


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 December 2007 03:10 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not meaning to cause thread drift too much, but this caught my attention because of the OP's nuclear astrophysics line.

I think part of the problem with scientific ethics as it relates to the use of science to cause harm to human beings is that some scientists do not see their work as being practically applicable and can't conceive of stuations where it would be. For example, a lot of what I do is not commercially viable in any form. The peripheral aspects of commercial viability lie more in the improvement of radiation detectors to ruggedize them while maintaining sensitivity and long useful life so they can be deployed in the field.

But it's hard to see how an unstable isotope whose half-life is a few seconds and isn't a fissionable one at that, can lead to potential disaster for humanity.

For the chem-biochem people, some of what they do is definitely commercially viable, and here I think the salami effect is the problem, where you get such a thin slice of the overall picture to work on it isn't immediately obvious that what you do can harm people. (clearest example - genetically modified plants or animals)

As for science education, I think part of the demeaning of science and technology in general has to do with the fact that while people reap the benefits of science in the form of new consumer products and so on, they do not make the connection to how the research is done, or they also believe that science has done the world more ill than good, and denigrate it on that basis.

Then you have a segment of the population that pooh-poohs science on more abstract grounds; some propound the belief that since quantum mechanics has shown that to a degree, observable outcomes depend on the experiment being conducted, this means all reality is purely subjective and so no objective statements can be made about anything or anyone.

I think this is an exaggeration, but it doesn't help when (I am not kidding!) I hear about a philosophy professor misusing scientific language to the point where he uses the word "eigenvalue" for something totally different than what the word actually means. This tells me that some people don't just hold a suspicion of science; some people actively choose ignorance of the subject and take advantage of the 'lingo effect' where you can BS anyone with the right combination of buzzwords and pretended expertise, or they just plain choose ignorance and talk out of their behind.

[ 21 December 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 25 December 2007 11:17 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't it the same haber that develloped the haber process?
I just checked on wikipedia.
It is.
Seems like a very interesting and tragic person to me.
Nobel prize winner and Jewish.


quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I chose Haber because his life story furnishes perhaps the most dramatic example of the "mad scientist".

I do believe that the general public, equipped with a high school education could know enough to participate in scientific discussions, at least at a point where they could most often discern how a technology or discovery should impact their lives.

And I do not believe it is any accident that today we do not equip people with this kind of education.

Either way, no system is ever perfect. We are only left with the least imperfect solutions.



From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
spillunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14242

posted 25 December 2007 04:36 PM      Profile for spillunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. But when I tried to bring up that nuance it was called a "defense of the inventor of Zyklon B".
From: cavescavescaves! | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 25 December 2007 06:37 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am doing a bit of amateur science at the moment with solar ovens.
If in the future someone uses my design to torture people, am I supposed to share the blame?
Cyanide powder is used to kill rabbits in burrows to save food crops for people. Alphachlorolose (unrelated to Haber. (spelling may be wrong) was (probably still is) used as a humane birdacide in agriculture.
It makes them fall into a really heavy sleep.
No matter what the technology, it can be used for good or for evil.
Ed meese worked for guys who were trying to legalize plastic guns.
Science is not good or bad, it just is.
I agree that you shouldn't work for evil people but when a nation is at war, perceptions of evil get upended.
If you do a lives saved versus lives lost thing with haber science, prob, he is still well into the + side.

quote:
Originally posted by spillunk:
I agree. But when I tried to bring up that nuance it was called a "defense of the inventor of Zyklon B".

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca