Kathryn, this was quite interesting to me, because I am a scientist and
am often very puzzled that people appear to think of science and
technology interchangeably. In particular, many criticisms levelled at
science seem unanswerable because the critic gives examples from
engineering, technology use, or even marketing or public policy realms.
So any insight would be helpful to me, and I will comment line by line.
I am seeking a vocabulary to use with non-scientists in order to convey
points I think are important.
kathryn marsh wrote:
>
> I was certainly taught that science was a way of looking at the
> world, and that the were no limits to which bit of the world you
> could use it to look at.
Horrors! Never in my education either formal or informal has it been
suggested that there are no limits to what may be studied using the
tools and methods of science. This is central to the issue. My most
common criticism of others is that they are using the language and forms
of science to support their position on an issue which is outside the
realm of science!
> Whilst I certainly see it as a way of
> satisfying curiosity I find it handy to use to take apart my moral
> judgements from time to time and see why I'm thinking that way.
> Surprise, surprise, sometimes it helps me change the way I think.
I can imagine using the methods of formal logic and argument here (and I
do this as well, as a sort of check on the internal consistency of my
values) although I don't consider it science as much as philosophy. But
science does use these tools, and depends on them, so it is related in
my mind. Sometimes I change as a result of this kind of introspection
as well. If I become aware that I am simultaneously holding 2 mutually
exclusive ideas or values, I have to accept that at least one of them
must have a flaw.
> Don't see what understanding has to do with domination but obviously
> the more I understand about the workings of the world the better I
> can interract with it
I think of understanding "how and why" having to do with science, with
domination or control having to do with technology or applied science or
engineering. I cannot think of science as wicked, but it is easy for me
to find wickedness in applications of science-derived facts and theories
to evil ends.
> I've always thought that the line between pure and applied science
> doesn't exist anyway
This is hard for me to understand. It is the difference between what I
know how to do (a large set) and what I actually do (a much smaller
set). An example from my personal life:
One thing which happens to me quite a lot, among people who know me, is
that somebody gets curious and asks me questions about why something
physical happens. I enjoy thinking about such questions and sharing the
pleasure of understanding with others.
One such question came from my father, who is a mechanical engineer and
a very smart guy. He has no background in biological science, so these
things he brings to my attention for discussion. Dad observed that he
and my brother, 38 years apart in age, are almost exactly the same
height and weight, yet my brother probably eats twice as much food as my
father (they lived together at the time, so observation was for a
prolonged period). They both have similar activity levels. Neither is
gaining or losing weight. How could this be physically possible? It
seemed like my brother should be storing the excess as fat. Where is
all this extra food energy going? How is the law of conservation of
energy reconciled with these observations? For me, as a scientist, he
knows that I would not accept any theory which does not reconcile with
the First Law of Thermodynamics = Conservation of Energy, and from his
knowledge and experience, he would not either.
My answer to him was evaporation of water. My brother must have a
higher basal metabolic rate. Because mammals require their internal
temperature to remain within a rather narrow range, thermal regulation
in mammals is highly developed. My best guess was that the waste heat
produced by my brother burning all the extra food energy was being used
to raise the temperature of water, which has a very high heat capacity,
which means that it takes a lot of energy to heat water. This would
require that my brother's exhaled breath have a higher relative humidity
than my dad's. This is not something which would readily noticed-it
would be necessary to put them in airtight metabolic containers (I have
done this kind of work using rats) and measure all the gases to really
validate, but I would bet money on it. He probably perspires slightly
more as well. And brother either drinks more liquid or produces less
urine than dad, but these differences would not be obvious to a casual
observer. We did some calculations of the energy required to raise
water temperatures, on the scale of how much a person might drink and
produce metabolically in a day, and were satisfied that this was
plausible. This made it fit with the First Law.
This, to me, represents pure science, or "understanding." This made all
the pieces (of data) fit together theoretically. I cannot feel it as
domination, I experience is as wonder and pleasure and joy. Isn't is
wonderful that way things can function? Is this world not truly an
amazing creation? All the wonderful life forms so beautifully tailored
to their surroundings, balanced, able to self correct in many ways! Me,
my species, with a body equipped to perceive and understand some things
and to love and appreciate so many of these wonders! This for me is the
fun of science, and this is a dimension missing from non-scientific
realms, which have special and valuable qualities too, but different
kinds.
And of course I could also apply this kind of knowledge to practical
ends, to compassionate ends, or to cruel and horrible ends no doubt.
Such choices are not science. I can save myself time and other resources
by doing feasibility analysis rather than building and trying every idea
which enters my mind. Matter and energy balance considerations permeate
my thinking. If they do not balance, I assume that there is something
which is not accounted for. That what makes me an environmentalist.
The discipline of rejecting any theory which does not account
quantitatively for matter and energy leaves me no other position besides
madness. Nothing else I can think of allows all the pieces to fit, and
anyone who proposes an alternative has the burden of proof that the
competing theory does not violate or ignore the first or second law of
thermodynamics. Science demands only these constraints, and is free
within them.
Economic "science" is a major offender in this respect, which brings us
around to domination, technology choice, marketing, PR, propaganda,
etc.; fields which do not demand that matter and energy be conserved,
that all data must be on the table, and that no assumptions be beyond
question.
> Perhaps this is because I'm not a scientist
I don't know. I hope the above made some sense, and that you can offer
ideas of how I might be miscommunicating.
Loren Muldowney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
