If Science is all that accurate and self-cleansing, how come so many horrors
have been conducted in the name of "Science"? Or is it Doc Helecar's claim
that when Science does exceesses of any kind, it is not longer "Science"?
Didn't "Science" create the atom bombs? All those many scientific medicines,
the harmful effects were discovered only years or decades after their use?
Haven't we heard of thalidomide [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide]
that was meant to combat morning sickness and had tragic consequences on
new-found babies? How could we explain that "Science" created all those
chemical fertilizers, which only went on to ruin soils while promising
bountiful productivity for the crop -- Goa is a good case? How do you
explain to farmers in Kerala that it was the ever-so-pure endosulfan [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosulfan] that was created by Science that is
wrecking havoc on their lives? And, wasn't Science behind Three Mile Island
and Chernobyl, or are we going to simply blame the "misuse" of Science when
it comes to cases like these? (In which case, why not give the same benefit
to other ideologies, whether it is National Socialism aka Nazism, Facism,
the Soviet gulags, Hindutva, or even various forms of religion?)
I've had the opportunity to visit the concentration camps at Dachau, outside
Munich, and see how Science was married to Nazism, and what effects it had.
Alwyn's point about "too much special interest" driving Science is bang on
target, even if he states his case very politely. (Instead of talking about
corruption and misrule in Goa, can we not talk of "too much special
interest" driving Goa too?)
What is "objective observational evidence"? It sounds very good in theory.
In practice, Dr Helecar reads the Devanagari rendering of my name on Yahoo
or probably somewhere else, and pokes fun at how my name is rendered. When I
see it in my Google talk or Gmail window, it appears perfect! There is also
an element of subjectivity in all "objective obserational evidence".
The faster we treat Science as a god (which can also sometimes get things
wrong, badly wrong, and also be manipulated, as Allwyn suggests), the better
for all of us. FN
On 20/07/07, Santosh Helekar wrote:
The idea that any science is not a science because it
is empirical i.e. based on objective observational
evidence, is laughable. Indeed, it is the dependence
on evidence for confirmation or falsification of
scientific hypotheses that makes science powerful and
of practical significance. The technological
achievements of all natural sciences can be attributed
in large part to the fact that they are empirical....
--
Frederick Noronha Journalist http://fn.goa-india.org
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
P: +91-832-2409490 M: +91-9970157402
Yahoo: fredericknoronha Skype: fredericknoronha GTalk: fredericknoronha
784, Sonarbhat, Near Lourdes Convent, Saligao 403511 Goa India
