On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:04:44 -0700, Rick Froman wrote: >Michael Palij had responded earlier to: >>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:44:45 -0700, Rick Froman wrote: >>>In reference to the subject line of this thread, an equally interesting >>>question is why, in the years from 1974 until the present, >>>liberals/progressives have not, along with Sting, "lost their faith in >>>Science, >> >>MP: I may be out on a limb here but it could be the case that people have not >>lost their "faith in Science" because it works, it can be shown to be valid, >>and, when used wisely, appear to work miracles. One does have to be on the >>look >>out for Dark Lords like Edward Teller and his ilk, especially when they sell >>snake oil to politicians and the military in the form of the "Strategic >>Defense >>Initiative" or, as popularly known, the Star Wars system. See: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative >> >>>RF: (continuing Sting quote: Progress...". After all, as he noted, "I never >>>saw >>>no miracle of science, that didn't go from a blessing to a curse, I never saw >>>no military solution, that didn't always end up as something worse." > >>MP: It could be that Sting has a very limited experience and knowledge of >>science. What miracles of science have become curses? Good public health >>measure? Antibiotics? Preventive medicine? Help me out here. Lab-created >>viruses that cause AIDS/Zombies/whatever can be excluded. > >RF: Seriously?
Yes, seriously. And, please, don't confuse what scientists do with what politicians, the military, and businessmen do with the products of science. To do so is like arguing against religion doctrines because the believers kill other believers -- in contradiction to what their doctrine states. Believers cause war and go to war/jihad and in contradiction to what their doctrine states, and all of the terrible behavior and damage done in the name of a deity who would disown these believers. Consider the example of the rich Christian: read Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25, and Luke 18:24-25. Or read the section on Christianity in this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle >Just a brief list of scientific blessing/curses from a liberal >perspective would include many military technologies, the least of which would >be the Star Wars system which was never seen to be a scientific initiative. Rick, I get the impression you do not read the materials I link to in my posts. It is also possible you have only a vague idea who Edward Teller was, the prime mover behind "Star Wars" and military support scientific research. He had worked on the Manhattan Project which produced the atomic bomb and is credited with being the "Father of the Hydrogen Bomb". He helped to create the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and promoted the military use of atomic weapons which put his at odds with other scientists, most famously Robert Oppenheimer. After his fight with Oppenheimer, most scientists shunned tell but he still had the respect of politicians and the military. Teller's reputation and credibility was so great among politicians and military that he could pitch Star Wars and related projects with little fear. Teller was a rabid anti-communist and critical of Americans on the left which made him a particularly attractive scientist to the right. For more information on Teller, one place to start is the Wikipedia entry on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller Teller was a very smart man but held some very strange beliefs which were accommodated by the U.S. right wing. Consider who he thought was the "victim" of the nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island; quoting from the Wikipedia entry: |On May 7, a few weeks after the accident at Three-Mile Island, I was |in Washington. I was there to refute some of that propaganda that Ralph |Nader, Jane Fonda and their kind are spewing to the news media in |their attempt to frighten people away from nuclear power. I am 71 years |old, and I was working 20 hours a day. The strain was too much. |The next day, I suffered a heart attack. You might say that I was the |only one whose health was affected by that reactor near Harrisburg. |No, that would be wrong. It was not the reactor. It was Jane Fonda. |Reactors are not dangerous.[46] So, are there some smart and not-so-smart scientists that have prostituted their science for right-wing/conservative causes. Many refused. Consider J. Robert Oppenheimer whom Teller hated. Here is the Wikipedia entry on Oppenheimer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer And while Teller was concerned with weapons, Oppenheimer was concerned with the peaceful use and control of atomic energy. Quoting from Wikipedia: |After the war [WWII] he became a chief adviser to the newly created |United States Atomic Energy Commission and used that position to |lobby for international control of nuclear power to avert nuclear |proliferation and an arms race with the Soviet Union. After provoking |the ire of many politicians with his outspoken opinions during the Second |Red Scare, he had his security clearance revoked in a much-publicized |hearing in 1954, and was effectively stripped of his direct political influence; |he continued to lecture, write and work in physics. A decade later President |John F. Kennedy awarded (and Lyndon B. Johnson presented) him with |the Enrico Fermi Award as a gesture of political rehabilitation. >Obvious ones would be the use of social scientists to improve torture >techniques. Rick, above you quoted Sting saying: "After all, as he noted, "I never saw no miracle of science, that didn't go from a blessing to a curse, ". I am at a loss to understand what miracle of science was used to "improve torture techniques"? Please enlighten me with the appropriate research studies and the timeline of development. For others, I'd suggest reading Matthew Alexander's "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq". Available on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/B002PJ4IQG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333284361&sr=8-1 Torture does not provide reliable information -- most interrogators know this -- which is why it is not used unless ignorant sod in a higher pay grade ordered it. And you know who those were during the Iraq war. >Others off the top of my head are pesticides, Are the scientists to blame or the businessmen who use pesticides? >antibiotics given to cattle, Are the scientists to blame or the businessmen who use antibiotics? >other chemicals in the food supply, food processing (anything other >than organic food), Are the scientists to blame or the businessmen producing food? >use of animals in research, Really? I'll leave it to someone who works with animals to ask you what you mean by this. >fracking, clean coal, nuclear power, big pharma and virtually any >other science that might be associated with a money-making >enterprise. So, instead of the putting responsibility on the persons who actually run the enterprises, you blame the scientists? We started out by asking "have people lost faith in science" and it turns out that we should be asking "have people lost faith in their nonscientific leaders, both political and business, for having made such a mess with their enterprises". Just look at the polling results I've linked to in my other posts. >In addition, there will be those critiquing science >from a postmodern perspective (among which I doubt there are many >conservatives). This is an interesting example: >http://web.ku.edu/~acudd/phil140-s24/sld007.htm (and following slides). I'm >sure other members of the list could easily double this list. Rick, please, try to avoid using PoMo as a defense of anything (citing a fad whose time has gone does not bolster an argument). Your argument is better suited by acknowledging the history of anti-intellectualism in the U.S. and the world history. As a starting point, see Wikipedia's entry on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism To provide a definition for the term, I quote Wikipedia: |Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, |intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the |derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as |impractical and contemptible. Alternately, self-described intellectuals |who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship |may be described as anti-intellectuals. >From this perspective it is easy to see how politics and politicians, both on the right and left, would use anti-intellectualism to remove their critics, challenges to their power, and maintain control over people. And which political candidate views a college education as something for snobs? >>>RF: I don't think the proper approach to science education is to attempt to >>>inculcate a respect for science. I believe that will come when we give people >>>understanding of how to appropriately understand and critique science. >> >>MP: I have heard the same advice coming from single guys about women. > >RF: Now its my turn to say I have no idea what this means. Allow me to translate: "I don't think the proper approach to women is to attempt to inculcate a respect for women. I believe that will come when we give people understanding of how to appropriately understand and critique women." I have no doubt some academics might feel something like this. [Snip text on rational critiques of science which don't come from the right wing whose members are riding on the crazy train; NOTE: Rick has provided no current example of an anti-science position promoted by liberals or the left] >There will always be irrational or values-based critiques of science from the >right and the left. Okay, give me one that Obama promotes. I can easily identify several irrational positions that the current crop of Republican candidates promote, ranging from evolution denial to "personhood" being established when a egg is fertilized (NOTE: the more appropriate term to use is "ensoulment", that is, at what point in time does the biological materials that becomes a viable human being have a soul; but the use of the term ensoulment would clearly make this a religious argument and unconstitutional). >Scientists can only engage with those providing rational >critiques. If irrational critiques of science such as postmodernism ever win >the day, not just science will be in trouble. PoMo is last year's news. The only folks holding on to PoMo beliefs are those that didn't get the memo that there is a new intellectual fad to follow. You know, like when U.S. psychology went through its Marxist phase in the late 1960s and 1970s and then moved on to other things, like health psychology. >The only weapon we have is rationality; we can't sink to the irrational >arguments of others. I don't understand: what irrational arguments are you claiming that scientists are using? -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=17056 or send a blank email to leave-17056-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
