Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[Seth]

So you tell me, when and under what conditions do the rest of us have a right to tell scientists that they are not permitted to place the rest of us at risk and will have to wait to test their hypotheses until they can do so safely, somewhere else?

You still haven't shown where physicists say they have no idea what they are doing. They have mathematical models covering all of this.

Oh, MATH MODELS, well, that's entirely different isn't it because no "math model" has ever been wrong has it? No mathematician has ever put a minus sign where a plus sign should go have they? No math has ever been wrong about anything, ever, has it?

If they knew what they were messing about with, it wouldn't be a "new particle" now would it?

You have arse gravy about some sci-fi fear that the Earth is going to be sucked into a micro black hole.

Or something else. Maybe they penetrate into another universe where the infinitely-compressed monobloc of matter and energy is just waiting to be released in another Big Bang that creates another universe...happenstantially wiping out this one in the process. There's endless possibilities for disaster because they don't know what the fuck they are doing, but they go right ahead and do it anyway because they want to. It's not like the continued existence of this universe depends upon them discovering the Salvation Particle that will prevent the universe from bursting like a bubble. Nope, it's pure cat-like curiosity that has the potential to take everyone else along with them if they fuck it up.

The point being that when meddling with the fundamental physics of the universe which one does not fully understand, one must take great caution not to put others at risk without their knowledge or consent...like they did at Los Alamos. And we, the rest of the human population of the planet, have every right to tell them to knock it the fuck off and to stop them if they won't, using whatever force is necessary, for no better reason than the majority believes they shouldn't be doing it. Scientists are neither gods nor rulers, absolute or otherwise, and they'd better do what we tell them to do or else.

That's "democracy" donchaknow.

Now answer the fucking question.

[Seth]

That's the truth of it. Conservatives don't even trust their own nature, hence why they seek out authoritarian structures and systems.

As if Marxist socialists don't.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

So...you're saying that scientists didn't create methy-ethyl-bad-shit? Rly?

Scientists (organic chemists) did the original chemical research, as always, establishing the nature of the molecule, and the steps in its synthesis.

After that, it is "created" by chemical engineers, working at the behest of Union Carbide managers. It is the corporation who stuffed up, almost certainly to save a few bucks.

[Hermit]

Th Bhopal disaster was definitely due to skimping on safety measures, such as maintenance of plant equipment, borne of a desire to maximise profit rates.

In November 1984, most of the safety systems were not functioning and many valves and lines were in poor condition. In addition, several vent gas scrubbers had been out of service as well as the steam boiler, intended to clean the pipes. Another issue was that Tank 610 contained 42 tons of MIC, more than safety rules allowed for. During the night of 2–3 December 1984, water entered a side pipe that was missing its slip-blind plate and entered Tank E610, which contained 42 tons of MIC. A runaway reaction started, which was accelerated by contaminants, high temperatures and other factors. The reaction was speeded up by the presence of iron from corroding non-stainless steel pipelines. (Wikipedia)

It did not come as a surprise either. There were a number of earlier leaks and both unions and Indian authorities have warned Union Carbide that measures have to be taken to bring safety standards up to scratch. The company ignored them all.

Dangerous things have always been invented or discovered by scientists. What commercial interests and governments do with them is a separate matter. Splitting the atom is an obvious example. The discovery resulted in energy creation and the destruction of entire cities. Is anyone going to make scientists ultimately responsible for either? What about fractional distillation? Would we blame chemists for the millions of road fatalities that have occurred since petrol became the dominant means of powering cars? Modern gun powder? No member of the 2nd amendment would say this was necessarily a bad invention. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. It was a boon to the mining industry, and actually made mining a lot safer. It also made cannons a great deal more lethal.

[JimC]

That's the truth of it. Conservatives don't even trust their own nature, hence why they seek out authoritarian structures and systems.

As if Marxist socialists don't.

When you are talking about real Marxists, you are correct. The nature of marxist theory inevitably leads to a totalitarian state when put into practice.

But of course, you have such an absurd definition of Marxists such that it includes virtually all political movements other than libertarianism. Centre left democratic parties are not marxist...

[Seth]

That's the truth of it. Conservatives don't even trust their own nature, hence why they seek out authoritarian structures and systems.

As if Marxist socialists don't.

When you are talking about real Marxists, you are correct. The nature of marxist theory inevitably leads to a totalitarian state when put into practice.

But of course, you have such an absurd definition of Marxists such that it includes virtually all political movements other than libertarianism. Centre left democratic parties are not marxist...

Yes, they are, and they are as authoritarian as anyone, more so than the United States. Your dream of democratic socialism is a figment of your imagination I'm afraid.

[pErvinalia]

:insane:

[Brian Peacock]

Dangerous things have always been invented or discovered by scientists.

Aye. Whoever invented the wheel has a lot to answer for.

[Seth]

Dangerous things have always been invented or discovered by scientists.

Aye. Whoever invented the wheel has a lot to answer for.

And too many people worship at the altar of the religion of Science and simply allow them to do so without question or constraint, despite the harm that it causes to others...the death toll of the religion of Science makes the Spanish Inquisition seem like a stern rebuke from a teacher by comparison.

Science for the sake of science, without regard to the intended and unintended consequences to others is as immoral as putting Catholic apostates to the Question with hot irons and bastinado.

Scientists like to get all uppity and superior about their amoral pursuits of pure knowledge, but they are often blind to the dangers they cause to others, and then when they do harm others, they pass it off as acceptable casualties in the name of their religion.

[Brian Peacock]

I think science for the sake of it, pure science one might say, is morally neutral. What one does with what one has discovered though is as open to moral consideration as any other human endeavour.

[Seth]

I think science for the sake of it, pure science one might say, is morally neutral. What one does with what one has discovered though is as open to moral consideration as any other human endeavour.

Interesting claim. I'm not sure that is perfectly correct however. Josef Mengele thought he was performing "pure science" but I doubt you'd say his actions were morally neutral.

[Hermit]

And too many people worship at the altar of the religion of Science and simply allow them to do so without question or constraint, despite the harm that it causes to others...

Science does no harm. People do.

You keep missing the point that scientific knowledge as such, like nuclear fusion for example, is neither harmful nor beneficial to human beings. What makes it harmful or beneficial is the uses commercial interests or governments put it to.

[JimC]

And too many people worship at the altar of the religion of Science and simply allow them to do so without question or constraint, despite the harm that it causes to others...

Science does no harm. People do.

You keep missing the point that scientific knowledge as such, like nuclear fusion for example, is neither harmful nor beneficial to human beings. What makes it harmful or beneficial is the uses commercial interests or governments put it to.

I agree, but it is also wise for scientists themselves to consider possible consequences of their research (particularly in the field of genetic engineering), and be a vocal part of the ethical conversation the community needs to have about potential uses of a given piece of research.

[Seth]

And too many people worship at the altar of the religion of Science and simply allow them to do so without question or constraint, despite the harm that it causes to others...

Science does no harm. People do.

You keep missing the point that scientific knowledge as such, like nuclear fusion for example, is neither harmful nor beneficial to human beings. What makes it harmful or beneficial is the uses commercial interests or governments put it to.

This is of course complete nonsense because it falsely presumes that "scientific knowledge" is some tangible thing that one can put in a box where it can harm no one. But the very word "knowledge" necessarily implies it's possession by a human being, and human beings are always fallible and imperfect, and therefore "knowledge" is anything but neutral because it depends entirely on who has it and what sort of person they are. To try to blame the abuse of scientific knowledge on "commercial interests or governments" is merely evading the fact that it is human beings who put scientific knowledge to use, and it can be any sort of human beings, including scientists themselves, not merely "commercial interests or governments."

That being the case, it is prudent for everyone to keep a close eye on those who possess dangerous scientific knowledge that they might misuse to the detriment of all, and that specifically includes the scientists who meddle in things they don't understand that might threaten our very existence. Scientists are not saints or gods, they are people and they are just as likely to misuse their knowledge for personal gain or animus, or simply because they are are narcissistic sociopaths who happen to be really smart about sciency stuff and junk.

This is not to say that scientific inquiry must be stifled, merely that it must be supervised and overseen in the interests of public safety and scientists must be willing to bow to the authority of the people of the planet if those people deem their activities too dangerous to pursue.

[Seth]

And too many people worship at the altar of the religion of Science and simply allow them to do so without question or constraint, despite the harm that it causes to others...

Science does no harm. People do.

You keep missing the point that scientific knowledge as such, like nuclear fusion for example, is neither harmful nor beneficial to human beings. What makes it harmful or beneficial is the uses commercial interests or governments put it to.

I agree, but it is also wise for scientists themselves to consider possible consequences of their research (particularly in the field of genetic engineering), and be a vocal part of the ethical conversation the community needs to have about potential uses of a given piece of research.

Indeed, and by "the community" I hope you don't mean only the "scientific community" but rather the entire community of people who may be adversely impacted, or benefitted by the knowledge involved. Further, scientists need to be willing to submit themselves to the judgment of the larger community if their practices are deemed too dangerous or ethically suspect to be pursued. You guys like to call that "democracy," so I presume you'll agree with me.