Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[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.

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."

Using "find and replace"...

This is of course complete nonsense because it falsely presumes that "guns" is some tangible thing that one can put in a box where it can harm no one. But the very gun necessarily implies it's possession by a human being, and human beings are always fallible and imperfect, and therefore "gun" 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 guns on "commercial interests or governments" is merely evading the fact that it is human beings who put guns to use, and it can be any sort of human beings, including scientists themselves, not merely "commercial interests or governments."

[Jason]

No one has ever accused Seth of being consistent with his reasoning.

[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."

Using "find and replace"...

This is of course complete nonsense because it falsely presumes that "guns" is some tangible thing that one can put in a box where it can harm no one. But the very gun necessarily implies it's possession by a human being, and human beings are always fallible and imperfect, and therefore "gun" 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 guns on "commercial interests or governments" is merely evading the fact that it is human beings who put guns to use, and it can be any sort of human beings, including scientists themselves, not merely "commercial interests or governments."

What's your point? Guns don't threaten to blow up the whole planet. And as it happens there are 50,000 laws in the US about how, when and where one can make use of a gun.

Where are the thousands of state and local laws that direct scientists when, where and how they can experiment with things that might kill the entire planet?

As far as I know, there are NO laws that prohibit or regulate what sort of particles CERN decides to play with, nor are there any laws that prohibit geneticists from meddling with viral DNA and creating a superbug that will kill every human on the planet...so long as they aren't using federal money to do it. Of course I could be wrong and the EU could have such regulation and oversight, and if so I'd like to be cited to the regulations and agency. But one must ask if CERN even asked the people who live in the area what they thought about it.

Now one might rationally argue that the general laws against killing any human without legal justification can be expanded to cover killing ALL human beings, but that doesn't really solve the problem because such laws only prohibit the actual killing of human beings, not the creation of a viral strain capable of doing so in one's garage lab. It's only once people begin to die that the law steps in and declares it a "WMD" and prohibits the possession or manufacture of it. But by then it might be too late, as it may have already escaped containment.

For the same reason that the NRC carefully controls access to nuclear materials and the BATFE requires a person to have an appropriate FFL to manufacture high explosives, even in small quantities, and be subject regulations and inspections, there should be regulations that prohibit scientists from working with extraordinarily dangerous things like viruses and unknown sub-atomic particles except under strict scrutiny and close regulation, and the authority to forbid them from doing so.

The situation of individuals with firearms is not applicable or comparable because individual firearms are not the sort of weapons that can kill entire cities or populations in one swell foop if they get out of control.

[Seth]

No one has ever accused Seth of being consistent with his reasoning.

No need to accuse because I am quite consistent with my reasoning where it is appropriate to be consistent. The preceding sort of circumstantial ad hominem fallacy stated by Hermit is a complete non sequitur.

[pErvinalia]

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."

Using "find and replace"...

This is of course complete nonsense because it falsely presumes that "guns" is some tangible thing that one can put in a box where it can harm no one. But the very gun necessarily implies it's possession by a human being, and human beings are always fallible and imperfect, and therefore "gun" 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 guns on "commercial interests or governments" is merely evading the fact that it is human beings who put guns to use, and it can be any sort of human beings, including scientists themselves, not merely "commercial interests or governments."

[pErvinalia]

No one has ever accused Seth of being consistent with his reasoning.

I think he's accused himself of it plenty of times...

[Seth]

No one has ever accused Seth of being consistent with his reasoning.

I think he's accused himself of it plenty of times...

If so, I've acquitted myself well each and every time.

[Hermit]

What's your point? Guns don't threaten to blow up the whole planet.

You missed it again? OK, I spell it out for you. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Nuclear fusion or fission doesn't threaten to blow up the whole planet. People threaten to blow up the whole planet.

[Seth]

What's your point? Guns don't threaten to blow up the whole planet.

You missed it again? OK, I spell it out for you. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Nuclear fusion or fission doesn't threaten to blow up the whole planet. People threaten to blow up the whole planet.

Yes, but the distinction, which you cannot seem to understand, is that with a gun, one person can kill one person, or a few people at one time, but with "science" one person, like a "Mad Scientist" can potentially take out everyone on the planet at one time, or start something that will that cannot be stopped.

Since the risk is much greater in allowing one person to hold so much potential power over the entire planet, the scrutiny and control of such activities in the interests of human species survival is justified whereas the keeping and bearing of individual arms is far less potentially harmful to the masses and while suitable for regulation, is not suitable for infringement because the benefits to be gained from an armed, law-abiding citizenry outweigh the individual harm that can be done by a malefactor with a gun.

You are trying to draw a false moral equivalency between the acts of one person affecting one or a few other people and the acts of one person affecting EVERYONE on the planet, which is a particularly lame bit of fallacious reasoning.

[Hermit]

What's your point? Guns don't threaten to blow up the whole planet.

You missed it again? OK, I spell it out for you. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Nuclear fusion or fission doesn't threaten to blow up the whole planet. People threaten to blow up the whole planet.

Yes, but the distinction, which you cannot seem to understand, is that with a gun, one person can kill one person, or a few people at one time, but with "science" one person, like a "Mad Scientist" can potentially take out everyone on the planet at one time, or start something that will that cannot be stopped.

Since the risk is much greater in allowing one person to hold so much potential power over the entire planet, the scrutiny and control of such activities in the interests of human species survival is justified whereas the keeping and bearing of individual arms is far less potentially harmful to the masses and while suitable for regulation, is not suitable for infringement because the benefits to be gained from an armed, law-abiding citizenry outweigh the individual harm that can be done by a malefactor with a gun.

You are trying to draw a false moral equivalency between the acts of one person affecting one or a few other people and the acts of one person affecting EVERYONE on the planet, which is a particularly lame bit of fallacious reasoning.

The inventors/discoverers don't get much, if any, say in how the inventions/discoveries are going to be used. The inventions/discoveries themselves, be they guns or atomic fission/fusion or whatever else, are value neutral. What people do with them is not.

[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.

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.

I'm not makibg a normative claim, just expressing my opinion. Neither do I recognise your authority to preside over the apparent perfectness of my views, so you can shove that shit back where it came from, but yes, doing science is an act so it's as open to moral consideration as any other human endeavour.

However, what I am responding to is your confused view about the knowledges of scientist carrying some sort of extra moral obligation and the over-simplistic misapprehension that scientist invariably pursue knowledge without regard to the morality or consequences of their acts.

...

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.

Happy xmas.

[Seth]

The inventors/discoverers don't get much, if any, say in how the inventions/discoveries are going to be used.

Then they should think carefully about inventing/discovering things that can harm the planet and decline to do so for moral and ethical reasons. Their curiosity about things is not sufficient justification for allowing them to meddle with dangerous toys.

The inventions/discoveries themselves, be they guns or atomic fission/fusion or whatever else, are value neutral. What people do with them is not.

I'm sorry but that's just bullshit. The invention of the nuclear bomb was not "value neutral," it was one of the most evil fucking scientific efforts that humans have ever participated in and it has placed everyone on earth at risk of mass death every single second of every single day since they were invented. And then there's Sarin and weaponized anthrax and smallpox.

You may not remember "duck and cover" drills in elementary school and fallout shelters in the back yard, but I certainly do, and we're no better off today than we were in the 60s because now the fucking Islamic terrorists who would gladly blow up the entire planet just so they can go to Paradise are a gnat's whisker away from getting them.

"Value neutral" my ass.

[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.

I'm not makibg a normative claim, just expressing my opinion.

I get that. So am I.

Neither do I recognise your authority to preside over the apparent perfectness of my views, so you can shove that shit back where it came from, but yes, doing science is an act so it's as open to moral consideration as any other human endeavour.

I agree.

However, what I am responding to is your confused view about the knowledges of scientist carrying some sort of extra moral obligation and the over-simplistic misapprehension that scientist invariably pursue knowledge without regard to the morality or consequences of their acts.

I didn't say "invariably" did I? I actually was referring to a rather small sub-set of scientists who persist in meddling with things they don't understand that have the potential to destroy the planet and/or all life on it.

...

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.

Happy xmas.

That's "Christmas" to you, bud. Like it or not it's a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. If you don't want to join in the celebration that's fine, but then you should simply mind your own business and let those who do wish to celebrate the birth of their Lord and Savior do so without "culturally appropriating" or "denigrating" their religious exercises.

You're making me feel uncomfortable and marginalized even though I'm not a Christian, so I demand that Ratz be declared a "safe space" for Christmas believers and that the Mods impose sanctions on bigots and cultural appropriators who dare to express a difference of opinion about this important holiday!



(Merry Christmas Brian...really...)

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...The invention of the nuclear bomb was not "value neutral," it was one of the most evil fucking scientific efforts that humans have ever participated in and it has placed everyone on earth at risk of mass death every single second of every single day since they were invented....

I thought you of all people would have appreciated the fact that the nuclear bombing of Japan, as a direct result of the Manhattan project, saved hundreds of thousands of lives of allied soldiers in a potential invasion of Japan...

But, yet again, the development of the bomb was not down to the isolated effort of "mad scientists", it was a collaborative effort of physicists, engineers, military personal and politicians.

And one that, in the context of the times, was perfectly reasonable, IMO... (which is not a "politically correct" comment in this day and age...)

However, I do agree that scientists have to be part of the whole communities' collective responsibility to consider the implications of technological developments. These days, it's not CERN that is the danger, it is microbiological laboratories. And the scientists involved are active in the discussion about the limits that may need to be applied to certain lines of research...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...The invention of the nuclear bomb was not "value neutral," it was one of the most evil fucking scientific efforts that humans have ever participated in and it has placed everyone on earth at risk of mass death every single second of every single day since they were invented....

I thought you of all people would have appreciated the fact that the nuclear bombing of Japan, as a direct result of the Manhattan project, saved hundreds of thousands of lives of allied soldiers in a potential invasion of Japan...

The fact that it was used for such an ostensibly positive purpose (which involved the killing of hundreds of thousands of people) does not change the fact that it never should have been invented in the first place.

But, yet again, the development of the bomb was not down to the isolated effort of "mad scientists", it was a collaborative effort of physicists, engineers, military personal and politicians.

Who never should have been allowed to do so. Anywhere. Ever.

And one that, in the context of the times, was perfectly reasonable, IMO... (which is not a "politically correct" comment in this day and age...)

No it wasn't. Not even at the time. The opposition to the development of the bomb was non-existent because it was a top secret project to begin with and the average citizen had no idea what they were doing at Los Alamos. Had the public been informed of what they were doing, and what Truman decided to do with it, I believe there would have been a massive movement to put a stop to the whole project before it was ever born. It was the very secrecy under which nuclear weapons were developed that made it possible for them to be developed. And that's exactly why scientists need to be carefully watched by those who might get incinerated by their discoveries and prevented from meddling with things that are dangers to humanity.

However, I do agree that scientists have to be part of the whole communities' collective responsibility to consider the implications of technological developments. These days, it's not CERN that is the danger, it is microbiological laboratories. And the scientists involved are active in the discussion about the limits that may need to be applied to certain lines of research...

And the problem is that none of them ask the people who might get suddenly dead if the scientists fuck it up for permission to place others lives at risk. At best the government, which has it's own motivations for endangering the public in the name of "national security" appropriates, covers up and conceals all evidence of such programs precisely so that the populace WILL NOT know what its doing and will not have the motivation or opportunity to rise up and put a stop to it.

All scientific research involving anything that could even potentially harm large numbers of people should be put to a public vote and forbidden if it doesn't receive 100 percent approval of every person who might possibly be impacted by the product of the research.

The fact that you want to experiment with explosives next door to me doesn't give you license to do so just because you call it "freedom of scientific inquiry."

CERN is no different and its continued operation and funding should be put to a vote, and if anybody says no, then it should be shut down.