Bertie the Bunyip

poldy <[email protected]> sednews:poldy-
[email protected]:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> I suspect those percentages drop dramatically if you poll
    >> only the under thirties! ("Education" in this country has
    >> been a lost cause for far too long!)
    >
    > It doesn't help that people are trying to foist creationism in schools
    > to muddy the waters more.

All the more confusing due to the fact that it;'s mostly Oklahoma.
Who could believe that god created Oklahoma?

bertie

Running With Scissors

Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > poldy <[email protected]> sednews:poldy-
    > [email protected]:
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I suspect those percentages drop dramatically if you poll
    > >> only the under thirties! ("Education" in this country has
    > >> been a lost cause for far too long!)
    > >
    > > It doesn't help that people are trying to foist creationism in schools
    > > to muddy the waters more.
    >
    > All the more confusing due to the fact that it;'s mostly Oklahoma.
    > Who could believe that god created Oklahoma?
    >
    > bertie

debby!

EvelynVogtGamble

poldy wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I suspect those percentages drop dramatically if you poll
    >>only the under thirties! ("Education" in this country has
    >>been a lost cause for far too long!)
    >
    >
    > It doesn't help that people are trying to foist creationism in schools
    > to muddy the waters more.

Well, look at the world today - the "Age of Reason" seems
long, long past, along with the "scientific method"
(anywhere but in the laboratories of the scientific
establishment).

Nik

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    > Well, look at the world today - the "Age of Reason" seems long, long past,
    > along with the "scientific method" (anywhere but in the laboratories of
    > the scientific establishment).

Interestingly enough is the fact that the incarnation of evil in popular
culture often is a scientist.

Nik

EvelynVogtGamble

Nik wrote:

    > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    >>Well, look at the world today - the "Age of Reason" seems long, long past,
    >>along with the "scientific method" (anywhere but in the laboratories of
    >>the scientific establishment).
    >
    >
    > Interestingly enough is the fact that the incarnation of evil in popular
    > culture often is a scientist.

Ironically, I think that started with the A-bomb, and some
of the scientists responsible developing a social
conscience. (The ethical question: "Just because something
CAN be done, does that mean it SHOULD be done?") But of
course, society has always looked for an external scapegoat
for its ills, rather than examining itself. Knowledge, in
and of itself, is never evil - pity the same thing cannot be
said for some of Mankind!

Devil

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:04:52 -0800, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

    >
    >
    > Nik wrote:
    >
    >> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >>
    >>>Well, look at the world today - the "Age of Reason" seems long, long past,
    >>>along with the "scientific method" (anywhere but in the laboratories of
    >>>the scientific establishment).
    >>
    >>
    >> Interestingly enough is the fact that the incarnation of evil in popular
    >> culture often is a scientist.
    >
    > Ironically, I think that started with the A-bomb, and some
    > of the scientists responsible developing a social
    > conscience. (The ethical question: "Just because something
    > CAN be done, does that mean it SHOULD be done?") But of
    > course, society has always looked for an external scapegoat
    > for its ills, rather than examining itself. Knowledge, in
    > and of itself, is never evil - pity the same thing cannot be
    > said for some of Mankind!

Frankenstein is much older then that.

As to the scientists who worked on nuclear weapons, I suspect there were
no doubts on the ethical issues initially, until they got cheated by
Truman at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

They were on a race against Germany. Working on the thing to ensure the
allies would have it before Germany. Would they have known that the war
against Germany would be over before Germany had a bomb, would then have
known that it would be used against civilian populations in Japan, would
they have known that the result of the operation would be Truman starting
the cold war, most of them would have jumped ship.

As it went, they just ended up doing their best to ensure the Soviets got
it too.

But to come back on the ethical thing, should be enough to look at Szilard
and his position regarding the use in Japan.

Nik

"devil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected].. .
    > Frankenstein is much older then that.
    > As to the scientists who worked on nuclear weapons, I suspect there were
    > no doubts on the ethical issues initially, until they got cheated by
    > Truman at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    > They were on a race against Germany. Working on the thing to ensure the
    > allies would have it before Germany. Would they have known that the war
    > against Germany would be over before Germany had a bomb, would then have
    > known that it would be used against civilian populations in Japan, would
    > they have known that the result of the operation would be Truman starting
    > the cold war, most of them would have jumped ship.
    > As it went, they just ended up doing their best to ensure the Soviets got
    > it too.
    > But to come back on the ethical thing, should be enough to look at Szilard
    > and his position regarding the use in Japan.

I think you are right as far as the moral integrity of the people who
participated in the early development of the A-bomb (the later ones is an
entirely different matter however.) The point made that knowledge in and by
itself is no bad thins is - needless to say - also correct. However, the
problem is today I think that universities are no longer those independent
(from government and the commercial world) centers of critical knowledge
they used to be. Possibly the worst things that had happened lately to
undermine the social status of science is the creation of GMO food. Not that
I believe that this in itself is a bad things. However what is extremely bad
is that attitude shown by the university-commercial world that developed it
(the lines here can sometimes be difficult to determine). Naturally the
population is somewhat sceptical about what is being done. Going out and
argue against markings of GMO food because that will allow the people to
choose not to eat the stuff shows such Big Brother attitude that only fits
all too well with the incarnation of plain evil in an off the shelf cartoon
for the some children's channel.


Nik

Devil

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:44:02 +0800, Nik wrote:

    >
    > "devil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected].. .
    >> Frankenstein is much older then that.
    >> As to the scientists who worked on nuclear weapons, I suspect there were
    >> no doubts on the ethical issues initially, until they got cheated by
    >> Truman at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    >> They were on a race against Germany. Working on the thing to ensure the
    >> allies would have it before Germany. Would they have known that the war
    >> against Germany would be over before Germany had a bomb, would then have
    >> known that it would be used against civilian populations in Japan, would
    >> they have known that the result of the operation would be Truman starting
    >> the cold war, most of them would have jumped ship.
    >> As it went, they just ended up doing their best to ensure the Soviets got
    >> it too.
    >> But to come back on the ethical thing, should be enough to look at Szilard
    >> and his position regarding the use in Japan.
    >
    > I think you are right as far as the moral integrity of the people who
    > participated in the early development of the A-bomb (the later ones is an
    > entirely different matter however.) The point made that knowledge in and by
    > itself is no bad thins is - needless to say - also correct. However, the
    > problem is today I think that universities are no longer those independent
    > (from government and the commercial world) centers of critical knowledge
    > they used to be. Possibly the worst things that had happened lately to
    > undermine the social status of science is the creation of GMO food. Not that
    > I believe that this in itself is a bad things. However what is extremely bad
    > is that attitude shown by the university-commercial world that developed it
    > (the lines here can sometimes be difficult to determine). Naturally the
    > population is somewhat sceptical about what is being done. Going out and
    > argue against markings of GMO food because that will allow the people to
    > choose not to eat the stuff shows such Big Brother attitude that only fits
    > all too well with the incarnation of plain evil in an off the shelf cartoon
    > for the some children's channel.

Sure, it's clear that science was never neutral. Another example is the
current state of the pharmaceutical industry. But at the end of the day,
most of us are not immune.

Except if we succeed at retrenching in our ivory towers, this is. :-)
And manage to play around with arcane stuff that does not claim to have
practical use. Surely we still need mathematicians and musicians and arts
of various form, or you think these should be banned from universities
once and for all, on the basis of their uselessness? :-)

But yes, you are right, thing are getting bad. I probably ought to start
planning for my retirement. :-)

barney

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)) wrote:

    >
    >
    > Nik wrote:
    >
    > > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > > > message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > >>Well, look at the world today - the "Age of Reason" seems long, long
    > past, >>along with the "scientific method" (anywhere but in the
    > laboratories of >>the scientific establishment).
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > Interestingly enough is the fact that the incarnation of evil in
    > > popular culture often is a scientist.
    >
    > Ironically, I think that started with the A-bomb, and some
    > of the scientists responsible developing a social
    > conscience.

I suspect it goes further back - as far as the point where 'science' (in
the modern sense of the natural sciences) became specialist, and the
average educated person couldn't understand the whole of it. I couldn't
guess when that was - surely post-Enlightenment, maybe closer to the
Industrial Revolution. But certainly what we might call the 'evil of
unrestricted science' is seen in literature long before the Bomb.
Frankenstein is the obvious example, and by the late Victorian/Edwardian
period there are probably as many scientific dystopias as utopias.

Poldy

Speaking of negative images of scientists, there is an attempted boycott
being arranged by cultural conservatives against the new Kinsey movie.

EvelynVogtGamble

poldy wrote:

    > Speaking of negative images of scientists, there is an attempted boycott
    > being arranged by cultural conservatives against the new Kinsey movie.

Why am I not surprised? With all the "family values" flap,
and the ascendancy of the ultra-conservative "religious
right", here in America, they'd probably try to ban "Inherit
the Wind" now, too! (I hope I have the title right - I mean
the movie about Clarence Darrow and the "Scopes 'Monkey'
Trial".)