No answer for a simple question.

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
It is more about the greed of scientists than that of politicians. No one forces the scientists to create weapons of mass destruction, or technologies that will destroy much around.

They do it for fame, recognition and money. Power at times, but rarely for the good of the whole.

Your simply ridiculous; Really. It's the job of scientists to discover thing's, regardless of how YOU OR I will make use of that discovery. They don't develop WMD's, our military uses certain discoveries to do that.

So, should we drop all sciences of biology, chemistry, rocketry etc. because of how YOU OR I could potentially use discoveries made in those and other fields? What should a scientist do when they make a potentially harmful discovery? How can we cater to your personal desires here? Should I give up my computer because I could potentially use it to spy on you? I think you should give up yours because of that reason. How can I trust you?

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn

I think the blame lies at our own feet. They will only produce what they can sell and as long as we are buying, they will keep making new products to separate us from our dollar.

You are wrong on that part: they will sell us products that will have to have reparations constantly. Between a gas based motor and a free energy one, guess which I would by?

Otherwise, great post!

By the way, thanks everyone for keeping calm!

reply to post by sirnex


Again, yes. We hold entrepreneurs responsible when they sell bad stuff, but who created the bad stuff in the first place knowing it would be bad???


You seem to be in loop. Computer problems? And it's not about a selfish desire here, I ask a difficult question, that is all. But your reaction makes me wonder if the hat fits you in any way? Not being mean here.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Aresh Troxit]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Aresh Troxit]

reply to post by Aresh Troxit

Who pays for new weapons technology apart from governments?
And whose taxes fund those governments?
Some scientists may be greedy (but I'm convinced some are sometimes forced), but they don't create political situations, or the lucrative death industries. They may be prostitutes at times, but the client pays and creates the market.
How much fame do they get for depleted uranium bombs, drones or even Agent Orange (for example)? Can you name me the famous "scientists" known by society who created these things?

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
reply to post by sirnex

 

Again, yes. We hold entrepreneurs responsible when they sell bad stuff, but who created the bad stuff in the first place knowing it would be bad???


You seem to be in loop. Computer problems? And it's not about a selfish desire here, I ask a difficult question, that is all. But your reaction makes me wonder if the hat fits you in any way? Not being mean here.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Aresh Troxit]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Aresh Troxit]

Yes, I am on a loop about one aspect of science. I want you to either admit that all things discovered by science is inherently bad because no matter how mundane, they can still be used against others, or that not all things are as bad as your attempting to point it.

Fine, if computers is slightly above your head, how about we use e-coli.

Scientists have mapped and made available the genetic sequence for e-coli and have placed it freely available on the internet. Knowing and having this genetic code can be either beneficial or horribly devastating. Should we NOT allow other scientists to discover beneficial uses for e-coli (which many have found) because some terrorist might use the genetic code to create a designer bioweapon?

reply to post by sirnex

Well, before we say all things created by "science" are "bad" simply because of their potency, we should ask, what is science?
How do we define science? When was "science" divorced from "occultism" and other endeavors eg. when did alchemy lead to chemistry, and astrology to astronomy?
Are you not then condemming all human epistemology?
Do you refer to science as a plethora of inventions (including fire-sticks and bows and arrows), or as a modern methodology that requires repeatable proofs?
Perhaps science grew from naturalism, and the real problem is that its methodology is misapplied to our social knowledge?

reply to post by halfoldman


I know we are in a dualistic universe and that EVERYTHING can be used for good or for bad. A stone wasn't invented nor discovered, and yet, I can build a house with it or kill the next guy who built one to take it for myself.

----------------------

Someone posted that the WMD where created by the military. It is false.
A scientist postulated some theories on the explosive qualities of some radio-active material. Then the military contracted scientisits to try and build one.
I know Einstein opposed it. But who else? As I recall, they had to build a small town to house all those irresponsible scientists, no? It is not their fault in any way that WMD are used in MD plans, right?

What did Oppenheimer say when he saw the first explosion? He realized they had made the biggest mistake of their entire career...

As for the origin of the word chemistry, it comes from a Greek word that means black magic... That's bound to be good. Oh no! Chemicals kill constantly!

reply to post by sirnex


You are being dishonest because you keep ridiculing me instead of attempting to answer my question in a civilized manner. I can understand it is shocking for you, but you don't see me calling every scientists an a** because I am angry at the destruction they allow to be created.

Be civilized or be gone.

reply to post by halfoldman


I agree with you, but my problem, here, is that if you look at religion, people were ready to kill and die so they could say "Sallamalla" in their prayers, instead of "Mullumullu". People were ready to die and kill if they were to be ruled by a dictator or the likes.

Yet, no one moves, especially not the scientists, when they are asked to produce a dangerous product. The best example for this is: Sunscreens. Developed by scientists to prevent sunburn and over-exposition to the sun to prevent skin cancer, with chemicals known to cause skin cancer!

It is NOT politicians, it is NOT the taxpayers money, nor anyone else's fault if scientists used these chemicals in that fashion. It is the scientists. Period. There are whistle-blowers in every aspect of society, but not too many on science part. I know of Bob Lazar. ( And even then, he is contested. ) Who else reports stupid decisions?

----------------------

Someone posted about Agent Orange. Again, military contracted scientists to do the job of mixing in the worst possible way chemical elements that scientists had created to destroy some form of lives in order to control ( Pesticides and insecticides. ), knowing it would be an abomination to launch it against human life. THAT didn't refrain them from doing it.

Was life in the States similar to the old USSR that scientists HAD to do it, silently humming to themselves?!?

As for

reply to post by halfoldman


Science means knowledge. If I have the knowledge to build weapons and do it, I HAVE to assume part of the responsibility.
Otherwise, I am lying to myself on rhetorics to try to appease the guilt of my conscience.

If I was a scientist, and the government asked me to build a WMD based on my works, I would refuse. And if I was menaced to be killed, I'd say go ahead, I'll die with a free conscience. And if I was told " We're gonna kill your family if you don't comply!", I'd answer: " Do it. Then, you will be certain you will get NO cooperation from me whatsoever! And because I'll have nothing more to lose, I'll be more than dangerous to you! "

I was threatened by a group once, and the attitude of "I ain't got nothin' to lose..." Scared the bejesus out of that aggressive gang. ( It was a 10 to 2 fight. ) Scientists should try it sometime.

reply to post by Aresh Troxit

I suppose the scientists who developed nuclear weapons knew that they won't be able to save themselves or their families no matter what ideology they chant - so they were willing to die.
Of course it was easy to control the psycho scientists brought from Nazi Germany to the US under Operation Paper Clip. Criminals don't want to be exposed, and are easy to blackmail. But since then - yes I do think some scientists were cajoled into studies and faced assassination.
As with sunscreen, Aids denialism and so forth one is often caught between two scientific positions. Essentially only time will tell which was the true position and what was pseudoscience.
Some take the "alternative view" with very little proof by those working every day in those fields, but "alternative science" is often a bigger industry and can lead to more deaths than official science. However, it does paint it's rival as "bad", yet it makes claims of using the same methodology (often with no, or disastrous results).
So one would caution against "alternative science" simply because it goes against "big power", or making rash statements.
Yes, some science is co-opted, but many of the proven studies work, and many scientists are dedicated people and (fallible) humanitarians.

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
Thanks for the replies and good answers, but the fact remains that scientists DO create horrible technologies for no other purpose of destruction.

Sure, and let's blame builders and contractors for knowingly building nuclear research facilities. Or the postman for knowingly delivering mail to such addresses. And so on

The politicians are at fault. Here's how:

Science is supported by grants, mostly from the government, smoetimes from companies. Consider that, for this argument, CEO's, etc, are "politicians" as they serve the same role only on a smaller scale.

To get the money, hoops must be jumped through. Research is guided by the money, and the money decides where the research goes. If the people paying the money want to bury it, then it is buried. Scientists are only paid to do work, and they don't get to keep their results in these insstances.

This has caused it to become an institution. You cannot hire certain people or you will lose grants. The institution blacklists, controls, directs, and oversees science. And the institution is made up of the politicians.

reply to post by Aresh Troxit

I think in academia (not just science) assassination is one option. But that's hardly necessary.
The superstructure that controls science also controls publishing, media, peers, funding ...
They can simply cast you out and silence you.
At least as a "scientist", that is equal to death.
It happens all the time.



[edit on 15-6-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


You got the wrong guy, I haven't said anything about science being bad nor that scientists are bad or anything relating to such matters. I'm not posting in Chinese or Russian, if your misunderstanding my posts, then read the OP, my reply and all back and forth replies between the OP and I a little more slowly. Kthxbai.

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
reply to post by sirnex

 

You are being dishonest because you keep ridiculing me instead of attempting to answer my question in a civilized manner. I can understand it is shocking for you, but you don't see me calling every scientists an a** because I am angry at the destruction they allow to be created.

Be civilized or be gone.

I love people like you. You make a bold, ill thought out claim and when rationally inquired about it you simply evade it like the plague.

It's rather simple, should all thing's that can either be used for good or bad be stopped because they can be used for bad?

because I am angry at the destruction they allow to be created.

Scientists don't make policies or wage wars. They make discoveries that people like YOU AND I either use for good or abuse for nefarious reasons. You can't blame the scientists for the nuclear bomb being built because they discovered nuclear fission/fusion. It's retarded because the discovery is dual purposed. What ONE group of people decide to do with either purpose is THEIR fault, not the original discovers.

I am angry with you because YOU ARE NOT doing anything to stop it all. What are you doing? Why are you not in the news being talked about all the wonderful things you are doing to stop all this madness? You complain about the people who CAN'T stop GOVERNMENTS OR PRIVATE ENTERPRISES from abusing discoveries as if it's their fault. For that you are rightfully ridiculous. If you consider that ridicule, then perhaps that is because of your simple minded skewed outlook on how the world works.

The best example for this is: Sunscreens. Developed by scientists to prevent sunburn and over-exposition to the sun to prevent skin cancer, with chemicals known to cause skin cancer!

Christ, all you have to do is stay out in the sun for lengthy periods of time and you'll get skin cancer. Are you really going to whine about some chemical causing what you'll get either way? Learn to pick your fights and don't use sunscreen.

Either way, with all this incessant bitching, your still probably going to get skin cancer if your genetically prone to it.

if scientists used these chemicals in that fashion

How about we at least try an get a mediocre of a clue here. Private companies concoct the formulas for sunscreens, hairsprays, pretty much all products, based on the properties of chemicals discovered by scientists.

You don't have a problem with scientists, you have a problem with Johnson and Johnson.

I know of Bob Lazar.

OMFG... your one of those people. My bad, there is no reasoning with you.

reply to post by sirnex

Well you did say:

Yes, I am on a loop about one aspect of science. I want you to either admit that all things discovered by science is inherently bad because no matter how mundane, they can still be used against others, or that not all things are as bad as your attempting to point it.

At that point in the thread I felt that "science" and its limits as a category hadn't been explained.
Granted, it is not a counter-argument to the point that science is met with counter claims by science. (Ironically the OP cannot escape the discourse - he can only criticize science with other science.)
But aplologies I should have added the post on instead of replying to anyone specific.
Sorry...a train of thought doesn't always flow logically or focus only to argue agaisnt a preceding post, unless one really disagrees (which I actually didn't).
So yeah, I did have the wrong guy and the "you" in my post is the OP!
My mistake.



[edit on 15-6-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


NP, do it again and I'll use the evil google search engine with evil search algorithms developed by evil scientists so I can evily sfind you and pants you in a public place.


Nah, I'm JK.... I use computers for good only.

reply to post by sirnex

Phew! You'd be a busy evil computer genius (LOL), because that happens in threads all the time (and it can be annoying if somebody seems to put words in your mouth). But it's not bad intention, its just focusing on a point and confusing things.

Back to thread - there is no convincing way for the OP to criticize science without operating within it. In order to do so he would have to assume a spiritual/religious position. Even what he says on sunscreen is science (arguably, from my opinion bad or unconvincing science, but attempts at science none the less).

reply to post by halfoldman


Nor should he quickly overlook that he's using technology developed by scientists that can be used for evil purposes, like finding him and giving him an atomic wedgie.

He's just one of those lost people who haven't found their true purpose in life yet, so they need to whine and bitch about the evils of everyone else as if their feces smell like roses. I love it; Really, I do, it's entertaining. Or maybe that is his, to constantly whine and bitch about thing's he doesn't understand rather than trying to understand them before he whines and bitches. IDK.