Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Geek Speak => Topic started by: EvaH on 19/05/2020 15:23:25

Title: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: EvaH on 19/05/2020 15:23:25
Paul wants to know:

Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science? I think not. Nuclear energy is discovered and some idiot invented the nuclear bomb and in America and probably Russia and China, there are people trying to design bigger bombs and missiles to kill more people.


What do you think?
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2020 15:32:13
I think Paul needs to learn the difference between science and technology.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/05/2020 16:43:15
And the difference between an idiot and a genius.

Idiots get elected and start wars. Geniuses devise machines to win them.

Geniuses design nuclear power stations and write the operator's manual. Idiots ignore the manual.

Geniuses locate the outbreak of a zoonotic epidemic. Idiots (a) suppress the news or (b) announce that it can be cured by injecting Lysol.

Geniuses discover that the earth orbits the sun. Idiots burn them.

It's not easy, being a scientist. There are lots of people who lack the wit to actually contribute to human knowledge and happiness, but have to be employed somehow, so end up as priests, politicians, philosophers, or Health & Safety Inspectors, and get paid for making life difficult for everyone else - especially those whose business is rationality.

The essence of good research is that the result confounds common knowledge and preconception. Good science is necessarily uncomfortable. Everyone knows the earth is flat, light is a compression wave in the aether, heavy things fall faster than light ones, and atoms (ατομος - cannot be divided) can't disintegrate. Until you show them otherwise, at which point a thousand learned idiots will try to prove you wrong.   
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: evan_au on 19/05/2020 22:48:15
Quote from: OP
trying to design bigger bombs and missiles to kill more people.
It's true that a lot of research is funded for military purposes - the Manhattan project to build nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons would not have happened for many years if it hadn't been the fear that Germany was building one first.
- And Germany probably would have, except that Hitler dismissed this (and many other areas of science) as "Jewish Science"

A few other areas that benefited from military investment:
- Airplanes developed from something that moved at a walking pace to international passenger flights, through WW1 and WW2.
- Semiconductor chips were promoted for use in nuclear missiles, and now we all use them
- Continental drift was proven as a result of seafloor surveys trying to improve the navigation of nuclear submarines
- Plate tectonics was demonstrated by a chain of super-sensitive seismometers trying to detect underground nuclear explosions
- Space travel and space exploration grew out of an egotistical cold-war competition between USA and Russia; and now it is firing up again between USA and China
- Advances in computers were often driven by the need to crack secret codes (including modern quantum computers)

One problem with military technology is that it delays the volume production that benefits more people.
Quote from: Einstein, 1949
I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Some people are realizing that current weapons are sufficiently powerful to drive humanity back to the stone age, and have (so far) avoided widespread use.
Natural disasters like zoonotic diseases, droughts, floods, hurricanes are bad enough, without human-made ones like overpopulation, pollution and wars.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/05/2020 12:21:25
Advances in computers were often driven by the need to crack secret codes
You can probably delete or at least minimise "advances in". There's little evidence of interest in programmable digital computing between Babbage and Turing.

Electronic analog computers and the concept of optimal-tracking feedback owe their existence almost entirely to the US Navy antiaircraft program. And even then, when electronic prediction and gun laying was shown to actually get the shells to hit the target, a few idiot admirals complained that it took the skill out of naval gunnery and was bad for morale. But it improved vinyl records beyond anyone's imagination.

And don't forget GPS, which everyone takes for granted nowadays, along with ARPANET, without which you would not be reading this!
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: evan_au on 20/05/2020 22:27:29
We recently celebrated the 30th anniversary of the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope (with lots of images of stars). It really revolutionized astronomy - for professionals and the public.

The US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) donated an obsolete spy satellite to NASA (perhaps a KH-11?) which formed the basis of the Hubble chassis.

NASA has benefitted from Hubble for 27 years (after the myopia was corrected), but at some points in time, new spy satellites were launched about every 2 months (they don't last very long in low Earth orbit).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen#Design

Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/05/2020 22:39:19
- Airplanes developed from something that moved at a walking pace to international passenger flights, through WW1 and WW2.
Can't resist this one! The US Academy of Sciences told the Wright brothers "There is no conceivable military use for the airplane".

As for volume production, I just learned that the standard controller for modern submarine periscopes was sold to the military for $30,000 until some young submariners noticed that it looked exactly like a $30 Xbox handset - which it is.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Hardi on 26/08/2020 08:15:42
it seems to me that in many cases this is not enough. in the case of safeguards this is a rather sore point. because I also think that there are not enough of them and personnel are leaking from the country
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/08/2020 10:25:32
Nothing new there, my friend. I see you are based in Poland, birthplace of Marie Curie, my great-grandparents, much-decorated flying instructor, marketing director, and building contractor, all of whom achieved success in foreign lands. It's an odd thing, but somehow the brightest and best of every nation always seem to emigrate westwards. 

The only safeguard for science is, I think, a free market and an entrepreneurial culture that provides a channel for development and reward. 
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/08/2020 11:20:34
The only safeguard for science is, I think, a free market and an entrepreneurial culture that provides a channel for development and reward. 
The free market in new tech is what has caused a lot of the problems we currently see- notably the rise of Boris + Trump.
The free market is what made sure that the Russians (and other billionaires) could buy the referendum and the election.

The purpose of government should be to restrain the excesses of the free market, not to encourage them.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/08/2020 11:52:55
So the problem with the free market is that it hands control to communists. So they win either way.

The Rise of Boris was due to the incompetence of his Tory predecessors, the disorganised shambles of the opposition, and public disgust with the European Union. Problem is that he is even less competent and organised than the idiots he replaced. Fortunately the Labour Party now has a leader worthy of the title, and if the nationalist rabble can be bought off with your money, things may stop getting worse in about 3 years' time.

The Rise of Trump was due to the lack of any organised opposition. "I'm a woman" is not a vote-grabbing slogan, but a chant of "lock her up" is worthy of Trump's hero and appealed to the herd mentality.

I'm not sure that having a choice of detergent played much part in the decision of the US Electoral College to ignore the popular vote, or the Queen, who had no choice once 90,000 members of the Conservative Party had anointed Cummings' puppet.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies in the growing perversion of democracy and the failure of the Press to hold politicians to account. 

As far as the free market is concerned, I think the job of government includes ensuring that it remains a genuine market and not a protectionist sham.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/08/2020 12:12:37
So the problem with the free market is that it hands control to communists.
No, it hands it to the billionaires.
It's silly to think of Putin as communist.
The Rise of Boris was due to the incompetence of his Tory predecessors, the disorganised shambles of the opposition, and public disgust with the European Union.

And there was me thinking it was because the media lied about Corbyn at every opportunity, while praising Boris as the new messiah.
The Russian hat scam was particularly ironic.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies in the growing perversion of democracy and the failure of the Press to hold politicians to account. 
Do you recognise how the Press- owned by billionaires- might not have much option about criticising Boris?
It's not a democracy, it's a plutocracy.
As far as the free market is concerned, I think the job of government includes ensuring that it remains a genuine market and not a protectionist sham.
That would be a step forward.
As it is, they just give multi-million pound contracts to their friends.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/08/2020 16:05:59
the media lied about Corbyn
Quite possibly , but a waste of time. Politicians are quite capable of lying for themselves, even about themselves. Corbyn was an effective constituency politician but completely out of his depth once the argument rose above drains and dustbins.

Quote
As it is, they just give multi-million pound contracts to their friends.
Including ferry companies with no boats, whose T's and C's were scanned from a Domino's Pizza website, then paid "compensation" to a company that hadn't been invited to tender, then decided they didn't need the work done anyway. Who cares? It's your money, not theirs.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/08/2020 17:05:29
Corbyn was an effective constituency politician but completely out of his depth once the argument rose above drains and dustbins.
Everybody says that .
And of course, they say he was "unelectable".

And then he was elected- again.
Which rather suggests that the nay-saying was propaganda.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Zer0 on 28/05/2021 21:43:27
Nobody mentioned Her!
🌵

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

P.S. - She Deserves it.
🌹
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Eternal Student on 29/05/2021 14:50:28
Hi.

   I can see this is generally an old discussion but looking through the replies, it seems that a fair number of them try to remove the responsibility from the scientists entirely.

Here's an example:
And the difference between an idiot and a genius.

Idiots get elected and start wars. Geniuses devise machines to win them.

    It is unreasonable to propose that scientists have no responsibility whatsoever.  Unless a scientist has been captured and forced to work on developing some sort of weapon or technology, then they have a choice.  Arguably, even if they were captured they still have a choice (but some choices may be extremely harmful to themselves).

   One of the greatest responsibilities for a scientist should be ensuring that the wider public and/or an appropriate organisation that is given authority to act in the public's best interest are consulted whenever they are proposing work on something that may have moral and ethical implications.  We need only look at historical examples like the Stanford Prison experiment to see where things can go wrong if you are driven by scientific curiosity and too involved to be objective in identifying potential harm. 

   This website focuses on educating and motivating young and upcoming scientists.   What the Dickens (an English novelist) are you doing suggesting they can and should do as they wish and it's always someone else's fault if it's misused?   Science is something that human beings do but it is not an excuse to forget about your human obligations.  How you resolve any conflict of interest between your pursuit of science and some human obligations is a much more personal matter that probably falls outside the scope of this thread.  All that matters is that science is not universally accepted as a "get out of jail free" card or a "do as you please in the name of science" imperative.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2021 15:04:45
    It is unreasonable to propose that scientists have no responsibility whatsoever. 
As a scientist, I have no say in how any of my ideas are subsequently used.
Since I have no authority, I can not have responsibility.

The actual answer to "Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?" is yes./
We have plenty of safeguards in science.

Unfortunately, there are none in politics.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/05/2021 16:54:25
Unless a scientist has been captured and forced to work on developing some sort of weapon or technology, then they have a choice.
Work for the government you chose, or be murdered by the government chosen by your countrymen / invading your country.  I am old enough to have been taught by men of various nationalities who fled from the Nazis to various UK factories and laboratories, Los Alamos, and the RAF.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/05/2021 16:59:22
We need only look at historical examples like the Stanford Prison experiment to see where things can go wrong if you are driven by scientific curiosity
An experiment that demonstrates a fundamental problem with human behavior cannot be considered "wrong" if it informs us of the dangers of granting authority without responsibility and accountability.  The object of scientific curiosity was to see how quickly and how badly things go wrong.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: CliffordK on 29/05/2021 20:06:09
COVID?
Science & Technology brought us very effective vaccines.  Something that wasn't at all available in 1918.  Previous research also helped us identify the most likely animal vector that jumped to humans.

However, there are lingering questions that we may never quite fully know the answer whether this virus was man made, and if it was, what exactly was the goal.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Eternal Student on 29/05/2021 23:54:21
Hi all.

   I like science as much as the next person and I've worked in an area that is closely allied to it (Mathematics).
   Science doesn't exempt you from human obligations and morality.  If you pass a gun to someone when they want to shoot a person, then you have some responsibility for that shooting whether or not you pulled the trigger.
   If you believed that the person needed to be shot then that is one thing but simply deceiving yourself into thinking that you didn't pull the trigger so it wasn't your fault in any way is absurd.
   Alancalverd, you are evidently playing devils advocate here.  Ethical review boards were set up in Universities after events like the Stanford Prison experiment came to light.  You obviously don't think these experiments were all just fine and dandy.  Anyway, it hardly matters what one person thinks, there are ethical review processes in place, following them is not usually an "option"  and in many school syllabuses for science it is stated that you have to teach young students about them.

Here's one example:   (Snippet of a syallabus from https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/International%20GCSE/Science%20(Double%20Award)/2017/teaching-and-learning-materials/Transferable-Skills-Mapping-for-Science-Double-Award.pdf )
* ethics.JPG (34.28 kB . 1347x121 - viewed 3819 times)
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2021 11:48:45
We need only look at historical examples like the Stanford Prison experiment to see where things can go wrong if you are driven by scientific curiosity and too involved to be objective in identifying potential harm. 
The Stanford prison experiment simply replicated  conditions that were  present in all the world's prisons, in order to study the outcome. The experiment was monitored, and short-term.
So the thousand political systems that permitted those prisons (and thus the conditions)  without having done the experiment are responsible for the real harm.


Are you saying U should not research scalpels in case someone uses one as a dagger?
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/05/2021 15:41:45
    If you pass a gun to someone when they want to shoot a person, then you have some responsibility for that shooting whether or not you pulled the trigger.
The Stanford Prison experiment did not involve any such prior desires, but was designed to (and did) explore what happens when you put one random group of people in authority over another. The principal investigator halted it after a week. It went a long way to explaining or at least predicting mob behavior such as demonstrated by Nazi sympathisers, and suggests that a group of  usually law-abiding intelligent middle class people can quickly abuse normal freedoms, like Extinction Rebellion.

   
Quote
Ethical review boards were set up in Universities after events like the Stanford Prison experiment came to light. 
Just 26 years after the formal establishment of medical research ethics boards in the wake of Mengele's work at Auschwitz. I have served on one for the last 20 years. Interestingly, the only really dangerous and morally questionable human research projects I have come across in that time, originated in universities rather than industry. They are easy to spot because academics do not recognise the difference between principle and principal, even when they are set out in the application form (and one of them is written on somebody's office door!) .


Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Eternal Student on 30/05/2021 17:38:30
Hi again.  I still hope everyone is well.

Are you saying U should not research scalpels in case someone uses one as a dagger?
  No.    You can't research daggers and then be surprised if someone uses it as a dagger.

The Stanford Prison experiment did not involve any such prior desires, but was designed to.......
   The ends do not always justify the means.  You know this if you work on a Medical ethics board.  You're talking about what the Stanford Prison experiment hoped to achieve.  That's interesting but it does not mean that a young scientist can justify any experiment if the final result will be interesting.

An experiment that demonstrates a fundamental problem with human behavior cannot be considered "wrong" if it informs us of the dangers of granting authority without responsibility and accountability.  The object of scientific curiosity was to see how quickly and how badly things go wrong.
    You're talking about abstract morality and I'm not even sure you could justify it in that setting.  I was just keeping things grounded and a bit more concrete in this discussion.  An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries).  For example, the state will prosecute you if you inject people or allow people to ingest substances that may have significant physiological effects and they were not informed.  An argument that you were trying to perform the best "blind trial" of a new drug for the benfit of humanity will not wash.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: charles1948 on 30/05/2021 19:13:15
Science will continue to advance unless it's stopped by Religion.

Religion, at least in its traditional form, is not conducive to the empirical method required by Science.

Science relies on experiments to verify its data,  whereas Religion relies on "Scripture". which can't be questioned.

An example of this occurred in the development  of "Scientology".  This started out as an attempt to explain human behaviour in strictly scientific terms, based on the principles set out by L Ron Hubbard in his numerous writings and text-books. 

However, when these principles failed to achieve practical results, "Scientology" was re-branded as a "Religion".
And the books written by Hubbard, became known in Scientology as "Scripture". Which can't be questioned.

Is something like this happening in Physics, where "Relativity" and "Quantum Theory" have become almost "Religious Beliefs", which any aspiring physicist is required to accept?





Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2021 19:23:50
They are easy to spot because academics do not recognise the difference between principle and principal,
In QM this is referred to as the "principal uncertainty".
An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries). 
Sticking a needle in someone causes harm- that's why it hurts.

Are you saying we should abandon blood tests?
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: charles1948 on 30/05/2021 19:31:21
If the authorities are so determined to get everyone vaccinated, couldn't they put the vaccine into the water-supply.

Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Zer0 on 30/05/2021 19:33:55


P.S. -
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2021 19:48:20
If the authorities are so determined to get everyone vaccinated, couldn't they put the vaccine into the water-supply.


No.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Eternal Student on 30/05/2021 22:26:47
Hi

Are you saying we should abandon blood tests?
   I would say something like that but I don't need to, it's already the law in most countries.   You can't assault people with needles (except under extraodrinary conditions, such as having a court order to proceed or authority under a section of the Mental Health act  - based on UK Law).
  In general, you have to ask them first and they have the right to refuse.  I assume we are speaking hypothetically and you haven't actually assaulted anyone to gain a sample for your experiments. 

If the authorities are so determined to get everyone vaccinated, couldn't they put the vaccine into the water supply.
  I think B_C answered this succinctly.  Unlike Fluride, the vaccine has to kept under special conditions and the currently recommending method of administration is intravenous and not pouring it into a Hydrochloric acid bath that exists in your stomach.

Is something like this happening in Physics, where "Relativity" and "Quantum Theory" have become almost "Religious Beliefs", which any aspiring physicist is required to accept?
   Well, that could be worth discussing but I'm concerned it falls outside the scope of this thread, which may have already grown a bit more than the OP intended already.

@Zer0
   There's nothing I can quote here, it's all videos and internet memes etc.
   I think you're talking about testing on animals?  That's too big a topic for me today.  The video you seem to have attached focuses on cosmetic testing which is a soft target.  Most people would agree that testing cosmetics on animals is unnecessary.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2021 23:01:45
it's already the law in most countries.   
Do you remember what you actually said?

An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries). 
Even a blood test does harm.

So, according to your edict, it is "wrong".
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/05/2021 23:45:41
You're talking about what the Stanford Prison experiment hoped to achieve.  That's interesting but it does not mean that a young scientist can justify any experiment if the final result will be interesting.
Britannica: 
Quote
It was intended to measure the effect of role-playing, labeling, and social expectations on behaviour over a period of two weeks.

There is no point in carrying out any investigation if you know the answer. In this case, nobody knew how quickly the group would degenerate (because the experiment had never been done before) and it was abandoned early when the harm was evident and escalating. It wasn't pure "fishing" because Milgram (1963) had reported the disconnect between torturer and victim when liability appeared to be transferred by authority, but the variant here was of a group assigning and defining its own authority - very important when, for instance, governments devolve executive power to unaccountable bodies like HSE.

Ethics committees are wary of fishing expeditions. Just because a result might be "interesting" does not justify probable harm: there must be a significant potential benefit and fully informed consent to any risk of harm.

One frequently contentious case is "sham surgery": does a particular surgical intervention actually improve outcomes compared with natural remission? The only way to conduct a blind randomised control trial is to anesthetise, cut and stitch the control group, who will be subject to potential infection and retain a scar as well as their original pathology, but a well-managed RCT can save a lot of unnecessary surgery with its attendant risks in future if it demonstrates that the real procedure is no more effective than this "placebo".
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/05/2021 00:13:14
Is something like this happening in Physics, where "Relativity" and "Quantum Theory" have become almost "Religious Beliefs", which any aspiring physicist is required to accept?
Absolutely not. The consequences of relativity and quantum mechanics are applied and critically tested every day. People may be skeptical if you report a shift in a well-known spectral line or a massive particle travelling faster than c, but rather than burn you as a heretic or worship you as a deity, your critics will try to repeat the experiment.

Physics is nothing more or less than the business of building mathematical models of what happens. If the model doesn't usefully describe and predict, it's wrong.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Eternal Student on 31/05/2021 04:06:01
Hi everyone.  Another half a day, another interesting discussion.

Do you remember what you actually said?

Quote from: Eternal Student on Yesterday at 17:38:30

    An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries).

Even a blood test does harm.

So, according to your edict, it is "wrong".

Yes Bored Chemist, I remember what I said.  You took an extract from reply #23 of this thread but cut away most of the context.

None the less we can take that sentence in isolation if you wish:
  An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries).
   That's a true statement, it can.  When harm is caused to human beings there is often law in place that will determine that the experiment was "wrong".  It is not upto the scientist to ignore or over-rule this and do the experiment anyway.  If we do then we have broken the law and more generally, since we are discussing ethics and science here, we may have acted immorally or unethically.
    The statement is not a definition of morality in conducting experiments.  There are obviously some situations where the law has not been broken but some harm was caused.  Taking a blood sample from a person who has given their consent is one example. 

I'm not in a position to make "edicts", I'm just making discussion.

My belief was stated in reply #15
It is unreasonable to propose that scientists have no responsibility whatsoever.
Science is something that human beings do but it is not an excuse to forget about your human obligations.
   I'm sorry if this makes you (and Alancalverd) feel uncomfortable.  I'm not intending to cause distress.  It's just that a question was asked (by Paul) and answers were given that seem one-sided.

   About the Prison experiment and @alancalverd 's recent remarks:  There's lot's of good things that can be said about both the experiment and the principal researchers.  If they hadn't been so open about the consequences, well intentioned throughout and willing to take some responsibility for a situation they were involved in, I wouldn't have picked them out as an example to use.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/05/2021 09:58:05
 I'm sorry if this makes you (and Alancalverd) feel uncomfortable. 
No discomfort at all. The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute, and I am delighted that so many of my family and teachers were involved in every technical activity from the atom bomb via magnetic mines to actually bombing the crap out of German cities and throwing out the chemical toilet as an encore. But I wouldn't x-ray a mouse without a damn good reason.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:02:48
   That's a true statement, it can. 
It's also a meaningless statement, since I can label such an experiment "bad", or I can label it "good"; depending on other factors.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/05/2021 12:06:34
  I'm sorry if this makes you (and Alancalverd) feel uncomfortable. 
No discomfort at all. The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute, and I am delighted that so many of my family and teachers were involved in every technical activity from the atom bomb via magnetic mines to actually bombing the crap out of German cities and throwing out the chemical toilet as an encore. But I wouldn't x-ray a mouse without a damn good reason.

Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 12:39:50
Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.
I don't often agree with Alan but...
The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/05/2021 13:07:44
Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.
I don't often agree with Alan but...
The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute

But fascism wasn't destroyed. It persists to this day. If the bombs had been dropped on Hitler then maybe I'd agree. As the late George Carlin used to say "It's a big club and you ain't in it." It is never the powerful who suffer. Just tens of thousands of civilians who have no power at all. So much for the conscience of science.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/05/2021 17:05:48
Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.
Who said anything about relish? There are no silver medals in war, just "them or us" choices. I vote for us.

We are indeed doomed for as long as idiots give other idiots the power to order them about.

Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/05/2021 17:07:22
But fascism wasn't destroyed. It persists to this day.
And so does the imperative to destroy it. The second world war did at least slow its progress.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/05/2021 20:21:02
But fascism wasn't destroyed. It persists to this day.
And so does the imperative to destroy it. The second world war did at least slow its progress.

So the solution is ... ?
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/05/2021 20:43:59
Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.
Who said anything about relish? There are no silver medals in war, just "them or us" choices. I vote for us.

We are indeed doomed for as long as idiots give other idiots the power to order them about.



"The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute, and I am delighted that so many of my family and teachers were involved in every technical activity from the atom bomb via magnetic mines to actually bombing the crap out of German cities and throwing out the chemical toilet as an encore."

VERB
1‘he was relishing his moment of glory’

SYNONYMS
enjoy, delight in, love, like, adore, be pleased by, take pleasure in, rejoice in, appreciate, savour, revel in, luxuriate in, glory in.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/05/2021 20:51:59
https://www.britannica.com/event/bombing-of-Dresden

"On the night of February 13, the British Bomber Command hit Dresden with an 800-bomber air raid, dropping some 2,700 tons of bombs, including large numbers of incendiaries. Aided by weather conditions, a firestorm developed, incinerating tens of thousands of people. The U.S. Eighth Air Force followed the next day with another 400 tons of bombs and carried out yet another raid by 210 bombers on February 15. It is thought that some 25,000–35,000 civilians died in Dresden in the air attacks, though some estimates are as high as 250,000, given the influx of undocumented refugees that had fled to Dresden from the Eastern Front. Most of the victims were women, children, and the elderly."
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/05/2021 20:56:03
And the Nazis fled, mainly unscathed, around the globe. Some escapees were later brought to justice but not all. So the sociopaths and psychopaths won the day.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 23:30:07
But fascism wasn't destroyed.
It';s like weeding the garden.
You have to keep doing it.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/05/2021 23:32:05
They won the day when they were given a democratic mandate to rule Germany. I don't think the Nuremberg Rallies were faked. It was civilians who collaborated to identify those sent to concentration camps and murdered. It was civilians that built the camps and drove the trains. 5,000,000 civilians joined the Hitler Jugend, presumably encouraged by 10,000,000 parents and as many grandparents. By obliterating cities and occupying Germany for 50 years, it is to be hoped that the Allies will have taught all civilians everywhere that such behavior is not tolerable.

The infection lingers in a few places, but there can be no shame attached to destroying its largest tumor. In surgery and radiotherapy there is an inevitable  "zone of regret" around the target, but it's better for the whole patient to kill a few healthy cells than to allow the cancer to regrow. 
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: charles1948 on 01/06/2021 17:42:25
By obliterating cities and occupying Germany for 50 years, it is to be hoped that the Allies will have taught all civilians everywhere that such behavior is not tolerable.

Are you saying, all civilians everywhere, need to be "taught a lesson", by getting bombed for what their politicians do.

That can't be right, can it?
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/06/2021 18:04:26
Not in general, but when said politicians enjoy massive public support to the extent of being able to raise an army, navy and air force in spite of a binding treaty, develop entirely new and indiscriminate ballistic (anti-civilian) weapons, invade every adjoining country, and support said military operation with food and machinery for 5 years, I think the "civilian" population must bear some of the blame, and in the case of a mechanised war, must expect to have their factories bombed. Bombing was more of a lottery than a science in the 1940s, so schools houses hospitals and all the other newsreel-fodder suffered too. The problem with civilian populations in wartime  is that until the good guys actually invade, dissenting minorities are going to get lynched by the majority or bombed by the enemy, so pretty well everyone becomes complicit if they want to eat.   

The object of education is to avoid the student having to find things out for himself. One would hope that future populations would consider the destruction of German Italian and Japanese cities as  a sufficient lesson not to be repeated.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: charles1948 on 01/06/2021 18:31:59
So, by your argument, if it turned out that the leaders of China had deliberately created the Covid-19 virus, and released it into the world.  In order to wreck Western countries such as the USA

Then the USA would be justified in launching a massive nuclear attack on China. In order to "obliterate" (to use your word) Chinese cities.  And so teach the Chinese people a lesson:

That they're to blame for allowing such "intolerable" politicians to get put into charge of China.

Can that be justifiable?   Doesn't it seem like punishing civilians for the sins of politicians?
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/06/2021 18:54:26
Only if you believe that the entire Chinese population, or at least a working majority, deliberately set out to infect the rest of the world and themselves, and persistently supported those doing it.

Only UK civilians get punished for the stupidity of our politicians in encouraging criminals to run Stormont and egotists to collect a salary for trying to dissolve the Union in Edinburgh. The Axis civilians were punished for continuing to support the war their chosen idiots had promised them. 

I'm in favor of regular selective culling of politicians, but the indiscriminate murder of civilians requires a clear demonstration of majority complicity and hostility. 

We are nicely off topic but you have opened a significant point for discussion. Hostility towards the UK now comes from two sources: the Scottish National Party and various groups of religious perverts. How do we deploy nuclear weapons to protect ourselves, or to retaliate? In what way do these expensive toys deter attack on ourselves and our way of life?
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: charles1948 on 01/06/2021 19:22:14
Alan, if you don't mind me making this observation, you sound rather too politically-minded to be a proper scientist.

Science should be neutral as regards politics.  Whereas as you come across as a bit of a "Lefty".  No offence intended!

But   -   are you secretly working for the Chinese Communist Party?
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/06/2021 21:05:37
Alan, if you don't mind me making this observation, you sound rather too politically-minded to be a proper scientist.

Science should be neutral as regards politics.  Whereas as you come across as a bit of a "Lefty".  No offence intended!

But   -   are you secretly working for the Chinese Communist Party?

Is that meant to be serious? Scientists aren't robots. They are human. Are you working for the far-right? You seem to be a bit of a "righty".
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: charles1948 on 01/06/2021 21:34:19
Thanks Jeffrey, I wasn't meaning to be offensive, but most scientists on here do seem to exhibit somewhat Left-Wing tendencies, when they express their views, in their posts.

Apart from one obvious, and admirable exception.  Who doesn't need to be named.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/06/2021 22:51:07
most scientists on here do seem to exhibit somewhat Left-Wing tendencies
For two reasons;
scientists are often paid by governments and also
reality has a well known Left wing bias.

The ability to evaluate data means that , for example, scientists are less likely to have ever believed in the "trickle down theory" of economics, or to swallow populist ideas like "Immigrants are responsible for you not getting a job".

Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/06/2021 23:10:08
I wasn't meaning to be offensive,
but you managed, without really trying. Do not make the elementary mistake of telling me what I think.

"Gadget" is a good if slightly dated thriller by Nicholas Freeling. The villain wants to build a small atomic bomb, so needs to recruit a scientist. The Daily Telegraph generally carries a lot of engineering ads but he is advised to advertise in the Guardian if he wants a leftie chemist. Superficial, but well observed. I don't read newspapers.

Science is indeed neutral - it is an iterative process that generally leads to understanding. What you do with that understanding is another matter.

Career politicians stink. There are a few MPs who previously held proper jobs and wish to serve the public, but sadly the majority only want to serve themselves. The Chinese communist party reeks of lies and corruption as much as the Tory front bench, but has the advantage of absolute power.

Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/06/2021 08:46:37
The Chinese communist party reeks of lies
The biggest lie is that they are communist.
Title: Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?
Post by: Zer0 on 02/06/2021 12:10:42

Silent Blue Skies, Roar with Thunder, of Iron Birds with Static Wings.



Fragile ants run, Hither & Tither, as Sirens Scream & the Church bells Rings.



Few Vaporised & others buried Alive, fallen Angels weep while the Demons Sings.



Why oh Why! Do peasants pay the price, of Fanatic Wars, of Fascist Kings!



P.S. - ✌️