Esq: Greetings from Idiot America

[chomerics]

Hey Chom - how come you get to be Karl Marx and I have to be Adolf Hitler? Marx was much cooler. :mad:

Hey don't be hatin' da' playa

[Jumbo]

[PeterMP]

You have a direction and a focus. I would suspect that your line of research is defined and limited to what you are skilled in researching. How is it then that you can not see the connection between what you do and what the fruits of your work will become?

I have a direction and a focus, but I don't set the end. The system I am studying does. I'll give you an example from my own work, and then a more famous example. I am interested in how bacteria process information. In particular, how they take in multiple signals and "decide" on a response. It had previously been observed that some type of chemical stress (I'll call it 1) induces a set of responses that I'll call set A. Some other type of stress (stress 2) induced another set of responses, I'll call set B. There was in fact some over lap between the things in A and B. Much work had been done on the response to stress 1 alone and 2 alone, but we know very little for how organisms respond to combinations for most organisms and most possible stimuli. So part of my work focused on if I combine stress 1 and stress 2, what would be the response. In particular, how would the responses that are shared in set A and B behave. Would stress 1 combined w/ stress 2 have an additive affect on them, would we see an affect only related to one of the stresses alone (i.e. one of the stresses would be "silent" w/ respect to those responses when combined w/ the other), or some new behavior? Would all of the over lapping responses respond in the same way or would some show additive affects and others other types of affects? There was no reason at all for me to believe that mutations or evolution would play any role in what I was studying. My initial interest was really only in the responses "hard wired" into the DNA. My initial grants to get this work funded did not mention evolution or DNA mutations, but when we started doing the work we saw our bacteria doing odd things that we could not ignore (they essentially made it impossible to study the "hard wired" responses) so we set off down the road to figure out what was going on. What we seem to have discovered is a mechanism in which when we combine stress 1 and stress 2 we induce mutations in the DNA level. So yes, I have a goal, but I don't determine the end. The end is dictated to me almost by the system I study. The way I go about asking the questions that interest me play a role (e.g. I could have looked at other combinations of stress), but it is very difficult to determine how those decisions will affect the end during the process.

A similar thing happened w/ Marie Curie. She discovered radioactivity, which was an important step in understanding nuclear reactions and thus developing nuclear weapons. She was storing film in a refigerator w/ something that was emitting radioactive particles. She didn't know it. She just knew sitting in her refigerator her film became exposed, and set off to discover what was causing it. She had no way of know a priori that she would discover reactions occuring in the nucleus.

[PeterMP]

I am a part of the state of the world simply because I am an American. I do not know if I am to "blame" for the current state of the world. But I am a consumer, a businessperson, and a thinker who uses the computer. I have a strong appetite for oil and oil derivatives because I am an American. I drive a $47,000 SUV that burns 17 MPG of Diesel on average. I have a home that would be a luxury in most countries that are not part of the economic powerhouse. I have an income that puts me solidly in the top earnings worldwide. That is not saying much considering how low earnings are for the bulk of the population in the world. If they can even get a job

So as an American I am lucky and fortunate. But I am not a difference maker. Meaning if I died or if I moved into the mountains and off the matrix nothing would change. In all honesty I am an inconsequential human being living a good life with family and children.

Things that have happened in the past would have happened without me. Things that will happen in the future will likely happen regardless of my existence.

The problem lies in the reality of being an American. We all consume oil and oil derivatives. We all live luxurious lives. Even our weak and desperate live well in comparison to conditions that exist on our globe. So collectively we do have an impact on our world. Whether we are to "blame" for anything is up for debate because I do not know what you mean by blame.

That same problem exists in science. I do not know if you can blame one person for the nuclear weapon. But to disregard this catastrophic accomplishment as gift that has been put on the shoulders of men is wrongheaded thinking, IMO. Where was the voice of reason when these weapons were being created? Where was the moral guidance? It was lost.

That is not to say that science is evil. But it does yield to a legitimate discussion about science. And that is science is subject to the same faults that we as humans face. Here is the quote from earlier in the thread referencing the second article posted....

Wow, where to start? I am a Christian of the Lutheran variety. Martin Luther wrote a treatise called "Bondage of the Will" in which he argues that scholasticism (what we would now call science) is doomed to produce the worst possible outcome because it is the product of a fallen humanity. In Luther's view, mankind is in a broken relationship with God and all of our powers of reason and freewill cannot restore this relationship; we are too impossibly flawed. (The solution to the restoration of our relationship with God comes through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Luther called this "justification" in his Theology of the Cross.)

But to speak to the main point: I think Luther's judgement on the limitations of science and reason has been validated in our scientific age. We can go to the moon, but space shuttles blow up. We can cure any number of diseases, but we also have drug addiction. We can create a comfortable life-syle, but we ignore the basic needs of 2/3 of humanity. The examples are endless. In short, science and reasoning simply magnify our human shortcomings instead of providing a reliable path to perfection.

There must be a place for faith in public life because it is the only viable means to reconciliation with God. It is His gift to us so that we can have hope. If you disallow that, it will be a giant step backward.

I'll make a couple of points:

1. You seem to want to blame science for the wrongs committed by men. This is as flawed as blaming capitialism for the what Enron did, communism for the atrocities committed by Stalin, and God for the crimes commited by Priest, churches, and ministers, and in doing so, you remove the blame from where it belongs- the person and decrease person responsibility. I will note in a science, unlike the other cases, there is a strong incentive for other scientists to discover the mistakes/flaws in other peoples sciences. I gain noteriety by proving you are wrong or flawed in science.

2. I'm glad to see you don't think science is evil. Some of your earlier post at least suggested the opposite.

3. You reject evidence that science has benifited the human race (i.e. Henry's post on population and life expectency) based on some apocalyptic vision you seem to have. I have a vision of man reaching beyond even this solar system due to science and technology and spreading beyond the limited resources of this planet and out living our sun. What makes my glorious vision less likely than your apocalyptic vision? Nothing, but you reject the evidence (Henry's post) based on some "gut instinct" you have. That is exactly what the original writer is talking about. I will even note that is possible that we will take a "step backwards" before "moving fowards" as we've done in the past (e.g. Part of Hitler's success was based on science and technology that allowed him to implement new military doctrines. During WWII, I would bet at least life expectencies decreased and maybe the global population).

4. You suggest that as an American you have some pre-destined requirement to be excessive. This ignores all of the people that are also Americans and some how have worked to over come this. People that put solar panels on their house, that build homes w/ geothermal heat, that sign up for environmentally friendly energy programs, that eschew their personal comfort and economic status to drive smaller cars or take public transportation all seem to have somewhat escaped this pre-destined requirement of Americans (I won't even discuss the Amish). Yet you who rally against science and technology and these things not only partake in them, but by your own words seem to indulge in them to the extreme. I find your position both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

5. If your life is insignificant, it is only because of your own chosing. History is full of people that had less oppurtunity to make their life significant, but managed to do so. You say you have a family, does that include kids? Even if your ability to affect the present is limited, your ability to affect the future might not be.

You are only insignificant if you chose to be.

[mjah]

PeterMP :notworthy

[19Skins72]

It's hard to disagree with the prevalence of stupidity in this country. Like the notion that this vast and infinite universe of ours was created by sheer accident. Vegas would put the odds of that at 6 trillion to 1. Sucker's bet.

The exploitation of Divinity by such earthly idiots is disheartening. But to discredit the Divine in spite of them is nothing short of absurd.

When you're lying on your death bed, contemplating your own fleeting life and what's to come, you atheists better be right.

Well said.

[Dan T.]

I have a direction and a focus, but I don't set the end. The system I am studying does. I'll give you an example from my own work. . .It had previously been observed that some type of chemical stress (I'll call it 1) induces a set of responses that I'll call set A. Some other type of stress (stress 2) induced another set of responses, I'll call set B. There was in fact some over lap between the things in A and B. Much work had been done on the response to stress 1 alone and 2 alone, but we know very little for how organisms respond to combinations for most organisms and most possible stimuli. So part of my work focused on if I combine stress 1 and stress 2, what would be the response.

So you are, in fact, TORTURING these poor bacteria. Subjecting them to not just one, but TWO chemical stresses. . .

Yes, science is indeed evil.

[HOF44]

So you are, in fact, TORTURING these poor bacteria. Subjecting them to not just one, but TWO chemical stresses. . .

Yes, science is indeed evil.

Next they'll be having bacteria fights and betting on them.

[portisizzle]

I had all but forgotten this thread....

I'll make a couple of points:

1. You seem to want to blame science for the wrongs committed by men. This is as flawed as blaming capitialism for the what Enron did, communism for the atrocities committed by Stalin, and God for the crimes commited by Priest, churches, and ministers, and in doing so, you remove the blame from where it belongs- the person and decrease person responsibility. I will note in a science, unlike the other cases, there is a strong incentive for other scientists to discover the mistakes/flaws in other peoples sciences. I gain noteriety by proving you are wrong or flawed in science.

I blame science for the wrongs committed by man to the extent that it is limited by the moral, ethical, and physical limits of man. To excuse "science" from all discussion of responsibility for the ends that come as a result of those efforts is wrongheaded.

2. I'm glad to see you don't think science is evil. Some of your earlier post at least suggested the opposite.

Two examples. Nuclear weapons and cloning. In the end a complete discussion as to what is evil and what is not will depend exclusively upon where we draw the line. But before we draw the line we must understand that science is ultimately responsible for understanding when that line becomes more like a cliff.

3. You reject evidence that science has benifited the human race (i.e. Henry's post on population and life expectency) based on some apocalyptic vision you seem to have. I have a vision of man reaching beyond even this solar system due to science and technology and spreading beyond the limited resources of this planet and out living our sun. What makes my glorious vision less likely than your apocalyptic vision? Nothing, but you reject the evidence (Henry's post) based on some "gut instinct" you have. That is exactly what the original writer is talking about. I will even note that is possible that we will take a "step backwards" before "moving fowards" as we've done in the past (e.g. Part of Hitler's success was based on science and technology that allowed him to implement new military doctrines. During WWII, I would bet at least life expectencies decreased and maybe the global population).

I reject no discussion that talks about the benefits of science. Just as you should not reject those discussions that talk about the negative aspects of science.

4. You suggest that as an American you have some pre-destined requirement to be excessive. This ignores all of the people that are also Americans and some how have worked to over come this. People that put solar panels on their house, that build homes w/ geothermal heat, that sign up for environmentally friendly energy programs, that eschew their personal comfort and economic status to drive smaller cars or take public transportation all seem to have somewhat escaped this pre-destined requirement of Americans (I won't even discuss the Amish). Yet you who rally against science and technology and these things not only partake in them, but by your own words seem to indulge in them to the extreme. I find your position both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

To this point I say this. For every person that has solar panels on their house there are 1000 that have 20 year old HVAC systems. For every hybrid vehicle that is on the road today there are 1000 driving a vehicle that gets under 15 MPG.

What is intellectually dishonest is thinking that by driving in a hybrid you are actually making a difference. The morally bankrupt are the ones that live life oblivious to this fact.

5. If your life is insignificant, it is only because of your own chosing. History is full of people that had less oppurtunity to make their life significant, but managed to do so. You say you have a family, does that include kids? Even if your ability to affect the present is limited, your ability to affect the future might not be.

You are only insignificant if you chose to be.

I am humble enough a man to know what I am and what I am not. Are you?

[PeterMP]

Two examples. Nuclear weapons and cloning. In the end a complete discussion as to what is evil and what is not will depend exclusively upon where we draw the line. But before we draw the line we must understand that science is ultimately responsible for understanding when that line becomes more like a cliff.

No people are. Especially their unwillingness to have an actual discussion of the facts based on the facts rather then misrepresenting the facts, all together ignoring the facts, or slandering people w/ no proof because they've said something that you don't like or believe.

I reject no discussion that talks about the benefits of science. Just as you should not reject those discussions that talk about the negative aspects of science.

This your reply to a post that Henry made earlier in the thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry

I'd like to point out that if science were so destructive to humanity, humanity would be waning in population as science becomes more advanced. I'm pretty sure the exact opposite's been happening.

And I would point out the past does not predict the future. Both economically and militarily.

Consider the cost of supporting the baby boomers for our next generation....

Consider Iran.....

You rejected his point out of hand. Based on what? What you think is going to happen? Where was the discussion of the good that has come from science and technology? Where was the discussion of how maybe science and technology will help us solve future problems?

I have discussed the evil MEN have committed using science and technology in this thread. I've discussed nuclear weapons w/ you. I brought up Hitler. Somebody else tried to make you see the other side, and you rejected it out of hand.

To this point I say this. For every person that has solar panels on their house there are 1000 that have 20 year old HVAC systems. For every hybrid vehicle that is on the road today there are 1000 driving a vehicle that gets under 15 MPG.

It is irrelevant to the point. The point is that YOU have a choice, which type of person YOU are going to be. Is this the 'well, everybody else is doing it' defense now?

What is intellectually dishonest is thinking that by driving in a hybrid you are actually making a difference. The morally bankrupt are the ones that live life oblivious to this fact.

They are making a difference. Their over all impact is a small one, but they are also an example to others. How many times do I see threads where somebody says something like, 'Well, if it was really an issue, they'd all be doing X (or not doing Y)?' This eliminates this arguement. If even the people that believe something is a problem don't change their lifestyle, nobody else is ever going to believe it is a problem. Would the civil rights movement have happened if the black preachers would have gotten up in their pulpits on Sunday and told the congregation to fight for their rights, but did nothing themselves? No.

To what fact?

I am humble enough a man to know what I am and what I am not. Are you?

Sounds like an excuse.

[portisizzle]

Sounds like an excuse.

More like a man who is comfortable in his own skin. Try it some time.

I applaud your efforts as a scientist. What little I have learned about you in this thread has shown me that you are a dedicated man with your work. And as such I recognize the reason why you and I will not come to any agreement on this subject. It is hard to debate a person when my heart is not as much on my side of the debate as it is yours.

Cheers.

[PeterMP]

More like a man who is comfortable in his own skin. Try it some time.

Thanks, but I perfer to be a little uncomfortable; that way I continually try and improve myself.

[portisizzle]

Thanks, but I perfer to be a little uncomfortable; that way I continually try and improve myself.

Good luck with that.