Very well written and thought provoking! I'm reminded of what David Suzuki once noted when I heard him speak: so much science has become applied science, molded to suit industry and profit, instead of basic or "pure" science whose main goal is augmenting our knowledge, from which we can then decide what to do with it, if anything.
You two take the critique further with the concept of "scientism" (eg. questioning whether or not we should, for example, be bashing particles together in the first place).
It's a good question.
Lately it sure seems that it's mostly full steam ahead with tech and science and screw the consequences (after all there are big bucks to be made). This mindset accounts for so many of the problems we face; history is replete with examples, from Thalidomide to nukes.
Have we put the brakes on certain types of cloning? Maybe we should do so with Gain of Function? And look at the mess we're in with A.I.
Thanks for the note. There's a part 2 that'll be up soon.
And yeah, they don't care about any of the societal implications for the science and tech delivered to the public. The type of research that gets funded is primarily determined by how profitable it is.
So much here to work with. Great to see some other folk working on the same essential problems facing what's become of science. There are a couple of articles of my own I think you'd appreciate as they open up some of the literature already out there on this subject. Just last week I focused on Owen Barfield's notion of "saving the appearances"--which in many ways gets right at the heart of the trouble with present-day science modelling. The title of that piece is "Scientific Models & Idol Worship." Another one is "Science & Textbook Pedagogy," which is a far longer discussion that examines Thomas Kuhn's observations, along with some historical context, and some essential points from Horace Freeland Judson's *The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science.* And then there's "The Flaws of Probability," which I suspect you'll find paradigm breaking and helpful in expressing some of your concerns with the way things are going. You also mentioned divination in this article, another subject I've looked at from a paradigmatic, socio-historical perspective. In short, I have a lot to share with you, and I look forward to reading more of your articles.
Very well written and thought provoking! I'm reminded of what David Suzuki once noted when I heard him speak: so much science has become applied science, molded to suit industry and profit, instead of basic or "pure" science whose main goal is augmenting our knowledge, from which we can then decide what to do with it, if anything.
You two take the critique further with the concept of "scientism" (eg. questioning whether or not we should, for example, be bashing particles together in the first place).
It's a good question.
Lately it sure seems that it's mostly full steam ahead with tech and science and screw the consequences (after all there are big bucks to be made). This mindset accounts for so many of the problems we face; history is replete with examples, from Thalidomide to nukes.
Have we put the brakes on certain types of cloning? Maybe we should do so with Gain of Function? And look at the mess we're in with A.I.
This piece also reminded me of a much shorter piece I wrote awhile back, where I take swipes at "experts" of all ilk: https://punditman.substack.com/p/how-to-think-about-those-who-tell
Thanks for the note. There's a part 2 that'll be up soon.
And yeah, they don't care about any of the societal implications for the science and tech delivered to the public. The type of research that gets funded is primarily determined by how profitable it is.
So much here to work with. Great to see some other folk working on the same essential problems facing what's become of science. There are a couple of articles of my own I think you'd appreciate as they open up some of the literature already out there on this subject. Just last week I focused on Owen Barfield's notion of "saving the appearances"--which in many ways gets right at the heart of the trouble with present-day science modelling. The title of that piece is "Scientific Models & Idol Worship." Another one is "Science & Textbook Pedagogy," which is a far longer discussion that examines Thomas Kuhn's observations, along with some historical context, and some essential points from Horace Freeland Judson's *The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science.* And then there's "The Flaws of Probability," which I suspect you'll find paradigm breaking and helpful in expressing some of your concerns with the way things are going. You also mentioned divination in this article, another subject I've looked at from a paradigmatic, socio-historical perspective. In short, I have a lot to share with you, and I look forward to reading more of your articles.