Re: What makes science powerful?

[Brian Whatcott <betwys@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

At 04:42 PM 5/8/2003 +0200, Pentcho, you wrote:
> "Strickert, Rick" wrote:
>
> > Richard Feynman told a national science teachers convention in 1966:
> >
> >/snip/ You teachers who are really teaching children at the
> > bottom of the heap can maybe doubt the experts once in a while.
> > Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter
> > of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the
> > belief in the ignorance of experts." /snip/
>
> By following this advice, a scientist may never publish, lose his/her
> job and even die.
>
> Pentcho


Interesting observation.   The same could be said of novelists, poets
and newspaper writers.   Which leads one to suppose that the conduct
of science, like other intellectual expressions, has a cultural context.
  If society permits it, one can do science, otherwise one cannot,
 except with great difficulty.

 We are an interesting example in this respect: the most successful
theory of the design of animals and plants and its change over many
ages is barely permitted in some regions.

 The investigation of the definition of biological function at the
cellular level is another research topic that is drawing searching
 government attention and selective prohibition.

A person who speaks on conservation issues (about baiting the margins of
National Parks, thereby harvesting selected parts of trophy animals
 lured there, whose carcasses attract endangered species
of bears into confrontations, for example...) can certainly find
themself without a job after 30 years of service.

People who argue against the industrial exploitation of pristine
national parkland in remote areas, may well find themselves
excoriated.

One could go on. There are punishments for some science related
 activities. The penalties for actually *teaching* unwise topics in
science are so evident, I will not mention examples.

Brian Whatcott     Altus OK