Re: What makes science powerful?

[Pentcho Valev <pvalev@BAS.BG>]

In some of the examples you give one can find political or other
non-scientific reasons so the situation can be explained to some extent.
What I cannot understand is hostility and persecution in purely theoretical
areas which, by definition, develop through constant doubt and criticism.
For instance, there are perhaps 20-30 versions of the second law of
thermodynamics of which 5-6 are more traditional. You have no right to ask
whether they are equivalent or obey some other subordination. Or if you are
told that they are equivalent, you have no right to ask for a proof.
Students learn all this by rote and then  hate thermodynamics for the rest
of their lives.

Pentcho

Brian Whatcott wrote:

> 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