Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!jah From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: A Conversation With Sir John Eccles Message-ID: <207@philabs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 13:30:06 EST Article-I.D.: philabs.207 Posted: Wed Jan 9 13:30:06 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 06:08:01 EST References: <79@decwrl.UUCP> <345@pyuxd.UUCP> <205@philabs.UUCP> <322@utcs.UUCP> Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 95 Xref: watmath net.religion:5253 net.flame:7593 I don't read net.flame so anyone who wants me to read their responses to this must submit to net.religion >> [ME] >>There definitely is something to it. It's not necessarily limited to what >>Eccles and Popper have said, either. A responsible position must be taken by >>all scientists because, in many ways, science has gained the confidence of >>the masses in the way that religion once had it. Any (and I mean ANY) group >>with that kind of influence must be monitored and must be held responsible >>for the possible results of their influence (discoveries and announcements). Paul Shindman comments: > Yikes!!! So whom do you propose will be encumbered with the responsibility > of monitoring the scientists??? You and me. People. Other scientists, religious leaders, politicians, engineers, businessmen, housewives, children...(and when we learn to communicate with Dolphins, whales or Porpoises (sp?) them too!). Paul asks: > What will be the penalties if those > "...results of their influence" are used for not-so-nice purposes (and > who decides what ain't-so-nice???)??? How about debate? In some instances efforts will be stopped or hastened. We're talking about alot of people with alot of opinions...everybody voicing his in some way...I'm not talking about a system of judgement but, rather, a system whereby scientists report what they are working on and discuss the possible implications. What people decide to do with this is left as an exercise in reasoning (for the reader:-). Paul imagines: > It would have been really interesting > to see a jury of humans sentence Einstein and dozens of other physicists > to {life in prison|silence|death} for their work in relativistic and > quantum physics since it all resulted in the A and H bombs. You've totally gotten away from what I was trying to say. Actually there already exists a group of scientists (who worked on the Manhattan Project) that take responsibility such as I have suggested. They tried to meet with Regan (you know, the Pres.) and he gave them a big 5 minutes to say their piece on their impressions of the current research. They're just trying to educate people. If it's good enough for them (those who made the mistake in the first place), it's good enough for me. Paul deliberates and jumps to conclusions: > Yes, it would be really nice to keep a nice, rational, reasonable eye on > the goings on in several thousand fields of research, but it can't (and > should never) be done. The inevitable result would be that you would have > the world's largest bureaucracy ever created, and thousands of Galileo's > locked behind bars. Actually, the U. S. of A. is a large enough bureaucracy, coupled with the rest of the free world and maybe a few voices from the not-so-free world, we'd have a pretty good jury. Mankind in general has to be the jury. Judgement must be reserved for the particular situation. Paul exclaims and jumps to conclusions: > Egads, if you are going to make ginourmous sweeping > statements, Julie, at least back them up with something! > Remember that it was the Church that locked Galileo's mind away (and > do you remember why???) You've allowed your own concepts of what "monitoring" means into your debate. Firstly, in Galileo's time there was one authority, now there are many diverging opinions and philosophies each of them authoritative in some way (weighting all votes equally, anyway). Our own government is based on the very thing I'm talking about--checks and balances. You can't trust any one group to make decisions that may affect the fate of the world. You couldn't do it in Galileo's time (then it was the church) and I don't believe you can do it now (substitute church for scientific community). People are people--fallible, unthinking, selfish and often just plain old irresponsible. Sure, we all have alot of good qualities too, but the more personal something becomes the more we tend to exhibit the negative qualities that we have, in defense of that thing, often against our better judgement (stubborness...). Just read net.religion or net.flame to see what I mean. All logic gets lost and people just brow beat each other in the hope that their point will be taken more seriously. I don't trust myself either. Plenty of times I made an evaluation only to find that I had to re-evaluate and change my mind. It's very common. In the area of science, a wrong evaluation has much stronger implications and affects many more people. Let the people affected have a say too. That's all I'm saying. What are you saying? All in favor of the Democratic way say "Aye". All opposed? The "Aye"'s have it. Julie Harazduk philabs!jah ps. Sorry, Paul, about not responding to your last two letters (one about Christianity the fullfillment of Judaism and the other a question about the forthcoming response). I forgot all about it and I intend to get back to you very soon on that. Again, I'm sorry.