(no subject)

[noahgibbs]

I'm quoting Charley Reese here, who several other folks seem to dislike for unrelated reasons. This quote isn't much about his politics, though:

When Mary Shelley created the Frankenstein monster in her novel, she was expressing the fears of people of her day about science. I think many of us share those fears. We look at science as something devoid of human emotion and compassion, a ruthlessly true set of facts that cares nothing for our ethics or dreams or religious beliefs or wishes or even our very existence.

This is something I never got. Why are people so terrified that somewhere out there, somehow, Science Is Ignoring Them?

I mean, by contrast: I really *hope* that somewhere out there Religious Freaks Are Ignoring Me.

Comments

[astralagos.livejournal.com]

Since I fit somewhere in the neighborhood of "scientist" (I usually use the more neutral term scholar), I've found that one of the problems when discussing terms such as science and logic is that these systems are morally neutral. The sciences, as a whole, are involved in describing things as they are without describing whether something is good or better. I usually eschew terms like "good" when describing systems in favor of more quantifiable attributes (larger, more efficient, &c). Most of the most skilled scientists I have met have also been phenomenally anal about the proper application of language.

That said, people are eager to apply a 'scientific' patina to materials in order to make them seem somehow better or morally correct. Most of these are just varieties of the argumentum ad naturam approach - social darwinism, e.g.

Personally, I figure the material world, which is ultimately all science can describe, is not as important for most people as the conceptual world must of us dwell in. The universe may be morally indifferent, but we are capable of moral judgment, and ultimately our minds and perception are more important to us. However, it's late and my brain is all hurty so this can be discussed at a different time.

[dragonvpm.livejournal.com]

Ultimately, I think a fear of science and technology is a direct result of a lack of education. People tend to be scared of things they don't understand and many people don't understand science or technology.

They aren't afraid that Science will ignore them, they're afraid that it'll come looking for them and do horrible things to them.

Somewhere out there, science may get you...

[gizbot.livejournal.com]

As a whole, I have always believed science, and technology, to be neutral. They can be used for good purposes and bad purposes, and they give a lot of leverage.

Many people fear science because they fear that someone out there will do something stupid, like let genetically modified corn slip into their cornflakes. They're worried that the proving time for a technology before it is released to affect them is too short. If you chat with them, they usually aren't worried about new knowledge being discovered; they worry about unthinking changes to the status qua.

Ask people if they object to research that increases gas mileage, or better solar cells, or such. Now ask if they favor experiments with Titianium-Oxide? They may answer that it is different, and is not understood, thus it is bad.

Why are they right?

[darthsunshine.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...my reading of the quote is that the monster = science = devoid of human emotion and compassion. In which case, I completely disagree with his initial premise in the first place. The monster, if I remember correctly, was _full_ of human emotion, and that was what led him to take the actions he did.

I should re-read that book.

Science theme

[jd5p.livejournal.com]

As has been pointed out here, science is morally neutral . . . this is simple fact. Information doesn't care how it is used, this gets back to the classic phrases, "Closing Pandora's box" or "Putting the genie back in the bottle". The comment is fundamentally true, science doesn't care . . . but it doesn't go far enough down the road. There is a human element, discoveries don't spontaneously happen . . . people make them. Scientists are the control valve, part of why ethics and philosophy shouldn't be considered superfluous parts of a scientific education.
Frankenstein ignored the human element . . . it was about a scientist doing something because he could, but he never stopped to ask himself if he should.

[namshubwriter.livejournal.com]

While science may be morally neutral, it is not without values. Ockham's Razor is a statement about values. For any two theories that explain a behavior, simpler theories (with fewer unproven assumptions) are preferred. It could be that the simpler explanation is, in fact, less correct.

I assume you've read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? Pirsig spends some time in the beginning of the book discussing how some people are afraid of technology, and he has some thoughts about why that might be the case.

Although there are some people today that are afraid of science or technology due to a lack of understanding, since ZAMM was written, there is a growing fear of science or technology from people that have a great deal of understanding. From genetic engineering to privacy in the age of technology, there is a great deal to be concerned about.

[katharos.livejournal.com]

Religious Freaks, like Scientists are both large scary groups of people. I belong to one of them. The problem with the group of religious freaks ignoring me is that they then promote draconian rules about how I'm supposed to live my life, like not being allowed out of the house since I'm a woman, or amputating part of my body in a bizarre ceremony, or keeping me from marrying my girlfriend, without any thought about how I feel. Much like Scientists have decided without asking me that tomato plants that produce pesticides that are also poisonous to me are a good thing, and can be released into the wild. I am scared of any large group of people that I don't agree with ignoring me. Perfectly reasonable. :) The large scary group can ignore me and still affect me. Kinda like I step on ants without noticing.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. That's certainly the best way of phrasing it that I've seen, at least supporting that viewpoint.