Science sucks...potentially.

[glennantm]

So did anybody see that episode of the Twilight Zone where physicists, heady with power and devoid of humility, created a machine capable of creating a black hole in a "controlled" environment. Suddenly, things go wrong and "pop" the world vanishes, destroying the entirety of our existence in a flash

Comments

[strontium90]

Careful who you associate yourself with... many of your "contemporaries" also think the world is 5000 years old and that homosexuality is contagious :)

[glennantm]

A bit presumptuous my dear Watson. I actually don't associate with "church folks" as you imply. I prefer to keep my religion on the personal level. But the point is taken.

But honestly, are you denying that science runs a risk of presuming itself infallible? That has ALWAYS been one of the negatives of driving science...being the risk that things could take place that were not expected to great damage of society at large.

I'm not presuming that this "world suck" is going to happen, merely that a great deal of "scientists", even the esteemed atheistic ones, oppose this project on the grounds of the risk/reward ratio being unnecessary. Many of those in opposition, from what I understand, are pragmatists who realize that it would seem irrelevant what method is used to determine atomic mass, as either way, we could have no effect on it one way or another.

Love the hair by the by...

E Pur Si Muove.

[strontium90]

Sorry, I honestly wasn't being presumptuous, just illustrating a point. Rereading that, I sure do understand why you'd think that, though. Sorry that came off the way it did; I wasn't trying to draw a conclusion as to why you came to you opinions about science. However, I would like to address them.

First off, at the nut of everything you're saying is the question, "does science run the risk of presuming itself infallible?" Well, alright - I wasn't really gonna go there because, at least on the surface, it seems just so damn persnickety, but it bears mentioning just in terms of the forensics and semantics of the thing: science can't think itself infallible any more than soccer can think itself fun or cake can think itself delicious. Not to be pedantic, but the whole initial premise of this question is kind of based on a flawed personification of a concept.

I point this out for a very specific reason: by proclaiming "science assumes itself infallible," detractors get to lump all scientists in there by implication - an automatic

[diis]

There is a certain level of risk in everything we do. There is a chance that a nuclear plant could have a meltdown. There is a chance that a computer glitch could cause a nuclear weapon to be launched prematurely. There is a chance that static electricity from a cell phone could ignite fumes from the gas pump the next time you fill up your car. And yes, there is a chance that the hadron supercollider could create a wormhole and implode the earth.

My point is this: since the development of the scientific method, there is no such thing as infallibility for scientists. Doubt and skepticism is built into the process at every step. Don't think for a second that CERN hasn't looked at the actuarial tables and made a decision that the benefits far outweigh the potential risks.

However, I admit that I could be a little biased. I heard on NPR that some of the scientists involved think that this machine could mark the beginning of time travel, which is fucking awesome.

[glennantm]

Wow, so we can go back in time and start screwing things up "earlier".

Joking aside, I hardly believe that even a majority of "scientists"...or at least those I encounter in the US, subscribe to the purity of the scientific method. I feel that, as a culture, we've worked hard to breed a class of econo-science...or science motivated primarily by financial profit. I come to this conclusion based off how few people that I encounter who are willing to choose the common good over profit and consider the effects it might have on others outside their "monkeysphere".

[serious_clown]

"One" should "avoid" over-using "quotation marks" when writing a "personal" response.

If "I" don't "pick on" you, "who" will? ";-)"

[glennantm]

I'm actually "aiming" to get on the "unnecessary" "quotations" website. FACE!

All of this has happened before... all of this will happen again...

[strontium90]

Funny thing is, if the Large Hadron Collider destroys the universe than we'll never realize it. A causality will undo the entirety of space and time for the instance in which the LHC functioned properly and destroyed existence; we will perceive the universe in which the thing simply never got turned on or never worked. That is, if it actually destroys the universe.

Which, by the way, has already happened before. The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas got shut down and defunded in 1993 after a staggering investment of over $2 billion. This highly unusual action was the result of "future causal influence on current condition," caused by the SSC destroying the universe - including the cause of the destruction of the universe - when it was activated.

All of this and more quantum theory hijinks discussed here. Man, I do love reading about science, but one thing I love even more is when super-science transcends physics and breaks out the far side, rejoining Newton, Aristotle and Paracelsus in the realm of Natural Philosophy :)

Re: All of this has happened before... all of this will happen again...

[glennantm]

Ok. Let me make an attempt to define a few concepts a little clearer. When I say science, in general, I am referring to what passes for science more often than actual, genuine science