|
Post by bizarro on Nov 24, 2009 22:09:45 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300I'm ashamed to admit I've never read Darwin, and my study of his works amounts to watching The Voyage of the Beagle on PBS as a child and cursory textbook readings in school. He's a troublesome figure and it seems that the social impact of the breakthrough of natural selection is more important, perhaps, than the breakthrough itself.
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Nov 25, 2009 6:12:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 25, 2009 10:53:22 GMT -5
You realize the author is a political journalist--of course he casts Darwin as a political figure with a political legacy. The same applies to what a religious writer would do with Darwin & his legacy--to them Darwin is a religious figure. And as a scientific figure Darwin's importance cannot be overstated--he is biology's Copernicus.
I think Sewall's POV is quite silly. Hitler used "darwinism"--and? He used Norse mythology too. And Roman just about everything. So, burn the books or what? Man"kind" had no problem fostering hitleresque figures loong before science entered the picture, to be used as yet another path to 'rationalization of evil du jour'--pre-enlightenment history has a multitude of examples of *that*!
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 25, 2009 11:17:15 GMT -5
In a supposed age of reason, however, Darwin can easily be misused. I think the discussion of eugenics and genetic engineering is something to that really needs to be considered. I'm not out to demonize Darwin at all, but a society like that depicted in Gattaca is entirely possible.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 25, 2009 12:35:46 GMT -5
Well, as devil's advocate, we accept genetic engineering as a plus in every domestic species we have...and most of that was proceeding form the much more elementary selective breeding methods of Mendel. This selective breeding for superior offspring also occurs in the human population even if it is not called "eugenics"--it is simply called "marrying well" and practiced most reliably among the elites of any society.
One thing to remember--scientists (as in those who conduct fundamental research underlying tech advancements) do not develop consumer or gov't products and services--technologists do--and they are guided by capitalists. Consider placing the responsibility with the system which really possesses it--the people who write the checks with which the path most traveled is paved.
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 25, 2009 12:55:23 GMT -5
I don't really make a distinction between 'technologists', a term that's new to me, and 'scientists'.
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Nov 25, 2009 13:23:47 GMT -5
I don't really make a distinction between 'technologists', a term that's new to me, and 'scientists'. Technologists apply the results determined by scientists.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 26, 2009 11:34:54 GMT -5
I don't really make a distinction between 'technologists', a term that's new to me, and 'scientists'. Technologists, strictly speaking, are the assistants of what are commonly called "applied scientists"-- i use the term for both. Applied science is commonly differentiated from Basic science (alternatively termed "Pure" science or "Fundamental " science) in this way: "By research in pure science I mean research made without any idea of application to industrial matters but solely with the view of extending our knowledge of the Laws of Nature."--J.J. Thomson - the discoverer of the electron, 1916 In contrast, applied science is research conducted towards the *specific* goal of "of application to industrial matters". In practice the relationship usually works like this (much simplified) example from Optics: classic scientists such as Al-hazen, Bacon (Roger) and Newton defined the fundamental knowledge base for optics. Astronomy drove its further development/advancement which was then increasingly utilized elsewhere in society (military for example). Optics spawned particle physics/quantum mechanics (Newton's "particle/wave" nature of light and Young's double slit experiment) which in turn provided the knowledge base for later developments such as the CCD and fiber optics. Even biology was touched by Optics as much of the knowledge we have of the human eye was driven by the observational age of astronomy --which lasted from antiquity until the CCD era. Speaking of CCDs, the ongoing development of the CCD was also driven by the needs of astronomy. The first installation of a CCD camera was at Kitt Peak in the late 70's--and the developmental needs of astronomy (low noise/higher sensitivity, larger chips/better resolution, faster readouts=digital video) drove later resulted in commercially viable cameras which appeared in the late 80's. There has been a lot written about applied vs. basic science. In many ways the two "fields" work together in a symbiosis, but th4re is no doubt which provides the foundational knowledge base the other depends upon. If you are interested in reading more, take a peek at CERN's pages on this topic: Why fundamental science? and specifically, The use of basic science: Basic versus applied science
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 26, 2009 11:44:58 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300I'm ashamed to admit I've never read Darwin, and my study of his works amounts to watching The Voyage of the Beagle on PBS as a child and cursory textbook readings in school. He's a troublesome figure and it seems that the social impact of the breakthrough of natural selection is more important, perhaps, than the breakthrough itself. Stupid article. The knowledge that Darwin left us with, like any other kind of knowledge, can be used for good or evil. That doesn't take "rocket science" to figure out. "Dark legacy" is a but much, though. That's like saying Bach's "dark legacy" of the discovery of tempered scales lead to heavy metal. Or Tiny Tim. Or Dean Martin.
|
|