Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:21:35 -0400, Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:54:26 -0400, Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean here, and what is this "certain knowledge".
>>
>> Oh, let's see if I can give a simple, extreme, PURELY HYPOTHETICAL
>> example. If one discovered a means of tapping the ZPE and extracting
>> most of that energy (on a per cubic cc basis) in a simple manner,
>> should this information be widely distributed? The consequences should
>> be obvious.
>>
>>> I doubt you mean numerical methods of PDE solutions,
>>> renormalization/scaling, viscoelasticity, image formation, or contact
>>> line motion. All of these are active areas of research, and AFAIK,
>>> none of these (with the possible scattered exception to the first)
>>> are presented in undergraduate courses. Even in graduate school, the
>>> student sometimes must take courses elsewhere: the materials science
>>> department, EE or computer science department, etc etc.
>>
>>
>> I mean fundamentals that could quickly lead to, for example, extreme
>> weapon technology (like nuclear) or if uncontrolled rapid dissemination
>> could lead to tech that could destablized the existing economic
>> infrastructure.
>
> Ok, I'll take your bait.

I'm certainly not trying to bait you.

> My position is that all knowledge should be freely available to all,
> period.

Ah, while philosophically this is a laudable position, given
demonstrated human nature, sadly, it is not a viable one. For it
takes only one amoral bad apple out of the billons of people on
this planet that, with the right knowledge and intent, could
distroy all.

> No exceptions.

Would you freely given Osama and his ilk the knowledge to build
a viable superflu?

> I am concerned that knowledge is gained in an ethical manner...

Indeed, and that is, indirectly, that which places filters upon
knowledge.

> ... (this is more applicable to biological research, expecially human
> research), but I have nothing to say on the ethics of *applications*
> of the research.

Lucky for us all, those in the know, do...

> Ethics evolves, what we consider ethical now is different an was
> what considerd ethical in the past, and is surely different from
> what will be considered ethical.

There exists a primal core of ethics, that has never changed.

> <snip>
>
>>> I disagree with this- my feeling is that it's like Churchill's
>>> definition of democracy: "It has been said that democracy is the
>>> worst form of government except {for?} all the others that have
>>> been tried." Our chair just left to spearhead a renovation of
>>> the NIH peer review system. I am curious as to what will result.
>>> He's definitely the right person for the job.
>>
>> The peer review process lacks independent overview. This fosters as
>> you say, dogma.
>
> Ah yes... who watches the watchers? Not a new problem, nor unique to
> peer review.

Thus my earlier comment,

"... But, to devise a system of checks as well as balance
would be daunting."

Paul Stowe
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?
    ... Oh, let's see if I can give a simple, extreme, PURELY HYPOTHETICAL example. ... the materials science department, EE or computer science department, etc etc. ... definition of democracy: "It has been said that democracy is the worst ... The peer review process lacks independent overview. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Cash for Clunkers - Protecting the RICH!
    ... like you take it to an extreme, forgetting about morality, ethics, or ... morality, ethics, and justice. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Cash for Clunkers - Protecting the RICH!
    ... morality, ethics, and justice. ... I hope you enjoy waiting. ... it to an extreme, ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)