Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

MindKata · Sep 17, 2009, 06:51 am

"Although Fermilab has taken a lead in the feverish activity department, and perhaps may beat LHC to the final punch"

I find it very disturbing that personal gain is such a very evidently strong driving force behind their behavior.

Trial and error is an unavoidable part of science. No matter how much we think we know, we have to do experiments with unknowns to push forward into the unknown. So the philosophical question becomes, are there any experiments that are or will be too dangerous for us as a civilization to try to do? ... Or will the desire for personal gain overrule all caution, with people using uncertainty as a continual excuse to always proceed. Curiosity surely has its limits?. At what point will we say, no we have to wait and progress carefully. Yet how can we wait when so many scientists are driven ultimately by so much fear of others getting to prizes of discoveries first. This single minded pursuit of goals must have its limit?. So at what point do we all stand back and progress carefully?.

The problem is trial and error learning has worked ok for us as a civilization this far into human history. That is because even if an experiment goes completely wrong, the worst that can usually happen is we end up with a few scientists killed from their own experiments and so then all other scientists world wide will then proceed with far more caution when they do similar experiments. Their deaths are ultimately as much of a trial and error learning experience as are the goals of their experiments. However that principle of trial and error learning starts to fail as the scope of the experiments grows to affect ever more lives. When the potential cost in lives of catastrophic failure grows to risk millions and even billions of people, we cannot afford such a cavalier approach to such big experiments. Such behavior would be frankly showing such single minded arrogance that it would be labeled as a personality disorder, due to the considerable lack of empathy towards others (and risk of harm towards others). The excuse of learning isn't enough to justify such a risk and such a potential cost in lives of others.

So then, how do we recognize when we are approaching such a dangerous experiment?

The problem we are all up against is in some ways very similar to the mentality some people have about the environment. They cannot believe human actions can result in global environmental damage. Its just too big for them to imagine possible. They assume the environment is too big and too resilient to be badly effected yet we know damage can be done.

So as a philosophical question, as science projects get ever bigger and ever more powerful, at what point will caution overrule personal gain?

Sep 17, 2009, 06:51 am	#228 (permalink)
MindKata Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	An important philosophical question for us all... "Although Fermilab has taken a lead in the feverish activity department, and perhaps may beat LHC to the final punch" I find it very disturbing that personal gain is such a very evidently strong driving force behind their behavior. Trial and error is an unavoidable part of science. No matter how much we think we know, we have to do experiments with unknowns to push forward into the unknown. So the philosophical question becomes, are there any experiments that are or will be too dangerous for us as a civilization to try to do? ... Or will the desire for personal gain overrule all caution, with people using uncertainty as a continual excuse to always proceed. Curiosity surely has its limits?. At what point will we say, no we have to wait and progress carefully. Yet how can we wait when so many scientists are driven ultimately by so much fear of others getting to prizes of discoveries first. This single minded pursuit of goals must have its limit?. So at what point do we all stand back and progress carefully?. The problem is trial and error learning has worked ok for us as a civilization this far into human history. That is because even if an experiment goes completely wrong, the worst that can usually happen is we end up with a few scientists killed from their own experiments and so then all other scientists world wide will then proceed with far more caution when they do similar experiments. Their deaths are ultimately as much of a trial and error learning experience as are the goals of their experiments. However that principle of trial and error learning starts to fail as the scope of the experiments grows to affect ever more lives. When the potential cost in lives of catastrophic failure grows to risk millions and even billions of people, we cannot afford such a cavalier approach to such big experiments. Such behavior would be frankly showing such single minded arrogance that it would be labeled as a personality disorder, due to the considerable lack of empathy towards others (and risk of harm towards others). The excuse of learning isn't enough to justify such a risk and such a potential cost in lives of others. So then, how do we recognize when we are approaching such a dangerous experiment? The problem we are all up against is in some ways very similar to the mentality some people have about the environment. They cannot believe human actions can result in global environmental damage. Its just too big for them to imagine possible. They assume the environment is too big and too resilient to be badly effected yet we know damage can be done. So as a philosophical question, as science projects get ever bigger and ever more powerful, at what point will caution overrule personal gain?