Science to Society, Come In Society! (politics as mediator?)

  • News
  • Thread starter Nereid
  • Start date
  • #26
4,465
72
There is a scientific branch that is deeply rooted in society and that's related to the end of things in whatever form. The inherent uncertainty about the future demands certainty from science. This used to be the domain of religion but as those are waning gradually, The Big Answer is now expected from science. We want true predictions. Which Apocalypse will end civilisation? Eugenics? Nuclear Winter, Mutual Assured Destruction, Meteorite collision? Shield Volcano? Something with climate? Can we prevent it?

Now the danger here is entering a positive feedback loop, which can be observed in the daily media. People want to know about disaster, Politics want tranquil taxpayers and orders science to find out about future catastrophes, Science has no hard answers but knows very well to formulate uncertainty -this may.., that may... so that the media -filling in the blancs- are happily announcing approaching apocalypse. So society, scared even more, demands more detail and is willing to pay taxes for that. So politics, all to happy, tasks science to explore the disasters some more, to the elation of the media, seeing the disasters grow, etc, etc.

Science in the society? Okay, but with caution.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
alexandra said:
To narrow the scope: I think perhaps the most important social responsibility of scientists is to ensure that their research findings and its implications (both good and bad) are reported accurately in the media in appropriate (understandable) language. So, for example, instead of toeing the party line (of whichever political party is in power) on environmental issues, or allowing their reports to be edited in ways which minimize the potentially hazardous implications of their research findings (eg. regarding global warming), they could try to ensure that the truth (insofar as it can be ascertained) 'gets out'. Policies that prevent scientists from doing this are, in my opinion, immoral and dangerous - and should therefore be challenged.
Open literature. Aside from 1st amendment problems, once again, the scientific community does not have the resources to correct every misquote and confabulation generated by "the media." "Social responsibility" is a two-way street: John and Joan Q. have to make an effort, not "toe the party line" of "arrogant ignorance" exemplified in the "Wash. Post - Cohen (the ignoramus)" thread in GD. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111689

(snip)One thing I would suggest, however, is that whatever line of work one is in, it is important to be well-informed about the social implications of one's work and to try to minimize possible damage.
(snip)
There is no room in science for truth, beauty, music of the spheres, social responsibility, "wouldn't it be nice if ...." statements and conditions, or any of the other 50s B-movie philosophy. Science has room only for what is and what ain't. The fusion weapons debate was almost all politics, social responsibility, and personal opinion; the first Soviet test of a fusion weapon took place 9 mos. after the U.S. detonation of "Mike," an undeliverable contraption, and appeared at the time (and may have been) very close to an air deliverable state of development.

Hansen and AGW? The questions are, "Who is, and who is not behaving 'responsibly,' and who is, and who is not doing (and reporting) the science?" Let's see: observation and measurement; reviews of data (particularly that from other sources); hypotheses and tests; conclusions; more observations and measurements; more reviews of data (even more particularly that from other sources): and so it goes. Anything in particular get left out on the AGW discussion? Hint: some omissions of critical steps can be quite conspicuous by their absences in citations, reference lists, bibliographies.
 
  • #28
alexandra
Bystander said:
There is no room in science for truth, beauty, music of the spheres, social responsibility, "wouldn't it be nice if ...." statements and conditions, or any of the other 50s B-movie philosophy. Science has room only for what is and what ain't.
Well, ok, that puts it all in a nutshell. Science is science and politics is politics. You know, though, from what I've read of Einstein's thoughts on these issues - well, he seems to contradict everything you say in this statement: to Einstein science was truth and beauty, and it definitely also involved social responsibility. But I guess Einstein was living in a different age - perhaps in the age of "50s B-movie" philosophies. I guess my own beliefs belong to the age of the dinosaurs - quaint old-fashioned beliefs of everyone having a social responsibility to work towards creating a better, more humane future.
 
  • #29
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Einstein, like every other scientist, was a person. As such he had many views outside of science, but he never mixed up his science with his politics. He had only contempt for shallow thinkers who thought to apply relativity to world affairs.

Nowadays there is a nascent science of politics, branching off of condensed matter physics. But most scientists obey the good rule of not speculating in fields outside their own specialties, and leave it to its experts.

And Marxism is not and never was science. It is philosophy.
 
  • #30
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
alexandra said:
Well, ok, that puts it all in a nutshell. Science is science and politics is politics.
I sense disappointment --- please keep in mind that what has been practiced and presented as "science" since WW II ain't science, it is politics

You know, though, from what I've read of Einstein's thoughts on these issues - well, he seems to contradict everything you say in this statement: to Einstein science was truth and beauty,
Not "truth," current best understanding, and not "beauty," just what is --- hagfish and lampreys ain't beautiful by anyone's standards, but they're in this world, they fit their niches, and they work.

and it definitely also involved social responsibility.
"Responsibility," yes. "Social responsibility," no. I'll take the rap for discovering, developing, inventing, whatever I discover, invent, or develop; I will NOT take the rap for what people do with it. I've got my hands full living my life --- making decisions about what six billion other people do with theirs is a little much to ask.

But I guess Einstein was living in a different age - perhaps in the age of "50s B-movie" philosophies.
"There are some things man was not meant to know." That's politics. It's 50s B. It's the union of concerned scientists wearing sack cloth and ashes, crying "mea culpa" over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. WW II was an inevitable consequence of WW I, begat by Franco-Prussian and Crimean, begat by Napoleonic Wars, begat by .... People did what had to be done; second guessing themselves after the fact is human nature. Second guessing as a lifestyle --- eh --- bit "over the top."

I guess my own beliefs belong to the age of the dinosaurs - quaint old-fashioned beliefs of everyone having a social responsibility to work towards creating a better, more humane future.
Philosophers and concepts of "social contract" wander all over the map in terms of "responsibilities." What comes first? Self? Family? Group? What's better? Less time working and more time to get into trouble? Or, dawn to dusk, always hungry on the way to an early grave? What's more humane? Pull the plug on Teri (Terri?) Schiavo, or let her parents keep a "potted plant" and their perceptions of their daughter? I don't make those decisions for other people --- making them for myself is enough.

Science used to be about handing tools and information to the public gratis. Today, it's about intellectual property, making a buck, hanging on to funding, dancing jigs for new funding, and lying every day of the week about miracles that are very unlikely to be delivered.
 
  • #31
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
2
This doesn't seem to have sparked a particularly exciting 'must post to' thread, so I'll try something more specific.

Just to add this (for now): economics is just as much science as biology or physics; perhaps the interplay between Science and Society (with politics as mediator?) might be more clearly discussed there? For example, there's little doubt what sorts of economic policy - implemented correctly of course - lead to 'the greater good' (e.g. subsidies bad, free trade good), but politics so often gets in the way, to the detriment/cost of essentially every human's material well-being.

The ethics/morals/responsibilities/etc (EMR) is a biggie, no doubt about that. What's likely to be quite inflamatory is the application of science to study this (some of the - always tentative - conclusions will likely enrage some folk, remember sociobiology* and E. O. Wilson?). And what's the connection between EMR and politics? Has that even been studied (with the tools and methods of science)?

*and the fuss was about the tentative first few results of some research, with nothing at all about what it implied for social policy or politics!
 
Last edited:
  • #32
dsky
yes I agree, then as an economist , what type policy or economic model (capitalism, communism free economy) will you suggest for the Internationalism as mentioned by Alexandra, then apply it to the hunger in africa, we all know ders drought no food can be produced,
Of course we can not say that earth cannot produce enough food to sustain life. There is more than enough but where. Any clue ?
 
  • #33
alexandra
Bystander said:
I sense disappointment --- please keep in mind that what has been practiced and presented as "science" since WW II ain't science, it is politics
Well, I was disappointed, Bystander. Because if you were going to insist that 'science is science and politics is politics' there would have been nothing to discuss. But if you agree with me that everything nowadays, including science, is politics (which you seem to be saying in your above statement), then there is something to discuss.

"Responsibility," yes. "Social responsibility," no. I'll take the rap for discovering, developing, inventing, whatever I discover, invent, or develop; I will NOT take the rap for what people do with it.
But is it possible, the way society is structured today, to live your life with integrity by adopting such a position? As you said above, "what has been practiced and presented as "science" since WW II ain't science, it is politics". If this is the case, and scientists are aware of this, surely there are moral implications? I'm not targetting science here: I believe this is true for any work one is doing (especially intellectual work). When I teach, for example, I worry a lot about how the knowledge I am helping my students develop will be used in future. I am responsible, at least to some extent, for helping them develop not only 'pure knowledge' but, more importantly, a sense of responsibility in how they use it later. I don't see any way of ignoring this responsibility and still living a life of integrity.

I've got my hands full living my life --- making decisions about what six billion other people do with theirs is a little much to ask.
Good point. I didn't say it was easy:-) I, too, have my work cut out just sorting out my personal problems... but still, there are so many bigger things happening in the world that require attention, energy, and action.


"There are some things man was not meant to know." That's politics. It's 50s B. It's the union of concerned scientists wearing sack cloth and ashes, crying "mea culpa" over Hiroshima and Nagasaki....Second guessing as a lifestyle --- eh --- bit "over the top."
This is not what I propose. Such actions are futile (and self-indulgent and, in my opinion, even pathetic) after the fact. The point is to prevent the occurrence of Hiroshimas and Nagasakis in the first place: that is what I see as 'our' (meaning whoever cares) responsibility.

Philosophers and concepts of "social contract" wander all over the map in terms of "responsibilities." What comes first? Self? Family? Group?
Here's how I see it: it's all interconnected. If the safety of the group (or, going to a larger level, the planet) is threatened, how will one safeguard the family or the self that is a part of that group? It is only by securing the health of the whole that the parts can survive. Just my way of seeing things - maybe (very possibly) you disagree.

Science used to be about handing tools and information to the public gratis. Today, it's about intellectual property, making a buck, hanging on to funding, dancing jigs for new funding, and lying every day of the week about miracles that are very unlikely to be delivered.
Today it is so because human beings allow it to be so. People have the power to change the world they live in - they just have to realise this and exercise that power. Again, this is just my opinion.
 
  • #34
dsky
Nereid youre thread may be slow, but its getting somewhere, so long as there is someone caring enough to help change. lets do it like a steel becoming as it passes through fire. (constructive critism not sarcasm)
 
  • #35
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,903
2,204
My intent is to kick off some discussion and debate around the role of science in politics, and the extent to which scientists' voices are heard in the setting of (science) policy.

The basic idea is that politics (and policy) mediate between science and society, so the goal of all of us - scientists, non-scientists, members of societies, etc - is to optimise that mediation for effective and efficient realisation of wishes, desires, and hopes (and the alleviation of fears, pains, and suffering).
Digressing to the OP - I don't see politics mediating between science and society, mainly because I see those practicing politics as trying to manipulate society for personal gain, or ego/vanity.

There are several complications to an effective policy on implementing science for the benefit of society:

Society doesn't in general understand science, mainly because the majority of the population is not well-educated! And societies seem to elect politicians with not much more education than the general population - at least that is my first hand experience based on many politicians whom I know. I recall the first president Bush was really astounded by a laser barcode scanner at a supermarket! :rolleyes:

Modern industrial societies function on consumption of 'stuff', and we seem to need more energy and resources so we can make more 'stuff'. :rolleyes:

In cringe to think we need more electrical generation plants to power X-boxes, video games, . . . . basically more entertainment, ostensibly to forget one's lot in life?

What about political corruption?

How about scientists whose egos propel them to promise more from science and technology than is possible?

What about corporations and their management who want to use science simply as a means to 'make money'?

What about redundant or duplicate research, which is justified by the theory that competition will produce better results, when in actuality that is not necessarily the case?

In the past, colleagues and I have had to prepare 'executive' summaries for corporate managers and government officials - we have had to dumb it down - and it's still that way! :grumpy: :rolleyes:
 
  • #36
2,985
15
I hope this is not off topic, but when it comes to things like the Government censoring the data of the NASA scientists, that is a major threat to our democracy. The whole reason a democracy works is because the citizens are supposed to be well informed on the issues to make a reasonable judgment. When the people are so misinformed, it threatens the stability of our democracy and leads to bad policies. More should be done to educate the public, and the censorship of scientific data has got to go.
 
  • #37
Nereid said:
So clearly politics has failed in its role of mediation ... for all the perceived negatives (your list), not a single positive? How many of those who live in the US would cheerfully give up their internet? their medicines? their computers (both obvious and invisible)? their cars (gasp! CARS are the product of SCIENCE?!?!?)? their houses? their surgical procedures? their bank accounts? their credit cards (did I just win the argument?)? their cheap flights to Mexico/Alaska/Hawaii/?

How did it come to pass that politics happily mediated the good bits but shafted Science with the bad?
It's the natural mentality of most people to dwell on the bad rather than rejoice in the good.

Nereid said:
And what of the 95%+ of folk who do NOT live in the US?
I only speak of the US since I live here and feel that I can say something of it. It's been my impression that most of the other major players in politics and science have better education and a much more profound respect for science on the whole in comparison to the US present day. I could be wrong and if I am then hopefully others from other countries will let us know how they perceive their country's role in science.
 
  • #38
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,903
2,204
cyrusabdollahi said:
I hope this is not off topic, but when it comes to things like the Government censoring the data of the NASA scientists, that is a major threat to our democracy. The whole reason a democracy works is because the citizens are supposed to be well informed on the issues to make a reasonable judgment. When the people are so misinformed, it threatens the stability of our democracy and leads to bad policies. More should be done to educate the public, and the censorship of scientific data has got to go.
This is germane to the discussion, and is an example of some in government who wish to manipulate science for political/personal reasons.

What does a scientist do when his boss tells him that's the way it is? Pack up and get a job elsewhere? Where? Possibly academia, unless the scientist is 'black-balled' and no one will want to hire him or her because the institution might not wish to risk losing access to government funding.

And believe me, who one knows in government does count. I have seen it all too often.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
alexandra said:
(snip)The point is to prevent the occurrence of Hiroshimas and Nagasakis in the first place: that is what I see as 'our' (meaning whoever cares) responsibility.(snip)
Where to "draw the line" between liability for one's own (in)action and liabilities for others'?

The "kewlbomz" crowd shows up every now and then on PF wanting advice on how to perform traumatic self-amputations of eyes, ears, noses, limbs and other body parts; "Sorry, can't help you." Consequences? Might have saved a life --- they probably go "pick it up on the street" and get into every bit as much trouble --- but it's not on any PF member's conscience. Or, they really needed the information to save the world from Godzilla (not too likely), and by being niggardly with information, instruction, and guidance we've added to the world's level of misery. It's individual judgment calls for every member on here plus the "social contract" we have with Greg for maintaining the place.

Shall we hold Nobel liable for every kid who's removed himself from the gene pool attempting to manufacture nitroglycerin? Stove burners have caused permanent scarring and injuries to small children --- ban stoves. We'll be back in the caves beating people to death with our fists for discovering fire (antelope thighbones and hand axes have already been outlawed) if that's the case.

If we don't accept people and the human race for what they are, rather than what we wish they would be, we're doomed to disappointment. People will let you down almost every time. They'll surprise you pleasantly once in a while. "Science" is not going to change the species. Some science can be used to treat diseases, feed larger populations, reduce work loads, and provide other incidental humanitarian benefits, and other science (as well as that same beneficial science) can be applied to waging wars. Neither application is even vaguely a part of "science." "Science" is the systematic investigation of the world, and universe, around us. Only a small fraction of the body of knowledge developed by the scientific community ever has any impact on society at large be it beneficial or detrimental, usually both. Occasionally, the "impact" can be planned, even involve "goal directed" activity, the Manhattan Project, but it's more commonly serendipitous discovery, penicillin, high explosives, nerve gases.

What you don't know can hurt you. What you know can also hurt you. What you don't know cannot help you. What you do know might help you. That's about it for the application of morality to science.
 
  • #40
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,903
2,204
A big problem I see in science and technology is the incessant rivalry between groups in the same system or scientific or technical discipline, e.g. US DOE, NASA, various universities, and in industry, and I imagine in various international programs like EU's JRC's and among various national programs. Sometimes it seems worse due to the current economic constraints.

Just look at the competition for ITER! :rolleyes:


There is a situation where new software has been proposed. One possibility is to take existing software and combine. Another proposal is to start from scratch. Then there are combinations. One lab proposes to be the principal architect, which excludes other labs. Then the one lab wishes to 'control' (actually 'usurp') efforts of other institutions. It is really frustrating. :grumpy:
 
  • #41
sanchecl
Our friends the scientists, with all of their intellect, would do well to remember that a great many of us out in society actually have a reasonable understanding of science. While the work of the scientific community has a valuable role to play, science itself is not the answer to the ills of the world (sorry folks!). Science is a tool that will help us along until we (society-at-large) can figure out how to get along with each other. :shy:
 
  • #42
Astronuc said:
A big problem I see in science and technology is the incessant rivalry between groups in the same system or scientific or technical discipline, e.g. US DOE, NASA, various universities, and in industry, and I imagine in various international programs like EU's JRC's and among various national programs. Sometimes it seems worse due to the current economic constraints.

Just look at the competition for ITER! :rolleyes:


There is a situation where new software has been proposed. One possibility is to take existing software and combine. Another proposal is to start from scratch. Then there are combinations. One lab proposes to be the principal architect, which excludes other labs. Then the one lab wishes to 'control' (actually 'usurp') efforts of other institutions. It is really frustrating. :grumpy:
Would you say then that in your estimation competition in such fields is detrimental? Would you disagree that lack of competition may lead to stagnation?
Perhaps you just disagree with the form in which such competition has taken shape?
 
  • #43
alexandra
Astronuc said:
What does a scientist do when his boss tells him that's the way it is? Pack up and get a job elsewhere? Where? Possibly academia, unless the scientist is 'black-balled' and no one will want to hire him or her because the institution might not wish to risk losing access to government funding.
This is the crux of the matter. This is why I incessantly argue that all problems can be traced back to the socio-economic/political system that is in place. Unless that is changed, nothing else can, realistically speaking, be changed.

It is unrealistic to expect individuals to 'stand up' to the workings of the entire system on their own - all they'll achieve is their own demise (as you say, Astronuc). Any standing up to the system has to be organised and collective: the only other source of power (other than capital) that ordinary people have access to is collective action. Collective political action, I mean. So that is what I try to say all the time: that if all scientists, or all teachers, or all health professionals, etc decide that what is happening in their fields is 'not on' and take collective action, perhaps then the socio-political system could be challenged (though what is more likely to happen is a few concessions would only be made, as has happened in the past - to diffuse discontent).
 
  • #44
alexandra
TheStatutoryApe said:
Would you say then that in your estimation competition in such fields is detrimental? Would you disagree that lack of competition may lead to stagnation?
Perhaps you just disagree with the form in which such competition has taken shape?
Interesting questions, TSA. I don't think competition against others is necessarily a good motivator - I believe that a much more powerful motivator is a desire to improve oneself (and therefore one's own work - ie. competition against oneself).

Cooperation has also been known to achieve great things - it's just that we're living in an age when cooperation and its benefits are never emphasised - again, because it suits those who have power within the current system to emphasise competition rather than cooperation since they themselves (being predators) thrive in this environment.
 
  • #45
alexandra
Bystander said:
If we don't accept people and the human race for what they are, rather than what we wish they would be, we're doomed to disappointment. People will let you down almost every time. They'll surprise you pleasantly once in a while. "Science" is not going to change the species.
Yes, I agree with you: science is just a tool - a tool which can be used either progressively or detrimentally. What I have been arguing in this thread, however, is that it is the responsibility of scientists to ensure that the science they are creating is reported accurately when it is reported publicly and not to allow politicians to use it as a political tool. That is all I'm trying to say. I fail to see how I am being unreasonable. After all, as you yourself point out:
"Science" is the systematic investigation of the world, and universe, around us. Only a small fraction of the body of knowledge developed by the scientific community ever has any impact on society at large be it beneficial or detrimental, usually both.
Does ‘doing science’ stop at systematically investigating the world? Doesn’t ‘doing science’ also involve ensuring that the results of the investigation are accurately reported? I think it is the responsibility of scientists to not allow their work to be misrepresented for political gain, and in saying this I’m fairly certain I’m addressing the OP:
Nereid said:
The idea for this thread came from the recent responses to my question about what PF is doing having a Politics section, if it isn't about things like outrage at ID/creationist political appointees at NASA imposing religion on science.
Bystander said:
What you don't know can hurt you. What you know can also hurt you. What you don't know cannot help you. What you do know might help you. That's about it for the application of morality to science.
Bystander, in my view it’s not at all a question of morality: it is a question of integrity. Scientific investigations aim to approach ‘truth’ (yes, I know, no theory can ever be considered ‘true’) – but why bother to do this only to have your work twisted and misrepresented by politicians?
 
  • #46
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
alexandra said:
Yes, I agree with you: science is just a tool - a tool which can be used either progressively or detrimentally. What I have been arguing in this thread, however, is that it is the responsibility of scientists to ensure that the science they are creating is reported accurately when it is reported publicly and not to allow politicians to use it as a political tool.
I say, "Black," in any one of ten to thirty thousand peer-reviewed scientific or technical periodicals; politicians or media misquote me, or cite a consensus, "White," to you; the politicians' and media remarks are not "public reporting" of the results. It is your responsibility to go to the source. Don't demand that the scientific community come around door-to-door and "spoon feed" the science to the general public.

That is all I'm trying to say. I fail to see how I am being unreasonable. After all, as you yourself point out: Does ‘doing science’ stop at systematically investigating the world? Doesn’t ‘doing science’ also involve ensuring that the results of the investigation are accurately reported?
Certainly. Once the science has been peer-reviewed and published, "the reporting process" is complete. The "use process" is what you've found to be objectionable. That's your department. You have to do the reading rather than electing lying, thieving, back-stabbing, ambulance chasers to tell you what it means.

I think it is the responsibility of scientists to not allow their work to be misrepresented for political gain, and in saying this I’m fairly certain I’m addressing the OP: Bystander, in my view it’s not at all a question of morality: it is a question of integrity. Scientific investigations aim to approach ‘truth’ (yes, I know, no theory can ever be considered ‘true’) – but why bother to do this only to have your work twisted and misrepresented by politicians?
To paraphrase Fields, "Politicians cannot misrepresent facts to a responsible electorate." The information has been placed in the public record by the scientific community. The public then has the choice of remaining ignorant, or of informing itself.
 
  • #47
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,903
2,204
TheStatutoryApe said:
Would you say then that in your estimation competition in such fields is detrimental? Would you disagree that lack of competition may lead to stagnation? Perhaps you just disagree with the form in which such competition has taken shape?
Competition can be detrimental, particularly if resources are limited. At one point there were three vendors of pressurize water reactor (PWR) systems in the US: Westinghouse, B&W and Combustion Engineering (CE). Westinghouse got the lion share, with about equal shared to CE & B&W. Then TMI happened and pretty much spelled the end of B&W's orders, as well as those of others. The technology was pretty much the same, just the flavors were different. All three had considerable infrastructure in place, most of which is now gone. B&W was merged into Framatome, CE was absorbed by ABB, which then was absorbed by Westinghouse, and Westinghouse was recently sold by BNFL to Toshiba. Most of US nuclear technology is now foreign owned - and has been for a while. The only BWR manufacturer, GE, has a partnership with Hitachia and Toshiba, both of Japan.

Compare the US with France - Framatome is the single supplier of nuclear technology in France. They licensed Westinghouse technology and perfected it - they use standardized designs. In Germany, Siemens (KWU) was essentially the sole supplier, and some of their technology is really excellent.

On a more parochial level, road projects go to the lowest bidder. In our area, a contractor used cheap (non-spec) material which had to be removed and replaced at a cost of millions of dollars. And many of the roads in our area deteriorate well before they should.

I basically disagree with the way competition has taken shape.

And another matter - is there really competition? I think in some, possibly many cases, the competition does not exist, or if it does, it is weak.

Competition is no replacement for pure and simple integrity!
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,903
2,204
The basic idea is that politics (and policy) mediate between science and society, so the goal of all of us - scientists, non-scientists, members of societies, etc - is to optimise that mediation for effective and efficient realisation of wishes, desires, and hopes (and the alleviation of fears, pains, and suffering).

… a rambling set of thoughts about what 'science' might want to say (or is trying to say) to society, in the hope that politics can find a way to facilitate the conversation, help reach mutual understanding, set realistic goals, and set us all on a path towards effective and efficient implementation.


Considering Nereid's topic regarding the role of Science in Society, and the extent to which it makes sense to consider politics as some kind of mediator/facilitator/implementor of what scientists have found, for the benefit or detriment of a group of Homo sap. individuals, large or small, cohesive or otherwise.
Along the lines of these thoughts, it would be worthwhile reading James Dewar's book "To the End of the Solar System: The Story of the Nuclear Rocket". It covers not only the technical aspects of the program, which are exceedingly interesting (well at least to me :biggrin: ), but the book addresses the politics behind the program. One can really get a feel for the politics in Washington during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations.

Why did the US need a nuclear rocket in the first place? Well, the original thermonuclear warheads were too big for the chemical rockets at the time! This was before the Saturn V heavy launch vehicle was developed. Evenso, the Saturn V would be too big to deploy en masse. However, due to other technologies, such as micro-electronics and advances in explosives and detonation, and a better understanding of the physics of thermonuclear weapons, the size of the warheads was greatly reduced as the yields were greatly increased.
 

Related Threads on Science to Society, Come In Society! (politics as mediator?)

Replies
82
Views
20K
Replies
6
Views
286
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
11K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Top