Hello Everyone,
[Sorry,Michael, not particularly singling you out; merely using your post as a
peg on which to hang a comment I have waited too long to make].
I had really decided that, with other pressing calls on my time and attention,
I did not have the time to get drawn into this debate. I shall not do so now,
except to observe in passing that though it is in a current context, I have read
nothing that I did not hear on the identical subject in student debates more
than 60 years ago.
My purpose in intervening is to enter a plea for care in the use of the term
"science". I repeated hear it being used as the omnibus term for a variety of
different meanings, sometimes for two or more different meanings in the same
paragraph, by commentators, politicians and scientists themselves. This is not
conducive to meaningful discussion or debate.
Let me identify the meanings for which term "science" is indiscriminately used
as a sort of easy but imprecise verbal shorthand:
1. The methodology of science (in essence, making observations, inductively
developing an hypothesis -- which may or may not involve an "intuitive leap",
setting up an experiment capable of disproving the hypothesis if it is invalid;
and recognising that an hypothesis that appears to be valid in the light of
current knowledge, may in future be invalidated by newly acquired knowledge).
2. The way in which the methodology has been operated by a scientist.
3. The results of an observation or experiment using 1/2.
4. The interpretation (hypothesis) of the significance or meaning of 3.
[In a particular instance, the validity of 2 ,3, 4 are open to challenge by
other scientists, and this is the way in which scientific knowledge and
understanding advances].
Then there are two meanings where the speaker/writer uses the abstract noun to
describe actions by industry or by government, namely:
5. The use(s) to which society (in the shape of government and politicians) put
the knowledge gained through 1-4.
6. the use(s) to which industry puts knowledge gained through 1-4.
[it should be noted that 5 and 6 are actually decisions not in scientists' hands
to take].
Then we have three meanings where the speaker/writer uses the abstract noun to
mean groups of people, namely:
7. The whole community of scientists.
8. Scientists employed by, or acting as official advisers to, government.
9. Scientists employed by industry.
Lest it be thought from the above that I consider scientists' role to be solely
the generation of knowledge/understanding, that is far from the case. The
scientific community is part of the wider community called "society". If we can
perceive that the application of a new area of knowledge/understanding (the
current outstanding example is genetic modification applied to food and
medicine) holds potential for benefit of present society or for posterity, then
we must not be disinterested observers standing on the sidelines and merely
observing potential problems or hazards. We (society, and scientists as part of
it) have a responsibility to apply a hazard analysis approach to identify any
problems or hazards and bring science and technology to bear to solve them.
"As for the future, your task is not to foresee, but to enable it."
[Saint-Exupery, The Wisdom of the Sands (1948)]
Best wishes
Ralph
******************************************************
Prof J Ralph Blanchfield, MBE
Food Science, Food Technology and Food Law Consultant
Personal Web address <www.jralphb.co.uk
******************************************************
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:53:41 -0000, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>
>those of a non scientific background. The intelligent non scientific
>public
>has heard scientists pronounce with certainty on BSE, FME, MMR and then
>heard conflicting scientific opinion.
>
>-----End Quoted (and cut) Message-----
>
>This seems to be a gross simplification of what happened.
>
>The "intelligent non scientific public", whatever that means, has heard
>*politicians* bending the advice and opinions of scientists to their own
>ends. They have read ill informed and scientifically illiterate
>political writers covering areas way outside their competence.
>
>To extrapolate from this into the debate about creationism, urging
>scientists to be more touchy feely lest they frighten the animals, is
>balderdash. After all Saint Anthony of Blair went down that road. And
>anything he says on the issue is suspect.
>
>No one here has suggested defending science right or wrong. Then again,
>maybe someone can point me in the direction of the "right" bits of
>creationism.
>
>MK
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Michael Kenward / Phone: +44 (0)1444 400568 Fax: 401064
> /
>Science Writer & Stuff / Genetically modified words for sale
>
>**********************************************************************
y
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|