What Is Science For? is the title of a debate between Sir John Sulston and John Harris. Those of us who are scientists will recognize John Sulston as the Nobel Laureate who won the prize in 2002 with Sidney Brenner and John Horvitz. John Harris is a professor of ethics. The debate is sponsored by The James Martin 21st Century School at Oxford University.
The debate is introduced by Richard Dawkins who expresses his own opinion of what science is. (Be sure to listen to the questions & answers with Dawkins.)
John Sulston argues the case for curiosity motivated research and for science as a quest for knowledge. John Harris argues the case that science must do good and it must benefit humanity. The second half of the "debate" degenerates, in my opinion, into a discussion about the value of biotechnology. That is not the topic that should have been debated. Science is not technology. Sulston tries to make this point about science not being technology during the question period but Dawkins seems to dismiss it as "obvious." It's not at all obvious.
The issue was raised in the comments to Should Universities Help Students Become Good Citizens?. This is good, since it is exactly the problem that I wanted to debate.
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]
8 comments :
John Harris argues the case that science must do good and it must benefit humanity.
This strikes me as implying a libertarian sort of scientific principle wherein the value of a research program is measured in some metric of 'how much good does it do for society?'. One of the problems with such philosophy, demonstrable on its own terms, is that it ignores the problem of scientific infrastructure. For example, R.A. Fischer's research into population genetics may not have produced a direct and immediate societal benefit, however, the statistical methods he developed as well as the population genetics models have been co-opted for use in numerous subsequent studies and in various fields.
Asking the question of what benefit this particular project has to humanity ignores the complex dialectical relationship that all science is actively engaged in. One lab cannot come up with the technology, write the software, do all the background work, etc. on it's own. It has to build on the foundation set up by its forebears. Measuring value of each scientist's contribution can usually only be done a posteriori.
That is assuming the project isn't obviously poorly designed from the outset...
I would tend to agree with Carlo's post. I don't think I can restate it better, so I won't try.
My current focus is on practical results - working on several problems that various agencies want answers to. It'll yield knowledge that can be immediately applied, but I know that findings from these projects will be limited in outside applications - barring anything radical and unforeseen in my results, anyhow. Under the 'utility' rubric, these projects would be considered very worth-while, but I think they illustrate that there's definite value to advancing human knowledge in other non-application-oriented manners.
I can proudly state that my research is utterly without obvious practical benefit.
I can proudly state that my research is utterly without obvious practical benefit.
Mine too. And I'm also proud of it.
Hey Larry, off topic, but you need to fix something on your site. I click the "back" button, but it only goes right back here.
Hey Larry, off topic, but you need to fix something on your site. I click the "back" button, but it only goes right back here.
Interesting. I don't normally use IE so I checked it out. You're right. When using Internet Explorer (but not Firefox, Safari or Netscape) the BACK button doesn't work.
I have no idea how to fix this or even if it's my fault.
"For example, R.A. Fischer's research into population genetics may not have produced a direct and immediate societal benefit, however, the statistical methods he developed as well as the population genetics models have been co-opted for use in numerous subsequent studies and in various fields"
This is true, similarly, a bourgeois passtime with cards gave rise to game theory.
This is why about genuises of the likes of Nowak in Biology, or string theorists in physics, I'm happy to let them play with whatever they will. It's something that people do; if nothing else. Knowledge can emerge there (as it can also emerge within a religious context of declared axioms)
But I reserve the right to dissect in detail just how insatisfying those frameworks seem to me, and just how silly some of their questions can be.
I am a paleobiologist but I think "being proud" of posing no benefits to humanity is a bit too much, unless it's a joke evoking explicit images of decadence.
I'd say I hope to see in my lifetime some immediate benefit from my work. It's not impossible.
Regardless of immediate benefit science is anyway an unavoidable part of knowing ourselves and the universe. Without science, philosophy is an empty framework.
The best thing is, of course, to do science. Which does not equal attacking religion.
Dawkins many times conveys that science is something about "being smart" or some slogan like "let's use reason" or "don't be stupid". Reason for the sake of reason itself, and nothing else.
This evidently vacuous pathology of scientism has long ago being singled out in philosophy and history with the surge of the "rationalists" in the 20's and 30's who culminated in totalitarian regimes commiting atrocities in the name of "reason".
See, if reason is simply for reason, it's any human consideration steps in the way of "reason"...it's "I'm Sorry. That's not my fault. it's juts how it is" But guess what: most of time, the one that thinks he merely applies reason, doesn't.
Belive it or not, proclaiming to use reason is not the same as USING reason. After all creationists and the catholic church spend a lot of time vacuously proclaiming reason, too.
A vacuous rationalims of this kind, with actually feeble rational underpinnings, is what therefater ends up confused and in the justification of atrocity or many inhuman ways of acting and thinking. Human life and comfort is expendible!! REASON is the only thing that is real.
See the dangers of RATIONALISM?
Post a Comment