LJWorld Reader blogs

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

I agree with you, Paul, regarding the wonder of the world. I do differ from you in that you have made any statement of science.

What you describe here is introspection and extrospection.
Introspection is getting in touch with your feelings, emotions and reactions to the world. Beauty and wonder are terrific aren't they?

Extrospection, or observation, is the same type of getting in touch, but of the external world. Observation is potentially part of science. It is the first step. Rational speculation is another step in the process.

Of course, science requires the test. The test must be fair, honest, unswayed by all the above feelings and emotions.

Thus, Rachel Carson's book about the silent spring reads like a fairy tale. Her emotional appeal against DDT contributed to the death of millions of Africans, Asians, and South Americans. The total elimination of DDT was an emotional response that was too strong, not rational. The movement she spawned called environmentalism continues today with biofuels and cutting down of rain forests, and other horrors too.

Environmentalism is irrational, not science, and ugly.
Paul, it isn't science that ruins beauty and wonder. Biased and emotional wonder gets in the way of science.

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“Her emotional appeal against DDT contributed to the death of millions of Africans, Asians, and South Americans.”

Shame on you for making such an intellectually dishonest and ignorant statement. Carlson's book did lead to a US ban on ddt but it was and is still produced and used. By the time her book was published, mosquitos had already started developing ddt-resistant populations. Adverse environmental effect and possible links to human cancer only hastened ddt's demise.

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

“Thus, Rachel Carson's book about the silent spring reads like a fairy tale. Her emotional appeal against DDT contributed to the death of millions of Africans, Asians, and South Americans.”

Want to guess what is amusing about this? I'll give you a hint: it sounds like it has something to do with the oxygen-binding atom in hemoglobin.

SandCoAlmanac (Anonymous) says…

Paul —
I'm wondering about the relationships between 'wonder' and 'curiousity.' For me, 'wonder' is an almost spell-binding experience when I literally stare at some marvel (to me) of nature. The beauty of Lace bugs under a microscope immediately come to mind as I wonder how it developed within it's former egg. The other side of that same coin, 'curiosity,' encourages me to learn more. For example, I may read more of the Lace bugs anatomy, developmental physiology and genetics and compare all that to other intricate patterns of which I'm aware. So, with 'wonder' I stare and smile a lot, and with 'curiosity,' I dig and try to learn more. Neither of these diminish my respect for, or value of life. In fact, it increases it!

However, even though I may understand some of the taxonomy, systematics and ecology of mosquitoes and even though I'd love the opportunity, with the correct equipment, to pick through the brains of these insects to see what makes them tick (no, not *a* tick), I'll still smack 'em when they land on me. Is that a sign of disrespect, diminishing wonderment or a devaluation of life? Naw. It's part of my desire to maintain a certain quality of my life. If I knew that killing mosquitoes somehow endangered their population numbers or interrupted some cycle of life of which they're a part, I wouldn't smack 'em. However, since there's jillions of them critters flying around every year, I regard my few slaps as a test of my reflexes and light touch skin receptors and personal selection.

Regardless, my sense of wonder and worship of nature increases the more I know about it. The knowledge and respect to be gained is infinite. Sadly, my time to interact with nature is way too short.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

From your link about Carson: “It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used,” she wrote. “I do contend that we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm.”

This modest and prudent statement from Silent Spring caused me to pull out an old copy of The Sea Around Us.

Sure enough, Carson is responsible and full of wonder. It dawned on me that my argument is not with Carson. It is with the people who have continued her work.

Typical of the people who followed Jesus, or any other person who has a new way of looking at things, the generations that follow modify the message and turn it towards their benefit. Mega-churches and Gaia are just two of the many examples of good ideas amped on steroids to the point of the ridiculous.

Finally: “But she notes that the ultimate reason maybe that we as a society still have not developed a consensus as to the best way to evaluate and deal with new technology.” I might add that society has not developed a best way to evaluate new science either.
New science? Yes, the kind of science that Carson espoused, that of a mixture of rational (data and deduction) and emotional (poetry). I feel therefore I am.
That philosophy works great in the arts. In science, poetry opens the scientist up to politics and religion. Yikes.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Further evidence of the concept of new science can be found on a web site that is cutting edge philosophy.
Science is art. Science is politics. Science is the law. Science is whatever one needs to justify ones sense of beauty and truth. Science is everything, thus nothing. Chaos.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman…

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

For once I agree with Devo that emotionalism is the enemy of science and rational decision-making.

Too bad for Devo, though. The following statements by Devo smack of emotionalism and hype:
“Thus, Rachel Carson's book about the silent spring reads like a fairy tale.”

“Her emotional appeal against DDT contributed to the death of millions of Africans, Asians, and South Americans.”

“Environmentalism is irrational, not science, and ugly.”

“Science is art. Science is politics. Science is the law. Science is whatever one needs to justify ones sense of beauty and truth. Science is everything, thus nothing. Chaos.”

Devo, these are sensationalist, emotionalist statements. Oops.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Devo slyly defines “environmentalism” as suits his ideology. He defines it as the emotionalism that can surround discussions of the environment.

Devo, “environmentalism” is to the environment what “medicine” is to human health.

A central tenet of medicine is that the quality and quantity of human life is worth preserving, and science is employed to make this happen.

By the same token, “environmentalism” is the idea that the earth's current environment and resources are worth preserving and using science to do so.

I do not deny that there is great emotionalism tied to environmentalism, but to dismiss the movement in one fell stroke as Devo has done is itself an emotional and biased overreaction.

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Paul,
I saw this right after you posted it.
My original thought still stands.
I think OTS and sunglasses.
Supercedes all other ideas you might have made me think of here.
Can't get past the buglasses.
:D

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

And you, nightmare mistook my entries on this blog as science.
I make no claim that my arguments are scientific. I do not relate my feelings or thoughts to anything scientific other than what I consider the definition of science.
That is, it isn't feelings.
I am commenting on the linkage that Paul and Carson make. I warn that this linkage makes the science vulnerable to religious and political attack. These attacks are not scientific and they don't have to be. Thus, you get Scopes trials. You get a judge in Pennsylvania deciding that which is to be taken as science.
Curious paradox, linking science to feelings then insisting that Your science is beyond reproach (anthropogenic global warming anyone?). Feelings are beyond reproach. They are yours, I have nothing to say about them. I like Paul's poetry and his pictures. Leave the scientific musings out and we can all enjoy them for what they are, art.

Nightmare, your argument is like that leveled against Popper that his philosophy wasn't falsifiable. Right, it was philosophy, not science.

Paul, I don't equate new science with art. Again, I warn that expanding the philosophy of science beyond that which can be tested and linking it to grand concepts like origins, and beauty, and meaning are a sure way to diminish science. Harm it, damage it. Render it so fuzzy and touchy-feely that any damn thing will be called science.
Where is the limit Paul?
At what point would you say: “Ah come on guys, this is over the top.”?
I draw the line at the point of linking science with feelings. That is early in the discussion. Apparently you would like to go further. OK, but watch out, there will always be somebody who wants to involve God. Then you have problems with your science. You will be entering the Twilight Zone of human experience. Once entered, there is no rational way out. Leave the discussion earlier and save yourself from the irrationality of God and power politics.