If you see "discussion" as a competitive exercise, the objective of which being to emerge at the end with the same knowledge, insight, and opinions as you went in with, then why do engage in it, exactly?
RIP John Wheeler
Fri, 2008-04-18 10:39
#102
Fri, 2008-04-18 13:55
#103
quote:
Originally posted by triciamarie:
[b]He told me an anecdote from when he was at Harvard medical school back in the 50's. One of his lab professors would sometimes greet students with a question about what they intended to prove today? The student would tell him, and his response would be, "well if that's what you're planning to prove, you will do it".[/b]
Once again you confuse things.
General practitioners and most doctors for that matter are not scientists. They are to biology as engineering is to physics.
Fri, 2008-04-18 20:09
#104
The National Post hails Wheeler as a 'hero' in its [url=http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=450585]editorial [/url] today:
quote:
Other scientists would later express misgivings about continuing to work on the bomb after Hitler had been defeated. Not Mr. Wheeler. In a 2003 interview, he said: "I've been told that the largest hospital ever built in the history of the world was built on an island near the Pacific to take care of the casualties expected in the invasion of Japan … it was never used. And I've been thanked by at least half a dozen men who were slated to take part in the first invasion wave."
No word from the National Post on what the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have said.
quote:
He went on to work on the hydrogen bomb, sharing Edward Teller's hopes for creating a weapon that would make war between superpowers so terrible as to be unthinkable. Like Mr. Teller, he was anathematized by "peace" advocates for the rest of his life -- but as in the case of the elusive black hole, he was closer to being right than those who stood against him.
The 'hopes' spoken of here are dreams of doom.
If this National Post editorial is correct about Wheeler's actions and legacy, I'll stick with my opinion that [url=http://www.pugwashgroup.ca/events/documents/2005/2005.12.11-Watkins.chap... Rotblat[/url] made the better choice about the Manhattan Project and the nuclear bomb, a bomb that threatens us all with extinction to this day.
[ 18 April 2008: Message edited by: sgm ]
Fri, 2008-04-18 20:21
#105
N.Beltov
I'm not the least surprised that a paper like the National Post would treat Wheeler, not simply as a good scientist, but as a hero. The despicable scare quotes used to describe "peace" advocates tell us all we need to know about the vomit-inducing apologetic of the NP and the extreme right wing biases of that paper.
Fri, 2008-04-18 21:20
#106
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]Besides that, the bombs were used with the aim of forcing Japanese surrender without having to invade Japan itself, which would have incurred high casualties.[/b]
They easily could have dropped either of the bombs on the Japanese naval facility on Truk Island the center of Japanese naval operations throughout the war, and still a Japanese naval facility at the end of the war. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki qualified as military targets at all even though there was a small naval yard at Nagasaki the official reason that Hiroshima was classified as a military target was that it was a "troop transfer" center... just like any city in Japan that had a railway yard.
More so, the other problem with your highly speculative assertion that is in fact a moral judgment and political speculation, is that Truman gave Leslie Groves a nine day window of operation for the use of the devices.
In fact Groves only waited 3 days to drop the second bomb, even though he could have waited another 6 in order to wait for a political reaction from Tokyo, and Hirohito. They did not bother. No they were desperate to drop the second bomb as a test and in order to prove that they had lots of them, and in fact the expeditious detonation of the second device most likely had everything to do with detonating it [i]before[/i] the Japanese made a serious peace offer.
Your second "speculation" is more interesting, but dressing up the dropping of these bombs as a "life saving" meassure when there are numerous indications that some seriously cynical agendas were operative above and beyond saving the lives of GI's in the act of asserting that "pure science" exists, indicates, I should think the opposite, even in your defence.
If you are going to argue that science can be morally positive, as you have, then you also have to accept that the opposite is also true -- it can also be morally corrupt.
Fri, 2008-04-18 21:35
#107
Cueball
[url=http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=14]The Truk Island naval base was the Japanese equivalent of Pearl Harbour[/url]
Sun, 2008-04-20 03:04
#108
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]If you see "discussion" as a competitive exercise, the objective of which being to emerge at the end with the same knowledge, insight, and opinions as you went in with, then why do engage in it, exactly?[/b]
Not so, Proaxiom. I have gained considerable insight from some of the contributions to this thread. Have you?
My point was, if someone wants to resurrect a debate from another thread, let them do so there.
Sun, 2008-04-20 03:40
#109
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Once again you confuse things.General practitioners and most doctors for that matter are not scientists. They are to biology as engineering is to physics.[/b]
Whether or not medical students identify as scientists, if they're conducting controlled experiments in a laboratory, I'd say they're performing science, wouldn't you?
And in an undergrad lab just as in the boardrooms of the Manhatten Project, I'm saying there is nothing inherent in science itself that would shield its practitioners from personal ethical accountability for their work.
Sun, 2008-04-20 06:37
#110
quote:
Originally posted by triciamarie:
[b]Whether or not medical students identify as scientists, if they're conducting controlled experiments in a laboratory, I'd say they're performing science, wouldn't you?
...
[/b]
Nope. It's not question of controlled experiments, it's the purpose of the experiment. Undergrads basically do those to practice technique.
Medicine is biological engineering. Research in engineering has a different purpose than research in science. In engineering the questions are: does this work? is it the best way?
In science the question is: does this result support the model (current or proposed)?
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3