I'm leaving yesterday's post near the top of the page for a while because I think the potential of curious or ambitious scientists getting many millions of people killed is an extraordinarily important issue that isn't being discussed nearly as much as whether or not Tyson is going to piss off the creationists again this week.
As to the post.
Yes, I suppose I am in favor of the government regulating research in this area. While it wasn't my intention, I suppose the blase, laissez faire attitude of people with the intelligence to understand the possible disaster could serve to support the thesis that liberalism has degenerated into libertarianism in the English speaking world, I hadn't thought of that. It does, though, show how irrational the required faith that science is all good, all knowing, all competent is among those acculturated to holding it and its far from perfect practitioners to a veneration that is rare among religious folks these days. Perhaps as conservative libertarians worship money, there are those who hold science as an infallible oracle if not idol. Though, I'd point out, that wasn't my theme in writing about that, either, it is THAT IT'S MASSIVELY INSANE TO ALLOW THEM TO CREATE VIRUSES OF THAT DANGER BECAUSE ABSOLUTE CONTAINMENT ISN'T POSSIBLE. When it's a living, replicating organism that could and, in this case, one of its close cousins HAS KILLED MANY, MANY MILLIONS AROUND THE GLOBE, THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING ABOUT MAKING RULES TO CONTROL IT. Universities and scientists have proven their unwillingness to reign in their faculty and staff, the only entities that can do that are governments.
Also, I asked the widower of my late friend if he could confirm the story of her attributing her cancer to the chemicals she used while working in the electron microscope lab, while in grad school. He confirms it but points out I should have said "specimens" instead of "samples" to which I said, "I knew that".
Well, I did.
There was a comment at the latest Cosmos thread on Salon (which went nowhere; I looked in again, curious, because it was so unpopular) alleging that nothing in the Bible is older than the 4th century A.D.
ReplyDeleteConstantine, in other words, and presumable the Council of Nicea.
This is what passes for "informed' discourse on the intertoobs. I pointed out the error, but I'm sure the reply will be that I'm an apologist for biblical literalism and Creationists. 'Twas ever thus.
These are the people who think they know best how the world should be run. Of course, they have no power, but they represent the consensus of people who think they should be in charge because they know better.
It's what they think they know that so disturbs me. So much of it seems to be based on what they think other people know, and deciding to know the opposite of that. In a sense, they remind me of the political opposition to Obama: what they primarily stand for is being against whatever Obama is for.
If their idea of science, or reality, is opposed to their idea of religion, then it must be correct.