1. Comment #12796 by macronencer on December 13, 2006 at 11:15 pm

Good web site. I've bookmarked it!

Other Comments by macronencer

2. Comment #12819 by Mr Blue Sky on December 14, 2006 at 12:54 am

What a brilliant idea to arrange this database in this way. Its content is very worrying of course and highlights in many cases what might once have been considered un-American activities of the "American Taliban". Could we do one here in UK or do we believe that our Government is not guilty? I am not a scientist but can see that at least there is some hope if clear information is presented to the wider world in easy to understand formats.

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

3. Comment #12834 by Munger on December 14, 2006 at 1:37 am

An informative and disturbing list. Whenever anyone argues that it's there right to believe anything they want and I should respect that as long as it doesn't hurt me, I think of this. Religion is rarely harmless, but I can overlook it generally. But when it starts affecting public policy, it's too much to expect me to look the other way. We can no longer tolerate this "live and let live" attitude in such cases.

When I think of the number of teen pregnancies that could've been avoided with honest education and the thousands of hours the US government has wasted on gay marriage, intelligent design, and countless other non-issues, I can only say that religion must be subjected to the same criticism all large scale social philosophies are subject to.

Lists like this only make it all the more evident.

Other Comments by Munger

4. Comment #12837 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:52 am

I cried seeing this list.

Pol Pot is one dogmatic monster that I particularily detested. He and his minions killed you if you happened to wear eyeglasses because that showed that you were an intellectual (totally illogical of course).

I cried because the wonderfully gifted human beings including scientists that have won the Nobel Prize now feel that they must band together in order to practice science, an activity not long ago which their government had enthusiastically encouraged and supported.

I also bookmarked their site.

Other Comments by Logicel

5. Comment #12894 by simplicio on December 14, 2006 at 8:45 am

Just signed the petition. I am a graduate student in astronomy at the University of Texas.

Munger, comment 4, I agree that people can believe anything they want up to a point. Once their beliefs affect public policy, it is time to get active. Recent books, this website and other organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are all very encouraging.

From the point of view of religious people, I can see how they would be frustrated by people not wanting them to influence public policy with their beliefs since often those beliefs are the most important things in their lives.

However, the only way I'll back off of pointing out that their beliefs are irrational is when they remove them from the public square. That's the deal we can make. You can believe whatever irrational thing you want and not have people like me pointing out that it has no evidence if you keep it private.

For the theists in the crowd who think this amounts to intolerance, would you be ok with people who believe in UFOs, scientology, Zeus, or unicorns basing their public policy stances on those beliefs?

Answer that question honestly and I think you will understand the position of people like me.

Other Comments by simplicio

6. Comment #12913 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 11:02 am

The last thing I want to do is bash science or scientists, I got hooked at the age of nine and have been involved in applied science ever since. I applaud the UCS but can't help feeling the current state of affairs is partially the fault of scientists, there is no doubt that we have allowed politicians to manipulate scientific endeavours for egregious purposes.

Scientists have the potential to wield overwhelming political power; imagine a world where scientific research concentrated solely upon work beneficial to humankind; a world where weapons development for any purpose, was barred; a world where no-one was persecuted for religious belief, but encouragement of it, looked upon as detrimental. I think most people would prefer such a world rather than the one we currently inhabit; that being so, why do we accept the world the way it is? An entire book could be written as to the reasons, but basically it comes down to laziness and our built-in willingness to follow leaders.

Many would see the imaginary world I've just described as idealistic, impractical and unobtainable; and of course it is, given the way we do things right now. But it doesn't have to be that way. I have a few ideas that if implemented, would enable the creation of a world like I describe. These ideas are far beyond the scope of a post like this, but basically it involves re-prioritizing so that human survival is paramount; the suppression of nationalism, patriotism and other deleterious doctrines; and the way by which these things could be achieved. I would like to share just one of these ideas with you now.

Hippocrates is the icon of medical science; doctors seeking to practice their craft must swear the Hippocratic Oath, binding them to use their knowledge wisely and ethically. There are many who could rightfully don the mantle of general scientific icon, personally, I would choose Eratosthenes, he who revealed the spherical nature of the Earth and accurately calculated its circumference 2300 years ago. Why don't we create "The Oath of Eratosthenes" and require all newly qualifying scientists to swear it? I have given some thought to the content of such an oath, but a novel idea occurs to me; why don't people here see if they can come up with their version of the oath, it might make for interesting discourse? Peer review and verification is a cornerstone of scientific enterprise, science respects no authority or national boundary; indeed, scientists are perhaps the best international communicators. This fact means that the application of an oath would be self-monitoring, just like science's automatic error-correcting mechanism.

Currently, science has limited political power, its teeth drawn and claws blunted by the fact that most scientific research is funded by public money under the control of egomaniacal politicians who have humanity-unfriendly short term views. It's also true that profits resulting from the application of publicly funded science largely ends up in private coffers; we pay the huge research costs, corporations and corrupt politicians, reap the benefit. This situation obviously must change before science can "just say no" to the requests of anti-humanists; it will be difficult, but not impossible to fix this problem.

Science needs its consciousness raised, especially to the danger of religious fanaticism. Before nuclear weapons were made, international conversation took place between scientists who saw that they could be made, had these men been bound by an oath, they may well have said:

"Sorry Mr. Truman, sorry Mr. Churchill, sorry Herr Hitler, we are unable to do as you ask."

I'd bet that not a single scientist at Los Alamos ever considered the possibility that the awesome power they were about to unleash, may one day fall into the hands of not a crazed politician, but a simple, lowly, religiously-deluded nobody who just wanted to be thought of as a martyr in a non-existent paradise. It's a pity that consideration never took place.

Other Comments by Yorker

7. Comment #12949 by Martha on December 14, 2006 at 2:56 pm

With respect, YORKER, merely swearing on an oath by any name is not going to guarantee that the person taking the oath is going to stick by the agreed rules. After all, doctors still (presumably) take the Hippocratic Oath and it doesn't magically turn them into moral human beings! I could provide you with a list of such people (fully-trained medical practitioners) who are actually quite reckless and even malicious, but of course I won't!

Other Comments by Martha

8. Comment #12970 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 5:33 pm

8. Comment #12949 by Martha

With respect to you MARTHA,

Merely an idea my dear, no need to twist your knickers shouting at me. I don't recall mentioning guarantees or inciting magic morality. Of course swearing an oath won't cure all ills but it certainly can't make matters worse. I'm certain one function of the oath doctors take is to assure the public of competency and give confidence. Did that cross your mind? You disappoint me, do you take me for an idiot? I thought it went without saying that there will always be a few bad apples. Evidently I have higher opinion of readers than they have of me, certainly in your case anyway.

Frankly, I can't understand the motive behind your somewhat badly thought out reaction.

Other Comments by Yorker

9. Comment #12972 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 5:46 pm

Martha,

I forgot to say that if you know of medical staff who are reckless and malicious, it is your civic duty to name them.

You'd better be right of course.

Tell you what, you name a bad doctor and I'll name a not only bad, but famous scientist. I'll go first.

Edward Teller:

The brilliant father of the thermo-nuclear bomb. He's bad because he pressed for the development of this horrendous weapon in time of peace. Power hungry politicians went for his deal. We've never used it, hopefully we never shall.

Your turn...

Other Comments by Yorker

10. Comment #12978 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 6:42 pm

Yorker: your suggestion for a Scientist's oath is a very interesting idea.

Scientists, unlike medical doctors, work long hours by themselves, or with a small cadre of other scientists. Unless they lecture science, they have very little contact with non scientists. On the other hand, medical doctors come into contact with people of all different kinds of occupations, representing a much more varied mix of humanity. Hence, the medical oath is confirming their vocation, their contact with the many.

Scientists, on the other hand, can be viewed being separate from the many, almost segregated from the rest of us, in specialized laboratories that often offer either no or limited access by the public. However, the results of their work influence all in a modern society. But, because of their segregated and solitary nature of their work, they, themselves, seem very distant from the rest of us, and perhaps they feel so also?

In a way the medical oath is wasted on the doctors who are in immediate contact with people, who are constantly faced with human contact. The doctors should let the scientists have their oath. They have more need of it!

Richard Feynman, though a very loved and admired scientist, stated in one of his popular non-science books that he knew from a very early age that he could not solve the world's problems, and therefore would not focus on that angle. He also professed no regret on working on the Los Alamos atomic bomb project.

I witnessed Teller get cream-pied by a Yippie in NYC in the late eighties. The aging yippie was protesting Teller's involvement with Reagan's star wars project. Teller was almost impassive, just wiping the cream stuff off his face, while the host of the lecture said that this action was fascist, and that Teller had escaped fascism years ago, only to have to endure it yet again. But the yippie was not fascist, he was not stopping Teller from speaking, or was difficult to remove from the auditorium. The yippie was just saying that the use of science for destruction deserved at the very least, a pie in the face, to show how incongruous it was for a scientist to work for the destruction of humanity.

Anyway, I have no suggestion for a scientist's oath, but would love to hear any from other posters.

Other Comments by Logicel

11. Comment #12979 by k1mgy on December 14, 2006 at 7:33 pm

I am very impressed with these comments.

I had once proposed, informally, that the CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) include in their "10 Commandments of Computer Ethics" (http://www.cpsr.org/issues/ethics/cei) a statement that would commit technicians, scientists and engineering professionals to avoid projects that are used for destructive, illegal, malevolent ends, such as military and government activities. I had not carried the idea forward to CPSR's board of directors. I hesitated due to lack of time and the consideration that this would open a big can of worms. Imagine the signatories being called "traitors" and "un-American" (for the Americans among us) when we refuse to help the current mal-administration?

If an oath were to be drafted, I think it might well include a statement that codified intolerance for irrationality, both as to how one conducts their profession, and what their work product supports.

In my ideal world, scientists and technologists would shun any work or even portions of work that enabled a government such as the one currently operating in the US, or such as IRAN, from building weapons, spying on its citizens, building a theocracy, and carrying forth with other illegal and immoral operations. We simply would refuse to give them the means to do stupid, awful things. Let them go elsewhere, or do it with those already glazed over.

Example: the current US mal-administration relies on armies of software engineers, many recruited from knowledge-tanks like MIT, to staff its spying projects. What if these scientists and engineers, en-mass, just said "No"? I am nagged by the question: "what does it mean currently when they say yes"?

What if license agreements in software restricted their use to peaceful purposes (and, dare I lump "general business" here)? What if these agreements included provisions that disallowed its use in military and government operations?

I am working on solar energy technology. Our license agreement will be including a statement as to end use and I intend to not sell to the current US government. I am committed to not having my work product in any way be used to enable the current US mal-administration. I've had opportunities to work for "defense" contractors and shunned every one of them.

Of course, even simple paper clips may end up being instruments of war simply because they enable the background administrivia of the war-making apparatus, and so the argument may be extended into a ridiculous black hole.

Still, a statement of principles or an oath is important. I would be early in line to take one if it is ever fashioned.

Other Comments by k1mgy

12. Comment #12983 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 8:19 pm

Logicel

Teller was a man of considerable intellect even in his 80's, he was very dismissive of Carl Sagan and often said things like: "Sagan who is he, what has he done?". I once sent him a letter telling him what Sagan had done, and asked him who humanity would remember best with fondness, him or Sagan? He never replied.

Feynman often professed himself to be selfish and interested only in his work, but he wasn't, he was a great teacher beloved by his students and a great example of humanity. Some of his quotations are gems of scientific truth. I liked Feynman because he was like I am, of course he was smarter than I, but I'm a better percussionist than he was and had one more wife than him!

Oh damn!, England's just lost another wicket (I'm listening) and falling apart again, 114-6, must get some tea.

Other Comments by Yorker

13. Comment #12985 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 8:58 pm

12. Comment #12979 by k1mgy

Evidently you think as I do. Before retiring I was in software engineering also and familiar with behind-the-scenes population monitoring. Billions of pounds will be up for grabs if the British government gets its way with the ID cards they intend to force upon us. There will always be greedy engineers willing to do this kind of work, worse still, there will be some willing to sell sensitive data to commerce or even crooks. Criminals will also coerce those with access to the data they want.

Personally, I will never carry an ID card, even if it means going to jail. Many UK scientists and intellectuals feel the same way. Unfortunately, most of the public will be conned into accepting all the "confidentiality and security" bullshit they are already being fed.

Other Comments by Yorker

14. Comment #12994 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 1:25 am

K1mgy: Corporate mission statements seldom have an ethical aspect to them--they are just verbal mush for the most part. It would be very satisfying if potential employees who are critical thinkers refuse an offer of employment based on this. Imagine this conversation: We, here, at the Mind-Numbing and Sloppy, Lazy Thinking, Inc are happy to offer you a position. And the critical thinker applying for the job says, no thanks, your mission statement SUCKS.

I really appreciate your comment. Thanks.

Other Comments by Logicel

15. Comment #13011 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 3:59 am

Yorker, Feynman was certainly not isolated from people, he was extroverted, and he had many passionate interests outside of science, like drumming, cracking safes, and drawing portraits. He was adored as an univeristy teacher. And I have no problem with his selfishness, as I am very supportive of enlightened self interest.
But I do think that he compartmentalized his scientific work from the possible deleterious effects of science on the world.

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #13052 by Yorker on December 15, 2006 at 7:39 am

Logicel

Feynman, like some others became iconic after his death and many dubious anecdotes sprung up. Like the one about a student who saw a van with Feynman diagrams all over it. A man approached the van and got in the driver's side, the student asked the driver why he had Feynman diagrams on his van: "Because I'm Feynman" came the reply.

Now, I'm pretty sure that any student who could recognise a Feynman diagram would also know what Feynman looked like, so the veracity of this story is doubtful.

Incidentally, have you ever tried the Feynman sniff test? It worked for me!

Other Comments by Yorker

17. Comment #13055 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 7:53 am

Yorker, ah sniffing, yes I do sniff every chance I get, I like living here in France because everybody else is sniffing the fresh produce along with me!

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #13074 by Yorker on December 15, 2006 at 9:22 am

Logicel

Actually, I meant the book and bottle sniffing test he did with his first wife, Arlene. The attempt to see if we could lead a "dogs" life.

Other Comments by Yorker

19. Comment #13079 by Yorker on December 15, 2006 at 9:38 am

Actually, now that I think about it, I will explain the Feynman sniffing experiment for those who may not know it; it makes a good festive season party trick.

Feynman asked his wife to select a bottle from a crate of empties they had in the room, she had to give it a good handling then replace it, noting the crate position. Then she must choose a book from the shelf, same thing, flick the pages etc. and replace it, noting the title.

While this was going on, Feynman would be out of the room, returning only when his wife called him. Then, using only his nose, he had to determine the correct bottle and book, he was successful.

We are nowhere near as good sniffers as dogs, but it's surprisingly easy to get the right articles by sniff alone!

Try it, I have, it's great fun.

Other Comments by Yorker

20. Comment #13081 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 9:45 am

Yorker, yes, my husband and I did the book sniffing with success.

Also as kids, my siblings and I did something similar even before I knew of Feynman's existence.

I enjoy so much that my cats know where we are in our home because they smell our footprints on the floor, and follow them to where we are.

Smelling is one of many human senses, I adore using them all.

Other Comments by Logicel

21. Comment #13082 by Yorker on December 15, 2006 at 9:45 am

Sorry, I can't resist this.

Next time you suspect your partner has cheated on you while you were away, have a good sniff of selected articles when you return. :)

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #13086 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 10:00 am

That is standard practice here in France.

I remember reading Nick Leeson--the roque trader that bought down a British bank--and his wife exchanging tee shirts in which they heavily sweated so they could wear each other's and smell each other while he was waiting for trial in Asia.

Other Comments by Logicel