I agree. In response to the Bushwhackers, we need not only more scientific thinking, but more morality, including that in its application. Science only tells us what we can do, without telling us what we should do.
"strik[ing] balance between science and social responsibility" sounds like they're in conflict or there's a trade-off. Shouldn't they be complementary? Didn't Robert Oppenheimer say something about this? On 6/22/06, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is probably a bit tangential, but science, by itself, is not enough. I assume that many of the Nazis -- Heisenberg, for example -- as well as many of the scientists had Los Alamos are first rate scientists, who can produce important results. Until recently, many of the "finest" economists in the Anglo-Saxon world were proponents of eugenics. I don't have an answer as to how to strike a balance between science and social responsibility in a capitalist world, but that objective seems more important than ever now.
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
-- Jim Devine / "In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy." -- Fran Lebowitz
