Philosophy 101 Unit 1

Is science dangerous? AND Is technology dangerous?

First I want to distinguish the difference between my meaning of science and technology. I am referring to science as controlled experimentation of a predetermined procedure such as one would perform in a chemistry lab. Technology I am defining as anything that makes tasks easier for humans and has moving parts (i.e. computers, machinery, robotics, etc.)

The question sounds like it is unsure of itself. Science has advanced humans in tremendous ways. Science has created an easy mode of transportation, the automobile. Science has given humans numerous cures to previously deadly diseases. Science has extended the life expectancy for people all over the world. Science has improved the quality of life for people all over the world by simplifying difficult tasks and reducing the risks that humans need to take. Currently scientists have been experimentation with stem cells and furthering stem cell research. Science is something that will ever continue to evolve and change lives in the future, but only if done correctly. Science can be performed safely with no harm to anyone. Science is roughly performing controlled tests in controlled experiments. Theoretically there shouldn’t be a way for things to go horribly wrong. If done properly with a meaningfully goal in mind science can be safe, but some information that scientists can learn could be dangerous. A scientist could for example learn how to clone a human…perfectly and use that information for the good of mankind. Or he could be inherently evil and clone himself a whole army of white supremacists who go out and perform murder and try to control the world. Obviously this is a drastic example but in the end makes perfect sense. Scientific principals learned from experimentation are neutral. The way I see it in order for science to become a danger, it would have to be in the hands of some sort of evil genius.

My stance on technology being dangerous is similar to my stance on science. Technology again has advanced exponentially in the last 20 years. As Dan Estrada said in class, the internet is actually younger than most of us. Try to think back to the first time you can remember using a computer. The first personal computer my family had was a very clunky monitor (that couldn’t display complex graphics) connected to a HUGE box containing all the mechanical components. In addition I believe we also had a dot-matrix printer. To be honest, I don’t even think that computer had internet. Now I look at the machine that is enabling me to type this post on. It is 1 piece, fairly small, has internet (obviously) and is very different. Advances in technology have allowed for this to happen. New technology comes out constantly whether or not everyone is aware of it. It can come in the form of a bug fix or a new type of advanced touch screen computer. Has any of this proved (at current) to be dangerous at all. Obviously computers have not. On the other hand there are different types of technology. Robotics are ever improving and are not dangerous at all. Certain robots, like those on a manufacturing line, have safety restrictions which don’t allow humans to enter their workspace but following safety procedures basically ensures that technology is always safe. Now as with science, if someone was able to construct a robot focused on eliminating people (think Terminator/Matrix movies) then yes technology could be dangerous. But one has to remember that movies are not the same as reality. All our machines are built to be safe and can in no way intentionally harm humans.

After 14 years of development, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider), which is a 100 meter deep, 17 mile particle accelerator track in Europe (estimated at $10 billion), is finally operational. The LHC will shoot two proton beams in opposite directions, increasing their speed with super-cooled (Helium) magnets stationed along the underground track, until they are a fraction away from the speed of light, and then force them to collide with each other, creating a force many times greater than the Fermilab’s Tevatron can produce. The collision is hoped to precede with what could be a simulation of the Big Bang, which would supply physicists with the information and clues they need for an extremely better understanding of the universe as we know it to be, inevitably leading to another scientific revolution, and by following history’s pattern, a philosophical one as well, or at the very least some sort of significant innovation. However, there is quite the opposition to this Big Bang reenactment; many people believe that the collision will form miniature black holes capable of swallowing the earth hole, but the possibility of these unstable, microscopic black holes maintaining an instantaneous materialization of more than a second is borderline impossible, according to several prominent physicists. However, this has not halted the critics’ suspicion of the plausible destruction of the earth, so they have taken the initiative upon themselves to bring this case to US federal court and the European Court of Human Rights, arguing the obviously fatalistic consequences to this experiment, also questioning whether this quest for a potential Pandora’s Box is worth the risk of billions of human lives. The advocates of the LHC rebut with evidence that cosmic rays in space are far more energetic than the collisions produced in the Large Hadron Collider, and do not produce the kinds of persistent black holes claimed by the critics. I digress; the benefits arising from this experiment would literally be astronomical. Look where the discoveries of particle physics have gotten us (satellite communications, handheld devices, etc.). Just imagine the innovations or possibly inventions that will manifest out of this high-powered proton collision. The discoveries might supply evidence or proof to age old questions (ones regarding ontology, creationism, evolution, etc.) This could change everything for the better… or for the worse all in the name of knowledge. Isn’t it strange how we… they are willing to risk everything (keeping in mind both sides to this debate are professional physicists well aware of the downfalls to this project) for the paramount breakthrough in science or maybe even perhaps fame, glory, a Nobel Prize?

However you favor the LHC, it’s inevitable. I believe they are scheduled to begin in about three weeks. We have absolutely no say-so for whether or not this is going to happen, so for once, I advise we remain optimistic, hopeful, and open-minded to the huge discoveries that are bound to emerge from the experiment; and hopefully, we don’t look at the possibilities from a narrow-minded, materialistic point of view. And I’ll end this with a quote from one of the physicists, Michio Kaku, working on the LHC.

“But let me let you in on a secret: We physicists are not driven to do this because of better color television,” Kaku added. “That’s a spin-off. We do this because we want to understand our role and our place in the universe.”

Reminder: Screening tonight at 6pm in the main lobby! We will be watching the Attenborough documentary on the Bowerbirds.

Respond to this thread by class on Tuesday for participation credit. 

• Aristotle thinks: To be a thing is to be a kind of thing. He calls the ‘kinds’ of things “essences“. Chairhood is the essence of chairs, cathood is the essence of cats. Humans are essential rational animals. Are there any such things as ‘essences’, or is Aristotle’s ontology fundamentally mistaken?
• Is there a vital force?
• In what ways does modern science represent a threat to the Aristotlean world view?
• What does Aristotle mean by “eudaimonia“, and is there any such thing?
• Is Aristotle’s picture of the virtues of thought complete? What features of the mind are left out, and why doesn’t Aristotle consider them virtues?