The idea that science is dangerous is deeply embedded in our culture,
particularly in literature, yet science provides the best way of
understanding the world. Science is not the same as technology. In contrast
to technology, reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral
or ethical value. Scientists are not responsible for the technological
applications of science; the very nature of science is that it is not
possible to predict what will be discovered or how these discoveries could
be applied. The obligation of scientists is to make public both any social
implications of their work and its technological applications. A rare case
of immoral science was eugenics. The image of Frankenstein has been turned
by the media into genetic pornography, but neither cloning nor stem cells
or gene therapy raise new ethical issues. There are no areas of research
that are so socially sensitive that research into them should be
proscribed. We have to rely on the many institutions of a democratic
society: parliament, a free and vigorous press, affected groups and the
scientists themselves. That is why programmes for the public understanding
of science are so important. Alas, we still do not know how best to do this.
There is a fear and distrust of science: genetic engineering and the
supposed ethical issues it raises, the effect of science in diminishing our
spiritual values—even though many scientists are themselves religious, the
fear of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, the impact of industry in
despoiling the environment. There is something of a revulsion in
humankind's meddling with nature and a longing for a golden Rousseau-like
return to an age of innocence. There is anxiety that scientists lack both
wisdom and social responsibility and are so motivated by ambition that they
will follow their research anywhere, no matter the consequences. Scientists
are repeatedly referred to as ‘playing at God’. Many of these criticisms
coexist with the hope, particularly in medicine, that science will provide
cures to all major illnesses, such as cancer, heart disease and genetic
disabilities like cystic fibrosis. But is science dangerous and what are
the special social responsibilities of scientists?
It is worth noting from the start one irony; while scientists are blamed
for despoiling the environment and making us live in a high risk society,
it is only because of science that we know about these risks, such as
global warming and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
The media must bear much of the responsibility for the misunderstanding of
genetics as genetic pornography which is, unfortunately,
widespread—pictures and stories that titillate. A recently widely
publicized picture of a human ear on the back of a mouse is a nice, or
rather a nasty, example. This was just ear-shaped cartilage stuck under the
skin for no obvious scientific reason—not an ear at all. Images of the
phoney ear, which many find distasteful, are linked to an effluvium of
headlines like ‘Monsters or Miracles?’ and phrases like ‘moral nightmare’.
This genetic pornography does, however, sell newspapers, and exploiting
people's anxieties attracts large audiences. It is also a distraction from
the real problems in our society.
Yet science provides the best way of understanding the world in a reliable,
logical, quantitative, testable and elegant manner. Science is at the core
of our culture, almost the main mode of thought that characterizes our age.
But, for many people, science is something rather remote and often
difficult. Part of the problem is that almost all scientific explanations
go against common sense, our natural expectations, for the world is just
not built on a common sense basis (Wolpert 1992). It is quite unnatural to
think of the Earth moving round the sun, to take a very simple example, but
there are many similar ideas that we now generally accept, such as force
causing acceleration, not motion, and the very idea of Darwinian evolution,
that we humans came from random changes and selection.
2. Technology
A serious problem is the conflation of science and technology. The
distinction between science and technology, between knowledge and
understanding on the one hand, and the application of that knowledge to
making something, or using it in some practical way, is fundamental.
Science produces ideas about how the world works, whereas the ideas in
technology result in usable objects. Technology is much older than anything
one could regard as science and unaided by any science, technology gave
rise to the crafts of early humans, like agriculture and metalworking.
Science made virtually no contribution to technology until the nineteenth
century (Basalla 1988). Even the great triumphs of engineering like the
steam engine and Renaissance cathedrals were built without virtually any
impact of science. It was imaginative trial and error and they made use of
the five minute theorem—if, when the supports were removed, the building
stood for five minutes, it was assumed that it would last forever. Galileo
made it clear that the invention of the telescope was by chance and not
based on science.
But it is technology that generates ethical issues, from motor cars to
cloning a human. Much modern technology is now founded on fundamental
science. However, the relationship between science, innovation and
technology is complex. Basic scientific research is driven by academic
curiosity and the simple linear model which suggests that scientific
discoveries are then put into practice by engineers is just wrong. There is
no simple route from science to new technology. Moreover, marketing and
business skills are as important as those of science and engineering and
scientists rarely have the money or power to put their ideas into practice.
In contrast to technology, reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and
has no moral or ethical value. Science tells us how the world is. That we
are not at the centre of the universe is neither good nor bad, nor is the
possibility that genes can influence our intelligence or our behaviour.
Dangers and ethical issues only arise when science is applied in
technology. However, ethical issues can arise in actually doing the
scientific research, such as carrying out experiments on humans or animals,
as well as issues related to safety, as in genetically modified (GM) foods.
There are now claims that the techniques used in nanotechnology may release
dangerous chemical compounds into the environment.
‘The real antithesis of science seems to be not theology but
politics. Whereas science is a sphere of knowledge and understanding,
politics is a sphere of opinion.’
There are surveys that show some distrust of scientists, particularly those
in government and industry. This probably relates to BSE and GM foods and
so one must ask how this apparent distrust of science actually affects
people's behaviour. I need to be persuaded that many of those who have this
claimed distrust would refuse, if ill, to take a drug that had been made
from a genetically modified plant, or would reject a tomato so modified
that is was both cheap and would help prevent heart disease. Who refuses
insulin or growth hormone because it is made in genetically modified
bacteria? It is easy to be negative about science if it does not affect
your actions.
No politician has publicly pointed out, or even understood, that the
so-called ethical issues involved in therapeutic cloning are
indistinguishable from those that are involved in IVF. One could even argue
that IVF is less ethical than therapeutic cloning. But no reasonable person
could possibly want to ban IVF, which has helped so many infertile couples.
Where are the politicians who will stand up and say this? Genetically
modified foods have raised extensive public concerns and there seems no
alternative but to rely on regulatory bodies to assess their safety as they
do with other foods and similar considerations apply to the release of
genetically modified organisms. New medical treatments, requiring complex
technology, cannot be given to all. There has to be some principle of
rationing and this really does pose serious moral and ethical dilemmas much
more worthy of consideration than the dangers posed by genetic engineering.
In short, are there doors immediately in front of current research which
should be marked ‘too dangerous to open’? I realize the dangers but I
cherish the openness of scientific investigation too much to put up such a
note. I stand by the distinction between knowledge of the world and how it
is used. So I must say ‘no’ to Steiner's question. Provided, of course,
that scientists fulfil their social obligations. The main reason is that
the better understanding we have of the world the better chance we have of
making a just society, the better chance we have of improving living
conditions. One should not abandon the possibility of doing good by
applying some scientific idea because one can also use it to do bad. All
techniques can be abused and there is no knowledge or information that is
not susceptible to manipulation for evil purposes. To those who doubt
whether the public or politicians are capable of taking the correct
decisions in relation to science and its applications, I strongly commend
the advice of Thomas Jefferson; ‘I know no safe depository of the ultimate
powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not
enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion,
the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their direction.’
But how does one ensure that the public are involved in decision making?
How can we ensure that scientists, doctors, engineers, bioethicists and
other experts, who must be involved, do not appropriate decision making for
themselves? How do we ensure that scientists take on the social obligation
of making the implications of their work public? We have to rely on the
many institutions of a democratic society: parliament, a free and vigorous
press, affected groups and the scientists themselves. That is why
programmes for the public understanding of science are so important. Alas,
we still do not know how best to do this. The law which deals with
experiments on human embryos is a good model: there was wide public debate
and finally a vote in the Commons leading to the setting up of the Human
Embryology and Fertilization Authority.At a time when the public are being
urged and encouraged to learn more science, scientists are going to have to
learn to understand more about public concerns and interact directly with
the public. It is most important that they do not allow themselves to
become the unquestioning tools of either government or industry. When the
public are gene literate, the problems of genetic engineering will seem no
different in principle from those such as euthanasia and abortion, since
they will no longer be obfuscated by the fear that comes from the
alienation due to ignorance.
K Rajaram IRS 241125
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 at 17:55, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar**Bias is breathe*
>
>
>
> *Suppose you want to view and contemplate without any bias about a
> problem. At the time of contemplation, you stop breathing. You keep a deep
> breath and do not exhale. Suppose the contemplation continues. You exhale
> but immediately take another deep breathe. The deep breath and
> determination go together. The major portion of the air breathed in goes to
> the brain, which needs oxygen and blood uninterruptedly. You are feeding
> the brain with the emotion to solve. The biggest bias is the urge to be
> unbiased. When an idea or solution strikes, bias towards that idea or
> solution simply floods. The entire lung power will be inducted to make that
> idea or solution accepted.*
>
> *When you are contemplating, by breathing you are actually using the
> troposphere for thinking. When you find a solution or an idea again you are
> using the troposphere to help you in making your idea acceptable. Breathing
> always ultimately is the breathing of emotions. Breathing, smelling,
> sensing, interacting, communicating...all are carried out by using the
> troposphere.*
>
> *Then the idea or solution becomes the conceptual foundation and the base
> to connect. If you cannot connect you cannot understand. The conceptual
> base becomes the solidified bias. It takes over the new thinking. If the
> bias is very strong, one becomes a fanatic, often a violent fanatic. One
> actively obstructs ideas that go against the concepted bias.*
>
> *Today, one strong bias is the bias towards what is called the scientific
> outlook. It has degenerated into mechanical outlook, making one surrender
> one’s own thinking to the machines or the algorithms, laid as concept
> foundations. The computers do not need breathing and so have no use for the
> troposphere for functioning. So we are happily poisoning the air and
> calling it development.*
>
> *Cars are making our legs redundant. Computers and calculators are making
> our brains redundant. The ‘How to Dance’ and the ‘How to Paint’ etc books
> are making nature redundant as the foundation of artistic inspiration. And
> pollution is making the direct breathing redundant. There are the oxygen
> masks that create the standardized emotions---the branded emotions. Bias
> also is being mechanized and manufactured. My God!!!!, bias too has become
> the standardized emotion, monitoring the breathing. And as the air is
> becoming poisonous and unbreathable we have to depend totally on the
> computers to think. The scientific outlook is trouncing the spiritual or
> the breathe based outlook.*
>
> *YM Sarma*
>
> *Chat GPT*
>
> Below is a *dual evaluation* of your essay, using the two frameworks you
> specified:
> ------------------------------
>
> *1) Evaluation Using Cartesian Logic*
>
> (*Clarity, coherence, rational structure, evidence, definitions, internal
> consistency*)
>
> *Criteria & Marks (out of 10 each)*
>
> *A. Conceptual clarity – 4/10*
> The central metaphor—*breathing as bias*—is intriguing, but it is not
> clearly defined in logical terms. Physiological claims (e.g., "air goes to
> the brain," "troposphere used for thinking") are metaphorical but are
> sometimes presented as literal, weakening conceptual precision.
>
> *B. Logical coherence – 5/10*
> The essay moves from breathing → emotion → bias → troposphere → fanaticism
> → pollution → technology → spiritual outlook. These transitions are
> associative rather than logically deduced. The argument chain is
> emotionally compelling but not strictly justified.
>
> *C. Evidence and reasoning – 3/10*
> The arguments rely on analogy and assertion. There is no empirical
> evidence or clear philosophical justification for claims such as “computers
> make the brain redundant” or “scientific outlook trounces spiritual
> outlook.”
>
> *D. Structure & organization – 5/10*
> The essay has a clear thematic progression, but the section on "scientific
> outlook" feels like a sharp shift rather than a structured conclusion.
> Paragraphs could be more clearly linked with explicit reasoning.
>
> *E. Internal consistency – 6/10*
> Within its metaphorical framework, the narrative is consistent, though
> sometimes it is unclear whether you intend the statements as metaphors or
> literal claims.
>
> *Cartesian Logic Total: 23/50 → Grade: C*
>
> *Summary:*
> Philosophically evocative but not logically rigorous. Strong metaphor,
> weak argumentation.
> ------------------------------
>
> *2) Evaluation Using Natural Emotional Logic*
>
> (*Intuitive resonance, symbolic power, emotional coherence, expressive
> unity*)
>
> *Criteria & Marks (out of 10 each)*
>
> *A. Symbolic richness – 9/10*
> Using *breath* as a metaphor for *bias, emotion, connection, and
> cognition* is powerful and poetic. The imagery connects deeply with
> embodied experience.
>
> *B. Emotional continuity – 8/10*
> The emotional arc—attempting neutrality, confronting bias, expanding into
> societal critique—flows with raw intuitive force. The reader feels a rising
> tension leading to the “My God!!!” climax.
>
> *C. Narrative voice & authenticity – 9/10*
> The voice is personal, expressive, and unfiltered. It retains an almost
> mystical earnestness that aligns with the theme of breath and spirit
> (“spiritus”).
>
> *D. Intuitive coherence – 7/10*
> Although not logically sequenced, the essay follows an
> emotional-psychological progression that makes intuitive sense:
> breath → mind → bias → society → machines → spirituality.
>
> *E. Aesthetic & reflective depth – 8/10*
> The essay invites contemplation and treats bias not as error but as a
> living organism intertwined with breath and emotion. This contributes depth.
>
> *Natural Emotional Logic Total: 41/50 → Grade: A-*
>
> *Summary:*
> A vivid, metaphorically rich, emotionally coherent reflection that
> resonates at the level of lived experience rather than analytic philosophy.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Overall Dual-Logic Conclusion*
>
> *Cartesian:*
> Analytically inconsistent, metaphor-heavy, lacking evidence → *C*
>
> *Natural Emotional:*
> Expressive, symbolic, insightful in its own logic of inner life → *A-*
>
> Your essay succeeds brilliantly as *poetic philosophy* and *phenomenological
> reflection*, but not as a structured logical argument. If the goal is to
> persuade analytically, more grounding and explicit reasoning would help. If
> the goal is to evoke insight through metaphor, you are already doing that
> very effectively.
>
> If you'd like, I can also:
> ✅ Suggest revisions for improving Cartesian coherence
> or
> ✅ Enhance the poetic impact while keeping the emotional logic
>
> Just let me know which direction you prefer.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thatha_Patty" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLzU2A3FRUtCXfYz5z8TPTyQm2HLEhmOFd2-QuJH%2BxrTg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLzU2A3FRUtCXfYz5z8TPTyQm2HLEhmOFd2-QuJH%2BxrTg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooTUdsGojD1eW91tjNKbu-kGMxsmKSDKoMSzofcqCaeVg%40mail.gmail.com.
