We are only now lifting from our shoulders the weight of centuries of blind belief. As more of the world becomes enlightened by the knowledge we have acquired about the universe and life (usually met with extreme resistance, based on fear of undermining already established ‘Truths’ that were taught very rigorously), it also becomes more peaceful and liberated. I know it doesn’t seem so now because of the current world slump, but please follow this link and listen to the brilliant Stephen Pinker on the subject. He tells the story much better than I do! It turns out that the common conception that modernity is violent and immoral is also fabricated by your deceivers. All things considered, we are doing fabulously.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Don’t give up on us so quickly! Our faculties for reason and invention are exactly what make us so emotionally and culturally rich. If we turn away from the fearless acquisition of knowledge, the struggle to free all mankind out from under itself will never be won. We will all just be subject to one more doctrine of ‘Truth’. Believe me, no one will be better equipped to scrutinize the contract on their loan. They will just have been taught, once again, that their own faculties for observation and reason are inadequate. I tell you they are not! The centuries of force-fed morality tell their own story of oppression, repression, and violence. Let us think in the fresh air, and try to remember what it means to lead by example. The alternative is with a gun.

And believe me, we young people without parents are not fending for ourselves in a sea of corruption without any obvious standards. First of all, even animals establish their own codes of ethics within their societies. They have no school room other than the structure of their lives, and their interaction with peers. They certainly have no dusty books passed down through the centuries. I remember being seven and already thinking critically about the religion my father would have me follow. I already had my own standards by which I would accept things to be true, and I would not compromise even then. My father thought he would teach me about morality by explaining to me the Catholic doctrine. I, however, already knew about right and wrong. So does just about every child at that point, to some degree, and maybe the problem is that we don’t help them grow their moral ideas from that starting point, but try to impose from the top down, with commands and demands and no good reason for it in between. Even if they don’t have parents who are willing to help them learn to think better, we are all born with that ability, and most of us with that desire. The worst thing you can do is squash a child’s intellectual curiosity by handing them ultimatums and not allowing them to challenge it in anyway. Those are the most important discussions. I will allow that not every child can be as firm as I was about the fruits of my own reasoning. That is why they need encouragement more than anything. Lack of self-esteem, I would argue, contributes far more to violence and poor spending than any intellectual freedom!

Also, know that many teachers, Erik Parens, for instance, do teach their students about morality. The ones who do it right, again I name Erik Parens, don’t do the thinking for us. They give us support and facts while we figure it out for ourselves. After all, isn’t that exactly what school is for?

:D

There is no logical way to evaluate anything, including the benefits and harm of science without reference to morals and ethics. Yet, the first thing that “scientific people” demand and insist is that all Ethics, Morals and Religion be kept out of bounds. What’s left? Nothing!

Well, there is always the Truth. To what extent are we willing to expect and demand Truth. We heard bankers testify in Congress but little truth and that is numerical truths based on money.
Ask yourself, what percent of the ads we hear or see have truth in them? I even heard in the radio news of a new scam used to take money from those about to lose their homes by offering to negotiate for them with a bank; followed by the news that there were new scams promoting services that the government provides for free.
Buyer Beware! Is all we learnt since Roman times.

To what extent do we blame deceptions and con-jobs as the source of the real estate debacle? How many were willing to sign false statements on their income to get a home they could not afford?

Then, there are the fundamental truths: Our teachers in public schools are often discouraged or forbidden from teaching any “values” to their students, who seldom meet with their two hard-working and tired parents.

Is every student expected to duplicate the genius of Socrates and resolve all moral issues on their own?

Must every student, on their own, without any help and few examples of virtue in honesty and telling the truth,
develop all the principles and guidelines for life?

Remember, even Aristotle had Plato’s and Socrates’ words to begin thinking. What comparable start do we give our students? “If you can get away with it, do it”?

I also value discussion of the role of science (Parens) and agree that science can be and has been misused in the 20th Century. I have another important point to offer, namely that diversion of the cream of the U.S.’s scientific talent took place after World War II.

Although modest changes have taken place in recent decades, the basic system incorporating the diversion retains dominance in our institutions of higher education. The problem came to light in the 1960s, when it created considerable alarm and also Congressional action. But subsequently it faded from view and continues to be talked about mainly sotto voce because of the high stakes for the nation’s major research universities. If not recognized more openly and dealt with purposefully, it will impede both economic recovery and effective action against greenhouse gas emissions.

As a career earth scientist turned policy researcher, I recently summarized the history of the “new science paradigm” adopted in the U.S. after World War II as a chapter in a book focused on U.S. environmental policies and comparisons with the EU. (supposed to be released this month by Springer)

To recap the events briefly, active federal support of basic research in the universities after WWII was strongly pushed by Vannevar Bush, former science advisor to President Roosevelt. His efforts culminated in Congressional authorization of a National Science Foundation in 1950. The problem was that, following Bush’s insistence, The prestigious research grants awarded by NSF (and subsequently also emulated by other governmental research programs) excluded applied or practically-oriented research. This condition remained until the scope of NSF grant awards was broadened in a bill signed by President Johnson in 1968. By then it was too late to change patterns that had become entrenched in the universities, namely a system by which promotion and tenure in academic departments became based on credentials achieved through research publications in increasingly fragmented scientific disciplines.

Within the disciplinary circles both the direction of research as well as publications in periodicals and books were largely controlled by peer specialists. The corollary was that applied research and development (whether for societal-governmental or industry and business) got a stigma of second class status, except in special cases.

The separation of goals of academic research from the practical affairs of society came to affect social science and also humanities even more strongly than in the natural sciences. The nominal subject of the research might have relevance to society, and the quality of work done was often high. But without interaction with real-world problems and goal-oriented programs and organizations, research products came to have marginal influence on society. By the 1960s Bush himself had become disillusioned by the exponential growth of academic publication and other results of his ideas, noted by Bush’s biographer, Zachary (1999).

An example of what happened can be seen in the enormous proliferation of research publication on “environmental policy”. In my book I cite entry of the foregoing words as queries in Google Scholar with retrieval of 2,050,000 scholarly articles and books. Political scientist Nancy Shuler and other experts have pointed out that this outpouring has had minimal impact or connection with practical policymaking. Nor could it, because much of it deals with fragmented theoretical approaches that by their nature don’t meet requirements of practical policymaking. Economists have likewise been criticized for focusing mainly on quantifiable or modellable factors. By leaving out non quantifiable factors or being beguiled by “beautiful research” rather than realities, experts in this field (as again proven by the current economic debacle) have more often than not failed to accurately predict key developments.

A serious current result of substitution of research or “talk” for action in the U.S. can be illustrated by entering the search terms, “global warming” and “books”, into Google Scholar. This brings up some 39,000 volumes. Another query substituting “conferences” for “books” yields around 32,000 hits for the same subject – mostly American.

So whereas the U.S. is the undisputed champion in producing research publications and talk, it also brings up the rear among leading nations in terms of action on global warming. I have talked with many natural and social scientists who recognize the problem – but have no solution for it because the existing system for scientific advancement and award of Congressional support to universities renders it self-perpetuating.

Although the Obama Administration has committed itself strongly to combatting global warming, the nation’s efforts may be subtly but effectively diffused or derailed if the many ramifications of our entrenched system are not faced candidly and purposefully.

Your writing does give a chance to think. Very valued.