Talmudic, eh, Lydia?
No doubt, no doubt.I agree in principle with much of what you say. There are two assumptions you make, though, that I've always questioned. The first one is that we know which questions to ask. The universe yields the type of answer (or suggests a path to more questions) based on the questions we ask of it. Are we asking the right questions? Just how disinterested are we, really? The second assumption is related to the first: do we still live (or, better yet, have we ever truly lived) in an age where science is done for its own sake, and not merely for some other goal (say, commercial interests or social control)? I understand the necessity for applied as well as "pure" science. Pure science, as you say, seeks to satisfy curiosity (a laudable goal), yet I question whether such science is always entirely free or divorced from its major funding sources--which are almost always commercial. How do we distinguish--and I mean clearly--between pure and applied science in an age where universities, for instance, are usually bankrolled by multinational corporations?
Don't get me wrong, Lydia; I think it's extremely important that we continue (and even redouble) our efforts to know more about the world we live in and about our role and place in that world. But we should be careful not to accept at face value the answers handed down to us by the scientific elite, especially if that elite receives moneys for asking specific questions. Big Pharma is a good case in point: there are so many new "mood disorders" that have gained acceptance in psychiatric and medical milieus as the result of "research" funded by pharmaceutical multinationals that it boggles the mind (literally... but I'm sure there's a pill for that, too).
I understand how science works. I understand the concept of reproducible results and peer review. All the same, we must tread carefully, I think, when evaluating not only the soundness of any given study (boiler-plate or not) but also its pertinence both to the betterment of the human species and to the increase of our store of knowledge.
I don't disagree that the study of the genetics of homosexual behaviour is a worthwhile endeavour; I merely want to ask what we intend to do with the results. We all know that it's possible now (for pure science has let us come this far) to select the sex or the eye colour of our unborn children. Will we want to choose their sexual orientation or gender identity as well, once this becomes possible? If that eventually becomes the case, then I think that, although the science may be good or even great, the use we make of it is bad. In the end, I cannot subscribe to the notion (often associated with "pure" science or science for its own sake) that science is neutral. Human beings are rarely disinterested; science is done by human beings; science is rarely disinterested. And, thus, rarely "pure." I understand this to be as true of Dawkins' work (with his aggressively atheistic agenda) as it is of any other scientist.
God, I miss these kinds of conversations!
I'm thinking there's a chance I might be a "perpetual student." Help! Love,
CJ
),
). I'll defer to your experience in the matter of research funding in the labs you've worked in but, I have to tell you, I've heard of (and witnessed) some pretty shabby, shoddy, and crappy practices in the health field as far as funding goes. Okay, maybe not so much funding as actual medical practice; "kickbacks-for-prescription-quotas" are so commonplace as to almost not deserve mentioning here. It's very frustrating when your goal is to help people become more emotionally autonomous only to have psychiatrists foist pill after pill upon them (partly because Big Pharma is not averse to inviting high-prescription doctors to conferences that take place right nextdoor to, say, the most exclusive and wonderful golf course in Scotland!). If you detect cynicism here, you detect right. I wouldn't be so cynical if Big Pharma stopped fighting the sale of generic versions of their AIDS meds in Africa, for example. When the almighty buck rules (in scientific fields or otherwise), it rules with a silver-plated iron fist.
