I'm a scientist, Betty

When dealing with science, I have to train my mind to listen to what's being said, since I'm right-brained, and therefore more prone to wander off paying more attention to the shoe-color of the person accross from me rather than a formula. Even though it's difficult for me to cross the barrier into left-brained thinking, I do it occassionally, just to test the waters. I'll attempt to do it here to answer some questions about science.

Is science controllable? Should it be? If so, by whom?

As far as I've ever been able to tell, no. Even if the entire nation rose up and formed a 100% unanimous Luddite regime, someone somewhere would still advance the fields of science. We mentioned in class last time that even when America slows research on something due to moral issues, other countries less inclined to pause for morals (such as China) continue it. The thing is, however, no matter how many blind eyes we turn to the advancement of science, it still is. Even though the Catholic church really, really didn't like the idea of a heliocentric solar system, it didn't cause the sun to change its mind. Plus, I like the idea of the sciences helping mankind along on its slow, inevitable roll towards doom. You may call me fatalistic, but I find the apocalypse to be quite poetic.

Why is "Why?" such an uncomfortable question?

Because it's the eternal question! "Why" can be asked about anything, and most of the time cannot be fully answered. All of the other members of the inquisitive party (such as "how" and "where") can be answered quickly, sharply, and with a definite outcome, like a scantron. But "why" can continue to be asked, even about the question "Why." Why ask why? I suppose it's the only question we humans can claim as our own.

It used to be that being a scientist was a big deal! People respected scientists. People valued a scientist's opinion and input. There were few professions more noble than dedicating your life to the advancement of science - not even being a medical doctor was more important! Our modern perception of a scientist is a pasty colored white male with thick glasses, a pocket protector, and no social skills. No one wants their opinion, let alone respects their opinion. Even you, as a class, expressed distrust of NASA - the US's leading science machine - and doubt in the value of the science being conducted by the organization. What changed? Can you point to a specific era in time? Why do we listen more to Al Gore than we do to leading scientist in climatology, biology and environmental science?

Personally, I don't listen to Al Gore at all, especially when he's talking about the internet. As for scientists, the glorified hero scientists of the earlier age died with 80,000 people of a certain city, leaving people with a terrible question: What has science done for us? It seems to me that the Cold War further soured the public's opinion of the Hero Scientist, as he went on to develop more and bigger bombs and missiles for us to wave at Russia and other nuclear countries. Fortunately none of that ever happened. In any case, Science hasn't yet formed for us the utopia that we thought it would (see Star Trek), and as postmodernism continues to rise, the concrete answers provided by the sciences fail to be as concrete as they claim.

On a side note, who now is the heroic society champion that once was the scientist? Is it really the politician? I surely hope not.

To close, let me provide this short clip from one of my favorite movies, which also happens to give my frank opinion on scientists: