Science, itself, is pretty much neutral. There is no dark side or light side at the base of scientific inquiry. Scientists do what they do. Robert Oppenheimer appeared to regret his role in the development of the atomic bomb---after he saw what it would do. Richard P. Feynman, a great physicist in his own right and a contributor to the ill-fated Manhattan Project, went on to win a Nobel prize in or around 1965. These individuals and so many others, did their science because it was THERE to be done, not because it was, would, or might be dark, light or indifferent. Let's not over-think this, friends. Even Heisenberg allowed an uncertainty principle. So, there we are.

我被上面的图片逗乐了——梅尔·布鲁克斯《年轻的弗兰肯斯坦》中的吉恩·怀尔德，对吗?好吧，撇开这些不谈，我基本同意我们的朋友纽曼的观点。HGN(有意无意地)遗漏了科学家之间持续不断的摩擦和分化。这些本来值得尊敬的男人和女人不断地对彼此的工作挑刺。过去和现在的世仇如此之多，以至于我们有时会想，科学领域的事情是如何完成的(就像政治一样，但它们当然都是相互关联的)。因此，科学的黑暗面似乎是现状——甚至是必要的。因为不管怎么说，事情总能做成。就这样。
the Doctor.

Science is a branch of knowledge, and knowledge is a source of power. All forms of power can be used for good or evil.
The problem in large part seems to boil down to the question, should knowledge (especially of the scientific variety) be considered a private or public asset? In other words, should all scientific discoveries be available to everyone? Or, should individuals and groups be allowed to keep them private and profit from them? I think there would be much less concern with the dark side of science if scientific knowledge and discoveries were fully out in the open.

Well. Now that we have contemplated the "dark side of science", shall we discuss the "dark side of religion". Or perhaps, the "dark side of philosophy?" Really. There will always be uncertainty. Someone said that. Keep on saying what you say, Neuman,---the boxcars of this world are full of effluent of one sort or another. Poison is harmless when it is not ingested...figuratively speaking, of course...

This was a frustratingly muddled show. Rabinow kept conflating science and technology (molecular biology is *all* technology? Really? Ever heard of Hox genes, or rna interference, or the c-value paradox, or any other of a number of theoretical insights that come from molecular work?) He then simultaneously criticized molecular bio for being in the pocket of big pharma's patent network (because the results are worth all that funding) yet also (somehow) ineffective in discovering much that was medically useful. You gotta work pretty hard to maintain that kind of cognitive dissonance. He takes issue with biotech patents because we somehow "lose" the fruits of the research? Um, no, everyone gains the knowledge (either through the journal publication or the patent application), the funder just gets a limited-time monopoly on making money from the patentable discovery. The sloppy reasoning just goes on and on...
Of course what gets funded is not totally neutral, and more funding for basic science would be a great solution to the difficulty of promoting "interesting" rather than "profitable" research. But to say that discovering the way the cosmos, chemistry, or our particular biology works (in other words, to figure out what is already going on) is somehow dark or evil? Please.
Go criticize the technologists if you like - they are *not* scientists, but engineers. Seriously, "The Dark side of Technology" would have been a fairer title to the show.

The Roman Stoic essayist, Seneca, noted, "It is better, of course, to know useless things than to know nothing." His observation would serve fittingly as a motto for many modern educational systems but surely not for science or philosophy. Who would expect science to remain pure and useless? Thus, the conduct of science, like that of any activity must be judged by its consequences.

我曾想对自我认识的帖子发表评论——但我错过了，所以我将尝试一种后门方法，因为自我认识可能是某种黑暗科学。一位贤明的朋友曾经问过:一个人在做自己的时候，能知道自己是什么吗?(我那位聪明的朋友有时读到这篇博客，肯定会对这篇评论发表一些评论。不信)。我们知道我们相信自己是什么样的人。我认为这是毋庸置疑的。个人、人际、公共、国家、国际和全球视角的问题是信仰和现实之间的脱节。信仰和现实之间的联系是外围的，基于这种想法，我将让善良的读者得出他们自己的结论。

有趣的点,MJA。关于善与恶的知识之树似乎与经验知识之树紧密地交织在一起，以至于两者在某些领域本质上是一体的。

"...I'm just trying to work this jigsaw puzzle, before it rains anymore..."---Rolling Stones, circa 1970s.---or, as previously suggested: You won't always want what you get. Philosophy as an outgrowth of rock and roll? Who would have thought?
Kindest Regards,
Neuman.

I am pleased that you do not question the intelligence of us commenters. That said, I do marvel at the evasiveness and obfuscation of our comments. Your tolerance and patience is, uh, admirable. I sometimes think that I'm reading Habermas, a master obfuscationist of our time. But, no, most contributors are clearer in their expressions---when they choose to be so. Here's a thought: philosophy (or science, or?...) is not a game---it is a means toward improvement of the human condition. Anything less is vanity. I'm hungry right now---hunger fogs the mind. That must be MY current problem.

当艺术模仿生活时，我们被逗乐了——着迷了——娱乐了。即将有一个关于1986年挑战者号死亡事件的媒体报道。我一直在看这个节目的“预告片”，想知道谁会被描绘，以什么方式。今天，部分谜团被揭开。威廉·赫特(William Hurt)将饰演理查德·费曼(Richard Feynman)，这位诺贝尔物理学奖得主调查了挑战者号事故，于1988年去世。现在看来，这一切都相当古老了，费曼的发现非常简单:橡胶、可塑性和低温。但是，这毕竟是一个媒体事件——人们得到了报酬;商业活动已经平息，勇敢的宇航员们已经无可挽回地死去。Hmmmmph。费曼要不是死于非命，一定会笑的。 Science IS dark sometimes. But, we make it so for the least of reasons. January 28, 1986 was my birthday. At that time, I had never heard of Richard Feynman. Since then, I have heard of so much more. Well, you'll have that...

Thanks for the intro, Ken, and good luck with the Community.
我们曾提到过知识之树的善与恶的比喻，它象征着我们作为一个好奇的物种的出现，致力于寻找事物，通过我们的选择能力，对我们所获得的知识的应用负责。据我们所知，人类是世界上唯一这样的物种，因此直觉上认为这是我们应该主要关注的问题似乎是合理的。我们可以相信对自然世界知识的追求是我们存在的目的。如果我们认为有什么是神圣的，那就是它了。
There's some evidence increasing knowledge of the world and its workings is working well for us - ref Stephen Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' - but one way or the other, it's what we do. Let's get on with enjoying the quest and decline invitations to agonize about it.
Hugh