A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
On the one hand, I agree with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that it's high time to move the Doomsday clock closer to midnight. Frankly, I think they should nudge it a bit higher. On the other, I disagree with their chain of reasoning at almost every step:
Increasing nuclear tensions, refusal to engage in global action on climate change, and a growing tendency to reject science when it comes to major world concerns were cited as key reasons for the latest tick on the clock.
The nuclear accident at Japan's Fukushima plant also highlighted the volatility of relying on nuclear power in areas prone to natural disasters, scientists said.
Robert Socolow, a member of the BAS science and security board and professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University, said a common theme emerged in the scientists' talks this year.
He cited a "worrisome trend, notably in the United States but in many other countries, to reject or diminish the significance of what science says is the characteristic of a problem."
I can see how the latter might feel like the end of the world to him, but as a man of science, he should know better than to confuse feelings with facts.
The group said it was heartened by a series of world protest movements, including the Arab spring, the global Occupy demonstrations and protests in Russia which show people are seeking a greater say in their future.
Well, I'm glad that makes them feel better.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
I'm sorry. These scientists may be experts as designing and building atomic bombs, but what makes them experts at understanding, let alone predicting, the geopolitics of their use, which is what the Doomsday Clock really is?
I've always derided this stupid clock as but another example of highly trained, highly specialized experts sticking their noses into an area in which they have no particular expertise. Want proof? Look how unsuccessful their past predictions have been.
Aug '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Maybe if scientists acted a little more scientifically, they would be believed more often.
Maybe if scientists weren't continually making basic mistakes and bad assumptions in complex data models--I'm looking at you, climatologists--their credibility would be better.
Maybe if scientists took off their policy advocacy hats while doing the studies they used to justify their policy recommendations...
Maybe if scientists had a better grasp on the problems of complexity, they wouldn't be so reliant on correlation rather than causation, leading to structural category errors in important fields like medical research.
Maybe if scientists better understood the nature of knowledge itself, they could have written the best modern book on thinking in a complex world, instead of being shown up as naive by it.
Maybe if scientists stopped pushing scientism--the near religious belief in science as The Ultimate Answer--they could be taken seriously.
Maybe if scientists didn't suggest total nuclear annihilation was imminent just because they felt ignored and unappreciated...
Jan '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Discussions in which scientists bemoan the inanity of the masses who won't take them seriously, my mind drifts to thoughts of Lamarck and Galen.
Mar '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Five minutes to midnight?
Call me when it's 2 Minutes to Midnight.
Jul '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
The ASA was founded in 1946. WW II produced a shocking spasm of man's inhumanity to man from Nanking to the Blitz to Dresden to Auschwitz to the Eastern front to Shanghai to Bataan (222wdkimitconstrainedlist) capped by the most devastating weapon ever devised. Very little in the previous decade suggested that this new weapon would be used prudently.
In fact, under Truman and Eisenhower, the nuclear option was discussed by military and civilian leaders (privately) in terms that might seem callous to modern ears, facing a baldly imperialist, expansionist Soviet Union with a policy of containment. Read enough historical correspondence from the period and you will likely thank your lucky stars, I know I do, that the missiles never flew.
I have never had a problem with the concerns and the energy of the ban the bomb folks, heck, Albert Einstein was first in line, but their prescriptions tend to aggravate the very threat they intend to mitigate. The only deterrent to a rational totalitarian is the threat of annihilation.
Having said that, the ASA has gone the way of the NAACP, NOW, et. al., political attack dogs for the rabid left. And their war on longer growing seasons.
Jul '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Let us not forget that the great Lord Kelvin considered physics solved to several decimal places as recently as the 1890s. It's settled science, no need to bother with Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, and that lot. Not much of interest there.
And in the area of atmospheric sciences, he knew that the then current rate of anthropocentric combustion would exhaust the oxygen supply within 400 years! Time to start hoarding the oxygen. I predict a run on tanks and related equipment.
Man on the Moon? I don't think anyone dared ask the question. What would those silly rocket engines push against outside of atmosphere? Would the ether be thick enough?
Jul '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
I was a Naval polymer scientist in another life. I never thought about fudging data even if it meant the end of my grant. How is it that someone who falsifies data has respect? How is it that this agency is headed by a lunatic who admires protesters I find abhorrent? Whatever this man advises, I think the opposite will be the correct course.