Home » NOTES » RESPONSE TO PHYLOSOPHY OF SCEINCE

RESPONSE TO PHYLOSOPHY OF SCEINCE

I finished reading a reprint from Philosophy of Science. The article can be summarized as follow:

The study of the atomic physics will lead to atomic bomb. Einstein had known that and he informed Roosevelt it through his warning. Unfortunately the Manhattan Project could not wait and the bomb blasted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bomb became the threats and should be banned to save mankind from distinction.

Study Physics as part of Science does not include the management of science in its study. The effect of this is that the future of the world in jeopardize. Take manufacturing ammunition for example. After ammunition are made, and shipped; who will responsible for innocence lives be taken by these ammunition. So that the management of science should be take into account when a study is carried out.

Scientists are clean and do not take any responsibility for any abuse of their set scientific research product. Scientists answer the problems and prove that the answers are correct. Any misuse and malpractice of their findings can not be blamed to them. A mistake that take place in a laboratory because the technician is very exhausted and fatigue, it is the matter of psychology do not have any relation with their kind of intellectual activity.

When philosophers do not involve management in searching for the truth, they will not be able to meet what they are seeking. The word ‘manager’ itself does not always refer to human but also all creatures. If philosophers become the manufacturer of truth, the management of science will control ‘the products’ ethically.

Ethics become rare thing to get because the responsibility has been given to the students of management through its curriculum. Ethical judgment will affect the ethical reasoning that one may take. For example Hitler who killed thousand of people because he thought that subspecies people should be vanished and had not right to live.

The ethical principle of human management is justice and many experts had made it as the central of their discussion. However, Philosophy of Science does not touch the following two main ethical problems. One is the adequately food for children and the other is origin of the universe.

The starvation happens in every part of this planet, and it is like no action taken to stop this. Whereas many invention had found to stop this from emerging. Politic, Religion and Greed that make the children becomes the victim in all areas and eras.

The origin of the universe was agreed based on the Big Bang theory. But from the teleological point of view, how the universe form is still a mystery. If it is said that the evolution of the galaxies caused the explosion and at the end form the universe. The truth is there, but nobody admits it, and even worst treat the truth as a hush-hush.

I can connect to his frustrated, helpless, and guilty feeling. He called himself a scientist (paragraph 4, page 10) but he can do nothing to make the world where he lives better. For four years my mother is very sick. She has ulcer in her intestines, doctors call it ulcerpepticus. As her only daughter I go here and there to find a cure for her, but she gets worse. I feel very helpless and frustrated because I want my mother enjoy her old days in health and sound condition. I rely on doctors to make her recover, but doctor said that only miracle that can cure her as the ulcer has reached more than 45 cm. Then I took my mother home after a year in hospital, I feel very guilty because of that. I know that I kill my mother slowly by letting her stay at home. I feel more and guiltier when I see her vomit with blood in it because I know that she will not be able to go to Mecca. She said that she wants to be a Hajj before she dies.

I predict that the writer’s moral outrage because he has no heart to see the endless abuse on children will reduce. People will not stand still when their species is endangered. The starvation that he saw on TV will knock the heart of other scientists to take action for that. What he needs is wait and be patience. He should believe that he is not the only person who grief and mourn for the death of malnutrition children. Somewhere and somehow in the different part of the world, there are many hearts who feel the same as he does.

I know that when someone is very angry, he will not be able think clearly and control what he said. He is a good writer, but he writes in anger. The effect of this is that he ignored the readers. For example he keeps using abbreviations that are not all readers familiar with them such as GIs and QED. He could not generalize the readers as himself.

So far, I like his writing, and I can tell that his writing inspire me. When I am very angry, it doesn’t need to throw a glass or burst bad words. What I need is a pen. Just write what causes me angry and what I can do to cope with my anger and it is very useful if I can offer others how to deal with such anger. Change the anger into empowering myself and others. I believe it is not easy to put anger into paragraphs, but he could. He could describe his feeling related to how stale of the world and the state of science that he faces.

His writing also makes me understand that feeling disappointment does not always mean negative. He was disappointed with the world, the science, the politician, and hidden truth but he writes about it. So that others know and understand his disappointment. Many times I feel disappointed with my destiny. I do not accept myself since God does not give me sight for my left eye. I never tell the world about my disappointment. So others do not know and understand why I feel offend when the topic of discussion is about the beauty of eyes. Even I know very well that they do not have any intention to hurt me. I consider that they are mean.

I was a little disappointed when he compared God to Party. He wrote in page 11, “two competing Gods, each of whom demanded the death of the followers of the other God”. This situation is depicted as “two competing political parties”. I agree that both God and Party have power-with different meaning of course. But I object if the power that God or Party has become tool for them to kill.

I don’t really understand why he blamed the poverty, starvation, and children abuse should become the Philosophy of Science’s responsibility.  He also thought that the researches have been done so far were irrelevant to the problem of poverty and starvation. He forgets that conducting research on human is not as easy as study physics, take water for example. Human are not only acted on by a plethora of environmental forces, but can interpret and respond to these forces in an active way. He could not say that researchers depart with the data and nothing happened. He must remember that it needs time to change something. When the questions of what caused poverty emerge are answered. It does not mean that the poverty can be eliminated directly. He should take into account the ‘complexity’ that attach in poverty itself.

My question is why one (the writer) let himself work in the area where the purpose is still in doubt?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: