sdv wrote:
>
> Brad
>
> No - because I am stating that science and technology which can only, by
> definition, deal in theories and probabilities should not claim to
> occupy a
> position of "stewardship". The very idea that scientists, who in our
> contemporary
> societies function as neo-religious figures should be allowed to control
> the flow
> of knowledge is quite unacceptable.
>
> >
> > Aren't you saying the same as I said, just "from the opposite
> > direction? I specifically cited persons with positions of
> > *stewardship* for the welfare of others.
[snip]
The master of theory of warfare, Col. Jack Boyd, had a theory
he called "the OODA loop", of how humans function in the world:
(1) The person observes
(2) The person orients themself to/in what they observe[d]
(3) The person decides what to do (based on #1 and #2)
(4) The person acts on #3 in the context of #1 and #2
(5) Recurse to #1, #2, #3, #4, ad libitum....
Boyd's theory of war was to "get inside the enemy's OODA loop":
to manipulate what the person observes, so that the person
orients themself to a false perception of the world (unbeknownst
to them, a perception faked up by their adversary!), decides what to do
on the basis of this falsified understanding, acts accordingly --
and, when the adversary acts on the basis what's "really
true", the person becomes dis-oriented and collapses psychologically,
so that, as Sun Tzu said: "the great general wins without fighting."
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/thoughts.html#OODA
Now, the point of my telling this story should be clear: Scientists
determine what modern humanity *observes* (we cannot see for ourselves:
I probably couldn't tell from an X-ray if I had cancer, and
things go downhill from there (e.g., whether the meat I am
buying will destroy my mind 20 years from now due to
Her Majesty's Meat Inspector Dereliction of Duty Disease...)....
It really does not matter much *how* one decides, if one
is not deciding based on a good understanding of "the way
things are". Since scientists provide this rock-bottom
foundation for our lives, their *stewardship* is even
greater than a judge's, for all a judge can do is
decide based on the evidence, but the judge cannot
verify what the evidence is -- only scientists can do that.
Now! If we live in a world where we
have very little idea "what's going on",
but must depend on *scientists* to tell us, how does this differ
from the role in past of The Roman Catholic Church? The
only difference, as I see it, is that the scientists today
have even more "hocus pocus" power than had the ecclesiastical
hierarchy in past,
since the latter only interpreted for us what was on the
other side of the grave, whereas scientists have occupied
the terrain on this side, too.
Scientists are contemporary humanity's "seeing eye dogs". Us
blind persons can only try to ascertain whether they are
trustworthy (there are ways to do this, but they
are not easy and often one will learn the truth "too late" --
*if* one survives the treachery/dereliction long enough
and in good enough shape to be able to look
back to see that anything happened).
Property is stewardship.
If "intellectual property" is *property*, then
it is *stewardship*, too. Let him or her
[whether real person or legal fiction...] who
thinks otherwise proudly proclaim
his or her irresponsibility so that
we can be on the lookout for them to try to
live up to their ideals!
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [log in to unmask]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
|
