So it’s been 2 days and the world hasn’t ended.
So nothing’s wrong?
[quote]Aggro wrote:
machiajelly wrote:
I would never trust a politician nor the church to make scientific judgments by themselves - only in collaboration.
I think that’s part of the problem. No political involvement means the man in the box isn’t telling people what to think. Maybe CERN should have budgeted for a PR campaign to help ease the fear of those that don’t read books anymore.
[/quote]
You can’t educate the uneducable. Try getting into a conversation with someone over a simple topic in physics, like the potential energy of a mass at a certain height above the earth. Their eyes will glaze over within seconds.
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that scientific studies and their conclusions should not be taken for granted without carefully examining the study parameters and considering what the data can really tell us would in this case bow down to scientists in their “infinite wisdom” when it comes to deciding whether we should risk wiping out the human race.
Why should we “lay people” question doctors, nutritionists, coaches, and other scientists (in the biological, chemical, and pharmaceutical fields) but not physicists? To take it one step further, why should we question any kind of presumably learned authority? Why question priests, economists, businessmen, or even politicians? Surely they have all trained and studied extensively in their field, and presumably are very intelligent individuals and unless we have similar levels of training, experience, knowledge (some of which we may not have access to as “lay people”), and intelligence we cannot hope to question them with good reason. Wouldn’t we be being rather arrogant in those cases too?
Scientists, even physicists, are still imperfect beings with flaws in their mental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual makeups. Perhaps it is the wise choice to take the risk. Is it the moral choice though? Is it morally fair to leave the lives of billions, not to mention the trillions of dollars in expenses, in the hands of the opinions of a few elites, especially if the billions of people have not consented to this arrangement?
Is science worth it at any cost, even if it loses us our humanity? Is it even worth living then?
I personally do not care that there is atom smashing going on somewhere. I have to die sometime. However, I would never presume to decide that anyone else is or is not expendable, let alone deciding that my curiosity or desire for technological advance is worth sacrificing the lives of anyone else let alone the entirety of humanity.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that scientific studies and their conclusions should not be taken for granted without carefully examining the study parameters and considering what the data can really tell us would in this case bow down to scientists in their “infinite wisdom” when it comes to deciding whether we should risk wiping out the human race.
Why should we “lay people” question doctors, nutritionists, coaches, and other scientists (in the biological, chemical, and pharmaceutical fields) but not physicists? To take it one step further, why should we question any kind of presumably learned authority? Why question priests, economists, businessmen, or even politicians? Surely they have all trained and studied extensively in their field, and presumably are very intelligent individuals and unless we have similar levels of training, experience, knowledge (some of which we may not have access to as “lay people”), and intelligence we cannot hope to question them with good reason. Wouldn’t we be being rather arrogant in those cases too?
Scientists, even physicists, are still imperfect beings with flaws in their mental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual makeups. Perhaps it is the wise choice to take the risk. Is it the moral choice though? Is it morally fair to leave the lives of billions, not to mention the trillions of dollars in expenses, in the hands of the opinions of a few elites, especially if the billions of people have not consented to this arrangement?
Is science worth it at any cost, even if it loses us our humanity? Is it even worth living then?
I personally do not care that there is atom smashing going on somewhere. I have to die sometime. However, I would never presume to decide that anyone else is or is not expendable, let alone deciding that my curiosity or desire for technological advance is worth sacrificing the lives of anyone else let alone the entirety of humanity.[/quote]
If you think you can go read the studies and understand, well enough to judge, whether it’s dangerous then by all means be my guest. I can read and understand nutrition research pretty well, so I feel like I have the right to challenge some conclusions (especially when there are contradictory reports, experts who disagree, and it involves my own body). I’m not saying don’t question things, just that you have to first fully educate yourself on the subject and when you get into regulating science, the uneducated reaction-ists (read politicians) normally end up setting the rules.
There is another side to the argument too. Who are we to decide what someone else can or can’t research? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?
The thing is most people discussing the LHC on this forum (myself included) have a very limited understanding on the work being done.
It would be like forcing any well respected trainer on T-Nation to sit and answer questions from 13 year olds about why NO-Xplode isn’t going to make them huge, only they have to answer the same questions over and over and over again. Isn’t there some point where we’d say “educate yourself and then come discuss the issue”?
That doesn’t mean we should blindly follow anyone, but if you’re going to just come up with 20 different scenarios based on what you saw in a movie, or a video game, or heard on the news and then “run with it” to proclaim the end of the world, should that opinion be given any sort of credibility by the rest of us? Hell I can play the “what if” game all day, doesn’t mean any of it’s going to happen.
I don’t know about you guys, but I’d damn sure trust Stephen Hawking more than a leader of any nation.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that scientific studies and their conclusions should not be taken for granted without carefully examining the study parameters and considering what the data can really tell us would in this case bow down to scientists in their “infinite wisdom” when it comes to deciding whether we should risk wiping out the human race.
Why should we “lay people” question doctors, nutritionists, coaches, and other scientists (in the biological, chemical, and pharmaceutical fields) but not physicists? To take it one step further, why should we question any kind of presumably learned authority? Why question priests, economists, businessmen, or even politicians? Surely they have all trained and studied extensively in their field, and presumably are very intelligent individuals and unless we have similar levels of training, experience, knowledge (some of which we may not have access to as “lay people”), and intelligence we cannot hope to question them with good reason. Wouldn’t we be being rather arrogant in those cases too?
Scientists, even physicists, are still imperfect beings with flaws in their mental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual makeups. Perhaps it is the wise choice to take the risk. Is it the moral choice though? Is it morally fair to leave the lives of billions, not to mention the trillions of dollars in expenses, in the hands of the opinions of a few elites, especially if the billions of people have not consented to this arrangement?
Is science worth it at any cost, even if it loses us our humanity? Is it even worth living then?
I personally do not care that there is atom smashing going on somewhere. I have to die sometime. However, I would never presume to decide that anyone else is or is not expendable, let alone deciding that my curiosity or desire for technological advance is worth sacrificing the lives of anyone else let alone the entirety of humanity.
If you think you can go read the studies and understand, well enough to judge, whether it’s dangerous then by all means be my guest. I can read and understand nutrition research pretty well, so I feel like I have the right to challenge some conclusions (especially when there are contradictory reports, experts who disagree, and it involves my own body). I’m not saying don’t question things, just that you have to first fully educate yourself on the subject and when you get into regulating science, the uneducated reaction-ists (read politicians) normally end up setting the rules.
There is another side to the argument too. Who are we to decide what someone else can or can’t research? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?[/quote]
So, if I want to start trying to develop a super weapon in my basement, I should be allowed to, even if it endangers my entire neighborhood or town? I know this is kind of an absurd example when it comes to CERN because this whole experiment is not being conducted in secret, but there has to be some system of checks and balances when dealing with something like this.
I watched a program on Discovery the other night about the LHC. There were interviews with some of the physicists working on the project. They were not so dismissive as a lot of the people on this thread of some of the risks involved. There really wasn’t any time devoted to the development of earth-swallowing black holes, but the risk of the whole project being destroyed by runaway electric current - it will use about 21,000 amps - is very real. This wouldn’t be the first time that a group of physicists had a collective “oh shit” moment either.
I’m not too worked up over the LHC, but the laissez-faire attitude that a lot of you have towards applied science is a little disturbing. Giving scientists unchecked authority to conduct any experiments they want merely because they are more learned in their area of expertise than the rest of us is not a wise policy, imo, especially when there is a risk, miniscule or not, of mass destruction resulting from their experiments.
They’re called experiments because they don’t know exactly what will happen.
DB
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that …h? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?
So, if I want to start trying to develop a super weapon in my basement, I should be allowed to, even if it endangers my entire neighborhood or town? I know this is kind of an absurd example when it comes to CERN because this whole experiment is not being conducted in secret, but there has to be some system of checks and balances when dealing with something like this.
I watched a program on Discovery the other night about the LHC. There were interviews with some of the physicists working on the project. They were not so dismissive as a lot of the people on this thread of some of the risks involved. There really wasn’t any time devoted to the development of earth-swallowing black holes, but the risk of the whole project being destroyed by runaway electric current - it will use about 21,000 amps - is very real. This wouldn’t be the first time that a group of physicists had a collective “oh shit” moment either.
I’m not too worked up over the LHC, but the laissez-faire attitude that a lot of you have towards applied science is a little disturbing. Giving scientists unchecked authority to conduct any experiments they want merely because they are more learned in their area of expertise than the rest of us is not a wise policy, imo, especially when there is a risk, miniscule or not, of mass destruction resulting from their experiments.
They’re called experiments because they don’t know exactly what will happen.
DB[/quote]
Once again, I didn’t say, “don’t question”, just educate yourself before questioning (see where you reference what you saw on TV). Maybe they didn’t research an earth swallowing black hole for the same reason they don’t research earthquakes when they build computers, in that it just doesn’t make sense to based on the facts they have.
In your case of a basement nuke, there is a “clear and present danger” so to speak. In fact the whole point of what you were doing would be destructive if it’s a weapon.
My question about who should regulate wasn’t meant to say there shouldn’t be regulation. It really was just a question as to who should be in charge when you decide to regulate.
For some perspective, the budget for the National Science foundation for 2008 was over $6 billion. The Hubble Space Telescope has cost about $4 billion so far. The annual budget of the NIH is over $25 billion.
The hundreds of millions of dollars spent on colliders is really not that outrageous.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that …h? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?
So, if I want to start trying to develop a super weapon in my basement, I should be allowed to, even if it endangers my entire neighborhood or town?
I know this is kind of an absurd example when it comes to CERN because this whole experiment is not being conducted in secret, but there has to be some system of checks and balances when dealing with something like this.
I watched a program on Discovery the other night about the LHC. There were interviews with some of the physicists working on the project. They were not so dismissive as a lot of the people on this thread of some of the risks involved.
There really wasn’t any time devoted to the development of earth-swallowing black holes, but the risk of the whole project being destroyed by runaway electric current - it will use about 21,000 amps - is very real.
This wouldn’t be the first time that a group of physicists had a collective “oh shit” moment either.
I’m not too worked up over the LHC, but the laissez-faire attitude that a lot of you have towards applied science is a little disturbing.
Giving scientists unchecked authority to conduct any experiments they want merely because they are more learned in their area of expertise than the rest of us is not a wise policy, imo, especially when there is a risk, miniscule or not, of mass destruction resulting from their experiments.
They’re called experiments because they don’t know exactly what will happen.
DB
Once again, I didn’t say, “don’t question”, just educate yourself before questioning (see where you reference what you saw on TV). Maybe they didn’t research an earth swallowing black hole for the same reason they don’t research earthquakes when they build computers, in that it just doesn’t make sense to based on the facts they have.[/quote]
What? If you could argue that earthquakes and computers have some tie in with each other, your comparison might make sense.
All of the experts agree that there is the possibility, however minute, that a stable black hole could result. The fact that I watched a tv program and cited it (yes, tv can be a legitimate source) doesn’t mean that it is my only source of education.
Apparently, I have done a little more reading on it since I seem to be the only one on this thread that knows the testing schedule of the LHC.
[quote]In your case of a basement nuke, there is a “clear and present danger” so to speak. In fact the whole point of what you were doing would be destructive if it’s a weapon.
My question about who should regulate wasn’t meant to say there shouldn’t be regulation. It really was just a question as to who should be in charge when you decide to regulate.[/quote]
I don’t think that “clear and present danger” (a legally ambiguous term) should be the test of whether or not to regulate scientific experimentation, but I digress. You didn’t seem to differentiate between “good” science and “bad” science.
Furthermore, it seems you don’t think that politicians and laypeople should be regulating experimentation. If that’s the case, then you are talking about self-regulation by scientists. If self-regulation worked, there wouldn’t be a need for regulation to begin with.
DB
Found this live stream from the CERN headquarters and the parking lot above. This way if anything happens you’ll be able to go ape shit and kill, steel, lie, cheat, and all that other stuff before it destroys your town.
[quote]Sick Rick wrote:
So it’s been 2 days and the world hasn’t ended.
So nothing’s wrong?[/quote]
The first week or so is all testing the thing to make sure it will work properly. They won’t start smashing atoms for a couple weeks or something like that.
I read that there are some scientists that are hoping that this thing won’t find ANY new particles at all, this would be more revolutionary than anything else because it would go in the way of undoing 35 years of theory.
I am just amazed at how large and complex this thing is. I wish I could see it in person, even though I know nothing about physics and shit, it would be a thrill to see it up close and personal.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that …h? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?
So, if I want to start trying to develop a super weapon in my basement, I should be allowed to, even if it endangers my entire neighborhood or town?
I know this is kind of an absurd example when it comes to CERN because this whole experiment is not being conducted in secret, but there has to be some system of checks and balances when dealing with something like this.
I watched a program on Discovery the other night about the LHC. There were interviews with some of the physicists working on the project. They were not so dismissive as a lot of the people on this thread of some of the risks involved.
There really wasn’t any time devoted to the development of earth-swallowing black holes, but the risk of the whole project being destroyed by runaway electric current - it will use about 21,000 amps - is very real. This wouldn’t be the first time that a group of physicists had a collective “oh shit” moment either.
I’m not too worked up over the LHC, but the laissez-faire attitude that a lot of you have towards applied science is a little disturbing.
Giving scientists unchecked authority to conduct any experiments they want merely because they are more learned in their area of expertise than the rest of us is not a wise policy, imo, especially when there is a risk, miniscule or not, of mass destruction resulting from their experiments.
They’re called experiments because they don’t know exactly what will happen.
DB
Once again, I didn’t say, “don’t question”, just educate yourself before questioning (see where you reference what you saw on TV).
Maybe they didn’t research an earth swallowing black hole for the same reason they don’t research earthquakes when they build computers, in that it just doesn’t make sense to based on the facts they have.
What? If you could argue that earthquakes and computers have some tie in with each other, your comparison might make sense. All of the experts agree that there is the possibility, however minute, that a stable black hole could result.
The fact that I watched a tv program and cited it (yes, tv can be a legitimate source) doesn’t mean that it is my only source of education. Apparently, I have done a little more reading on it since I seem to be the only one on this thread that knows the testing schedule of the LHC.
In your case of a basement nuke, there is a “clear and present danger” so to speak. In fact the whole point of what you were doing would be destructive if it’s a weapon.
My question about who should regulate wasn’t meant to say there shouldn’t be regulation. It really was just a question as to who should be in charge when you decide to regulate.
I don’t think that “clear and present danger” (a legally ambiguous term) should be the test of whether or not to regulate scientific experimentation, but I digress. You didn’t seem to differentiate between “good” science and “bad” science.
Furthermore, it seems you don’t think that politicians and laypeople should be regulating experimentation. If that’s the case, then you are talking about self-regulation by scientists. If self-regulation worked, there wouldn’t be a need for regulation to begin with.
DB
[/quote]
Who do you think should regulate it then?
edit- You seem to argue that it must be regulated and then argue against all the bodies that could regulate it.
My point with the computers and earthquakes is that it would be ridiculous to worry about earthquakes when building computers because there really isn’t a relation. (I probably should have come up with a better example)
I never said clear and present danger should be the defining conditions for experimentation, only pointing out that makes the 2 situations very different.
[quote]meangenes wrote:
http://dvice.com/archives/2008/09/exploring_the_l.php?p=24&cat=undefined#more
Some pictures.[/quote]
Awesome. This thing is crazy looking. I wish I had one.
[quote]Sick Rick wrote:
So it’s been 2 days and the world hasn’t ended.
So nothing’s wrong?[/quote]
Yes something IS WRONG!!!
I finally got round to fixing my gate this morning and as I was turning the last screw my hand slipped and I scratched the edge of my hand on the protruding screw.
See - Damn thing is fucking everything up.
[quote]meangenes wrote:
http://dvice.com/archives/2008/09/exploring_the_l.php?p=24&cat=undefined#more
Some pictures.[/quote]
Increase the Flash Gordon noise and put more science stuff around.
Wow, that thing looks cooler than the enterprise.
talking of the enterprise. are all my fellow geeks going to see the new star trek film?
it looks awesome.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that …h? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?
So, if I want to start trying to develop a super weapon in my basement, I should be allowed to, even if it endangers my entire neighborhood or town?
I know this is kind of an absurd example when it comes to CERN because this whole experiment is not being conducted in secret, but there has to be some system of checks and balances when dealing with something like this.
I watched a program on Discovery the other night about the LHC. There were interviews with some of the physicists working on the project. They were not so dismissive as a lot of the people on this thread of some of the risks involved.
There really wasn’t any time devoted to the development of earth-swallowing black holes, but the risk of the whole project being destroyed by runaway electric current - it will use about 21,000 amps - is very real. This wouldn’t be the first time that a group of physicists had a collective “oh shit” moment either.
I’m not too worked up over the LHC, but the laissez-faire attitude that a lot of you have towards applied science is a little disturbing.
Giving scientists unchecked authority to conduct any experiments they want merely because they are more learned in their area of expertise than the rest of us is not a wise policy, imo, especially when there is a risk, miniscule or not, of mass destruction resulting from their experiments.
They’re called experiments because they don’t know exactly what will happen.
DB
Once again, I didn’t say, “don’t question”, just educate yourself before questioning (see where you reference what you saw on TV).
Maybe they didn’t research an earth swallowing black hole for the same reason they don’t research earthquakes when they build computers, in that it just doesn’t make sense to based on the facts they have.
What? If you could argue that earthquakes and computers have some tie in with each other, your comparison might make sense. All of the experts agree that there is the possibility, however minute, that a stable black hole could result.
The fact that I watched a tv program and cited it (yes, tv can be a legitimate source) doesn’t mean that it is my only source of education. Apparently, I have done a little more reading on it since I seem to be the only one on this thread that knows the testing schedule of the LHC.
In your case of a basement nuke, there is a “clear and present danger” so to speak. In fact the whole point of what you were doing would be destructive if it’s a weapon.
My question about who should regulate wasn’t meant to say there shouldn’t be regulation. It really was just a question as to who should be in charge when you decide to regulate.
I don’t think that “clear and present danger” (a legally ambiguous term) should be the test of whether or not to regulate scientific experimentation, but I digress. You didn’t seem to differentiate between “good” science and “bad” science.
Furthermore, it seems you don’t think that politicians and laypeople should be regulating experimentation. If that’s the case, then you are talking about self-regulation by scientists. If self-regulation worked, there wouldn’t be a need for regulation to begin with.
DB
Who do you think should regulate it then?
edit- You seem to argue that it must be regulated and then argue against all the bodies that could regulate it.[/quote]
I don’t know how you came to this conclusion. I think there should definitely be regulation. There should be some international regulatory agency like IAEA that is comprised of a cross-section of academia, government, the scientific community and industry, although I have no idea how you would put this group together.
I don’t pretend to be an international relations expert. I just think that the general population should have some representation in decision-making on scientific experimentation that could negatively impact the sustainability of the earth.
DB
http://dvice.com/archives/2008/09/exploring_the_l.php?p=5&cat=undefined#more
Stargate, anybody? 