Dr Siegfried Tischler
On Ethics of Science
- on the Learned Elders of numerous scientific disciplines
Until some 100 years ago, when Cambridge philosophy professor G.E. Moore published his magnum opus <Principia Ethica>, Ethics was a lot of things to the small group of people who were concerned with what was “good” with various aspects of human existence. There was an ethics for every religion, profession, geographical region or historical era. In short, ethics had a semantic quality that dealt with the internal aspects of whatever fraction of the human condition. As such, the learned talk of Ethics had since long ago been part of the bag of tricks of those who turn their own earthly presence into paradise by telling everybody else that the present existence was the atonement for the sins of others and/or the torturous antechamber to a paradisical next life. This is where the sore point of this topic enters obliquely (as it is disregarded by most) – when it comes to the atonement for the sins of science - the rest of mankind is doing the penance!
Moore set the pattern for the modern “analytic movement” in philosophy; for thousands of years learned man had argued about the good of this or that - but never ever had anybody really asked the most fundamental of all questions – that as to the nature of good itself! Moore’s short answer to this question was simply that “good” is an undefinable quantity. From this perspective the entire discipline of Ethics up until his time is reduced to an extremely verbose exercise of non-sensical babbling. If this train of thought is followed to its logical conclusion, then Ethics is reduced to “the general inquiry into what is good”. But that is as far as reductionism will take us: we will arrive at a certain point where we are confronted with the concept of a-tomos, the irreducible smallest part of something from whence further reduction has not anymore qualitative but quantitative results.
For eons man (not the many on the street, but the few in places for worship or debauchery of the body and mind – temples, palaces and in academia) has been defining what “is good”. Moore showed up the arbitrariness of all definitions of “good” and the futility of attempting to settle arguments in Ethics by agonizing over definitions.
We will only understand all of this, when we view it in conjunction with the “evolution” of religions. What initially were “found” concepts regarding the workings of nature (polytheisms), with increasing knowledge were “made” into monism/ monotheism, where there was a single principle or Deity being shouldered with the responsibility for all that “is”. As long as a multitude of gods was frolicking in a (gaudy) Pantheon, “getting on” with their lives for mortals was a matter of finding ways of coexisting with nature in whatever way was feasible. When the concept of a single godhead was invented some 3,000 years ago, mankind found itself suddenly within a situation that was not anymore controlled by what “is” but by what “should be”. Polytheistic thinking had the gods preoccupied with the squabbles between themselves and they were thus too busy to take any interest in the sphere of man. The single godhead YHW, imprisoned, as it were, in solitary confinement within a golden cage, turned into a bored and venegeful monstrosity that changed human existence from blissful symbiotism with nature into parasitism on itself and Gaia (the Living Earth).
It took many centuries until Immanuel Kant subsumed all of this in what he termed the “categorical-” and “hypothetical imperative”: whereas the former is an unconditional directive and prescribes actions to be taken because of the moral worth of the maxim (we would now say its “systemic feasibility”) and not for the sake of some consequence that may result; by contrast, an hypothetical imperative is a conditional directive which advises us what ought to be done if a desired goal is to be achieved. For example, “one ought to tell the truth as a matter of principle” is a categorical imperative, whereas “if you want to avoid punishment, you ought to tell the truth” is an hypothetical imperative.
Unnoticed by most, the Elders of theology, academia and politics (steered invisibly by the concept of “Mammon”) have been defining the undefinable: that which they considered to be “good”. Virtually everybody failed to see that this concept of Mammon was not a “deity” but the sum of human hubris and stupidity; it was not a categorical-, but an hypothetical imperative! What is even more consequential is the fact, that the “consensus logic” behind it all was not a universal consensus, but only an elitist control mechanism over “believers”. We hardly ever ponder the fact that we all are “believers”– whether we are agnostics, atheists, true worshippers of divine entities (singular or plural) or just bigoted pretenders– even the denial of the existence of a supernatural “something” invokes the concept of belief! These warped forms of worship and/ or the negative affirmation of the consequent (as we might well call it) have had numerous outcomes:
v Western Science denies the possibility of the phenotype (the ephemeral materialisation of the genotype) passing the informational “content” of adaptations to its environment back to the “building plan” of organisms. The changes which can be observed are said to come about by way of serendipitous changes of the genetic material. The mythical concept of “mutation” – despite the fact that all mutations that can be “produced” only have a deleterious effect on organisms – is steadfastly adhered to as an “explanation” for the ever-changing face of Gaia.
v Western Science denies the possibility of organisms “sharing” a common consciousness (despite the literal connotation of the term used) and invokes the mystical concept of “instincts” for animals. Despite the total lack of any material proof, the Learned Elders of numerous scientific disciplines “get away” with holding genes “responsible” for patterns of behaviour. While they consider the “mental” capabilities of animals inferior to those of humans, they keep on repeating the mantra of gene-tical determinism for both.
v Western Science decrees that humans were the only conscious and sentient organisms; anyone who has ever had a close “relation” with an animal will have strongly to disagree. What we call intelligence in humans is denigrated to mere cognition in animals – thus depriving them of that which makes life alive: awareness and will!
v Friedrich Nietzsche castigated Christians and Jews (amongst many other „groupings“) for preferring life-denying values. He singled out the Judeo-Christian ethic as the most pernicious source of anti-natural morality. Clergymen pervert the will to power into a mechanism of control and exploitation of the „botched and bungled“ masses by way of hypocritical sermons on meekness.
v American philosopher John Dewey attempted to apply the methods of science to the problem of morality. His ethical theory was built upon the principles of pragmatism, of which the chief elements are the Scientific Method and the conception of the universe as evolutionary. Dewey’s pragmatism is frequently referred to as “instrumentalism”, since it centers about the belief that ideas are “instruments” or plans of action for problem solving. Instrumentalism did to morality and ethics what technology did to humanity and nature.
How did all of this start? Only a historical approach can lead to an answer that is not automatically tinted by any (pseudo-) religious precepts: Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), highly “initiated” member of the Rosicrucians (one of the pre-dominant Freemason lodges of England) did for science, what Aristotle had done with his <Organon> for philosophy: he structured the scientific endeavour in terms of methodology. Bacon’s <New Organon> is to Faustian thinking what the “Cambrian Explosion” is to our understanding of nature- put with the brutal honesty which is required to look further than the obvious- a “con job”! They both obfuscate the fact that “nothing comes from nothing” (to quote Lucretius, a Roman philosopher who lived in the times of Caesar). This book has for nearly half a Millennium been the “rule book” of the scientific enterprise and all was well with science! Or was (is) it?
Before we come to examine this question, we have to appreciate yet another rarely touched on aspect: Had Bacon studied al Qur’an? As M. Iqbal reminds us, this Holy Book teaches all the precepts of what we now term the “Baconian” Scientific Method. Religious bigotry (or was it just mercantilistic fighting over “market-shares”?) for centuries has kept this nasty truth from surfacing. Western Civilization still lives in denial– Islamic scholars had faithfully preserved the spritual-, and enlarged the scientific, heritage of mankind in the “Old World” all through the Dark Ages that followed the demise of the Roman Empire.
It could be argued, that Islam had not only preserved the cultural heritage, but did the same with the basic tenets of Christianity. Nestorianism, which acted as one of the foundations to the spirituality of Mohammed, was an unadulterated form of early Christianity that got “encapsulated” in Islam. Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc noted, that the world would be vastly different today if Arianism (rootet out by an expeditionary force sent to Spain by East Roman emperor Justinian in 555 C.E.) or Albigensianism (eradicated in the “Albigensian Crusade” 1209-29) had survived instead of Catholicism, the progressive perversion of original tenets by clerical egomania and mammonism, which caused the emergence of Protestantism.
The multitude of Protestant sects (in excess of 700 of them exist now in the tax-free paradise for bigots - a.k.a. - USA) and so it can come as no surprise, that also science got perverted there into something which now goes by the name of “Paradigmatics”.
While scientists were doing research to find novelty, Helmuth Plessner (in Germany- mid 1950s as extension to Philosophical Anthropology) and Thomas Samuel Kuhn (in America- a decade later as an apologist for the Judaisation of Science) established how and why institutionalised science is basically a reactionary exploit of the ability of the masses to believe in elitist swindles. While Plessner was looking for ways to overcome this stumbling block in the way of what he called “Theory of Knowledge”  (Erkenntnistheorie in German), Kuhn did the opposite. He came up with the buzz-word “Paradigm” (as as summation of the methods and achievements of each scientific discipline). What might have been conceptualised as a diagnosis (this is the benign interpretation) is now widely used as therapy. Someone who is labeled an “unparadigmatic” scientist finds himself in the company of religious heretics and political renegades.
George Orwell divided sciences into exact ones (like physics) and academic pursuits which are governed by the Scientific Method - a method of thought that obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed facts. By arguing in this way, Orwell has foreseen a half century ago why journalists reporting on science (and scientists who accept their scribbles as “written truth”) speak now of the „End of Science“. In doing so, they are simply not true to their avowed principles. Scientists that subscribe to paradigmatics have de facto rejected objectivity as one of the foundations of their pursuit: their (whatever) discipline has become a finite entity and quantitative data-overload is considered a quality.
Paradigms are hence the main reason for many scientists arguing at present, that the “End of Science” is near. But this quantity takes on also another qualitative meaning: like moats around medieval castles paradigms assure that each discipline can separate itself from its neighbours. The “territories” are jealously guarded. Those surrounded by the moats degenerate from mental “inbreeding” while those outside (excluded from knowledge between moats– as it were) suffer the consequences from the warring between the moat-diggers.
Academia was thus turned into a “zoo”: insurmountable walls separate the cages within which each discipline has to exist. These walls are guarded by the dog-patrols of “peer-review”. What for ages had been a means to assure that scientific papers had been methodically flawless, was fiendishly turned into the assurance of compliance with the respective Paradigm.
A simple comparison with geometry can serve to illustrate the underlying idiocy of it all: try to fill a given space with spheres; this is an impossibility, as the spheres will always only touch in single points. The spaces left will always stay voids! When we then look at the “interest” of scientists in “novelty”, then we will find that they will never find interesting novelty, as this is sequestered away into the void between the spheres – the “no go” zone between the paradigms. Kuhn had simply re-established the mental control over the scientific endeavour which was in force in China since the third century B.C.E.: Bo Yang writes about the <Ugly Chinaman> and the present Chinese culture appears much like a “throwback” to the times of the Han-Dynasty (205 B.C.E to 220 C.E) during which no learned person was permitted to transcend the limits for mental or physical action set by his teacher. The strictly materialistic Chinese thinking did result in China being for Millennia a “nation” that was a semantic quality, de-facto a non-entity to (syntactic international) politics. Who ever speaks of the “Yellow Danger” is referring to Mongolian hubris and does not differentiate.
As always, when momentous events are widely assumed to lie just on the other side of the event-horizon of human “history”, the grease-monkeys of human fate are quick to get in on the act. The administrators of religious “-isms” preach from the pulpit the opposite of the tenets that ostensibly make up their creeds. Religions, the factual originators of sciences, turned into the hand-maidens of politicians and their economic backers by calling the meat-grinder resulting from technological progress the (wine) press of divine (grapes of) wrath. The G-d, which monotheism had created, is held responsible for the results of human ingenuity and resulting hubris. It were a brave man that dared to venture as to why man created this single god in his own image; but he would surely argue that this was done so as to “legitimize” man turning into a “creator” himself, while being able to externalize the resulting liabilities to an entity that is beyond reach and without real means of retaliation.
We will never know for sure, but technology (and due to the variegated feed-backs, by inference, also science!) arguably originated at times when women were fed up with having to bear the bulk of the responsibility for human sustenance: they were to take care of procreation, had to make a home, put food on the table and whatnot. All the while the men were concerned with “more important” matters – they called themselves the “stronger” sex and ensured that things stayed as they were. Habarta, in a charmingly subversive book, gives an alternative history of inventions to suggest that all really meaningful (as in beneficial) technologies were invented by women. While women were concerned with the systemic necessities of survival and thus invented agricultural implements, food technologies and means of producing clothing and shelter, men invented ever more ingenious means of killing (not only human) life.
At a time when hunter-gatherers turned into systematic food-producers and were herding their animals of burden, the need arose for keeping stock of production and ensuring that those who “had” were enabled to ensure that they could “keep”. The concepts of number and record-keeping by means of writing were sequiturs. At the same time, those intent on “keeping” invented weapons to enable them to defend what was theirs and began to also use that which they “had” to create more. This was ostensibly just an emulation of the ways of nature – where everything alive can be observed to protect itself by power or stealth and to make more of itself.
Somewhere along this line of thought the fundamental misconception which since ever has been the “self-destruct button” of everything humanity ever created was overlooked: the creations of nature, be they inanimate or organic, all have a certain life-span. Human creativity and its products are aimed at overcoming this natural limitation. When the products of man became “better” than those of nature, the metabolic ways of nature were forever violated: the “conceptions” of nature get born, live for a given time and die; the conceptions of man get written down, get (more or less faithfully) copied and/ or (insiduously) altered and so are protected from the eternal gnawing by the tooth of time. When man became a “creator”, the formerly monochronic clock of everything became polychronic – it was running at different speeds for different things.
Somewhere along all of this, the “culture of empire” emerged in the thinking of those who “had”: a coalition of those “having” knowledge and material wealth let Lao Tse exclaim some 2,500 years ago: “knowledge is power”. The wretched masses since then are hobbled by the fact that those who have (both knowledge and power) are loath to share any of it, but simply want to get more!
Just like the mental constructs of man aim for “eternity”, the material products of human creativity exist (to speak with Martin Heidegger: “are” outside/ besides themselves and everything else) rather than simply exist. The sum total of this situation is the present – a time where humanity is not anymore characterized by its products of all kinds, but rather by the “waste” that is generated in the “act of creation”. These wastes are not metabolic (i.e. the basis of life for other organisms) anymore, but increasingly are either poisonous or simply make space uninhabitable.
All of the above is a simple “collage” of what everybody has learned in school or can read in books. It does explain some of the irksome aspects of the present –but does by no means shed light onto the reasons why science in the Third Millennium has become a largely immoral pursuit of unethical aims. Those wanting to rise in hysterical protest should first collect their wits to come up with arguments to counter the above insinuation. They will have a hard time to do so, as:
v During much of the 20th century “nuclear physics” has gobbled up the bulk of all research budgets the world over. The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a poor showing for all the effort expended. That there are now open-air laboratories for radiation induced mutation in all of nature in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq is even more insidious. Pierre Bordieu would ask whether the fact that it all goes unseen (it is not widely reported by the dumbing machine) really makes it all non existent (as in not happened)?
v Genetic manipulation is being hailed as the only practicable way to outrun the Malthusian divergence of growth rates for human consumption and natural production of foodstuffs. The tragic truth is that the only tangible result of all the effort are extremely worrisome reports on catastrophic mishaps during all phases of the game of genetic roulette that is being played by mad scientists. If the pre-cautionary principle that (ostensibly) governs the medical profession were extended to biological “creation”-research, then there were none of all this genocidal practice! That in several states of the USA “creation” will in future be taught in schools either in parallel with or instead of "evolution" just serves to show how far the complicity of politicians and economic maniacs has gone.
v Information Technology has led to an ever increasing gap between those who are “in the know” and those who remain ignorant. The acquisition of knowledge has always been an elitist pursuit; the more knowledge is digitized, the smaller the number of those with access to it becomes. When computers inundated the (formerly) Affluent Society, it turned veritable armies of gainfully employed clerical workers from second-income earners into members of households without the wherewithal to purchase the wares which were produced with ever increasing “efficiency”. With that the Techno-Paradise turned into a Danteesque purgatory where hapless people do penance for the sins of mammonistic maniacs in corporate ivory towers.
There is little use in crying over spilt milk. That much is true. The fate of the Luddites and their protest against the mechanization of the world in the 19th century is ample proof for the “inevitability of progress”. Much of the blame for the present state of mankind - and, what is more systemically important – Gaia (the Living Earth), lies with the ineffectivity of philosophy. The truth be told bluntly: the blame lies squarely with the philosophers of the 20th century!
v Pragmatism, the prevailing American “philosophy” (under inverted commas, as it has got precious little to do with friendship towards anybody and somebody please show up the wisdom that is behind it!) “Evolution” is a mental poison that has been let loose on to humanity in the 19th century and like a cancerous growth it has smothered any logical thinking. That the same agents provocateur are now letting loose “creationism” on American youth will create innumerous other mental zombies! It will have the same effect that a cup of strong coffee has on an inebriated person.
v While American academia brooded in splendid isolation, the political doers and shakers imported from Europe the proponents of what later was to become Euro-Communism (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and their followers) on the one hand, economists like Friedrich v. Hayek on the other as well as the originator of neo-Liberalism (later imperceivably morphed into neo-Conservatism) Leo Strauss. All those agitators ostensibly had left Germany (German occupied Europe) for “racial” reasons. When viewed with cold objectivity it becomes obvious as to why these “philosophers” had fled – they had probably been sequestered away into labour camps to smash rocks rather then the products of centuries of social, economic and political developments – had they stayed in their home-countries. The intellectual vacuum of America took in willingly these Trojan Horses without checking their teeth (to mix metaphors). With WW II over, America either re-exported these pseudo-scientists to subvert European politics in a lasting way or let them destroy whatever good there ever had been left of the American Dream after 1945.
v In order to make all of this look “natural”, Albert Einstein’s Theory of Invariables (so the name that he himself preferred for it) was given the more “scientific” name of Relativity by Max Plank. Like evolution before it, relativity took the world by storm and smothered all other (especially logical) thinking.
World War II. had “given” the world “tailor-made” cigarettes, “Disneyfication” and a world-view that was dominated by the logo of “Made in America”. As if by divine fiat, the globe fell into the “West” which arrogated itself the predicate “First World”, the Communist “Second World” and the miserable rest which was labeled the “Third World”.
The First World has over half a century shrivelled into an ugly carricature of itself (scarred by “progress”), but still managed to strangulate the Second World financially and it fell without a shot having been fired. More than 50% of all economic efforts had gone into arming the West and East to their teeth for decades and in the end none of these weapons were ever used.
In order to create a replacement demand for weapons systems, a continuous string of conflicts was manufactured and countless hapless people were marched into the meatgrinder of history. All of this “history” was – as usual - written by the winners. By now it is perfectly clear that all of this misery had not been caused by religion or politics, but simply had been a profiteering scheme of “Big Oil”, armament manufacturers and drug pushers. It thus seems very odd to historically versed thinkers, that the history of the single most reported-on event of the 20th century (the Holocaust) was written by the losers! For the first time in recorded history – ever(?) – it was not the winners of historical events that justified their ensuing actions with “dum possum volo” (I can, therefore I want). One wonders what the “winners” have actually achieved.
None of the above had been possible in a world without the various technologies that had been cause and/ or sequitur of scientific research and development. Mankind had been facing the vicissitudes of nature for most of its presence on Earth; since the advent of technology it is hostage to the ostensible helper! In the end, it was technology that turned formerly free man into slaves of machines. This is clearly another case of the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice Syndrome”.
When technology let man investigate the very small and very large regions of nature which had been until then inaccessible to human sensory faculties, the prevailing World-View was shattered: the Cartesian clockwork had been replaced by Newtonian Action ó Reaction and the totally illogical Evolutionary Principle (based on serendipity) had suggested a biological determinism. All these concepts were successive knee-jerks of otherwise rational minds wanting to shake off clerical control over their Earthly existence. Suddenly, they had become useless! We only need to look at the most outstanding example for the resulting quagmire - quantum mechanics:
Dirac, Schrödinger and Heisenberg had come up with three different ways to explain the wondrous ways of the sub-atomic realm. They could all be mathematically proven and even to some degree supported each other. When then, half a century later, Bohm und Hiley presented a fourth version („Ontological Interpretation based on hidden variables“), it transpired that the Fat Lady had not even gotten on the stage yet!
This unsavoury situation – which should tell everybody that only Socrates had ever gotten it right by exclaiming that he knew only that he knew nothing – came about because of new investigative techniques. As a matter of fact, science became a mystical something again, after man had augmented his sensual capabilities with ESP. Many of the modern tools of research are means of extra sensory perception. At this point the discussion enters the realm of para-science, the much maligned illegitimate child of academia.
Traditionally science has simply neglected factual data that did not fit established scientific doctrine. Ever since Galileo exclaimed “e puoi si muove!” (but she – the Earth – IS moving!) institutional science should be more circumspect regarding data that “do not fit”! The magnetic needle points north without us having any means of sensing the force which moves it. Much (if not most) data produced and interpreted by modern high-tech science is of a nature that is not natural. But we are told that they reflect reality. Maybe our present reality is of such a distinctly surreal quality because it is based on science that can only be termed surreal?
Rupert Sheldrake details one of the saddest aspects of present-day science: “blind methods” (meaning procedures that aim at generating meaningful data in a way which is not “coloured” by paradigmatics) are being applied to varying degrees within different disciplines, viz:
Ø “physical” sciences 0.8%
Ø “medical”science 5.9%
Ø Psychology/ Behaviourism 4.9%
Ø Parapsychology 85.2% 4.9%
Nothing could speak in a clearer voice than the above tabulation. It is in fact the much maligned para-sciences, which adhere to the principles of the Baconian Scientific Method and all other institutionalized sciences in our day and age are mainly quackery and dubious attempts to turn mental constructs into reality. It seems as if reality, which Plato had regarded to be projections onto the rear wall of the “cave” he considered mankind to be living in, has been changed into the projections of gaudy pictures onto the screens of ever more ingenious devices. But this is by no means all that is lamentable regarding present-day scientific research techniques.
Mathematics for centuries has been the gear-box (if not motor) for scientific discovery. This had led over time to the appreciation of data which were not alpha-numeric becoming an atrophic part of scientific work. Simply put: if it cannot be counted – it does not count!
The experimental proof of non-local events by Anton Zeilinger in 1997 finally overturned the most fundamental of all of Einstein’s postulates (the speed of light being the ultimate velocity). Simultaneous, causally linked processes in different locations call for an unimaginable quality (non-locality) and are beyond any quantitative considerations. Igor Schiskin already in 1970 published a report on Telepathy happening faster than the speed of light. As telepathy is “impossible” (in terms of the going paradigms) this report could not be of any value and was never even remarked upon. Dr. Ippolit Kogan had already published numerous articles on telepathic phenomena; among them his observation that their strength was not affected by distance (i.e. were “non-Newtonian”). As this was patently “impossible” the matter was never taken up.
Eccles & Popper had postulated some 20 years earlier, that human consciousness had properties which could only be explained by assuming a virtual component. As such it could act as the observer of quantum-mechanical processes occurring within the synapses of our nerve cells and by definition be a causative agent of processes which otherwise are only possible to explain by esoteric means or deserve to be called „wonders“. Rupert Sheldrake, a British biologist proposed a way in which nature „remembers“ how it had acted previously and was able to cause the miraculous feats achieved by multicellular organisms at many stages of their life. By way of morphic resonance processes of formative causation are effected in a non-material way.
Morphogenetic fields are today to biology what magnetic- and electric fields were to physics in the days before Maxwell: they can explain phenomena and permit predictions (both of which are feats which „Darwinism“ is incapable of!), but as of yet there is no mechanism which explains their action. The paradigmatic sciences act as they always have in cases of novelty endangering the status quo: they negate everything, call the originator of the hypothesis (in the given case a member of professional societies at the highest level) a sharlatan and simply close the book on the whole unsavoury affair (hoping it will go away – or at the very least only „break“ after a number of Nobel-Prize winning „Elders“ have joined their dead concepts to act as metabolic waste).
How does all of the above factor into the topic of “Ethics of Science”? It is a manifest fact, that human life has changed from a paradisical (co)existence with nature into a technology-based enslavement of all that is alive – simply put: Gaia (of which humanity is an integral part)! None of that had ever come to pass without the advances of science! Is the simple syllogism of
a permissible reasoning? Or is it an example for what Schleichert called an enthymemic reduction? With this term Schleichert describes syllogisms where the middle premise is presumed a “given” or a muddled concept.
Either way, the inference could not be clearer: unethical science will axiomatically result in unethical technology! Human existence on Earth in the present and future is unthinkable without technologies that either impel nature to “produce” more (as in food or raw materials) or restrain nature (as in levees or dams to keep water out or in). Technologies of a material kind are paralleled by such which control in a myriad ways the human body and/ or mind. To delve further into this quagmire, we have to examine, whether technology is in its entirety based on science, or whether there is another “foundation” to it. Whether it is the digging stick or water wheel, nuclear bomb or “hand-phone” – all technology is also a cultural achievement!
Now that there is evidence to suggest that Germany had the ability to produce a nuclear bomb at the end of WW II, one wonders as to why the genocidal (as per the the historical paradigm) Germans did not use this device, but why it was the USA who started the “Age of Terrorism” with devices developed in the main by Jewish scientists. From this example alone, “culture” (the inverted commas should alert to the fact, that culture is here taken as an all-embracing concept!) acts as a further foundation of technology. The inventors of “victimology” are not able to “legitimize” the use of nuclear bombs with the Holocaust, as it was used on Japanese civilians.
The foregoing serves to illustrate, that there is a lot of “history” to be revisited in order to really make sense of the variegated interplays of science and technology. The fact remains, that there could be such a thing as a “Techno-Paradise”; that the human condition of the presence is for the majority of mankind a purgatory (if not living hell) clearly is a sequitur of technological advance.
One of the lunatic scribbles of George Soros, expounding Nitzschean concepts (cf. footnote# 7) states clearly that present “economy” is so successful not despite, but because of its inherent immorality! Whoever has more but a passing knowledge of the ways of present-day academia will concur – science is now in the main (has it ever been any different?) an extension of commerce. States being “led” by personae who either not possess sufficient knowledge, or can suppress whatever they do have on this matter, and do not follow the prime maxime: the res publica is something by and for all! Being hell-bent on maximizing the profits from public services, they also “out-source” the funding of research to the private sector. Anything financed by immoral economy will axiomatically have an unethical result!
With that we have come to an abrupt and saddening conclusion by affirming the consequent: as long as science is not “carried” by the public, the public cannot expect any benefit from it, but will have to be content with receiving whatever it is that accrues as accidental “side-benefits” to it. In a world that is largely characterized by militaristic strategies (as described by Daniel Quinn, cf. footnote# 24) to achieve any aim (we are fighting wars against terrorism, drugs, diseases and whatnot….) it cannot come as a surprise, when the public does not partake in the benefits of scientific research, but is doled out the liabilities and (“collateral”) damages.
In times gone by educators admonished, that only a healthy body will hold a healthy mind. In present times this should read: only a moral (“healthy”- as in systemically correct) World View will ever be able to produce an ethical (again – healthy) society from which systemically correct science (and technology) can emerge.
 More, G.E.: Principia Ethica . Cambridge University Press, New York, 1948
 Tischler, S.E.: Catastrophes and Religion (PRODIGY,II,4, IX 2003) http://www.promuda-prodigy .com/archives /000028.html
 Albert E.M., Denise T.C. & Peterfreund S.P.: Great Traditions in Ethics; chapter x: Duty and Reason – Immanuel Kant; p. 217. Eurasia Publishing House, Ram Nagar – New Delhi, 1968
 American psychologist Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914) installed in the conscious of scient-ists the concept of >consensus logic< according to which „truth“ is what emerges from the consensus of opinions of all those who are concerned with the interpretation of reality. Mate-rialists will always try to replace missing comprehension with quantifiable abstractions.
 Negation of „heaven“, the dissolution of metaphysics within anthropology was already called by Karl Marx (based on the thinking of L. Feuerbach) the affirmation of individual freedom and „atheism, the last step in theism, i.e. the negative recognition of the existence of God “. Marx K. & F. Engels, Werke. Ergänzungsband 1. Teil, S.537, Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED, Berlin (Ost), 1959. In Nietzsche‘s <Also Sprach Zarathustra> this argument reads as follows: “.... some God inside you made you a god-less person “ (on www.gutenberg.net: pdf file – in German)
 for an enlightening discussion of this topic refer to: Ho, M.W.: Living with the Fluid Genome. p. 52. Institute of Science in Society, London, ISBN 0954492307, 2003
 Albert E.M., Denise T.C. & Peterfreund S.P.: Great Traditions in Ethics; chapter xii: The Trans-valuation of Values – Friedrich Nietzsche; p. 257 Eurasia Publishing House, Ram Nagar – New Delhi, 1968b
 Albert E.M., Denise T.C. & Peterfreund S.P.: Great Traditions in Ethics; chapter xiii: Scientific Method in Ethics. ; p. 282 Eurasia Publishing House, Ram Nagar – New Delhi, 1968
 Pragmatism was first formulated and named by Charles S. Pierce (1839-1914), a physicist and logician who was influenced in his thinking by the biological theory of evolution.His pragmatism was adopted and modified by Wlliam James, John Dewey and others, chiefly in the USA.
 Western man entered into a deal with the "devil" (in the details, as long as they were know-able) and turned into the "Faustian Man". Obsession with detailed knowledge obscured largely the fact that the overall picture got less clear with the increase of factual information.
 Morris, S.C.: Burgess Shale Faunas and Cambrian Explosion. SCIENCE, vol. 246, p. 339,1989.
 German philosopher Martin Heidegger saw the beginning of everything in: „Ex nihilo omne qua ens fit“ , whereas Vedic literature considers holictic concepts a prerequisite for a realistic World View. Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami: Die Vedische Literatur in ihrem eigenen Licht. Vedic literature in its own light p. 61, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Frankfurt/M., ISBN 0 892130172, 1979
 Iqbal, M.: The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. London, 1934. Iqbal stressed that what is now known as „western science“ developed from Islamic knowledge (derived from Greek and Egyptian roots). See also: Bucaille, M.: The Bible, The Qur’an and Science. A.S. Noordeen, K. Lumpur, 2000. Al-Ghazzali has expressed similar views already at the time of the crusades (cf. Watt, W.M.: The Faith and Practice of Al-Ghazzali. p.29, Allen & Unwin, London, 1953. Just like the father of European (faustian) philosophy Descartes, Al-Ghazzali (1058-1111 C.E.) doubted the infallibility of sense perceptions and rested his philosophy rather on principles which were intuitively certain. Thus the bonds of mere authority ceased to hold them.). Western “develop-ment” went in a diametrically opposed direction: the "Scientific Method" conditioned humanity to believe that the results derived with its mathematical and experimental methodologies are tantamount to the age-old concept of "truth". In this way a philosophical concept had become "materialized" and robbed of its spiritual-, moral- and ethical meanings. By way of "feedback", science was devalued, as it was turned from a means to an end into an end all of its own. It comes as no surprise, that in the present science is often an immoral means to achieve unethical ends. Heidegger (see footnote# 12) subsumed modern Western thinking.
 <B.C.E.> Before Common Era stands for B.C.> Before Christ ; and <C.E.> Common Era for Anno Domini ; either convention is sure to conflict with the (in-) sensibilities of some parts of society; based on a coin toss, « Common Era » was adopted for this text Cosima Marriner in the Sydney Morning Herald on 03 March 2005 http://www.smh.com.au/news dignifies the "politically correct" new assignation of historical dates with consternation, rather than just shrugging it off as yet another brutal measure to eradicate any reference to Christianity from common discourse – a flanking measure within the project of the Judaization of science?
 Belloc, H.: Great Heresies. T A N Books & Publishers; ISBN: 0895554755 , reprint 1991
 the Popperian “falsification” ploy is actually little else but the Judaisation of philosophy- Al-Ghazzali established a millennium ago, that there is nothing in logic which requires to be denied. He regards the introduction of a religious concept (the negation) into disciplines which have nothing whatsoever to do with god/ spirituality (logic/ mathematics) as a great evil, “…as few there are who devote themselves to this study without being stripped of religion and having the bridle of godly fear removed from their heads“ (cf, footnote# 11, p.35).
 Plessner, H.: Diesseits der Utopie. Ausgewählte Beiträge zur Kultursoziologie. (On this side of Utopia. Contributions to Cultural Sociology) Eugen Diederichs, Düsseldorf, 1966 (first published in 1956!). Already in 1913 he published an article entitled „Scientific Idea – Outline of its Form“. He was concerned with the semantic elements of scientific work – the empirical input and its further application; his doctoral dissertation was concerned with the „Crisis of Transcendental Truths in the Beginning“ (cf. Böhmer, footnote# 99a , p. 147)
 Kuhn, Th. S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, 1962. He applied a „top down“ approach and dealt with the syntactics of scientific discovery; in his approach it was not the data that structured the ideas, but conceptual work guided data collection. Like for Einstein, the wish was the father of the idea in the oeuvre of Kuhn. Neither one seemed to have been familiar with the writings of David Hume, who early in the 18th century had lamented, that the moral philosophy overcome from Antiquity was like the natural philosophy from that period „entirely speculative and based on wishful thinking rather than experience“ (cf. Böhmer, O.A.: Neue Sternstunden der Philosophie (New Seminal Moments in Philosophy), p. 65, Beck’sche Reihe# 1130; ISBN 3406455425, 1999). Kuhn probably has never read (or if, then not understood) anything that Immanuel Kant had written. In view of the perfidious consequences of Kuhn‘s ridiculous scribble, this was not because of lacking intellectual ability, but rather out of malicious intent! Kuhn has singlehandeldy managed to set back human intellectual achievements by millennia.
 Horgan, J.: The End of Science. Helix Books., N Y, 1996. This book contains interviews with many eminent personalities from science and philosophy; in quite a few cases the interview granted to an author who wanted to document the <End of Science> was the last interview they gave- was the title of the book-project a self-fulfilling prophecy for the kind of science these people were the pillars of ?
 Orwell, S. & I Angus (ed.): The collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, vol. 4, In Front of your eyes (1945-50)
 interest literally means “to be inbetween”. If the intervening space is “off limits”, all that can be found cannot not interesting! Recently this concept has even been applied to politics: “no-fly-zones” are imposed on political enemies. Their brutal enforcement ensures that no lasting peace can be achieved.
 Yang, B.: The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of Chinese Culture. Allen & Unwin, ISBN 1863731164, 1992 .Just like with Paradigms, the “limits” are the more brutally “defended” the less precisely they are “defined”!
 when Sun Ya-Tsen attempted to form the “nation” of National-China on the Island of Formosa after WW II., he was confronted with the problem that the Chinese psyche is focused on the family (clan) but knows no loyalty on a higher level. An old saying calls the Chinese a “loose sheet of sand” (meaning that they will cover everything while not being internally coherent; there is no such thing as a Chinese “nation”). (Far-) Eastern loyalty being restricted on to the family (clan) level has grave implications also for Ethics of Science: there can be no such thing as an overriding interest of “national security” (as in the USA) for Asian people – hence unethical science is also more difficult (impossible?) to “justify”
 need it be stated explicitly? Religion shares this sore point with “The Law”: those who have “made” the law (religions) put themselves beyond reach of their respective powers and tenets
 Habarta, G.: Es war die Frau. Die Technologien haben die Frauen erfunden. (It was the Woman. Technologies were invented by women). BoD GmbH, Norderstedt, ISBN 3.8330-0190-9, 2003.
 Quinn, D.: Beyond Zivilization. Humanities Next Great Adventure, Three Rivers Press. New York, ISBN 0-609-80536-3; 1999
 Flaig, E.: Pierre Bordieu. Entwurf einer Theorie der Praxis (1972) Jahrhundertbücher, p. 358. Jahrhundertbücher, p. 358. Beck, Bremen, ISBN 3-40645938-2, 2000
 in the 19th century they “used” those who were trying to escape the claws of (Judeo-)Christian “religiousity” to subvert human spirituality while now, in the early 21st century they are using those who are intent on regaining the “market share” they lost in the earlier action.
 Bodanis , D: <E=m.c2> A Biography of the World’s Most Famous Formula. Pan Books, London, ISBN 0330391658, 2000. This formula is a very incomplete description of the relation between matter and energy, which does not at all consider the “informational energy of matter”. The “essence” of things (the Dharmata in terms of Eastern thinking) is not manifested in physical forms but in forms of energy. Freemantle F. & C. Trungpa: Totenbuch der Tibeter (Tibetan Book of the Dead); p. 33, Deutsche Bibliothek; Hugendubel, München, ISBN 372052311-X; 2002.
 an all-encompassing review of this sorry situation is given in one of the most maligned books of the 20th century: Finkelstein, N.G.: The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Verso Books; ISBN: 1859850730; 2000
 at that time also a post-script was added to the “Age of Discovery”: the greatest hights and depths on Earth and even the Moon (really?) were visited
 anybody looking for a definition of the term “oxymoron” surely need not go any further than the conceptual base of the “Evolutionary Principle”
 Bohm, D. & B. J. Hiley (Editor):The Undivided Universe. Routledge; ISBN: 041-512 185X; 1995. The fifth interpretation of quantum mechanics by Karl Popper – based on propensity - is mentioned a) for completeness’ sake, b) to show how far the Judaization of science has really gone – at least has tried to go - and c) to give yet another example for an oxymoronic concept.
 Sheldrake, R.: Experimenter Effects in Scientific Research: How Widely AreThey Neglected ? Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 73-78, ISSN 0892-3310/98, 1998
 Professor A. Zeilinger, of Innsbruck University/ Austria was reported in 1997 in various articles (scient-ific periodicals, magazines and the general media) to have announced what may well become recognised as the greatest advance in physics for almost a century. Further progresses in this field are reported by Kwiat, P. G., Barraza-Lopez, S., Stefanov A.& N.Gisin: Experimental entanglement distillation and 'hidden' non-locality. Nature 409, 1014 - 1017 (2001) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd. [French physicist Alain Aspect has done much the same as Zeilinger in 1983– but the time was not right – a repeat of the fate of Emilie du Chatelet and her conception of „energy“?]
 That Zeilinger got a “Future” award in 2001 and shared the podium with the likes of Ted Turner, Steven Spielberg and Luciano Parvarotti is possibly the prelude to him being lauded away from the common conscious and incorporated as a knot in the global carpet of special interests.
 Schischkin, I.: Die physikalische Essenz der Telepathie. In: Telepathie, Paragnosie, Rutengehen und Psychokinese, (The physical essence of telepathy. In: Telepathy, Paragnosis and Dowsing). Prague, 1970
 Welinow, I.: Recent Soviet Experiments in Telepathic Communication. Foreign Science Bulletin, Vol.4, No.8, August 1968 (cited by Ostrander, S. & L. Schroeder: PSI, Bertelsmann, Bern, Book no. 25421971)
 Eccles, J & K. Popper: The Self and Its Brain, 1977
 Sheldrake, R.: A New Science of Life. The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. Park Street Press, Rochester, 1981
 Schleichert, H.: Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren. An-leitung zum subversiven Denken. (How to discuss with fundamentalists without losing ones’ mind. Instructions for subversive thinking) Beck, ISBN 340642144X, 2. Auflage, 1999 [After having read this book one is wondering whether subversive thinking is a sine qua non for logical reasoning]
 The Guardian reports on 1 October 2005 that Luigi Romersa, 88, the last known witness to what he and some historians believe was the experimental detonation of a rudimentary “atomic” weapon on Rugen island in the Baltic in 1944, has just published a book which is set to reignite the smouldering controversy over how close the Nazis came to manufacturing a nuclear device in the closing stages of World War II. An independent historian, Rainer Karlsch, met a barrage of hostility when he published a study containing evidence that the Nazis had got much further than previously believed. Because if the German High Command had tonnes of Sarin, Soman & Tobun gasses as well as an A Bomb - why did they chose not to use them? The answer to this question may solve the biggest riddle of the 20th century: how "real" is the basic premise of the Holo-caust? Were the Germans the mass-murderers that they are seen as? http://www.smh.com .au/news/world/i-saw-nazis-test-abomb-says-authorrewritinghistory/2005/09/30/1127804662891.html. With the analytical tools available today, it should be feasible to answer this entire question one way or the other. But does anybody want to put this controversy to rest?
 This matter is complicated by the fact, that the “use” of the atom-bombs on Japan made it possible to “sell” the largest arms cache ever assembled (on Okinawa to outfit an army that was to “finish off” Japan) was sold to OSS/CIA agent Ho Chi Minh for a ceremonial Dollar by American “Viceroy” L. Rockefeller. This – in reality - started the Vietnam War. Patti, A. L.: Why Viet Nam? Prelude to America's Albatross. University of California Press; ISBN: 0520 0478 34, 1982. This book is a remarkable document- it shows how needlessly millions of lives were “sacri-ficed” to (ostensibly) stem an ideological tide. In reality, all those lives were turned into profits for the oil-/arms industry and narcotics business.
 Soros, G.: On Globalization. Public Affairs; ISBN: 1586481258; 2002. It looks like Soros has un-critically taken many ideas from Machiavelli – but has obviously never bothered to read the „small print“ in <The Prince>.
 An oxymoron if there ever has been one: a service is something that one has to pay for – so how can it ever be profitable for those to whom it is provided?
Dr Siegfried Tischler is Visiting Professor - Ethics of Science, at an Indonesian university.
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute