Overview
ASSIGNMENT:
Subsequent Posts (min 100words/post): Engage thoughtfully with at least three of your classmates' posts. In your responses, you have two options:
- Challenge and Counter-Argument: If you find a classmate's perspective or interpretation debatable, present a well-reasoned counter-argument. Use specific examples from the documentary "Into Eternity," or draw on concepts from lessons 6 and 7, to support your viewpoint. This approach encourages a deeper exploration of the subject matter and fosters critical thinking.
- Agree and Expand: Alternatively, if you agree with a classmate’s analysis, build upon their argument by introducing additional theories, examples, or ideas. This could include integrating other perspectives on risk society, the role of science in society, or further discussing democratization strategies in science and technology. This approach helps to broaden the discussion and introduce new facets to the conversation.
Remember to cite any external sources used in your arguments. This is not only good academic practice but also enriches the discussion with diverse viewpoints and information.
Michael Emerson;
These 3 approaches to science, that of the actual scientists, that of the politicians funding their research and anticipating their results and potential technologies, and that of the philosophers and their quest to define knowledge itself. The scientist likely sees itself as discovering natural laws with the intention of applying them in technology, though it may know well that science is also social in nature. The politician is concerned with whether the funding of such projects and research is worthwhile, and this comes down to utility in one way or another. The philosopher stands back from specific scientific truths and explores more abstract and fundamental questions, as empiricism itself cannot be tested. The scientist may see technological risk as potentially beneficial and potentially disastrous advances in technology. For the politician, however, the concern might be related to staying in office, or more noble minded, the well-being of his constituents and society. The philosopher might speak of good, or harm done to humanity, and see knowledge itself as a double-edged sword. As for nuclear waste management, scientists need to be aware of harmful effects of the substances being produced from nuclear reactions, especially for the environment that our societies reside in. The politicians may want this nuclear waste stored as far as possible from the cities and counties he presides over.
The issue of science is multifaceted. The understanding begins with epistemology and metaphysics. Empiricism is the official epistemological stance of science, and metaphysically statements about the world can be true or false, a compendium of facts giving structure to all we know. In all fairness there is the element of social interaction, and societies engage in scientific inquiry as professions, with payment as it is with all professions. This doesn’t negate the existence of truth, and the process of peer review and repeated experiments safeguard against individual biases. Unfortunately, in the modern day, much physics is directed at developing weapons, the militarization of science. Biological technology can be questionable as well, alongside many needed cures and treatments for physical ailments. Technology can be used for the greatest good or greatest destruction, as nuclear technology reveals, and worse, as in the afore-mentioned militarization of science, it is often directed into destruction by self-interested politicians. Just the production of such weapons causes harm to the environment, as the products of nuclear reaction are stored, even if relatively safely. As we have already learned, from other effects such as global warming, this will not continue without consequences.
I think there are two things that can be done in the effort to reduce technological risk: the appointing of scientists to office, and secondly, cultivating a population that is more knowledgeable of science and its intricacies. In the 90s pop science was booming, with eager scientists speaking to the public on topics such as evolutionary biology and quantum mechanics. This approach would result in direct participation of scientists in the process of legislation, and the impact of an educated public engaging politically. And as far the institution of science, a better attitude towards female scientists would help with cultural diversity. This would require that scientists attempt to run for office and become public intellectuals with the skill of public relations under their belt in addition to a science degree.
William Cain:
Into Eternity shows that different groups understand the risks of nuclear waste in very different ways. Engineers in the film see risk as a technical problem. They believe that layers of protection like copper canisters, clay, and Finland’s stable bedrock can keep radioactive waste isolated for 100,000 years. They focus on geology because conditions above ground can change due to war, natural disasters, or political conflict. Regulators talk about legal and moral duties. They explain that current laws require them to protect future generations and avoid placing unfair burdens on them, even though they admit that passing information across thousands of years may not be possible. Philosophers and theologians in the film raise questions about memory, language, and the rise and fall of civilizations. They worry that future people might misunderstand Onkalo as treasure or a religious site, which could lead to dangerous mistakes.
Lessons 6 and 7 help explain why these groups think differently. York says there is a difference between the logic of science, which is based on evidence, and the establishment of science, which includes political and economic influences. This helps us see why engineers trust calculations, while others question the limits of scientific certainty. Gould adds that governments and corporations have the most control over scientific research. Their priorities shape which technologies are developed, which means science is not neutral or democratic. Beck’s Risk Society theory also applies because high risk technologies are usually managed by experts connected to powerful institutions, which leaves ordinary people out of the decisions.
To democratize science and technology, the public needs a real role in shaping decisions before projects are built. This could include early community involvement, independent funding for research that studies long term impacts, and citizen panels that share decision making power with experts. We should also create better ways to pass on information so future societies can understand the dangers. Finally, a more democratic approach should ask whether producing more nuclear waste is acceptable or if safer energy paths are needed.
Julie Mai:
After watching Into Eternity, the idea that technological risk is something shaped by different groups' perspectives was reinforced. Scientists, politicians, and philosophers in the film aren't even talking about the same risk even though they're responding to the same problem. The scientists approached nuclear waste like a giant math problem. The risk becomes something they can manage if the calculations are right. There's this idea that with enough data, uncertainty shrinks. Even so, they admit that trying to plan 100,000 years into the future is basically stepping into the unknown. Politians in the documentary come at it from a totally different angle. They're thinking about public trust and how to justify decisions. There's the philosophers who almost act like the conscience of the project. They questioned whether humans should even be making decisions stretch 100,00 years from now. They're more concerned with the moral failure.
Lessons 6 and 7 helped explain the differences. Lesson 6 reminds us that the logic of science, the rational analysis of empirical data, is not the same as the establishment of science. The scientists are responding to the logic of science. They've learned to trust data and reasoning so their approach isn't baseless but rooted behind their scientific training. Politians are responding to the establishment of science. They're worried about public opinion and government responsibility. Philosophers are responding to both.
I'm not fully convinced there is a realistic strategy for democratizing science and technology. Lessons 6 and 7 both show how deeply science is embedded in political and economic institutions. The establishment of science is controlled by governments, corporations, and expert networks. I'm not sure how easy it would be for those structures to open up to the public. A couple of classmates had ideas like involving communities early in the process, increased transparenct around risks, and independent oversight but those ideas run into the same problem. The people with the most powers are the ones who decide how much participation the public actually gets. We can provide input but the experts still set the boundaries and define what counts as a "reasonable" solution. Although democratizing science and technology sounds like a great idea, the structure of science and technology makes it difficult to achieve in practice.