In class we discussed about how in today's society, a lot of the scientists are controlled, making the controller more powerful than the scientist himself. However, when you think about it, the reason why the controller needs the scientist is because the scientist is more powerful than the controller. And since it is the scientist that actually controls the science that the controller wants, the scientist is in a more powerful position than the controller.

So in a way, it is the "controller" of the scientist that is being controlled by the scientist.
__________________________
Today, President Obama is considered as the most powerful man in America. It would seem that a regular scientist would not even be comparable to him in terms of power.

However, at some times it seems that Obama is being lead to act by science.

Let us for a moment pretend that a scientist working for the Department of Energy discovered a way to teleport. Since this would obviously be a security threat to the U.S. if the information was sold or leaked to another country, Obama would have to act in order to protect the U.S.. Although it may seem that Obama is controlling the scientist and the science through the protective measure he decides to employ, he is ultimately being controlled by the scientist because it is his science that caused Obama to act defensively.

In a way, Obama is being led by science.

Another example would be an Apple engineer creating a algorithm to improve the UI in the Ipad and then Steve Jobs would patent it and present it a a consumer electronic show. In this situation, Steve Jobs is being controlled by the flow of new technology. He isn't controlling it.
_______________________

If scientists are the ones that are actually controlling the "powerful" men and women, why are they not seen in that light in today's society? What defines power?

How True is the Truth?

A couple of days ago, I was watching the History Channel and I happened to see a film on science versus religion. I thought this was very interesting because they were basically telling stories and giving examples throughout history of how people were persecuted (mainly Catholic persecutions), for their religious or scientific beliefs. Many “scientists” (I use the term “scientist” very loose. By this, I mean a free thinker that can draw logical conclusions from concrete evidence.) were persecuted for their beliefs in a spherical earth and a heliocentric solar system. I thought this was very hypocritical first of all for religion to stress brotherly-love and tolerance and at the same time carry on with slaughters. Different religious factions even went so far as to leave their mark in history for having the bloodiest massacres – all because they could not basically agree on the concept of God. But the basic problem between religion and science is that religion, simply put, is a moral code more or less and science is a catalog of observations more or less. This being said, although religion may contain some science, it contains little to no physical evidence. Some people say that there is no mention of a flat earth or geocentric solar system in the scripture, and that the people of the time either interpreted the scripture incorrectly or just incorporated an incorrect common belief about the universe into their religion. But even if the scripture seems to affirm this view, we have to realize that the scripture is mainly a moral code and should not be treated as a scientific piece. If you put it in perspective, we have calculated paths of the trajectories of the sun and moon from earth. From earth, a person would perceive the earth as a center, with the sun and moon as satellites. Also, the earth is perceived to be flat to a person standing on the ground. This is just an example of the theory of relativity; it is analogous to using a different type of coordinate system in mathematics. On the macroscopic scale, this would be wrong, but either way it does not help to accomplish anything in the grand scheme of religion’s focus, which is to conduct moral code and to evidently massacre for not adhering to the “established” moral code. Either way, scientists should not have been persecuted for their beliefs because, first of all, it goes against brotherly-love. Secondly, since religion is a moral code, it cannot discredit science for its rational conclusions based on tangible evidence and vice versa. Therefore, it is possible to be both, a religious person and a scientist. How do religious people and scientists both know that God did not create a self-perpetuating world, governed by basic laws, and just sort of step back? Looking at the bigger picture, I couldn’t help but realize the similarity between science and religion. Both, science and religion, have one goal: to seek the truth, although the methodologies may differ. They both contain some un-testable material, such as God or the big bang. Both, science and religion, require faith in the unknown, some more than others. Mathematics requires a certain set of postulates, axioms, and lemmas (which are taken as mathematical proofs although no real proof exists) as foreground for most of the theorems. Many scientists draw on a bank of knowledge that is well established to be true. As an example, we may know the speed of light, but how many of us actually know the proof behind it? Similarly, the existence of God can be taken as a postulate. For religion, evidence does not matter at all; it is pretty much comprised of all postulates. Everything happens because of God or because God made it that way. But to the scientist, this seems like a good reason to remain ignorant of the world. So naturally, science arouses the need to logically explain events from observable phenomenon. The big assumptions with producing evidence are: that the evidence you have is the “best” evidence possible, and that everything that exists or ever existed leaves or left some sort of evidence that remains behind forever or until someone finds it. Can evidence be completely destroyed – lost forever? Quite possibly, and depicting a world that does not take this into account would be taking a leap of faith. Also, just because something is “scientific” does not make it necessarily true. Our “truths” change from one day to another. We use science as a means for describing only what we are able to see, but that does not mean that we capture the whole picture. For example, Newton’s laws of classical mechanics were scientific truths during his paramount. His “universal” laws of motion seemed to explain everything physically observable. Around 100 years ago, pioneers such as Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger actually discovered that Newton’s Laws only apply to large masses. On the subatomic level, electrons behave as both, waves and particles simultaneously, a phenomenon that Newton’s laws could not explain. And this led to the discovery of quantum mechanics. This does not nullify Newton’s laws because they still exactly describe a large system. But can they really be universal laws if he did not capture the whole picture? Would more scientists believe in God if the laws of motion were found in religious texts? Would religious figures be more accepting of evolution if it was explained in religious texts? All these questions are contingent upon a person’s faith. I believe science and religion both arose in response to societies’ needs at that specific time, and both catered to their needs and offered them some sort of complacency. Neither can claim to be “more accurate” than the other since both incorporated the “universal truths” of that time. Science has the upper hand because it can constantly modify itself whereas religion has lost that elasticity. But constant modification can only mean that previous views were either incorrect or incomplete. In the end, the universe is unique to each individual as its reality is based solely on perception, and belief perseverance is the quality that makes us so human. The main idea that should be stressed should be the quest for knowledge.

Sorry for the stream of consciousness. So many ides were rushing through my head. Now I know how William Faulkner felt!

Scientists and us: How different are we?

I have always wondered what are the key elements that differentiate the great scientists from us mediocre humans. Some of the greatest minds of the past generations have very similar stories of a simple childhood, showing no promise in their early years. Einstein was called stupid by his teachers and expelled from school for his consistently low performance. Edison lacked all theoretical knowledge of his own field of physics and yet is considered the greatest inventor of all times. While going through Einstein: The life and times by Ronald Clarke I came to realize that history tends to exaggerate if not referred to the correct sources. Einstein showed an aptitude for maths even as a primary school kid. Just to provide an amazement factor to his story this part is always neglected when his story is told. His lack of interest was only for the classical subjects of latin and social studies. The same story is true for Edison, who was dabbling with telegraph systems as a young student. This just shows that these great thinkers and inventors aren't born to be great. It is a process that involves a lot of hard-work and dedication. So that brings me back to my initial question, how are these people different, in essence they are not different at all, it is just the fact that they are willing to put in the extra effort for the field of science that they have grown to love over the years that their names show up in the annals of scientific history.

Parting thoughts: Nikola Tesla was the creator/inventor of Alternating Current, something that is essential for evryday living now, yet his discovery was shunned and belittled by the grandmaster Edison, and as a result Tesla received no recognition for his work till he was alive.