The New School Nazis: It's Your Actions that Define You

The Myth of Science

Modern Science, like the Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greece, wields a great power—in the service of human frailties.

In the Myth of Science; scientists are portrayed as sorcerers, but they’re not—they’re the sorcerer’s apprentice. Science is more about human behavior than the surety of its scientific robes.

Do the current particle experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) pose a threat to our safety?
“Absolutely not” and these particle collisions “pose no conceivable threat” scientists confidently state.

[That such decisive statements are empowered by theoretical conclusions is disquieting.]

When similar concerns had been raised in the context of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), Frank Close, professor of physics at the University of Oxford, commented:

"the chance of [strangelet creation] is like you winning the major prize on the lottery 3 weeks in succession; the problem is that people believe it is possible to win the lottery 3 weeks in succession.”

The problem results from treating human influenced phenomena as a simple probability mechanism. While statistically: winning the lottery 3 weeks in succession is still possible—however unlikely—that is not my argument: human involvement is the overriding determinant in the results of this “lottery” and one that brings a much greater possibility of that result—from unlawful actions of individuals that override statistical probabilities—to the certainty of winning the “major prize” every week for the governments that run them.

Granting that no current machine can be modified, overloaded, or operated with types or concentrations of particles necessary to create this danger—what about in the future?

Colliders that produce more powerful high energy particle collisions are already being planned.

The question is not whether particle collision experiments pose a risk today—but whether, when they do; will they decide to risk it?

Absolutely yes—If the probabilities allow for human nature.

It’s manifest that when climate change was suggested through evidence; scientists showed a greater interest in their funding and their careers than publicly acting on their position of trust, and speaking out.

Science has progressed from acting without bias, to acting without conscience or responsibility.

People used to worry about the power given to those who could launch nuclear missiles—but we now allow those who are gambling with the future of our world and everything in it do what they want, with a casual “they know what they’re doing” disregard for the realities. Odd.