[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Implications for Space Topic

On Thu, 22 May 1997 MWBRYANT@aol.com wrote:

> Regarding Alan Dove's condemnation of the space topic on the basis of
> "outlandish" risk claims involving nuclear power sources in the Cassini
> satellite:

Okay, let's straighten this out at the top.  I DID NOT CONDEMN THE SPACE
TOPIC solely on the basis of the expected outlandishness of evidence I may
hear.  Of course this is a problem on all topics, and of course there are
folks out there on the opposing side in the case of the Cassini evidence. 
However, there are quite a few paranoid claims made about scientific
issues that do not get a non-technical response from credible sources. 
Debaters would then be left either quoting highly technical literature
(with less persuasive power) or trying to answer the arguments
analytically - that's fine if I'm judging the round, but may not work as
well with those with a bias for cards. 

Most of Bear's post makes extremely effective arguments against claims I
never made (or certainly didn't intend to make).

> 1. Though I respect both Alan's technological expertise and listserve
> rationality, to ignore these risks is just another example of "cartesian
> arrogance." These are actual risks, being written on by real scientists, not
> just environmental whackos. Yeah, we all know just how wonderful nuclear

Sure, but the whackos write MUCH better cards, as exemplified by the
article Lisa posted, which is not even the most extreme stuff out there.
Yes, Cassini poses some risk, as does any launch of any satellite at all.
Remember Skylab?  We don't have to have a complete duality between
"cartesian arrogance" and "Henny Penny."  There is a middle ground, but it
requires informed skepticism, and on many issues, the scientific community
has done an abysmal job of informing the public.

> 2. Did you judge much last year, Alan? Because the Cassini case was run by
> several teams on the environmental topic, which kind of shows the silliness
> of using Cassini risks as a unique reason to reject the space topic. Any of

I've heard the case, and of course the Cartel had a file dedicated to it
as well.  I was not, at any time, using this as a unique reason to reject
the Space topic - just pointing out that this type of stuff  (note "type
of stuff" is a group of arguments, not just Cassini) is one reason I
wasn't too keen about the Space topic.  When debaters are arguing about
technology many of them don't understand, the quality of the argumentation
necessarily suffers.  I actually included Space on the Columbia ballot
(choice No. 5, but didn't shut it out completely) because I think there
are some merits to debating it - one of which would be greater education
on scientific topics.  My main reservation about that approach is that I'm
not sure debate is such a great classroom for such topics.

> times without losing to it. Your fear that that "your side" would be
> underrepresented in the literature is an empty one. Having personally
> examined the literature on both sides of the issue, I think there's plenty to
> debate. I'm as personally pro-tech as they come, but I'm even I'm left a

See above.  There is plenty on both sides for Cassini, but there is a
definite skew in accessible coverage of quite a few other issues.  Even
debaters who do serious, deep research can come up with cases that don't
hold water in the real world, even though all of the general literature
they can find seems to support their position. Revoking funding for "bad
biotech" to fund a transition to sustainable agriculture is unworkable on
several levels, no matter how you feel about technology, but no scientists
have written a credible, accessible explanation of the problems with such
a policy.  Why not?  Because there is probably only one professional
scientist in the world who has even heard of the suggestion, and he's too
busy.  Most scientists won't bother communicating with the public unless
they absolutely have to, so quite a few ideas that don't stand up to
scientific scrutiny simply never get exposed to it until it's way too
late.  I could preach a very long sermon about why this problem needs to
be remedied, but will instead refer you to Carl Sagan's last book, "The
Demon-Haunted World."  He covers many of these issues.

> little dismayed by your attempt to belittle a risk that is so significant
> that NASA has felt the necessity to dedicate an entire web page to answering
> the growing public complaints. Tell you what, it seems like we should be

The fact that the public has complained does not make the risk
significant.  People complain about radon in their homes, and an entire
industry was created to "deal with the problem."  There are virtually no
data supporting the idea that radon at low levels can cause any health
problems at all.  Meanwhile, the World Health Organization plans to stop
vaccination for polio in the year 2005, without having established
adequate controls on existing stocks of the virus.  A worldwide pandemic
of infantile paralysis may be looming, and nobody seems to care.

> leaving these issues to the students to debate with expert testimony, not to
> personal proclamations of engineers.

The personal proclamations of engineers are the "expert testimony" that
would be quoted, so I fail to see how this gets around the problem.  If
the students don't understand the science behind what they're arguing, the
problem remains.


By the way, Bear, it's good to have you back.  Things were getting kind of
boring around here.

          --Alan

__________________
Alan Dove
N3IMU
ad52@columbia.edu
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page