Science = War

Penicillin:
Fleming himself didn’t either continue his research with penicillin and it time passed to the year of 1938, when a group of English researchers started to really study and develop the manufacturing of penicillin. The work was hard and the first experiments didn’t produce nearly any results. It took till 1940 when the Second World War had already started, when the researcher managed to isolate, clean and stabilize penicillin in a laboratory. This difficulty of processing penicillin was one of the factors, why Alexander Fleming didn’t believe, that penicillin could have any clinical value.
Click to expand...
Despite the fact that the Second World War had started in September 1939 and penicillin was ready for use year and a half later, the English government and the English pharmaceutical companies were not interested or reacted to the pleas of the researcher to start the mass production of penicillin.

- In USA, the penicillin however was considered very interesting and when Japan attacked to Pearl Harbour, the means to mass-produce penicillin already existed. It took nearly three years to produce penicillin in sufficient quantities.
Click to expand...

http://www.silentwall.com/Penicillin.html
Hmmm, 1938 they were working on it... war did it? Nope.

Too busy inventing Machine Guns and the production of Poison Gas which came on leaps and bounds you'll be pleased to know. Arguably Submarines although if you wanted to you could trace the idea to Da Vinci.
Click to expand...
Machine guns?
Hiram Maxim really - 1881
Submarines - 1901.
Poison gas, not even close:
Considered uncivilised prior to World War One, the development and use of poison gas was necessitated by the requirement of wartime armies to find new ways of overcoming the stalemate of unexpected trench warfare.
First Use by the French
Although it is popularly believed that the German army was the first to use gas it was in fact initially deployed by the French. In the first month of the war, August 1914,
Click to expand...
http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/gas.htm
Poison gas was developed before the war...

Mass production dates back to the Royal Navy dockyards for the manufacture of block and tackle.

Do you ever bother checking your facts or just assume that whatever you say is correct?
Billy 2 Oli 0
Click to expand...
Still delusional.
 
Last edited:
Notes: This week, we begin the final chapter of John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education, as Gatto drives home the point of the argument he's been making throughout the book, that the system of compulsory schooling has not been put in place to sharpen the intellectual skills of children
to be equal to the responsibilities of free citizens, but just the opposite, to dumb them down, to be the malleable subjects of a plutocracy. Gatto has showed how this program developed out of union of the racial supremacist ideologies prevalent
among 19th century intellectuals and the needs of industrial capitalists for a controllable and profitable workers and consumers. Though the rhetoric of freedom has dominated the the founding and development of the united states, the reality has been an orgy of violence. racism and related ideologies of inferiority and superiority have provided the justification for this oppression of others to people who wished to see themselves as paragons of morality and reason. Gatto has shown that it was the leaders in science and academia that were the purveyors of this bleak vision, a theme that will be echoed in a new three part series to begin this week by the British documentarian Adam Curtis. Long time listeners may remember two of his previous series , the Power of Nightmares and the Century of Self. His new series is called The Trap; What happened to our dreams of freedom?



http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug370-hour1mix.mp3
 
To do modern science one needs to be smart (or have "people skills") to be able to do it and dumb enough (as well as lack many other positive qualities) to actually do it.
 
dixon said:
Very few scientists do science for the heck of it.
Click to expand...
The ones I know all do. And they tend to be decent, entertaining, productive, nice, and very intelligent people.

Are you perchance mixing up inventors and engineers of various kinds with scientists?

weedeater said:
Maybe not war, but just compeditiveness in general?
Click to expand...
War is different from competitiveness in general - the lack of rules, for example.

War is a good example of one of Gall's basic laws of systems: a large system produced by expanding the dimensions of a smaller system will not behave like the smaller system. War may be an expansion from competition, or personal fighting, but it does not behave as they do - it's role is not the same as ordinary fighting's or competition's.

Again: the innovations of war are as often distractions and interferences with science as futherances of it. The great discoveries of science are very seldom associated with war at all - let alone great wars.
 
iceaura said:
The ones I know all do. And they tend to be decent, entertaining, productive, nice, and very intelligent people.

Are you perchance mixing up inventors and engineers of various kinds with scientists?
Click to expand...

The quality #1 for a modern scientist - being fake from top to bottom. I'm somewhat sure that great many of them are fake even in their dreams :) Buy low, sell high, in other words. Just a business. Just look more closely at your acquaintances, you might see a thing or two :) Because, natural selection of the modern scientiests selects mostly robot zombies and great impersonators. There is no doubt that the Temple of Science pushing out anything moderately independent, creative, diverse in interests, real (in the sense not fake), adhering to any kind of professed values - is a good thing. Because there is no doubt that modern Science is being used mostly for the opressive, destructive if not suicidal purposes.
Click to expand...
 
Most 'Scientists' I know of don't think of the money, if you haven't noticed there are loads of people out there claiming this and that wanting to do specific projects and all they want is the money to do those project. Science and Research in general is for the most of the time Underfunded, people don't make money from Research as research is pretty much a sinkhole for funding.

When a Research project is conducted the only thing that investors have to go on is circumstantial evidence that the research on completion will yield a certain result. Budgets are drawn up and time frames applied, usually Research can extend beyond the time frame and if it's thorough will obviously incur greater costs. It's then up to the beancounters to decide if they should continue funding the research for the eventual prize of it's completion or pull the plug there and cut their loses.

It can take many years for the fruits of research to yield enough capital from commercial or other industrial interests to replace the amount that was used up during it's funding stages.

Such famous companies as Marconi actually fell into a near state of bankruptcy because of pretty much dealing with research and ageing patents.
 
Billy Chyldyshe said:
What drives science? War, mainly.
Click to expand...


I haven't read the thread and don't intend to. I just wanted to point out that this oft said statement is nonsense. There is no doubt that warfare and the military do stimulate science, but to say that this is the "main" impetus is wrong. The majority of science proceeds quite happily and independently of war.
 
Don't you understand the meaning of the word 'impetus'?

It means the speed and energy in which an idea (scientific in this case) moves.

Now that explains why I couldn't be bothered answering Olis typically pointless post. In true scientific pedant fashion he marks out times and dates in a hapless attempt to somehow disengage them from War. Yet he fails to acknowledge that those dates occur when Nations are 'building up for War'

To compound the error he then goes on to complain that Penicillin only was in preparation in 1939..the year the War started!..and was fully developed by 1945 ..the year the War ended!...what better prrof could you possibly provide, Ol? i..thank you and read on...

While penicillin had been discovered pre-war by Sir Alexander Fleming, it took the war to force companies to develop a way of making the highly effective medicine on an industrial scale. Credit for this goes to Howard Florey and Ernst Chain and many soldiers wounded in combat had both men and their team to thank. For this research and achievement, Florey, Chain, and Fleming shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1945. By the end of the war, such was the research into penicillin that several strains were developed. Also the 1945 version of penicillin was some 20 times more potent that the 1939 version

If you want any more history lessons then dont fail to get back in touch:p
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
I haven't read the thread and don't intend to. I just wanted to point out that this oft said statement is nonsense. There is no doubt that warfare and the military do stimulate science, but to say that this is the "main" impetus is wrong. The majority of science proceeds quite happily and independently of war.
Click to expand...

Yes well if you havent read the thread then stop replying to things you havent read, Rocky.

Or better still..start a thread of your own.
 
Billy Chyldyshe said:
To compound the error he then goes on to complain that Penicillin only was in preparation in 1939..the year the War started!
Click to expand...
Not in the USA it didn't (where it was developed) - if you read more of my links they explained that financial problems kept the development of penicillin lagging.

Now that explains why I couldn't be bothered answering Olis typically pointless post.
Click to expand...
Because you couldn't come up with any more lies?

In true scientific pedant fashion
Click to expand...
As opposed to "make things up and hope they're true" fashion?

Billy Chyldyshe said:
Yes well if you havent read the thread then stop replying to things you havent read, Rocky.
Click to expand...
You mean you don't like it when other people post blanket statements the way you do?
 
dixon said:
Just a business. Just look more closely at your acquaintances, you might see a thing or two Because, natural selection of the modern scientiests selects mostly robot zombies and great impersonators.
Click to expand...
There is no support for that statement among my own acquaintances and in my own dabblings. I have met jerks, the overly ambitious, the flawed and the weak, among the several dozen scientists of my casual and passing acquaintance, but every one of them cared about their subject and field, every one of them was strongly motivated by curiosity and intellectual interest, and not a single one of them was running their investigations as "just a business".

I don't even know too many businessmen who run their businesses as just a business, actually. But then I only know small businessmen and farmers - people who do business on the scale that most scientists do science.

I have, on the other hand, met great impersonators and cynical manipulators among musicians, artists, writers, political activists, etc.
 
Most 'Scientists' I know of don't think of the money, if you haven't noticed there are loads of people out there claiming this and that wanting to do specific projects and all they want is the money to do those project. Science and Research in general is for the most of the time Underfunded, people don't make money from Research as research is pretty much a sinkhole for funding.
Click to expand...
You got that right. Most scientists don't think about LOTS of money, which, as they know for sure, is almost 100% out of question (how many CEOs with a Ph.D. do you know :)?). However, they think a lot about clinging to the modest but comfortable (if you are not a grad student or postdoc) existence. To do that one must do mostly mindnumbing research (currently being funded), one has close to zero interest in, fake, sell used cars, think nothing global, wage office wars, behave less than ethical (science is stuck in feudal times with serves, peons and lords), etc.

When a Research project is conducted the only thing that investors have to go on is circumstantial evidence that the research on completion will yield a certain result. Budgets are drawn up and time frames applied, usually Research can extend beyond the time frame and if it's thorough will obviously incur greater costs. It's then up to the beancounters to decide if they should continue funding the research for the eventual prize of it's completion or pull the plug there and cut their loses.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, most of the science projects is funded by state, i.e. some bureaucrats, having really murky understanding of the subject, decide where money rain will fall based on anything but merit. Some fund managers are ABSOLUTELY clueless about the research they supervise and fund.

It can take many years for the fruits of research to yield enough capital from commercial or other industrial interests to replace the amount that was used up during it's funding stages.

Such famous companies as Marconi actually fell into a near state of bankruptcy because of pretty much dealing with research and ageing patents
Click to expand...
Most of the science "product" is 100% waste, useless for present and the future. Most of the published papers are never read by a single live soul. Sheer excercise in futility, carpet bombing comes to mind.
 
Scientific methodology is war on a mental level. How can I break down what I am looking at into its component parts and control it.

Some scientists manage to be nice, warm people despite the pernicious warlike mentality they embrace at work. Just as some monotheists, Republicans and professional wrestlers are also nice in their downtime. The great thing about professional wrestlers is that they know they are in a mode when they work and do not take it seriously as a metaphysical stance. This puts them above the other groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top