I believe that Norman Levitt has provided just the right context for
thinking about the Columbia disaster. And I also share his suspicions
and prognoses surrounding the event. Yet, what he says raises some
rather large questions that may be worth taking up in Scipolicy –
formally or otherwise. Here are two that cut somewhat against each
other:

(1) Is it hypocritical for the scientific community to complain
about public ignorance of science, when at least some sectors of that
community – e.g. NASA? – routinely capitalize on this ignorance to
promote their own interests? Levitt’s remarks suggest that if
politicians knew more science, they would not be so overawed by manned
space missions. I agree. But wouldn’t the next best thing be for
scientists to expose each other’s snake oil more publicly – instead of
concentrating their fire on UFOists, Creationists, etc.?

(2) At the same time, the symbolism historically surrounding the
manned space program had to do with not only exploring ‘the final
frontier’ but also beating the Russians on some surrogate Cold War
battleground. This part of the story may not have been so irrational, if
it deflected interest (and resources) from actual engagement in military
conflict. Is there some scientifically respectable way of pursuing this
political angle?

Yours in discourse,

Steve


Steve Fuller
Professor of Sociology
University of Warwick
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

Phone: 44+ (0) 2476 523 940
Fax: 44+ (0) 2476 523 497
E-mail: s.w.fuller@...
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~sysdt/Index.html