The Trabant Model Of Science - Epistemology

Message from discussion The Trabant Model Of Science

Sam Carana

More options Oct 9 2005, 4:04 am

From: Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:04:42 +1000

Local: Sun, Oct 9 2005 4:04 am

Subject: Re: [epistemology] Re: The Trabant Model Of Science

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

On 10/8/05, Souvik <souvik1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sam Carana wrote:
> > An Invasion? Again, if one such organization is prone to fail in regard
> to
> > the security services customers want, then those customers will switch
> to
> > another organization. That is the best guarantee against inferior
> services.

> And while the country's being looted and ransacked, and its people are
> wisely deciding their next mercenary military organisation (none of which
> are answerable to the people, as they are non-government and purely on
> contract). You don't understand the word 'invasion', do you?

> Military powers and structures at a national level cannot be changed
> overnight like your antivirus software, you numbnut.

Your added insult is yet another indication of your inability to have a
serious discussion about serious matters. No, I didn't say that you implied
that all groupmembers were nuts, just that you keep showing disrespect to
all readers by continuing to resort to personal attacks and twisting of
words, rather than addressing the issue. Misrepresenting what I said doesn't
show much integrity either. I clearly said that customers should decide the
security services they want. My proposal is for gradual reform of the
existing military, rather than instantly replacing them by mercenaries. Yes,
reform of the military can take some time, so the more reason there is to
start early and proceed with care and caution. These are issues that should
be well discussed, planned and executed.

> By civil unrest, I mean, one organisation with sufficient military

> control
> > > over a region might coup the region's government and begin militancy
> against
> > > other such organisations in an effort to gain power.

> > Are you kidding? That's the very situation we're in now. If that worries
> > you, then the more reason for you to support my proposal to split up the

> > military.

> So, give me an example of civil unrest and governments being couped.

The situation we have now is that there is a single organisation with
sufficient military control to prohibit other organizations to offer
security services in competition. If that's your concern and if you
associate that with civil unrest, then the more reason to support my
proposal for structural separation.

> It has everything to do with science. Scientists work hand in hand with

> > government, typically supporting its every move and getting a nice
> paycheck
> > in the process (talking about monetary interests), which makes it even
> > harder if not impossible for other organizations to offer security
> services
> > in competition with the military. It's time that we recognize the
> political
> > view behind this for what it is. And it's time for scientists to speak
> out
> > when they're being used as a mouthpiece for this kind of politics. It's
> time
> > for scientists to respect the importance of this issue, rather than to
> show
> > the kind of disrespect that you keep up not just towards me, but by
> > implication to all members of this group and the public in general. You
> > condemn yourself with your own words and give scientists a bad name in
> the
> > process.

> Scientists get equal if not more money from private industries.

Yet, many private organizations work indirectly for the government. Why are
you seeking to deny the undeniable fact that most scientists work either
directly or indirectly for the government?

What you are proposing is not politically revolutionary.

No, it's just applying the conventional ideas of economic reform to
security services. It's indeed a shame that so few scientists have even
contemplated these thoughts.

Nor do I see it causing a decrease in science funding (there are plenty of

> private industries with science funds comparable to a nation's).

The combined government budgets for education, the military and security is
huge. That's where most scientists ultimately get their funding from. It's
time scientists start wondering to what extent this creates bias.

What I see is that you are not prepared to follow through with your own

> thoughts. You think up a concept and keep pushing it against all odds and
> believing in it without attacking it from all corners yourself first.

What kind of shallow nonsense is this? People should decide what security
services they want. If they have doubts, then they should indeed question
their current service provider and consider switching to a better one.
Sam

Reply to author Forward