![]() Those few who try to expose the world of secrecy face the problem of using sources that are not always open, not always falsifiable. They work for large organizations with a definite hierarchy, they are given narrowly defined guidelines within which to work, and they usually follow someone else’s agenda. ![]() These days, most journalists fit the same mold as their colleagues in the laboratories and ivory towers. To be sure, journalists have fared better. Because nearly all scientists and academicians are confined to public sources for their research, we end up with a version of reality that excludes the world of secrecy.Ĭertainly, the track record of scientists and university scholars in the last century bears out the claim that they are ill-suited to exposing runaway secrecy. government (and we can assume most other governments and major entities) are impossible to verify one way or another. The enormous volume of classified material means that most of the activities of the U.S. It may in fact be true, but philosophically speaking, it’s not valid. If you lack the chance to “falsify” a proposition – that is, to prove it wrong – then it’s not valid. As Oppenheimer understood, scientific research must be available for examination by outsiders. All scientific and academic inquiry is predicated upon being able to work from open and fully accessible sources. One reason for this unhappy situation is simply how science operates. This belies what they are supposed to do, at least according to the proponents of an open society. What’s especially galling is that the nature of modern scientific and academic work enable such secrecy to thrive. Government classifies nearly ten times that amount – an estimated 560 million pages of documents. For scholars engaged in political, historical, scientific, or any other archival work, the grim reality is that most of their government’s activities are secret. ![]() The Library of Congress adds roughly 60 million pages to its holdings each year, a huge cache of information for the public. It is a world in which our reality is polished and tinted on a daily basis by global power interests, and in which much of what really goes on is classified.Ĭonsider. Oppenheimer, a man of conscience and intellect who straddled the worlds of free inquiry and national security, was in a good position to understand the deep meaning of his words.Īnd yet, despite the wonders of the Web, our world is not one in which free inquiry is the rule. ![]() The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.” “There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry,” wrote the man who led the Manhattan Project. Whether in a household, a classroom, or a nation, a free flow of critically examined and openly discussed ideas gives us our best chance for intellectual growth and personal achievement. Since the time of Pericles, defenders of human freedom have promoted the virtues of open debate within society, and for the full freedom of citizens to investigate their government and world. Especially given that it might become more relevant with the passing of FASAB 56 and so on.Ī Special Analysis By Richard M. Given how many people don’t know about the Breakaway Civilization hypothesis of Richard Dolan, I try to reshare this as often as possible for anyone interested on the subject matter. Richard Dolan – A Breakaway Civilization: What It Is, & What It Means For Us #Space #Aerospace #Tech #Aero
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |