Dark Age Ahead: Science Abandoned (muhahaha!)

In North America, sicence is admired almost to the point of worship. It is easy to understand why. Science and its offspring science-based technology have lengthened and lightened the human life span. Science has enriched our aquaintance with our planet: revealed it's geological history, instucted us in the life the planet supports, cautioned us about its vulnerabilities and the protection we owe it, and clarified the interdependance of its parts.

So far, (first paragraph of the chapter, I agree with Jane Jacobs.

Science is also mistrusted by those who don't like its discoveries for religous, political, ethical, or even esthetic reasons. Some thoughtful people complain that science has erased enchantment from the world. They have a point. Miracles, magic, and other fascinating impossibilities are no longer much encountered except in movies. But in the light shed by the best science and scientists, everything is fascinating and the more so the more that is known of its reality.

Again I agree, but to a lesser degree. I firmly believe that there still is much mystery left in the world that can be explained by miracles. Or at least not explained by science. You only have to look towards the ocean or even space!

Science doesn't supply happiness, but neither does it lack. Science has cast up dangerous and cruel knowledge, which has been exploited for warfare and dictorial power, but so have cultures so little gifted with scientists that they either make do with imported weapons or rely on clubs, axes, and daggers. Scientific information about our mistakes - for instance, that deforestation invites mudslides and deserts, that overfishing depletes fish stocks - doesn't gurantee we will avoid such mistakes or correct them, but that is owing to failure to heed what science uncovers
Despite all of science's shortcomings as a source of perfection, it still remains that the wealth, well-being, and creative power of our culture... depend heavily on science and technology.

Well, I agree with the message portrayed here, that science/technology is important to our culture but it must be used properly. Otherwise, the consequences could be devastating.

The chapter goes on to talk about how science uses "precise and intellectual means" to "get at truths." The chapter continues into a discussion of the importance of the scientific method. It is difficult, if not impossible to disagree with the book here.

The chapter stongly emphasizes the importance of integrity to the scientific and engineering communities and

if a body of inquiry becomes disconnected from the scientific mind, (the author mixes the terms scientific method and scientific mind) that unfortunate segment of knowledge is no longer scientific.

This is saying that if a design, experiment, etc. is tainted by a lack of intergrity (or, in my opinion, a lack of competency) it is no longer valid for its intended purpose. I also find myself agreeing with this line of thought.

A MAJOR point of contention (I was so angry that I had trouble reading) between the author and I is formed when she makes claims against traffic engineers.

In what traffic engineers have chosen to do and have recommended, they have abandoned and betrayed science as it is understood. "Engineering" also has an opprobrious (1. Expressing contemptuous reproach; scornful or abusive 2. Bringing disgrace; shameful or infamous) connotation of manipulation without regard for truth, as in "engineering consensus"

After reading this I nearly leapt into my pickup and cruised up into Canada to beat her with the ugly stick. But I didn't. First of all, engineering is the application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends. Engineering consensus? I would relate this to a term I am familar with: engineer's judgment. An example of engineering judgement: used to deviate from any standard specs when the spec is prohibitive. For example, a highway curve may not meet the required minimum radius for the design speed. If the radius cannot be reasonably increased due to prohibitive surrounding area (i.e. wetlands) then mitigation occurs. In my example, a likely mitigation would be posting a lower speed around the curve. This is not an uncommon practice. Part of engineering is staying within a reasonable budget. The cost of environmental permits and right of way aquisitions can play a large role in deciding the fate of any project.

On to defend the honor of traffic engineers everywhere (kindof). The author whines about how new roads are built based upon where traffic engineers say the roads are necessary. She goes on to point out several reasons why roads are not necessary, including the current traffic is not congested and the roads will conflict with neighborhoods and parks. She also mentions examples of new roads that are not being utilized to full capacity.

I have several statements about traffic engineering for her:

1. Traffic projections are not exact. They are usually based upon either recent and expected population growth or current and future landuse zones. In other words, traffic engineering is to civil engineering as probability and statistics is to mathematics (LOL).
2. It is not uncommon for politics to get involved in civil engineering projects. Politicians many times have "pet projects" that they try to push through. I include politicians from the local (city and county) to the national (senators and reps.) level in this "categorizing." For instance, when highway bills are passed many times certain projects in states have "earmarked money" that must be spent on them.
3. Most roads are contructed for 20-year traffic volumes. Some roads and interchanges are even constructed to attract new industry and commerce to an area.
   

I am done ranting and roaring, so you can WAKE UP NOW! ;)