🚀 go-pugleaf

Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <hgWzd.1613562$SM5.130726@news.easynews.com>,
> Sam Stone  <sirian@mental.org> wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Packman wrote:
> 
> 
>  ......
> 
>>>There is no scientific requirement to have either "an excuse"
>>>or "an accident". Intent is not a scientific concept. 
> 
> 
>>Do tell?
> 
> 
>>So in studying ecosystems one would not weigh the "intent" of humans in 
>>their actions upon the environment?
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could flesh out your example. If a ship goes aground
> and spills millions of gallons of oil, the environment is damaged
> no matter the intent of the captain.

And if one chooses to extract and transport and use pollutive fossil 
fuels extensively the intent is clear, some losses will have to be endorsed.

>>>Dealing
>>>with natural laws is the realm of science.
> 
> 
> .....
> 
>>So we can disabuse the eco-weenies of any scientific halo and instead 
>>render judgment on their platforms based solely on "religious"  or 
>>"philosophical" tenets?
> 
> 
> Again, you need to flesh out your point here.

Do I?

We have science now as both a moral and purely analytical tool it seems.

One might enter the subject of cloning too...

>>Goodness, I see a glimmer of hope for drilling ANWR on the horizon.
> 
> 
> The science should unambiguously tell us the consequences of such
> actions subject to uncertainties with respect to how such drilling
> were to be executed.

Yes.

> It can tell us how much oil per year can be
> recovered and how this relates to global production. It cannot tell
> us how much we value different outcomes.

So you're saying it can delineate a risk and cost structure but not 
measure cumulative cost/benefit?

I mean that is the crux of the global warming/pollution dilemma with 
fossil fuels vs. alternative energies...

The moral and the observable, part and parcel of a stew of probabilities 
yet to be successfully modeled in the long range.