Socratic Seminar 1- The Value of Science

The Value of Science - By Richard Feynman


Feynman raises very interesting points about the value of science in his article. His very first point is that value can be described as " the material or monetary worth of something" (Macbook Dictionary); therefore, regardless of science having a positive or negative impact on society it still maintains value.  I believe that if one follows the literal definition of value, science in any respect has value (good or bad), but if one determines value through reality and actuality, science may not always have value due to its negative impact on society, thus proving to be non-beneficial to the major population.  I believe value is perceived to many people as something society can benefit from or progress from.  Now, who determines progress?  There are different types of progress, such as technological, individual, and the progress of society.  The progress of technology would encompass the enhancement of previous technology.  This enhancement would essentially make this technology widely accessible, and perhaps easy to use, but the use of this technology can be good or bad.  The progress of society, in my opinion, is not defined by technological progression alone, but along with morality. 
Morality itself is a very complex idea.  The progression of science may not always be ethical or morally sound, if used in a negative manner, but Feynman raises a valid point, "Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad--but it does not carry instructions on how to use it".  People may use science to do good, or they may use it to do bad, either way, the scientists nor the scientific knowledge decide how one will use the progression of science.  This is why I believe morality comes from within each individual.  There is always that possibility that one may do good or bad.  
Scientists question, that is the basic foundation of science.  Science is theory, it does not include absolute fact.  I believe Feynman is articulating the separation between science and society.  It is true that society may use scientific knowledge to its benefit, but science on its own is the art of mystery and discovery.  Scientists strive to solve scientific problems.  They are interested in the ideas that they discover, whereas society is concerned with the use of the idea, like the cure for cancer.  
Overall I believe that it is not the scientists responsibility to determine the impact scientific knowledge will have on society.  They may take it into consideration but their profession is unique in the sense that they are more interested in the discovery of ideas, much less than the use of every idea.  Morality is an aspect of society that must be obtained through the people within the society.  


1.  Do you believe scientific knowledge leads to the progression of society? Why or why not?


2.  Is it the scientists sole responsibility to take into account the affect of scientific knowledge upon society?


3.  Can anyone control the use or misuse of scientific knowledge?  If so who decides and to what extent?

Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)