backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by pheffern.. on Mar 16 at 2:24 PM

A one thousand-year-old history lesson awaits those who would deem the cutting edge wicked

Damascus steel was forged using a process of carbon doping iron in a smelting and quenching process.  This steel became famous almost a thousand years ago; it was said a Damascus sword would cut through falling silk, a rock, and then another piece of silk while still keeping its razor sharp edge. 

The ability to make the Damascus steel was lost with the ages.   Blademasters would often take the secret of the forging process to the grave rather than reveal its mysteries. Many were persecuted as heretics, others heralded as deities.

A study by a University of Wisconsin-Madison revealed that more than 70% of 1,015 surveyed Americans deem nanotechnology morally repulsive.  Professor Dietram Scheufele attributes this repugnance for technology to American reliance on religion. 

It's easy to say that perhaps the 1,000 Americans surveyed are just not that bright.  Scheufele disagrees, stating, "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."

Scheufele believes that Americans who disprove of nanotechnology do not want humans "playing God."  That is, man manipulating structures of one nanometer, one billionth of a meter, is akin to God manipulating the forces of the universe.

In 2006 German researcher Peter Paufler discovered (with the aid of a sub-nanotechnology, the electron microscope) that a four hundred-year-old Damascus steel sword gained its incredible properties from carbon nanotube structures within the blade's edge.  Fifteen years earlier NEC created the world's first synthetic nanotube. One year later it was awarded the patent for one of the sharpest materials on earth, a plasma polished carbon nanotube blade.

Science has always bordered on the fence of terrifying and mysterious.  Civilization lost the secrets of Damascus steel making when then modern thinkers deemed it a practice of deus ex hominis.

Attempting to describe the morality of natural phenomena leads to an exercise in natural fallacy. Not once, in the history of mankind, has science ever been proven immoral -- and conversely -- nor has it ever been proven moral either. 

Will society deitize nano-researchers as modern day Damascus blademasters, or will it learn to look beyond the meta-ethics of natural phenomena for a change?


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Religion VS Science
By Proteusza on 2/26/2008 8:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
Who even knows if the people of the time could understand the numbers required to understand the possible age of the universe?

I'm sure they understood 1000, and maybe 1000000, but perhaps 14 billion was such a large number they truncated it to 6000, because it made no difference to them.


RE: Religion VS Science
By radializer on 2/26/2008 11:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who even knows if the people of the time could understand the numbers required to understand the possible age of the universe?


A lot of people don't realize that the early mathematical knowledge of the ancient Hindus is what forms the basis of our current numeric system in the West - and they were quite advanced in their numerical abilities. The earliest recorded mathematical texts are from the 2500BC-1500BC time period and the classical period extended from 400AC-1200AD. The most important contributions spanning these times were the concept of zero (or the void), negative numbers, algebra and arithmetic.

The concept of "arabic numerals" traveled to Europe through the Arab world in the 7th Century AD - when the persian gulf acted as a conduit for information and knowledge exchange between the Greeks, Arabs and the Hindus. Since these numbers came from the Arabs, the West came to know of them as "arabic numerals". Interestingly enough, the arabic name for these numerals is "arqam hindiyyah" - which stands for Indian numerals.

In answer to your question about the understand of numbers large enough to comprehend the age of the universe, the religious texts of the Vedic Period (1200BC-900BC) provide evidence for the use of large numbers. By the time of the last Veda, numbers as high as 10^12 were being included in the texts. The names of these numbers were (some of which are still used in India today) -->

shata = 100
sahastra = 1,000
ayuta = 10,000
niyuta = 100,000
prayuta = 1,000,000
arbuda = 10,000,000
nyarbuda = 100,000,000
samudra = 1,000,000,000 (literally means "ocean" in Sanskrit)
madhya = 10,000,000,000 (literally means "middle" in Sanskrit)
anta = 100,000,000,000 (literally means "end" in Sanskrit)
parardha = 1,000,000,000,000 (literally means "beyond" in Sanskrit)

So, in a nutshell, there were people on this planet at that time and age who could comprehend large numbers.

http://www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/pub/phil&math/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu-Arabic_numeral_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics
http://www.crystalinks.com/indiamathematics.html
http://scitsc.wlv.ac.uk/university/scit/modules/mm...


RE: Religion VS Science
By Alazar on 2/28/2008 12:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Following along this vein of thought, I have to ask for a reconsideration of the title to something like "Religion and Science". Why must the public mass automatically assume a religion is anti-science?

The biggest example, of course, being the Christian Church.

For years the large consensus was, has been, and probably still is, that the Christian church-goer is uneducated, blind, and otherwise ignorant lot.

I cannot express how far from the truth that is. While there are stereo-types for a reason there are a vast majority of Christian scientists. An example of this would be http://www.Answersingenesis.org. A group dedicated to apologetics (Christian defending) ministry, most notably the entire Creation V. Evolution debate.

The only difference in scientists come on where you begin basing your theories. All bases go back to a focal point. The beggining. If you assume there was no God during the begining of the earth and go from there, you are bound to get answers far different from a scientist who assumes there was a Creator.

Not to say that there are not various Laws and Theories (EX: Thermodynamics) that Christian and Secular scientists both agree upon. But there are areas in which these groups will conflict.

At any rate, we cannot assume a religion is anti-science based because the mass ignorantly assumes their religion says it's immoral. It is a simple demonstration how the majority only say they are of so-so denomination or faith just to have that tag.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki