Are you a Planck or an Einstein?

[yinyang23]

I am doing year 12 physics and we recently researched the views of two famous scientists (Max Planck and Albert Einstein) regarding what we as humans should and should not do in the name of science.

Planck's view was that science should be studied for science's sake. To put it another way; If a question is asked science should answer it, or at least attempt to.

Einstein agreed that science should attempt to benefit the human race, however not if it involved some negative consequences.

Two examples of scientific research which were (and still are) highly controversial are the development of the atom bomb and stem cell research which raise questions of moral and ethical nature such as: what is the value placed on human life?

I personally am an Einstein, so the question I'm asking is are you a Planck, an Einstein or someone different altogether.

[andrew2008]

Probably Planck more than Einstein.

[Ralbert Jastein]

Einstein all the way!

[DobDobDob]

I'm a Planck why should science be punished because of the folly of mankind? :P

[Enchilada]

I'm just a feather duster !!!

I rank neither Planck nor Einstein. :P

Give me a Isaac (I got hit on the head with an apple) Newton anyday :lol:

[marki]

I am an Einstein. We need to consider all consequences in relation to our work simply because it is too easy to lose our own humanity (I am thinking of the actions of a number axis scientists during WWII).

Mark

[Paddy]

Both are right!

[theodog]

I think I follow the Einsteinian, with a little streak of the Planck.
:D

[RB]

"I am not a Planck-Einstein !!!! " - Gene Wilder

[Terry B]

Quant um ya talkin about?
:D

[Robh]

The problem is that the consequences of the science researched quite often are not realized for many years afterwards. The laser is a good example. It was predicted in theory many years before it was capable of being produced in 1960. No-one would have predicted it's use worldwide in communications. At the time, if its research had depended solely on its benefits to mankind it may well have been shelved. Research can lead knowingly or unknowingly to benefit mankind or harm mankind or do a bit of both.
I think I would start off as a Planck but then morph into an Einstein when ethical issues started to arise.

All the best with your studies this year.

[acropolite]

I hafta be an Einstein, when I had a Mo I looked similar first thing in the morning (ferral hair), I share his birthday (14th March) and my dad's name was Albert; shame I missed out on the brain....:whistle:

[Jay-qu]

Funny Einstein helped with the building of the atom bomb..

I am all for Plank's view - it is the stupid humans that get put in charge of scientific findings that do the damage to the human race. Scientists should have more of a say in how their research is used.

[Ford Prefect]

I'd have to say Planck.

Who is to decide what is moral or ethical in Einstein's version? Further, how is one to know all the possible consequences or outcomes of a particular field of research before it is completed? What if there are positive and negative aspects?

[troypiggo]

I've been described as "thick as a plank" on more than one occassion by my father. Does that count?

[marki]

I think that is probably what changed his mind. If I remember correctly all of the scientists involved in the development of the atom bomb wrote a letter to the powers that were begging them not to use the bomb. It was only after the excitment of making it work that they trully realised what they had created.

Mark

[thunderchildobs]

It also comes down how the sceince / technology is used.

You can developed say rocket technology to send men/women to the moon, launch weather satelittes which give warning from bad weather, or drop nuclear war heads.

[BerrieK]

An anagram of Planck and Einstein is penance links it.

I think that says it all - we can invent and discover and prove theories in the name of science, use this information to the best of our collective HUMAN abilities, and always feel remorse if things dont turn out the way we had anticipated or theorised....

[Jen]

:stupid::stupid:


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I vote for Elmo :thumbsup:

:D

[gman]

I am definatley a Planck -
We should not be scared to brave the new scientific frontiers.
If we all thought like this, we would still be living in caves and throwing rocks and sticks.

Mind you, we do need a balance of both mindsets otherwise we would have already destroyed ourselves in the name of science

[marki]

As much as it may frustrate many scientists ethics commitees are as much a part of Science as the scientific method itself and simply adds to the excitment of it all. If science claims to work for the advancement of humanity, it follows then that it should also listen to the concerns of humanity. In the end most things get done.

Mark

[dolphinx]

I'd have to say I'm an Einstein, myself. Science doesn't operate in a vacuum, nor should it. :D

[multiweb]

Neither. I'm a VB guy :drink: Life's too short :lol:

[Archy]

Re: "Einstein agreed that science should attempt to benefit the human race, however not if it involved some negative consequences." As Einstein wrote the letter to President Roosevelt that led to the development and use of the Atom Bomb, we should not believe that Einstein actually meant what is quoted, unless he regarded Germans and Japanese as not being humans and that would put him beyond the pale.

[Zaps]

Religion and politics have done far more harm than Science ever has.

The so-called "negative consequences of science" have only ever occurred because the religious and the political exploited science for their own despicable ends.

Compare the Scientific Method with the biased and emotive practices and mindsets of religious and political people and it's easy to see where Humanity is going wrong.

Let science be-and-do science, and start reigning-in the lunatic control freaks who obsess about controlling the rest of us.

[TrevorW]

Someone once said I was thick as a a a Planck

[lacad01]

I'll drink to that....with Ein-stein of bier, bitte :lol:
:drink: