On May 6, 10:33*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On May 6, 8:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Well, it isn't clear if the world is or is not better off for Stalin
having the bomb. We can't do an experiment and see. The question is
inherently non-scientific, so there is no reason to think that
scientists should make a better (or worse) decision when a question like
it arises.

One would have to have a rather severe lack of common sense not to
think that keeping atomic bombs out of the hands of people like
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Idi Amin, and so on, would not
be the most reasonable course.

And, statistically, scientists do actually seem less likely than most
people to, say, get drunk enough to think that climbing into the
gorilla cage at the local zoo would be a fine lark. Thus, one would
have entertained hopes that they would have done better at this Stalin
thing too.

Or, to put it another way, at least in hindsight (and perhaps the
distinction between hindsight and foresight in this case _does_ depend
on nonscientific factors, like the assumptions of one's social class,
who one regards as a credible source about world events and so on -
the conditions of the Great Depression being conducive to confusion in
these areas), handing the secret of the atomic bomb to Stalin's
minions...

seems to me like the sort of action which would qualify you for the
sort of award that sounds like it might be a prestigious award handed
out for an achievement in evolutionary biology...

but isn't.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

John Savard