Fear Technology in Mark Hagerott and Daniel Sarewitz's Article, A Future in Denial

One thing that seems to be missing from this article is a solid structure. President Obama also welcomed the country to discuss ways of balancing security and freedom at the recent announcement of the National Security Agency's telephone surveillance program (Hagerott and Sarewitz) 1). The first sentence usually sets the tone of the entire paper, but as the article goes forward, more relaxed tones are needed. The first paragraph is about the President Obama and the National Security Agency scandal in the next few paragraphs, but it talks about untrustworthy movies like Psycho, Thelma and Louise du.

Daniel Sarewitz is a co-director of Arizona State University's innovation and society's future school science and society professor and university science, policy and results association association. He is also a collaborator for "Science and Technology Issues" and a columnist for "Nature" magazine.

I talked to Daniel Sarewitz, Professor of Science and Society at Arizona State University, about the problems of post-normal science and what the uncertainties of giving advice to policy makers mean. The interview was held between the 28th and 29th September 2016, the 2nd Government Science Advisory Council held in Brussels, Belgium. Sarewitz: Whatever science you do for usual problems, it is always incomplete. It can always change and is very uncertain. It can be seen from many scientific points of view. Therefore, many scientific researches can produce different outcomes, so it can create many truths that can be mobilized for different values. Values ​​and facts can be combined with each other in different ways.

But collecting data and knowledge is not enough to make science plans successful, said Daniel Sarewitz, a law analyst at Arizona State University. Last year's New Atlantis article, Mr. Sarewitz criticized the BRAIN Initiative and PMI as part of a "dataset" where big data projects attempt to solve the complex problem of large datasets, and nearly unlimited possibilities Sex was assumed. Test 4 is executed in the system. Therefore, the results obtained from these data sets seem to be meaningful, but Sarewitz said, it does not actually apply to medicine. In a complex system like the brain, "Science seems to make great progress, actually only noise increases."

In this article, Daniel explains the central problem of the world suitable for all. I am worried that it is anti-commercial and probably considered to be understandable, but basically it shows mistakes in economics and big company mistakes. Until to a certain extent, you and others are accusing a large scale due to the large business. But this is inconsistent with the basic economic theory mentioned in this article. The major mistake in existing economic systems is that few people understand the first principles of the economist you mentioned and the Austrians who develop these basic principles further than others. If you do not understand the first principle, what will happen later will not go smoothly. Therefore, the "first" mistake is that there is no basic economics education in the population, of course politicians vote and adopt.