Early Thoughts on #Brexit and Islamic Appeasement

10 Tidbits of Recent Concern

 

Hello Dear Readers…

This morning I am researching what is happening overseas. Curious, yes of course, but the way things go…if England is affected by something, there is a strong possibility that America will feel repercussions. I feel like if we research we will be better prepared to handle any outcomes.

That being said, there is much information available online. What can a reader trust? Personally, I trust no one. I find “truth” by comparing numerous articles and looking for similarities. Because, frankly, there is no hard “truth,” only subjective interpretation.

What can we really know?

1. That’s a hard one. However, one must be steadfast. Opinion cannot be accepted as it varies per person. “Facts” cannot be praised because they were ultimately written by a person. If every event has at least two sides to the story — or fifteen sides in the quantum world — then reading a story is not going to assist that much in “truth finding.”

2.  There is one thing I can extend a gram of “trust” to, and that is historical themes. A theme does not depend on opinion, it is a trend in history. Cliches are annoying but some are right – history does in fact repeat itself. Not in the sense that each event replays continuously, but in the way that humanity moves in a zigzagging pattern much like evolution. We go out with our ideas, but when the ideas don’t work, we come back home to sort out a new plan.

3.  Considering recent European events with this train of thought, I do not think that it is unexpected that Britain left the EU. I am not taking either side – I do not know their politics enough to cast judgment. What I am saying is that the trend of the EU was progressive – they tried to bring democracy and drop walls. However, reality did not embrace theory. What looked good on paper did not stand up well in the here and now. Historically, the reasonable action is to withdraw – “go home” and lick one’s wounds, and then…develop a new method.

4.  Taking history into account, there are time periods that act as a “reply” for past occurrences. Currently, the entire world is trying to figure out what to do about the Islamic culture. On my small scale, my advice is education. I’ve said it before and will repeat it here:  Educate the youth in hopes of securing a better future. First off, introduce them to Darwinism, Biology, and Genetics. Science confronts life situations with empirical data. Certain cultures refuse to read any book that is not religious. This is a huge misstep. Human thought, expression, and consciousness expands at escalated rates. Yet, some people do not know “science is real.” Some people fail to notice the damages brought on by incest, or marrying one’s cousin.

w583h583_744206-spineless-leaders-of-democracy-political-cartoon

 

5.  When I think about “historical replies” I cannot help but land on the dangers of appeasement, or giving in to a “bullying” force who issues demands for a select group. Uncontrollably, the image of Hitler comes to mind. It makes me uncomfortable because I saw comments yesterday that Atheist sites were being taken down from social media. The motivation:  Islamic culture. Supposedly, since the Muslims find Atheists offensive, the Atheist viewpoint is restricted. How is that just?

6.  Ah, it is most definitely not just. I find sporting events offensive, but does that mean that the sporting industry should be dismantled? Nope — it means that I make the personal choice to not watch sports.

7.  Social media should include all aspects of human preference. The moment one group limits another indicates that the first believes they are “better” than the rest. Guess what…we are all humans. We are all species. Not a single one is better than another. We are all forms of life. Darwinism illustrates the connection of species. If all cultures accepted scientific evidence then much of belief’s illusions would fade away.

8. Western culture is filled with individuals. Individualism is our bag. However, older cultures still operate under collectivism. Huge difference. Here is another historical theme – Individualism developed out of the Enlightenment. In America, we recognize the Enlightenment era as sloughing off tired beliefs that no longer rang true because of the empirical evidence presented by science. Collective societies have not learned Enlightenment lessons – they refuse to read or accept the science. So why, for Reason’s sake, would progressive thought kneel to backward society?

9.  Society cannot give in to backward demands. Society strives for the betterment of the human race just like evolution. Or it should. Religion and Science are expressions of human thought. One relies on belief, the other on empirical evidence. The individual gets to decide which one speaks louder to them. What’s important is that each person should have the right to choose for the self.

10. I am not religious. I prefer understanding reality through science. However, I see value in both as dependent on the person. Humans should be able to believe whatever they want to believe, or believe nothing and look for knowledge. The point is that it is personal preference. I think if everyone recognized the effort it takes in constructing the self, we could realize that each person has a great task before them. Each person is in charge of their own reality, and nobody…nobody…has any right to limit individual growth.  –Not a government, not a Union, not a Culture, not a Religion, not even Science.

Advertisements

Reading Notes on “Twilight of the Idols”

When Leisure runs with Research

My session is nearing the end, two more weeks. I have minimal assignments due, and I note that I work much better under pressure. A few months ago, while carrying three courses, I thrived. Much writing and contemplation was required. Now, I have only one topic. And – as a cruel twist – I have to say that I am not real fired-up about said topic. The sad part is, I could be. Maybe one day, my non-traditional thinking will be noted as “ahead of her time” but for the present…’tis socially conditioned that I retreat “back to the mountain.”

Off I crawl, licking my wounds inflicted by society’s barbs, with a text from Herr Professor clung to my breast. Searching for inspiration. {for Life in general, not for the piece} However, while beginning my read the other night, one of Nietzsche’s maxims jumped out at me. Well…much of Nietzsche explodes off the page, but this one, it felt so true I have to share:

“There are times when we psychologists are like horses, and grow fretful. We see our own shadow rise and fall before us. The psychologist must look away from himself if he wishes to see anything at all” (Nietzsche 35).

The quote reminds me to remove myself from philosophical consideration as well as interaction with society in efforts to see the issue – whatever that may be – through an objective lens. By making the situation just that, a situation or a happening, instead of my situation, the experience may be noted from more than one perspective. Applying this to life, I see this method as able to reduce emotional connection to an experience. To look at problems as puzzle pieces to put together – the important factor is that the “I” is assembling the puzzle and not just another piece.

 

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Twilight of the Idols (1888). Trans. Anthony M. Ludovici. Ed. Dennis Sweet. New York:  Barnes&Noble, 2008.

Picture c/o:  http://www.jamesmaybe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Dominic_Rouse-Twilight_of_the_idols.jpg

The Pope, Durkheim,…and Quantum Physics

Reducing Human Importance

Animal, Natural, Small and Insignificant:  the Cry of Humankind

Pope Pius XII supported the Big Bang theory. Bowler and Morus said, “In 1951, Pope Pius XII delivered an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he explicitly appealed to the big bang theory of the universe as a scientific endorsement of the Catholic Church’s position.”[1] I learned about this in Catholic class {I converted to marry but cannot “believe”}. Father Robert said that the big bang does not disprove God but actually backs up the Catholic belief. What he meant was that the Catholic God speaks to His people in many methods. For the majority, the lessons in the bible are enough, but for the questioning mind that searches for proof religious parables do not supply adequate information. Fr. insisted that faith came without proof, and that Catholics are not dependent on the signs present in the Old Testament. At the time, I shrugged it off, thinking that Catholicism had to make room for the big bang because the scientists found the organic beginnings of life and religion could not deny the truth of fact.

However, I read Emile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious Life for HUMN 571 Individuals, Societies, and the Spirit, and now…what Fr. said makes more sense. The overall message of Durkheim’s text was that religion was actually the motivator for society, but not in the way a religious person would initially expect. First off, discard all elements of belief, myth, and promise. Religion in primitive society, specifically the Australian Aboriginal in 1912, orchestrated the basic needs of life and created a mutual system in which people could set rules and continue existence. Durkheim said, “[Religion] is not simply a system of signs by which faith is expressed outwardly, it is a collection of means by which it is created and periodically recreates itself.”[2] See, religion is adaptive, just like human beings, and it will shift into a substance that supports society…because it is society. For primitives, religion is daily life and expressed through the negative and positive cult; for the Ancient World, religion governed through feasts, celebration, and lamentation; for the Medieval World, religion developed chivalry and legend; for the Renaissance, religion began to be more personal as more people learned to read and write; for the Reformation, religion turned its back on luxury because the clergy morphed into a second monarchy; for the Scientific Revolution, religion began to absorb science because society looked for empirical evidence; for the Modern World, religion went into the rectory and licked its wounds, trying to find away to conform to the needs of the people; and for Post-Modern World, here we sit, consciously working our understanding to allow room for science and religion in our vast concept of what life really entails. Religion is adaptive, she has been shifting ever since the beginning of recorded history, and there is little reason to assume that she will stop. After all, as Durkheim noted, we are religion, we are the coming together of many energies in efforts to make one universal note. We are an orchestra of life, and that must include symphonies of each human expression.

{Peer} wrote: “the Earth and humans went from being the center and most significant part of the universe to a very small part, place in an insignificant corner of a very large and apparently expanding universe “

I think much can be said for perspective. On one hand, it is humbling to go from being specifically created by God to an organism reacting to one’s environment, and then to top it all off with Earth not being the center of the universe but just a planet in a system – then that system not being special but one of many universes. Yes, I see…it makes a human feel small and rather unimportant, but what if we shift the perspective without changing any of the fact. This is a beauty of quantum theory – many possibilities happen and are possible. Out of all of the known universes, we are still the only existing form of life (not just humans, but you follow) that we know of…to me, that does not say that there is no other life, but that we are not aware of it. {meaning other characteristics of life like light, radio waves, protons/neutrons, tiny particles of matter – I am not referring to little green men, or Star Trek heros} It was only the 1970s when science came onto this notion, that was not that long ago and I feel there is still room for advancement. Before Einstein, humanity did not know about the atom, and modern science is just beginning nanoscience – the extremely small universe. There are more answers, science must first be able to form the questions.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press,2005.

Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. Carol Cosman. Ed. Mark S. Cladis. Oxford, New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 2008.

Picture c/o:  https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b5/b7/46/b5b746fa6378e0252fbf7ffdda452131.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 291.

[2] Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, p. 312.

Deduction for Future Evolution of Species

Technology Encourages Advanced Intellect

Knowledge presented by the scientific method shattered scholastic consideration for real-time events. Society began to question instead of take for granted the origins and purpose of life. {Peer} wrote: “The changes that are sometimes so hard for the scientific community to make in the society at large can be even harder to make within the scientific community.”

Yes, changes that greatly impact human existence are difficult to accept or reject, depending on one’s stance. Science not only discovers empirical fact, but they then have to figure out how to introduce new truth to society after they battle it out with their peers.

I like to do comparisons to see if we can predict any future historical happenings via deduction. Evolution and the printing press, if we allow these to be classified as encouraging progress, prepared humans for modernism. Once modern, humanity took a step back and developed post-modernism to correct the errors created by aggressive reason (rising ethics and repulsion to barbarism). Around this time, society received new input from offices of authority – the Internet piggy-backed off the printing press and Quantum Theory came roaring in to make evolution look like Link-in-Logs. One of the most cliché sayings, “History repeats itself,” is lingering…. If the printing press (15th c) presented the ability to issue in the scientific revolution (17th, 18th, 19th c) then we may deduce that approximately 200 years after the Internet (20th c) – maybe less if we account for the advancement of the human brain as means to reduce the rate of improvement – so…let us allot for exponential growth, say 115 years… with this rough estimation, science (though it might be called something different by then, think “natural philosophers” becoming specialist scientists) may expect another revolution around 2131 c.e.

This, of course, is under the assumption that Isis does not behead or blow up humanity, and that overpopulation has not encouraged the other organic systems to eradicate the human species as means of defense. The good news is that the advancement of species displays the immense possibilities for the future, but the bad news is that our intelligence may lead to unimaginable morphisms, which current consciousness fears the loss of human nature. I do not think the latter will happen. Human nature is adaptive, it will undoubtedly change but it will not disappear. Religion will also change, adapting to the demands of society – it has to because it is a human expression and a collective effort that creates society.

In one realm of existence, religion may stay the same until the people who believe its mantras no longer exist, but quantum theory tells us that there is a realm where religion merges with science, a realm where religion dies as well as one where science ends, and realms where chaos or harmony may be the result. In 115 years, human intelligence may balk or embrace multiple dimensional realms – we, unfortunately, are not yet evolved enough to accept the truth of the future.

Picture c/o:  http://www.lightworkersworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/move-on-483×300.jpg

Was Einstein dependent on Darwin?

If Darwin did not discover and publish Origins of Species would Einstein still have came onto his Theory of Relativity?

That is an interesting question with two possible answers. On one hand, Darwin was not alone; nor was his idea singularly unique. Gavin DeBeers wrote “Biology before the Beagle (1964)” to demonstrate that Darwin did not pluck his theory of evolution through natural selection from the recesses of his unique mind or thin air. Darwin was a detailed natural philosopher – nearly obsessive compulsive – who categorized animals and plants. Wallace’s discovery encouraged Darwin to publish so that Darwin would still receive credit, which rather implies that Wallace was onto the same research trail. Not to mention that Lamarck published Philosophie zoologique in 1809, developing a “theory of ‘transformism’ or evolution, which he was the first to do, invoking descent of species during long periods of time from other species, so that the Animal Kingdom could be represented by a genealogy of branching lines, the last branch being that of man.”[1] Lamarckism did not flourish like Darwinism did though, perhaps much can be said for Huxley’s support. William Paley wrote “Natural Theology (1802)” to illustrate life according to the workings of a clock – dependent on a watchmaker. But Darwin found causation for adapted species due to Paley’s description of the select workings of the clock pieces and the altered methods in which species was able to adapt to different surrounds. Paley called to attention the human eye, and he claimed it was created specifically by the Creator to grant vision. The same eye, though, he noted, adapted differently for fish that lived in the water; it was still an eye, but the eye was changed.[2] Scientists, other than Darwin, worked on evolutionary concepts.

On the other hand, if we were to consider that evolutionary theory had not happened, that the concept of biology had not been founded, and religion still held the final authority…then no; I do not think Albert Einstein would have been able to come up with the Theory of Relativity because I do not think the collective consciousness (or ability to develop advanced concepts) would have began to form. In a very reduced example, I think I understood this course because I took Evolution of Life and Intelligence, which is basically the “Darwin course.” When I began, I was terrified because I am not a scientist. I read many articles. I watched videos and listened to lectures. The more I submersed myself in the concepts, the more I was able to understand. I think the large lessons learned, namely through the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution, was to question, to think, to experiment and see what all humans can do – because we are changing, and the more we learn, the more we evolve.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beer, Gavin De. “Biology before the Beagle (1964).” Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, Texts, Commentary. 3rd ed. Ed. Philip Appleman. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. pp. 41-44.

Paley, William. “Natural Theology (1802).” Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, Texts, Commentary. 3rd ed. Ed. Philip Appleman. New York:  W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. pp. 41-44.

Picture c/o:  http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0a/0f/1a/e3/cosmocaixa-barcelona.jpg

[1] Gavin DeBeers, “Biology before the Beagle,” p. 34.

[2] William Paley, “Natural Theology (1802),” p. 43.

Darwinism: the Most Revolutionary Movement in Science

Which scientific revolution incurred the most change?

While revolutions in thought were present in chemistry, cosmology, geology, and physics, the most altering discoveries were in biology via Charles Darwin’s considerations for evolution through natural selection and adaptation of species. The fundamentals of evolutionary thought seized society with an urgency to unite scientific theory with everything, applying direct causation via biological matter to reality. Darwin’s dangerous ideas disrupted the religious hold on society by preferring scientific method and empirical evidence to scholastic considerations of the Golden era. Bowler and Morus said, “The original Darwinian revolution turned out to be only a transition to an evolutionary interpretation of an already-existing worldview based on faith in the idea of progress as the product of divine providence or of nature’s laws.”[1] Darwinism, and later biology, oriented the human being as an organism victim to alteration by its environment to encourage continuation of species. However, it would not be until the twentieth-century that society adapted the notion of the effects of a nurturing environment as able to improve the nature of humans. Victorians believed: “Environmental effects are powerless to alter the characteristics inherited by the child from its parents,”[2] but genetic discoveries would reveal the human ability to adapt based on external factors incorporated through experience.

 

Yes, cosmology demonstrated a scientific revolution. Astronomers of the 1930s agreed about the shape of the universe, but instead of considering the system as static they saw it as dynamic or a universe that was producing energy; Bowler and Morus said, “No longer was the galaxy that human beings inhabit to be considered as the center of the universe.”[3] The Milky Way was one of a number of other galaxies; much like humans were not unique creations but evolved animal species, the universe resided in one galaxy of many of galaxies. Bowler and Morus said, “From that perspective, the transformation might certainly be regarded as truly revolutionary in the same sense that the Copernican revolution was.”[4] Early twentieth-century held a revolution in the understanding of space and time. Relativistic physics replaced Newtonian theory, Bowler and Morus said, “…replaced with the standpoint that time and space were relative to the position and velocity of the observer.”[5]

 

In “The Elegant Universe” PBS Nova discussed Quantum Theory, a possibility that multiple realities existed in different dimensions of time. Based on statistical data, Quantum theory dealt with extremely small matter, atomic elements of protons and the nucleus, that Einstein’s theory of gravity did not effect or relate.[6] Modern scientists, since the 1970s, developed String Theory to unite “heavy” science with small science. Working with the stuff of Einstein’s dreams, as inspired by his notebooks and personal record, Alan Lightman wrote Einstein’s Dreams to illustrate the creative spirit of the famous scientist. Einstein questioned everything, and while he did not agree with quantum theories, Lightman showed that Einstein thought more than one possibility could exist. 14 April 1905: “Suppose time is a circle, bending back on itself. The world repeats itself, precisely, endlessly.”[7] And later, on 14 May 1905: “There is a place where time stands still. Raindrops hang motionless in air. Pendulums of clocks float mid-swing. … Pedestrians are frozen on the dusty streets, their legs cocked as if held by strings.”[8] Einstein allowed room for the possibility of alternate time and space, but he rejected quantum theory. Is his rejection due to gravity not be unified? What would Einstein have thought of String theory?

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Scienc: A Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.

“The Elegant Universe.” PBS Nova, 10 Aug 2014. YouTube.com. Online video. 25 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:  http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AJA5JD/the-survival-of-the-fittest-application-of-darwinism-in-the-21st-century-AJA5JD.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 161.

[2] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 158.

[3] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 286.

[4] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 286.

[5] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 287.

[6] PBS, “The Elegant Universe.”

[7] Alan Lightman, Einstein’s Dreams, p. 8.

[8] Alan Lightman, Einstein’s Dreams, p. 8.

Images from Space

I shared a link on twitter including Scott Kelly’s images from space. The pictures are so amazing, I am prompted to also share the link on WordPress. Click below and enjoy!

Scott Kelly’s Images from Space. Much respect to Scott Kelly for his time spent away from earth to further science. {scholarly nod}

Picture c/o:  http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5a4615e546c67c2e54474fc723e67c30040614a2/c=283-0-4645-3280&r=x404&c=534×401/local/-/media/2016/02/26/Phoenix/Phoenix/635920884041528921-scott-kelly.jpg

 

 

Science, Industry, and Francis Galton’s Eugenic-Lie

The scientists did not want to only have a theory, they wanted to realize that theory in a practical model and test it out. Nineteenth-century had set up the mold for science to experiment – the goal could not happen without experimentation and observation. Theory, once held as natural philosophic abstract ideals, wanted to be tested. In efforts to afford physical models, science had to let industry and the military in on the scam. Bowler and Morus discussed the interwar period in which small numbers of civilian scientists were maintained for military or industrial research; they said, “There were now more applied scientists working in industry, including the armaments and aircraft industries.”[1]Industry and the military presented science with purpose and means to further research and technology, and the scientists were able to take their thoughts and form them into actions – surely a cathartic moment for their mental energies.

{Peer} comparison Darwin::biology as Einstein::physics is so true! Brilliant. As for the terrifying notion of Germany formulating a bomb before the Allies, I cannot lend too many moments thoughts to how catastrophic that would have been as the realities of the Holocaust are already too morbid for reality. My research paper was on eugenics. While I already knew there were ugly truths that lived in the topic, I was further shocked to discover that the initial theory of Darwin’s involving blood heredity – the issue which ignited racism and gave it more power – was known to be false! Society wanted it to be true, so they accepted it as scientific proof.

Rabbit Blood and Gemmules

Galton’s experiments with rabbit blood transfusion failed, and Romanes, an additional scientist, also failed in procedure. The theory was wrong. Alfred Wallace, as noted by David J. Galton, said Galton was wrong: “Because of the extreme constancy and severity of elimination of individuals through survival of the fittest … such abrupt variants could never become permanently established in a breeding population and so could play no role in its evolution.”[2] One’s racial factors did not determine if they could survive, it did not affect evolution. Eugenics was built on false theory, a ‘gemmule’ theory that Darwin himself did not publish because he could not prove it. His cousin, Francis Galton, ran with the theory because it supported his racist concept not because it was true. I think this is a message that {Professor}, and history herself, is relaying to the new historian: subjective-value does not truth make. In the paper, I displayed Galton’s “truth” and historical truth. What I think is valuable though, is that this Truth about the falsity of racism is not further exposed. What I mean is – I have been studying and researching for roughly twenty years of my life, and NOW is the first time I come upon evidence that proves through experimented failure that race is not a contributing factor to nature. Why do history and anthropology teachers not lead with this concept? It answers so many questions for me. It exposes the fact that science is victim to its human conductor – Galton wanted white Europeans to be superior, and so did society, so they exploited “bad science” to make it happen.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Galton, David J. Man of Science, Man of God: Gregor Mendel Discovering the Gene. Great Britain: Timaeus Press, 2015.

Picture c/o:  https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/styles/the_breaking_news_image_style/public/Pictures/web/y/b/b/miles-cole-illustration-091014.jpg?itok=IcA-eRPR and http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Image-12_Only-healthy-seed-must-be-sown-950.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 468.

[2] David J. Galton, Man of Science, Man of God, p. 130.

Technology is Not Cheap: Funding Big Science

Who Pays the Technology Bill?

Good points about the atomic bomb and Einstein’s contribution to science. {Peer} wrote: “Most scientists, especially physicist, had to look to the government and the big pocket book that it had in order to conduct the types of research and experiments necessary for the research.”

I agree; to gain funding for “big science” the scientists had to surrender their authority to the military and industry. However, if they had not been so intimidated by the threat of the enemy developing a bomb first, morality might have won out. Many scientists were pacifists, but they wanted to know if their theories worked. The military itself was not the most demanding voice though it was intimidating; the fear of enemy intelligence “encouraged most scientists to throw themselves into the work.”[1] I think science wanted to have a practical purpose to justify the costs of their research, and industry and the military had ample use for scientific weapons. On the other side, the military needed science. As organized and strategic as the service is, a scientist a soldier does not make. Until the military began to train their own scientists, they turned to civilians out of necessity. Do you think there were any other options, or do you feel science was justified to progress? It would be nice if instead of creating a bomb a way to cancel out the effects of radiation, would have been constructed. But that seems a bit sci-fi instead of science.

Bowler and Morus mentioned the space race some, but it paled in comparison to the bomb. The cost of space equipment is astronomical, and science would have to rely on the government. I cannot see how else it would be possible considering the cost. But, the cost of not knowing what is out there is also a difficult one to pay.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Picture c/o:  https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/2015/12/24/21/57/submarine-1107176_960_720.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 474.

Costs of Manhattan Project

Oh reason! My mind is not rolling right with physics. Apologies…attempt number three: the Manhattan Project cost roughly five billion dollars per bomb activation, pushing the WWII war effort to twenty billion dollars.[1] That is big money for “big science” in which a single scientist, or really, even a team of scientists would not find possible to amount. Only corporations of industry or the military was able to fund “big science” so the scientists – against their morals – had to turn to industry and military to complete and test their research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brookings Institute. “The Costs of the Manhattan Project.” brookings.edu,

  1. Website. 21 Jan 2016.

[1] Brookings, “The Costs of the Manhattan Project.”