> Alexander Chislenko wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> Let's hope it is the former. The term "social engineering" refers not to
> enlightened use of technology, but achieving political goals through the
> use of force or subterfuge.
Nobody wants to sell you novel technologies because they're novel. They
want to sell them because they sell profitably. One cannot exclude social
engineering on free markets, orelse the markets cease to be free. One has
to hope for memetic immunity/smarter customers, but then, I don't believe
in Santa anymore.
Human stupidity is the root of every single problem. It eclipses every
other source.
> Likewise, most "social sciences" have little to do with science. Their
Agree absolutely. I suggest introduce the "science(tm)". Everybody
claiming to be a scientist (Christian science, domestic science, etc.)
but failing to meet criteria for a scientific enterprise oughta be sued.
> role is to provide the justification for social engineering (i.e., backing
> up pet theories with mountains of statistics). My favorite example is a
> book written in the 1960s by Ghana's dictator (Kwame Nkrumah?). In it, he
> offered "scientific formulae" to determine when conditions were ripe for
> revolution, and how to make a revolution. I hope I still have it -- it's a
> classic. <g>
>
> Ira Brodsky
> Datacomm Research Company
> Wilmette, Illinois
'gene