Insidiously, more and more of the routine functions of scientific experimentation have been computerized and even *automated*, and that's actually very bad for #science. The overuse of #software and computer simulation in science is driving a wedge between the scientists and the direct perception and observation of the physical world which is the bedrock of the scientific method.

If some *computer program* is doing all the actual observing and interpretation of data and so forth, then how much confidence and trust can one place in the scientist's conclusions based on that computer work? If there's some terrible error or systemic bias being imposed by the computer processing, how is anyone going to know, especially with opaque corporate software?

Honestly I'm extremely worried about the state of U.S. #science, because of decades of computerization. "Science software" doesn't actually have to be written by people who understand science *at all*, so how can any honest scientist actually _trust_ such software? On what possible basis can such trust in scientific software reside?

Corporate #software has effectively exempted itself from needing to work properly. Merely by using the software, usually you're also tacitly agreeing (via dodgy "end-user license" terms) that the software vendor isn't responsible for a defective or malfunctioning product. _Caveat emptor_, they say: let the buyer beware. (And if you don't like it then go write your own software, you ungrateful n00b!)

(cont'd)

And that's not even getting into the issue of folks who are blurring the lines between genuinely empirical #science and computer-simulated "science", who pretend as if setting up something in a #software package and reporting on the results is like conducting an experiment, an _in silico_ experiment.

Is it? Computers do make slight subtle *errors* when doing heavy-duty numerical calculations. The models which are programmed into the software are themselves subject to doubt: at any time, a scientific model once thought to be rock-solid may be proved false by an awkward experimental observation.

(cont'd)

I'd like to cite one plausible example, guesswork I admit, of where this all seems to be headed, in practical terms—this fudging of the boundaries between physical reality and simulated reality, most especially the growing tendency to conduct "experimental science" solely in a #computer simulation.

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has been keeping a worried eye on the headlines pertaining to the #science and #technology coming out of U.S. corporations and big-name universities: the prevailing business climate is hurtling towards an ominous old-fashioned method of monetizing science and engineering: crude, simple, dirty, and in massive quantities.

(cont'd)

Consider, for example, #Starlink and the general notion of the #satellite "constellation", filling the skies with lots of itty bitty low-orbit (i.e. cheap to launch) space junk. #SpaceX _expects_ these things to burn up quickly. That just means more SpaceX launches, bigger numbers going upwards, more more more.

It's wasteful and ineffectual to do things this way, but it's optimal in terms of generating business transactions, and you can deal in massive quantities by keeping technology crude and old-fashioned.

(cont'd)

That's why (for example) extruded plastics are so cheap and ubiquitous: the petrochemical industry insures that the world is flooded at all times with inexpensive, uncomplicated, easily worked polymer resins such as polyethylene and polystyrene. Hence such simple petroleum-derived plastics have been pushed into just about every product and consumer good. These plastics are literally in everything, including your own human bodies and brains (q.v. #microplastics.)

#ElonMusk and his pals want to apply this same pump-and-dump approach to #space exploitation, and other things. Great guy.

The true cost to human and Earth life that's accrued from many many decades of filling the world with cheap extruded plastics may never be known—and the present-day intellectual climate is hostile to such understanding.

(cont'd)

The people in charge, the people who are profiting the most from continuing to fill Earth with petrochemicals and petroleum products of all sorts, are of the general opinion that humanity as a whole should shut up and be grateful for the gifts of #technology, and stop fussing about what it might be doing to their health or their peace of mind.

Meticulous study of subtle and long-term health effects of chemicals and polymers and other synthetic substances is tedious, expensive, painstaking work requiring a huge staff of scientists and technicians to carry out. In other words, it's just the sort of thing that an #entrepreneur is likely to regard as "inefficient".

(cont'd)