Neutral Science

I am not sure I understand Mae-Wan Ho’s distinction between bad science and good science. To me it appears that there should only be science because all science should be is simple observations leading to an understanding of our surroundings everything is just applied to science. I’m not sure that I would agree that such observations are good or bad, however if you fail to be objective in obtaining data than I would think that you had failed to have performed a scientific experiment at all. Sometimes an observation can be used towards evil ends such as the ability to split an atom or perhaps much of genetics but that does not much such observations should be ignored or not pursued; that would not be science at all. Science needs to attempt to observe as much as possible; if such observations can lead to horrors than we should realize that as a people and deal with such things accordingly. In my personal opinion an observation in and of itself does not have moral value, however what can be done with that knowledge most definitely does. Just because we are seemingly incapable of making responsible decisions about what to do with the knowledge gained from science does not mean that the science is necessarily “bad science”. I would agree that big business can take advantage of science and harness it for commercial benefit but I would still say that has more to do with the application of observations. It is true that the observations are now being guided(which in some ways does not sound like a very scientific approach) however the observations if unmanipulated should still be neutral, it is the application by big business that may create ethical dilemmas.