Skip to main content
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Subjectivity and science: a correspondence about belief

Journal Article · · Technol. Rev.; (United States)
OSTI ID:6352896
The author explains his approach to policy research and his perception of the limited role scientific analysis can play in understanding world processes. Defending his concerns about the economics of uranium and plutonium fuels, he sees the scientific method as a tool for manipulating the material world historically and a trend toward manipulating the social, political, and economic world by means of simplified modeling that is poorly understood by policy analysts and that no longer works. Pointing to examples of erroneous forecasting, he suggests that human processes are too complex to isolate certain aspects for examination without creating distortions because of what has been omitted. He advocates a recognition of beliefs as working assumptions rather than truths and an acceptance of feelings and intuition as intellectually valid. The likelihood that reprocessing will be unprofitable is demonstrated by time-discounted cost/benefit analysis and should, therefore, be deferred until a decision can be made on the basis of more information and more certainty. Widespread use of reprocessing, he suggests, would have little economic advantage even if all uncertainties are removed. 17 references.
OSTI ID:
6352896
Journal Information:
Technol. Rev.; (United States), Journal Name: Technol. Rev.; (United States) Vol. 81:4; ISSN TEREA
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English