Scientists all over the world are instructed to observe and report. Where necessary, that is, where trends occur, scientists can make reasoned judgments to report their theories about these trends. More, very special scientists are able to spot interesting trends where mediocre scientists struggle to find dust. Yet, very unique scientists are able to make theories about trends no one else can readily observe. Thus, to be a scientist, and to be a very special scientist, is quite an achievement. Still, to be a unique scientist means the world.
Rocket scientists and chemical engineers are popularly and publicly considered unique scientists. There’s reason for that: few fields require a command of all the hard sciences—physics, chemistry, biology and then of course, mathematics. Why? These scientists, unlike the tired remainder, cut to the chase and study only what is of use—what is practicable. What this means is that they spend little time worrying about how things work inwards the way that they do, and they concentrate on reporting what works outwards for meaningful use.
For instance, give the rocket scientist a system, and he is concerned only about inputs, outputs and accumulation. Let’s get granular and take a real life example of a system: let’s look inside a country like the USA. Two groups or men, a red team and a blue team (five men each), all commit the same crime of smoking marijuana (weed) in their bedrooms. All are accosted by Law Enforcement. Only four are arrested—three from the blue team and only one from the red team. The three members of the blue team both receive 30 years to life in Federal Prison and the red team member receives three months of community service. The scientists look everywhere in this system and the pattern repeats everywhere he looks.
Now, you ask the mediocre scientists—usually American sociologists; usually American-trained social scientists—to analyze what to make of this system and what do they say? They go about looking for what the three blue team members may have said to Law Enforcement to cause their arrest. Nothing about what the red team members may have said to turn away Law Enforcement! American sociologists, for instance, go looking for causes and effects—what cultural values of respectability exist in the blue team or the red team. They never ask what color Law Enforcement is, and they never inquire which side Law Enforcement is on. After a long deliberation American sociologists come out more confused than they entered the observatory. They have zero comments about the system. They can’t spot the rocks let alone the dust!
On the other hand, a chemical engineer, even the ones who stomp their feet like Nazis in Ivy League departments, are quick to make a useful observation, they are quick to spot the dust: If two types of people (belonging to two different groups) commit the same crime and they both do not receive the same punishment, the system cannot be said to be JUST! In other words, when two people enter the same system, and commit the same crime, yet one comes out with more punishment, especially every single time, the system can be called an INJUSTICE system.
In other words, what is known as the Justice System in America is more correctly, the American Injustice System where Black men are arrested far more (for absolutely no law enforcement reason), and receive far stiffer sentences than white men. The US Injustice System is more criminal than the “criminals” it pretends to correct. Worse, a system in which Black men come out hanging from trees (being lynched) for allegedly looking at white women is a system that should correctly be called the American Barbaric Injustice System. America should rank bottom of any and all Human Development Indices.
All this to say that scientists also come in shades. There are those who pretend they are employing a “scientific” method, and there are those who actually do. All science is not made equal and certainly, the idea of the meaning of justice among American scientists is as shifty as the sands on the Atlantic coast.
