Science and Its Discontent

Years ago, in unbridled youthful optimism, I enrolled in an electronics course "to see how things work." What I learned was how to use measuring tools to find parts that needed replaced. It wasn't useless, just disappointing and limited. When I was done I could find the component that was not functioning and replace it. It was a far cry from understanding the function.
Hannah Arendt opined that science and technology had so far outstripped the knowledge of the average person that they could no longer discuss them. It is an interesting notion if science is seen as our milieu. It would be like a sailor not understanding buoyancy or water; how would he think and what would he talk about? Would he be comfortable with this mystery that was with him day in and day out? Would he get peculiar? Would he pray to Poseidon? What does a jury think looking at complex DNA evidence in a murder case? What do they talk about around the table as they discuss the crucial information? Can a neurosurgeon in a malpractice case hope for justice from his "peers"?
This world faces huge problems. One is this science interface with the rest of us. Are we at risk of an energy shortage? How would that be measured? If we are at risk, is nuclear power a safe option? If not for us then why the French? Is there warming of the planet?Is it dangerous? Is it caused by human industrial activity? Why has the name for the question changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change?" Is it true, as a scientist said recently, that scientists who are not convinced of man made global warming must feign they are to get grants?
Science, and its thoughtless child Technology, are filling our world. Are they in their complexity crowding other thinking out? Will we be left with a residue of sports, gossip and sensuality? More important, will we be unable to discuss these questions and need to rely on other translators and their motives? And most important, if science becomes a strange tool to us, will we harm it?