tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post115345882964020063..comments2024-03-28T18:18:37.133-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: An Interesting Guest Posting...Post-Modernism, Science, and ReligionDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153747647037811932006-07-24T06:27:00.000-07:002006-07-24T06:27:00.000-07:00I was kinda kidding you guys, Stepan, but consider...I was kinda kidding you guys, Stepan, but consider:<BR/><BR/>One problem scientists haven't managed to solve yet: They still need a paycheck to support themselves and their families.<BR/><BR/>Assuming a constant funding level for science, every dollar that get spent on research equipment means there's one dollar less to hire scientists with.<BR/><BR/>The $10 billion we're spending on the Large Hadron Collider means roughly 10,000 fewer people can spend there lives working as scientists...<BR/><BR/>Is it worth the tradeoff? <BR/><BR/>Plenty of good science (perhaps the best) was done with very little funding...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153747585436490512006-07-24T06:26:00.000-07:002006-07-24T06:26:00.000-07:00I prefer to think of the Big Bang as something qui...I prefer to think of the Big Bang as something quite distant and less relevant to daily life than, say, the weather. <BR/><BR/>It's interesting science, in that its research might uncover a new insight or two about physics every now and then, but probably won't shift paradigms in my lifetime. <BR/><BR/>Regarding ineffective protests, of course they were ignored. Seated governments have had 40 or more years to figure out how to coopt or route around street protests since the first ones were successful at molding public opinion.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153728533214282652006-07-24T01:08:00.000-07:002006-07-24T01:08:00.000-07:00David,Just to help restore your sense of perspecti...David,<BR/>Just to help restore your sense of perspective, we in Melbourne are complaining about the cold (and the dry! oh, the dry!)<BR/><BR/>Stefan: I wonder about protests, whether they're an accurate measure of discontent, or whether they're better thought of as an indicator of how much disgruntled folk think the government is willing to listen.<BR/><BR/>eg: just prior to the Iraqi invasion, Melbourne and Sydney staged the biggest anti-war protests since Vietnam (over 100,000 in each case). <BR/><BR/>The cries of dissent were ignored completely.<BR/><BR/>After the event, subsequent protests have been much smaller affairs, but I doubt those 2x100,000 people have suddenly seen the error of their ways!<BR/><BR/>I think they're just keeping their powder dry!<BR/><BR/>(and enduring the ache. oh, the ache!)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153715257484013072006-07-23T21:27:00.000-07:002006-07-23T21:27:00.000-07:00Now chill. Monkyboy teases us. Since DonQ lapsed...Now chill. Monkyboy teases us. Since DonQ lapsed, we have been poked by a new volunteer. Let us enjoy it, and smile.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the universe teases us with notions of scale and continuity every singel day.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153715046663273642006-07-23T21:24:00.000-07:002006-07-23T21:24:00.000-07:00"Every morning I wake up and the universe is still..."Every morning I wake up and the universe is still there reinforces my theory much better . . ."<BR/><BR/>O.K. . . . that's just pathetic.<BR/><BR/>Really.<BR/><BR/>Low-grade solipsistic inanity.<BR/><BR/>Note to self: quadruple number of grains of salt taken with anything monkeyboy writes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153712310624322042006-07-23T20:38:00.000-07:002006-07-23T20:38:00.000-07:00in the 60s and 70s David Brunner wrote some wonder...in the 60s and 70s David Brunner wrote some wonderful, well-informed Awful Warning novels.<BR/><BR/>Some had hopeful endings, some ambiguous, some not.<BR/><BR/>Best sellers? Not sure, but they are very well respected.<BR/><BR/>_The Sheep Look Up_<BR/><BR/>_Stand on Zanzibar_<BR/><BR/>_Shockwave Rider_<BR/><BR/>DB's own _Earth_ is in the same genus as these sprawling, multi-perspective works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153711723218385702006-07-23T20:28:00.000-07:002006-07-23T20:28:00.000-07:00Do such novels sell? Maybe... Wasn't Asimov's Foun...Do such novels sell? Maybe... Wasn't Asimov's Foundation series about such a failure?Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153707585790486652006-07-23T19:19:00.000-07:002006-07-23T19:19:00.000-07:00Hehe, Big C.I'm a steady state kinda guy. Every m...Hehe, Big C.<BR/><BR/>I'm a steady state kinda guy. <BR/><BR/>Every morning I wake up and the universe is still there reinforces my theory much better than the Big Bang guys and their primitive clicks and whistles...and I didn't even need a $10 billion collider to get my data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153707029397343742006-07-23T19:10:00.000-07:002006-07-23T19:10:00.000-07:00monkyboy said:"I didn't say the Big Bang Theory is...monkyboy said:<BR/><I>"I didn't say the Big Bang Theory isn't interesting, just that it isn't "science.""</I><BR/><BR/>And I refuted that assertion. Notice that my response wasn't about how "interesting" the Big Bang is, but rather what evidence has been collected for it, and why it is accepted as a scientific theory. Do you have a different definition of "science" than the one I'm familiar with? Correct me if you don't agree, but the basic process of science is:<BR/><BR/>1. Make some observations about an aspect of the universe.<BR/>2. Propose a hypothesis that explains these observations.<BR/>3. Propose a set of experiments or observations that would confirm or refute the hypothesis.<BR/>4. Perform the experiments or observations and check the results.<BR/>5. Accept or reject the hypothesis based on the results.<BR/>6. Repeat as new observations and data become available.<BR/><BR/>The Big Bang Theory has gone through all these steps and been accepted. It continues to survive as a viable theory because no evidence has been found to refute it and no better theory has been proposed. That meets my standard definition of "science." The Bigfoot Theory has gone throught these steps as well, but the results have been negative. Thus I provisionally reject Bigfoot and accept the Big Bang. I directly refuted your equivocation of the Big Bang and Bigfoot. Do you find a flaw in my reasoning?<BR/><BR/>In principle, the scientific method should work on any aspect of reality that can be observed and measured. We are limited in the tools we have to make measurements, so of course science cannot explain everything. However, science is the method we have that is least prone to human error and subjective bias. But it is not limited in the respect you alluded to in your soccer analogy.Big Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02475844932543383723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153705534796470492006-07-23T18:45:00.000-07:002006-07-23T18:45:00.000-07:00Dr. Brin, your points are well taken. I do see th...Dr. Brin, your points are well taken. I do see the principles of the Enlightenment as our best hope for the future. And I see those principles clearly under attack and losing ground today. Your response was eloquent, inspiring, thoughtful, but also ... just a bit romantic. And I don't think that's a bad thing! As you've said yourself, romantic ideas, of being a "chosen people" or being "destined for greatness" appeal to every human being on an instinctual level. If a speech like this stirs people to responsible action, I'm all for it.<BR/><BR/>However, I must point out that your scenario of the Enlightenment as this almost impossible rarest-of-rare events in human history, and the social diamond as an extremely fragile construct that might be destroyed at any second, glosses over a key observation. <BR/><BR/>As I mentioned before, as much as we are programmed for cheating and exploting others to secure the success of our offspring, we are also programmed for reciprocal altruism. We had a <A HREF="http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2005/08/emotional-roots-for-hypocricies-of.html" REL="nofollow">discussion</A> about this last year on your blog regarding some <A HREF="http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html" REL="nofollow">primate</A> <A HREF="http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jstevens/altruism.html" REL="nofollow">studies</A> that bear this out.<BR/><BR/>Of course, people will practice reciprocal altruism best when dealing with people they consider closest; within their tribe or family. The novel idea of the Enlightenment, to which we owe a great debt to those individuals of vision, was that reciprocal altruism, and accountability, should apply not only to one's closest relatives, but to the entire human race (and maybe even beyond that). That, in effect one's "tribe" is not their family, or close circle of friends, but in fact all of humanity.<BR/><BR/>As you discussed in your horizon theory essays, this idea grows and fosters best when people don't have to worry about the security and welfare of those closest to them. If I'm confident that my family has enough resources to prosper, and I see that we in fact have much more than the resources we need, I can lift my head up and see the plight of those people who are further away from me but in need of help.<BR/><BR/>It took a truly extraordinary group of individuals to recognize these principles and codify them, but once they did, these ideas caught hold and spread. Even now, with "neo-feudalist" tyrants trying to quash the Enlightenment, they must pay lip service to its ideals. They must use the language of freedom and accountability even if they don't believe in them. They must profess respect for science even as they try to corrupt its self-correcting methods. Because the Enlightenment was <I><B>so</B></I> successful and <I><B>so</B></I> appealing to our human instincts for fairness and reciprocal altruism, those who seek to destroy it cannot directly overthrow it, but rather must try to corrupt it from within.<BR/><BR/>The social diamond <I><B>is</B></I> fragile and it <I><B>is</B></I> in danger, but perhaps not <I><B>quite</B></I> so fragile as you suggest. Enlightenment principles do after all appeal to our innate sense of fairness. Even if we might all be cheaters and exploiters if we could get away with it, we do realize that cheating is bad. And if people can expand their horizons and really do start to view all of humanity as family ... well, there are severe consequences for a person who is caught cheating a brother, sister, or cousin.<BR/><BR/>But I do agree it took a leap to get us here. And that leap was the Enlightenment. And it seems that step hasn't been taken to where we've gotten at any other point in human history. But does that mean we enshrine the Enlightenment as a miraculous event that has almost religious significance (maybe even fixing its principles and lessons as immune from CITOKATE?)? Or might that path lead us back to yet another romantic dogma, with the same failure mode?Big Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02475844932543383723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153705410404501442006-07-23T18:43:00.000-07:002006-07-23T18:43:00.000-07:00rik,David Deutsch? What about Karl Popper, who sa...rik,<BR/><BR/>David Deutsch? What about Karl Popper, who said they same thing earlier and better.<BR/><BR/>Big C,<BR/><BR/>I didn't say the Big Bang Theory isn't interesting, just that it isn't "science." <BR/><BR/>As for "pseudoscience," during my fifty trips around the sun, I have seen exactly two events that science can't even come close to explaining.<BR/><BR/>They didn't make me doubt science, they just made me very aware that science only works on a subset of reality.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Brin,<BR/><BR/>It's a little early in the game to accept the Fermi Paradox, isn't it.<BR/><BR/>Aren't people (and machines) still churning through the SETI data?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153699791281115612006-07-23T17:09:00.000-07:002006-07-23T17:09:00.000-07:00"Just yesterday I attended a Peace Rally in my dis..."Just yesterday I attended a Peace Rally in my district (the infamous CA 50th) a sparse desultory thing, devoid of hope or ideas"<BR/><BR/>That is horribly discouraging. When a vital tool for expressing public concern and valid dissent is abandoned to the freaks who protest <I>everything</I>, we're in trouble.<BR/><BR/>Was it just the prospect of sons being drafted that got average Americans motivated enough to take to the streets during Vietnam?<BR/><BR/>Have we become complacent, media-addled couch potatoes, filtering out anything unpleasant?<BR/><BR/>Or so buffaloed by the ranters on the Right that we avoid doing anything that might get us marked as (gasp!) "hippies" or "not supporting the troops?"<BR/><BR/>* * * <BR/><BR/>Just saw DB's latest post.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it is time for a rub-our-noses-in -it SF novel about FAILURE? Unpleasant to write, but a great excuse to mercilessly skewer the bringers of folly . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153698924452095182006-07-23T16:55:00.000-07:002006-07-23T16:55:00.000-07:00BigC you are right to remind me of earlier stateme...BigC you are right to remind me of earlier statements about the surprisingly positive parts of human nature. Indeed, those parts were essential in order for the Enlightenment Project to happen at all... even as a fluke and unlikely, lucky-chance emergent property, rather than a first order effect of human nature.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, I will go farther. I believe that one of the higher candidates for a "Fermi Paradox explanation" is that intelligent life does emerge many times across the galaxy... but that it destroys itself through lack of foresight and self-control. Either in self-imolation spasms or through whimpering decline and degradation into "intelligent" but grinding poverty on ruined worlds.<BR/><BR/>Yes, this is an old explanation, but I give it a twist. Because I think it possible that - despite our self-criticism (in fact, BECAUSE of it) - we may be among the few destined to cross this crisis quickly and arrive at a civilization that is truly worthy of the name.<BR/><BR/>Think of a sapient life form descended from bears, or tigers, or paranoid zebras. Could they, no matter how smart, show the complex MIX of gregarious and individualistic ... competitive AND cooperative... traits that give us our intellectual breadth and variability, out of which self-criticism and mutual accountability/creativity can arise?<BR/><BR/>Moreover, now posit that even WE fell into oversimplifying social patterns that quashed creativity and criticism, 99% of the time across our history! Nearly all human cultures, dominated by feudal elites, suppressed the ferment of reciprocal criticism that lets a culture find its mistakes in time.<BR/><BR/>Read Jared Diamond's COLLAPSE in order to see how frail we are to ecological error. Alas, Diamond's few "success stories" were also towering failures. For although they avoided eco-error, they did so by enforcing brutally conservative regimes, devoid of any ambition to grow and learn and improve. A wretched prescrtiption and if that is our only path to survival, I choose glorious collapse.<BR/><BR/>Hence, am I more pessimistic than Jared Diamond???? Perish the thought. And yet, in the context of the Fermi Paradox, it seems that I must be. <BR/><BR/>This fluke of ours, this project that arose out of the genius of Pericles and Locke and Franklin and million proud craftsmen, is very clearly an anomaly. Under the traditional and deeply human-nature driven social DIAMOND, the very best you could hope for was the genteel meritocratic imperium of Old China, in which Confucian noblesse oblige and civil service testing still allow a smidge of social mobility. That, certainly, is the vision updated by Lee Quan Yew in Singapore, and pursued by China today. It is the finest "pyramid" of them all, and they see it as the best "natural" human society. And they think we are quite mad. And they may be right.<BR/><BR/>But that path of theirs only slows down the grinding failure mode of genteel decline. I know this, because the stars tell me so. Because, blatantly and obviously, the Confucian pyramid is a social pattern that must have been tried many times among other life forms. It is a simple extrapolation of self-interest among rulers and ruled, after all. A little smarter than most feudal patterns. One can easily imagine it happening out there...<BR/><BR/>... because it happened (in various ways) so many times here! And here's the point.<BR/><BR/>The Fermi Paradox. The sky appears so empty. A Great Silence. Something is "wrong". There are many explanations. I am the one who has catalogued them, after all. But if this one is THE explanation ("Intelligence destroys itself") then the traditional pyramid - even the superior Confucian version CANNOT BE WORKING. It is obvious, pervasive, and the stars tell us that it must be wrong.<BR/><BR/>What might work is a gamble on something different. So different, so demanding, so "emergent" and contrary to FIRST ORDER animal nature that it was extremely rare on Earth, as it may have been rare across the galaxy.<BR/><BR/>Our new Experiment may be just that sort of thing. It is vibrant. It finds errors. It yells and spews noise, mixing individualism and community in chaotic ways, stirring cooperatin and competition in a vast brew. Oh it may be all wrong. It may be as awful, self-indulgent and immature as the Confucians - and the President of Iran - say it is...<BR/><BR/>...or it may be our hope. It may be THE hope of every race that is suffering and languishing out there in a desert of their own wastes... all of them in need of rescue, awaiting the first race to rise up enough to attain Star Trek levels of success, joy and generosity. What a fate for our descendants. <BR/><BR/>To go forth and rescue and teach them. What a destiny. Better than any portrayed in religion OR science fiction.<BR/><BR/>But...<BR/><BR/>...as I sit in this heat wave, I am left to wonder. ARE we smart enough? The Experiment is failing. Now, boys and girls. Right now, on the brink of our success. The neo-feudalists and their terrified-of-tomorrow allies are making their move. And the heat, the heat, this damned heat may be telling us that it is already too late.<BR/><BR/>I don't really believe that. I can't.<BR/><BR/> But oh, the irony. To have the tools in our hands. To ALMOST rise up and become the rescuers. The heroes that the suffering Milky Way eagerly yearns and waits for.<BR/><BR/>What a destiny that would be. So vastly more grand and fitting than anything told in Revelations! A destiny fitting of the Children of God. Apprentices, picking up His tools and setting forth to do high and noble work, both merciful and grand, making Him proud.<BR/><BR/>Oh, to have a destiny like that in our grasp... and to JUST miss!<BR/><BR/> That would be too painful. So very much worse than death.<BR/><BR/>david brinDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153697222585892142006-07-23T16:27:00.000-07:002006-07-23T16:27:00.000-07:00David,The only point I really wanted to make is th...David,<BR/><BR/>The only point I really wanted to make is that scientists are people, and that because of that, whatever the ethic, the same sorts of feifdoms form in the population. <BR/><BR/>It wasn't meant to excuse institutions or arrangments where the feifdoms form faster.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153693434995807272006-07-23T15:23:00.000-07:002006-07-23T15:23:00.000-07:00monkyboy said:"Science forces us to ignore things ...monkyboy said:<BR/><I>"Science forces us to ignore things that are one-offs or are truly stochastic in nature."</I><BR/><BR/>Science does not force us to ignore either of these things. Even "one-off" events that occurred in the past leave effects behind that can be observed to infer what happened. Isn't the Big Bang such a "one-off" event? And scientists continually study stochastic processes using statistics. <BR/><BR/><I>"Think of science as a soccer referee that catches most of the big things (goals) in a game, but keeps missing the smaller penalties that continually occur behind his back.<BR/><BR/>Think of the backers of psuedoscience as the fans who see all these unflagged penalties happening..."</I><BR/><BR/>This is a flawed analogy. To use your metaphor, it's more like the soccer fans are screaming at the refs that they're missing all these unflagged penalties, so the refs set up extra video cameras and use instant replay to try and find what the fans are screaming about. When the video in fact doesn't show the penalties the fans claim are being missed, the fans blame the refs for being "dogmatic," "closed-minded," and "part of a conspiracy to make our team lose," for not accepting the fans' word over all the available evidence.<BR/><BR/><I>"And as I said before, the only difference between the Big Bang Theory and the Bigfoot Theory is the amount of the funding they get...neither are real science."</I><BR/><BR/>This is demonstrably false. The Bigfoot theory is not accepted because it has no credible evidence and none of its predictions have been confirmed.<BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang" REL="nofollow">Big Bang Theory</A> made a prediction that the birth of the universe would leave behind a background cosmic radiation signature. And that signature <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation" REL="nofollow">was found.</A><BR/><BR/>And scientists don't claim the Big Bang is 100% fact. It's a well supported theory because it can account for almost all astronomical observations with a coherent explanation. As soon as a better theory can explain more than the Big Bang does, it will supplant that theory, just as Einstein's general relativity supplanted Newtonian mechanics.<BR/><BR/>In contrast, the Bigfoot Theory (that such a creature exists) has had none of it's predictions confirmed. We've got grainy video and dubious footprints. We've been looking for Bigfoot for several years now. Shouldn't we have found Bigfoot droppings? remains? A live specimen? Are Bigfoots so stealthy that they can remove any trace of their presence in our forests (except for the aforementioned footprints and grainy video)? Or is there a simpler explanation? I'm not 100% sure Bigfoot doesn't exist, but I'm also not 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow. But all the available evidence indicates I'm justified in confidently considering these things true until I see evidence to the contrary.<BR/><BR/>Rob said:<BR/><I>"Is it [science research] a market system? I dunno; there might be elements of meritocracy in it, but you still have to get your ideas past the priesthood of science journal editors. One hopes that those editors adhere to an ethic of meritocracy, but there are plenty of sour-grapes stories refuting the idea, and there is also the simple truth that there are more papers than time to read them, I'm sure."</I><BR/><BR/>These are valid concerns. Scientific research, like everything else, is a human endeavor carried out by humans. People can make mistakes and are biased and may reject good ideas out of hand. However, the process of science is set up to correct for the problems of human nature and self delusion; a point Dr. Brin has been hammering on.<BR/><BR/>Yes, a bright grad student may get his/her first paper rejected and his/her ideas dismissed. But that student can keep collecting evidence, doing more experiments, making more observations. He/she may come back with more data supporting the idea. There are also several relevant journals a paper can be submitted to.<BR/><BR/>I guess it's possible that every editor and peer reviewer in a given discipline could collude to reject a new idea, or, less conspirationally, they just all have the same biases such that they reject the new idea. I find this unlikely because scientists, like other groups, are a diverse group of people who all have different viewpoints. And they are taught to first and foremost consider the evidence for an idea above all else. Some of those reviewers are going to see through their biases.<BR/><BR/>Other researchers may set out to prove the idea wrong by replicating the experiments. It's possible an unscrupulous rival will forge results to discredit the idea, but it's less likely that all the grad student's colleagues and rivals will be similarly motivated to cheat; especially since they are all competing with each other, and the consequences of getting caught forging data are severe. Utimately the idea will be judged on the evidence, and will eventually get a hearing.<BR/><BR/>Admittedly, the process is not perfect. Some ideas may be unfairly rejected and/or neglected from study. But science is the best systematic process we've got for discovering new knowledge. Improvements are always possible, such as Rob's suggestion for bigger web publishing for journals.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Dr. Brin, allow me to take the contrarian position to your contrarian position about "human nature". I agree with fhydra that human nature is not the enemy. Haven't you always been saying that human nature is not a black/white, good/evil dichotomy? We are complex mixtures of good and bad impulses. The success of the Enlightenment (as you've said many times) is to foster our good impulses while canceling out our bad ones. Yes, we've always been cheaters at heart, but we've also been barterers at heart, willing to give and take.<BR/><BR/>Reciprocal altruism is as much a part of our makeup as the propensity to cheat when we can get away with it. The trick, as you mentioned in your horizon theory essays a few months ago, is to expand our view of who is in our "family," and thus worthy of that reciprocal altruism, to the limits of the entire human race and beyond.<BR/><BR/>The Enlightenment is special, and worthy of praise and defense against those who would destroy it, but it was just as much a product of "human nature" as the misery of our ancestors (and living fellow humans across the world) under feudal tyrants throughout history. Locke, Jefferson, Franklin, et al. were extraordinary, but they were still human. And they weren't perfect.Big Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02475844932543383723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153683127882423402006-07-23T12:32:00.000-07:002006-07-23T12:32:00.000-07:00We need to accept the reality of the perception of...We need to accept the reality of the perception of science. Most on this list understand the fundamental difference between scientists and high priests, but I think it is perfectly understandable that most people do not. All the average person sees from both types is a bunch of elite men debating amongst themselves and preaching to the masses below. The average person is no more likely to test for neutrino mass than get a one and one interview with God; ultimately they are asked to just trust the elite men to get the answers correct.<BR/><BR/>This is a problem and one not easily solved, particularly in a way that does not attack the high priests; if forced to choose between the two the priests probably win.<BR/><BR/>I'm often accused of only believing in that which can be directly observed. Even ignoring the fact that most modern science is several steps away from 'direct' observation, this isn't true. I believe in many, many things that are not observed and are not directly supported by science.<BR/><BR/>Love. Truth. Happiness.<BR/><BR/>But I do not believe in anything in direct opposition to scientific understanding. I can never seem to get across this critical difference.Xactiphynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08254344563346437079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153682269695435132006-07-23T12:17:00.000-07:002006-07-23T12:17:00.000-07:00Monkyboy said: “I think if we want to win this bat...Monkyboy said: “I think if we want to win this battle, we have to fight everyone who uses these methods, not just the ones we disagree with.”<BR/><BR/>Agh! And you zero in on SCIENTISTS as prime examples of this? <BR/><BR/>Scientists are the only clade of human beings in all of human history who are relentlessly drilled with the lesson of human self-deception and delusion. They are the only group subjected to intense training in methodologies for testing assumptions and evaluating whether perceived corelations are merely subjective wish-fulfillments or have some objective repeatability. <BR/><BR/>Above all, since it is blatantly obvious that all of this training WILL NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE ANYWAY (human nature will trump “objectivity” every time), the scientific PROCESS has been set up to promote relentless and ferocious reciprocal criticism. The archetype of accountability, with physical nature as the ultimate critic.<BR/><BR/>It is this very process that the neocon mystics most despise in their “war on science”. It is why they dismantled Congress’s independednt scientific and technical advisory apparatus. (And it is why liberals should make science and the beleaguered military heroic victims to be rescued, not enemy classes.)<BR/><BR/>Is this process of scientific objectivity-testing perfect? Of course not! It needs (and receives) copntinuing criticism and improvement. And thus, I am happy to listen to suggestions how it can be made even better. Improvements in cross-checking and critical methodology are implemented all the time. <BR/><BR/>But to fail to recognize that science is VASTLy more self-critical and mature than ANY other field of human endeavor? Failing to note this pure fact only demonstrates deeply, deeply profound ignorance about science. No longer a benign error, this ignorance constitutes a damnable failing of modern citizenship. And I mean that.<BR/><BR/>(Dig it. Science INVENTED effective criticism of authority! Top nobelists still act like high priests, true, because that kind of psychological crap is in our blood. But in science, that kind of pomposity makes them <B>targets</B> in the eyes of the best grad students. What more can you ask for? <BR/><BR/>(Indeed, this is the very reason that I became a scientist myself! What? You think it was easy? I was born to be an artist! My family background and upbringing and talents were those of a romantic poet and raving author. But I put all of that on hold, in order to pursue a craft that was vastly harder for me. Because I looked around and realized -- ALL other civilization had art! Art is easy!!!! But only one civilization ever invented <B>honesty...</B> and assigned a million skilled people to strive to implement it, over the raging objections and resistance of human nature. Wow! I wanted to be part of that. And I was... for a while.)<BR/><BR/>No, this “high priests” bullshit is part and parcel of the antimodernist rant that pervades BOTH the left and the right. <BR/><BR/>Which brings us back to: “I think if we want to win this battle, we have to fight everyone who uses these methods, not just the ones we disagree with.”<BR/><BR/>Har. Try applying this to nonsensical mania of the left!<BR/><BR/>Just yesterday I attended a Peace Rally in my district (the infamous CA 50th) a sparse desultory thing, devoid of hope or ideas, and talked with (or tried to) the ultra-liberal democratic Congressional candidate trying to unseat the monstrous Daryl Issa in the district next door. I came away depressed by her inability to even contemplate reaching out to the better/smarter conservatives in a district that was gerrymandered to BE a district of and for conservatives. (Trying to promote Santa Monica liberalism in such a district is a betrayal, since it guarantees Issa perpetual sinecure, when we might be saved if the democrats ever pushed Murtha types here.)<BR/><BR/>Wandering away, my son and I dropped by the Paranoia Table, heaped with books and CDs ranting an almost infinite range of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Including that horrific example of leftwing Big Lie dizziness, “Loose Change.” The goggle-eyed woman behind the table lectured me about the “burning temperature of kerosene” and told me that she was the one who clued the Loose Change guys in to the REAL fate of flight UA 93... that it was landed at NASA Lewis Center in Ohio and the passengers quietly disposed of so that a crash could be faked in Pennsylvania... (huh?)<BR/><BR/>Allow me to cite a person who deserves great respect, because he comes to this blog and has the guts to slug it out.<BR/><BR/>“I think if we want to win this battle, we have to fight everyone who uses these methods, not just the ones we disagree with.”David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153669470405824322006-07-23T08:44:00.000-07:002006-07-23T08:44:00.000-07:00Now then:There's "science", that is, the methodolo...Now then:<BR/><BR/>There's "science", that is, the methodology of advancing observations, finding patterns, and testing them. Every third grader I know is taught that. <BR/><BR/>Then there's "science", that is, the institutions of research and higher learning, and the infrastructures of funding and provisioning, in which hungry postdocs and assistant professors seek and find their career opportunities.<BR/><BR/>A question often worth asking is: How many of those obscure scientists see their ideas quashed by other "scientists" in positions of authority in their institutions, because of this or that funding priority (we don't do cold fusion funding at all in this country, forex, because of that embarrassment years ago at the University of Utah, and this in spite of the fact that failures also teach us things about science!) or because even with a decent hypothesis the idea "doesn't seem fruitful"?<BR/><BR/>Is it a market system? I dunno; there might be elements of meritocracy in it, but you still have to get your ideas past the priesthood of science journal editors. One hopes that those editors adhere to an ethic of meritocracy, but there are plenty of sour-grapes stories refuting the idea, and there is also the simple truth that there are more papers than time to read them, I'm sure. <BR/><BR/>(If they'd only stop spending money on paper, and spend it on websites and *more editors* instead, I wonder if there'd be a net gain there.)<BR/><BR/>It's not helped, furthermore, by the popular elevation of scientists as modern priests, appealed to by journalists, educational filmmakers, and trial lawyers alike in furthering their ends in their fields, touting the pronouncements of scientists as proof of one truth or another. In other words, we chose scientists to take the place of priests, after we chose a relatively secular society. So in a way the pattern continues as it ever has.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153642965274800612006-07-23T01:22:00.000-07:002006-07-23T01:22:00.000-07:00Sorry you feel that way, Dr. Brin.I enjoy reading ...Sorry you feel that way, Dr. Brin.<BR/><BR/>I enjoy reading your posts and I do try to learn from them.<BR/><BR/>Here's what I think I've learned:<BR/><BR/>Some bad guys are trying to take over the country using the following methods to defend themselves from exposure and counterattack:<BR/><BR/>1. They hide stuff from public scrutiny.<BR/><BR/>2. They spread disinformation.<BR/><BR/>3. They try to destroy the very yardsticks we use to measure success and failure with.<BR/><BR/>The first two methods are straightforward, but the third one is kinda tricky. Once they get something going that gains them power or money, like the Iraq war, they defend it by:<BR/><BR/>a. Making many different predictions, ignoring the ones that were wrong and playing up the few that were right.<BR/><BR/>b. Making very vague predictions that can be interpreted as accurate no matter how things turn out.<BR/><BR/>c. Making predictions that are far off in the future to ensure years of money or power flows to them before any judgement has to be made.<BR/><BR/>d. If all else fail, just by claiming they need more time before their predictions come true.<BR/><BR/>I think if we want to win this battle, we have to fight everyone who uses these methods, not just the ones we disagree with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153631176179778112006-07-22T22:06:00.000-07:002006-07-22T22:06:00.000-07:00What's interesting here, folks, is that he's not e...What's interesting here, folks, is that he's not even REMOTELY interested in perceiving anything new. Sigh and alas. It must be nice to be so sure.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153621346708542672006-07-22T19:22:00.000-07:002006-07-22T19:22:00.000-07:00...but a potential career opportunityTrue, no diff...<I>...but a potential career opportunity</I><BR/><BR/>True, no different than the thousands of Rush Limbaugh wannabes who spew illogical crap, not because they actually believe it, but because they see a potential career opportunity.<BR/><BR/>There's nothing very complex or romantic about naked greed. <BR/><BR/>The trouble is, these fools (scientific or political) used to provide some entertainment value.<BR/><BR/>I kinda miss ol' Kreskin...<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/jfsov<BR/><BR/>The Big Bang and Higgs boson guys lack his showmanship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153615546364549492006-07-22T17:45:00.000-07:002006-07-22T17:45:00.000-07:00Actually, monkyboy, you have been most helpful by ...Actually, monkyboy, you have been most helpful by very well illustrating the problem. You have just demonstrated a very clear LACK of understanding of what science is and how it works.<BR/><BR/>As a market system, science is based upon sompetitive truth-finding. That means that some bright graduate student who detects a one-off does NOT look away from it with a grouchy sniff. Yes, many will do that, but SOME bright postdoc or hungry assistant prof will see not an offensive disparity...<BR/><BR/>...but a potential career opportunity.<BR/><BR/>The reflex of romantics is to perceive things of the Enlightenment in romantic terms. Hence scientists are portrayed as authority figures and turth arbiters, like priests and wizards. And because Suspicion of Authority is seen as one of the modern Good Things, science is thus a stodgy authority to be resisted. <BR/><BR/>Post-modernism attacks it on all fronts. From "there are many truths" and it's all bullying with texts" to "science misses all sorts of things that eastern mysticism perfectly understands."<BR/><BR/>But those eastern mystics... and shamans and herbal doctors and such... used the same human brains, over thousands of years, to watch for corelations and repetitions that could be gathered into lore. Indeed, REPEATABILITY is their claim as well! So it's not about one-offs, after all!<BR/><BR/>Except that they were vastly less efficient, taking tousands of years to accumulate some half-truths that we are now exploring with PET scans. I do NOT say this in order to denigrate! In many ways we are standing on their shoulders... and alchemy and astrology... because it took millennia to gather the tools to be ready for the leap.<BR/><BR/>The point is that science is vastly more egalitarian and less authoritarian than nearly all of those old priesthoods and such. Want to see a guru? Look at secretive, nasty, vicious, close-minded, and patronizing YODA!<BR/><BR/>See more in STAR WARS ON TRIAL... hot in the stores this week.....<BR/><BR/>;-)David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153608157937318312006-07-22T15:42:00.000-07:002006-07-22T15:42:00.000-07:00Science forces us to ignore things that are one-of...<EM>Science forces us to ignore things that are one-offs or are truly stochastic in nature.</EM><BR/><BR/>Tell it to the people trying to model the Big Bang and the quantumn theorists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153601889051873472006-07-22T13:58:00.000-07:002006-07-22T13:58:00.000-07:00Cool paper, Blake.Let's not forget, though, that s...Cool paper, Blake.<BR/><BR/>Let's not forget, though, that science is actually a filter. <BR/><BR/>Science forces us to ignore things that are one-offs or are truly stochastic in nature.<BR/><BR/>Yet these things do occur.<BR/><BR/>Think of science as a soccer referee that catches most of the big things (goals) in a game, but keeps missing the smaller penalties that continually occur behind his back.<BR/><BR/>Think of the backers of psuedoscience as the fans who see all these unflagged penalties happening...<BR/><BR/>And as I said before, the only difference between the Big Bang Theory and the Bigfoot Theory is the amount of the funding they get...neither are real science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1153601798537832712006-07-22T13:56:00.000-07:002006-07-22T13:56:00.000-07:00David,Have you read "The Physics of Superheroes" b...David,<BR/><BR/>Have you read "The Physics of Superheroes" by James Kakalios?<BR/><BR/>I've seen it advertised but have not seen a copy yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com