I meant to say:
Simon is interested in the process of "closure." And what he comes
to with Undead Science is that there can be an apparent closure
where an apparent scientific consensus arises, but there is "life
after death," hence, undead science.
This is like saying there is no apparent scientific CLOSURE about
evolution because the creationists STILL disagree.
"Closure" does not mean that a large group of people come down on one
side or another. It shouldn't mean that, anyway. By traditional
standards, closure happens when a definitive experiment is performed.
Whether anyone pays attention to that experiment or not is
irrelevant. Townes proved that masers can exist, and even though no
one believed him at first, the issue was still closed. In my opinion,
Simon is trying to overthrow traditional standards and substitute a
blurry new-age version of scientific closure.
An experiment is objective proof that stands outside the human
imagination. Simon would replace it with mere opinion. He does not
even acknowledge that what he is describing -- closure, as he defines
it -- is ersatz. It is a poor substitute that we must settle for when
we cannot understand the experiments, or the experiments remain
inconclusive, or no one tries to replicate them. Real closure is what
happened at BARC when developed the autoradiograph x-ray film. Bingo!
There's your answer. Case closed.
Many aspects of science are revolutionary, but one that appeals to me
most -- that Francis Bacon emphasized -- is that it takes place
outside our minds. It was the first great institution in which
disputes are judged by standards divorced from culture and the human
imagination. No individual or large group of individuals can appeal
the judgement. A thermocouple reading, or a humble piece of x-ray
film, outweigh the opinions of ten thousand scientists. Even if the
x-ray film is lost, or suppressed, ridiculed and eventually
forgotten, it will remains eternally right, and the scientists will
be eternally mistaken.
Ideally, that is how it works. In actual practice we cannot escape
from people's opinions and influence, but we strive to meet the ideal.
Look back at earlier institutions. Even the ones that depended on
objective criteria, such as ancient Roman aqueduct technology, were
still largely ruled by the opinions of powerful men and laws set by
legislators. Where, when and how aqueducts were built was as much a
political decision as a technical one. Power, money and influence
held sway. The same is true of modern infrastructure and projects
such as highway construction, the Space Station, a Tokamak, or a new
weapon system. Objective criteria play only a small role. It does not
matter whether a fighter airplane works well, or would be of any use
in war. What matters is which congressional districts get the funding
to build it.
- Jed
