Didn't both scientists and engineers play key roles in the development of nuclear weapons? Oppenheimer was one of the leading managers of the Manhattan Project, for instance.
Frank From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 4:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science and art ways forward together I know I shouldn't say this, but I can't resist. You guys are being much too polite. Are there any issues about which you differ. You can't possibly agree about everything! I'll even start by disagreeing with this statement of Ann's. science has helped to create and reflect the most fearful expression of the human spirit, nuclear weapons. It's important I think to distinguish between science and engineering. Science discovered that matter could be converted into energy. Engineering used that knowledge to create nuclear weapons. In saying this I'm not denigrating engineering, which I think is an important and honorable discipline--to harness the forces of nature for the good of mankind humankind. But science and engineering are different disciplines, and I think we should be clear about their differences. -- Russ On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ann Racuya-Robbins <[email protected]> wrote: -- Ann Racuya-Robbins Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com[1] Dear Jack, It is a pleasure to read your thoughtful response and an honor that you would take the time to elaborate and question/caution on a number of points. In that spirit I would like to respond and engage you a bit further on this subject. It is my intent and my hope to clarify, express and value this thread of discussion on science and art. May I have your permission to post our interaction below on the World Knowledge Bank website www.wkbank.com, free of charge of course? I have taken the tack to interleave my responses below. Ann Racuya-Robbins Ann, It is my understanding that the Santa Fe Complex and FRIAM have thought it a good idea to engage in a discussion over the respective roles for the future of the arts and sciences, as well as technology. I am sure that your comments are a huge contribution to that interaction. And I, for one, welcome them and find them helpful to my own thinking. Much of what I say here is consistent with, and very appreciative of, your comments. I celebrate the Santa Fe Complex and FRIAM's thought to engage a discussion over the respective roles for the future of the arts and sciences, as well as technology. (I will leave issues of technology for a later time.) This is especially so now that the city of Santa Fe has shown its interest in supporting the Complex. As we know Santa Fe is a community of many artists. For such a discussion to take place it is important for both artists and scientists speak. Some of my artist friends and colleagues have little interest in this conversation for a variety of reasons spanning, "I have a different kind of intelligence" to "scientists think they already know everything." The latter being a crude and ill informed attitude. Are there arrogant scientists? Of course. As well there are arrogant artists. Arrogance is a defect that visits many of us. I think it is fair to summarize that there are fears on both sides that make this discussion difficult. While I have not met with universal welcome here at FRIAM and the Santa Fe Complex, many have been gracious and respectful and I encourage artists to join in this discussion. Of course, as you said, in effect, no false dichotomy ought to enter those discussions. You made the important point that the sciences should not be viewed as above the arts in any hierarchy. I would also add that the reverse would not be appropriate either. Many of our great universities have among their schools what is often referred to as the flagship school, one called the School of Arts and Sciences, in recognition of their central and dual roles in education. If anything is neglected in that pursuit, it is generally the basic sciences, the ignorance of which too often breeds disdain rather than humility and the desire for amelioration. I hasten to point out that I am sure this is not where you are coming from. You know all of this, so I can hear you saying, Why all of this background? Because it needs reiteration: Many supporting a key role for the arts would say that we have lost our way with science. They would argue that we must install the arts over the sciences because we have lost our way with science. I too disdain hierarchy as a mode of progress and see nothing accomplished by placing one over the other regardless of the order. They need to be reminded that the sciences have helped liberate mankind from mental slavery to superstition-- burning of witches at the stake, to take one "trivial" example. The plagues of the 14th century were attributed to all kinds of causes, many of which we would find laughable (as well as tear- making to those victimized by false theories). It is science and its methods that have helped free us of these horrors. A number of the statements in the preceding paragraph need further exploration however. "The sciences have helped liberate mankind from mental slavery to superstition". Might not "humanity or the human spirit" be preferabe to "mankind"? I am somewhat confused as to why you put quotation marks around trivial. Can you explain that a bit more? These are important issues but not critical since I can sense the sensitivity, kindness and generosity of your manner. I think the more accurate statement is that sometimes, maybe even, more often than not, the sciences have helped liberate mankind from mental slavery to superstition. Further I think it is important to qualify this assertion by acknowledging that science has also created some superstitions of its own, or put another way has held on to the validity of "facts and theories" that have proved incorrect and harmful later on and has dismissed as errant approaches that have later on proved more correct and helpful. I cite here the dismissal of epigenetics and the work of Mendel and Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock. I am not aware of the role that science has played in ending the tragic practice of burning witches. Could you elaborate a bit on science's role? The causes and epidemiology of the plagues of the 14th century have only been recently better understood, much too late to benefit those who suffered from them. Further, understanding the causes of the plague relies on medicine which I would argue is an unusual science, even more so than biology, because almost every issue in medicine involves as much discussion of values and life as rigorous scientific method. To put this another way. from my point of view medicine, for all its flaws is a good example of a human investigative enterprise in that it relies on many forms of human understanding to support an underlying positive value for life. The rigor of the sciences includes testable hypotheses, consistency with what is known, requirements of predictable further tests.(Some would also add "falsifiability", as has been claimed to be necessary by Karl Popper, a famous 20th century philosopher). What has made mathematics so important in science, especially physics, is the need for replacing word-fuzziness with precision in prediction. "There are two possible outcomes: if the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery." Enrico Fermi This attitude of Fermi's is similar to the way many artists approach their process. There is joy, insight and information in the unexpected that is as important as arriving exactly where you thought you were going. Of course I believe it has been long understood that it is in the selection and construction of the hypotheses where much of the questionable practices of sciences lies. Who decides which questions to ask? How they are asked,? Whom or what are they asked of? How is the study funded? Given that science is a practice with a specialized vocabulary, which has been practiced primarily by western white men, who make their living from creating hypotheses, I think it is legitimate to question the values underlying the creation of hypotheses. A most common example is the until recently paucity of health studies that include women or men and women of different races. A specialized vocabulary can be a wonderful thing in allowing a range of expression less agilely done otherwise. I would like to know and have taken it as a gift to be able to learn as many languages, vocabularies and modes of communication as I can. But I don't hold to the view that only the most proficient in a language and vocabulary have the most to say with that language and vocabulary. Human understanding and communication is much more powerful and mysterious than can be reduced to mere facility with vocabulary. Further this requirement of "consistency with what is known" sets up a tautology between the hypothesis and the known world which is confounded by needing to create predictable further tests. If you set up a logical consistency to your argument or hypothesis you may not create predictable further tests but this very lack of predictability does not bring more light to bear on the complexities or nature of the "logical consistency" where much of the misdeeds of science lies, if and when they do occur. One might, strangely enough, dismiss the scientific discipline precisely on these grounds. But it is this very straitjacket that is the glory of science, and what it has done to advance understanding of where we are in the natural world. It is a wonder that we can look into the cosmos and the particle and understand so much that was denied our forebears. There is something spiritually uplifting in such an unveiling. [The role of emergence is well known to many FRIAMS, but that is another promising story] "It is a wonder that we can look into the cosmos and the particle and understand so much that was denied our forebears." I agree it is a wonder! I agree that this very straitjacket is the glory of science! I agree that there is something spiritually uplifting in such an unveiling! I would add however that it is a wonder added to many other wonders of our understanding. More than that I would say that the more complex and complete truth is that this insight was not so much denied to our forebears as that our forebears were interested in, (maybe even blinded) in understanding something different and for different reasons. I do not agree that this wonder and its understanding is a priori better or more complete. To me the best and most complete understanding is the variously weighted aggregate of them all. Those who decry science for this very same reason say, There's more, and science doesn't directly address all of that. Of course! That's why we must all pursue those domains that have the study of values as their objective, as you point out. The fully realized person pursues what both the sciences and the arts offer. I hope nothing I have said infers a decrying of science or an encouragement of decrying science. I am working with best effort (although I am sure I can still improve) to signal the sincerity of the discussion on all parts. I would say though that if any human activity should be strong enough to stand up to respectful and considered questioning it is science. If there is some "acid test" for who can question science, that should be made clear and be defensible. I myself know of no such acid test. For me the greatest questions I have of science surround the premise that science is or can be a domain outside of values. So long as it is done by mere mortals science like every other human activity stands on the quality of the character of those that practice it. Development of character is a lifelong ambition and one we all need and may want to work on. Hierarchical thinking often comes out of disdain bred of ignorance or fear. I am sure that is not the motivation of any of your contributors to our discussions. And I agree, this may be a time in human history when the arts need increasingly to come to our aid. I surely have made that point in my own writings and teaching. All well and good, you will agree. And what does all of this have to do with your basic point about the need to look at the arts afresh and their potential to do some heavy lifting now? I agree that this is a need. So, I am sure you didn't mean, in the context of your mention of philosophy, another hierarchy. Susan Langer, whom you mention (and whom I also admire, along with many of the classical philosophers, such as Hume, Spinosa, Berkeley?) would also disdain the hierarchies we have discussed. I confess that my comment about science acting more like religion than philosophy emerged without proper foundation. While I am not sure you would welcome or have the patience for the disclosure of this foundation, I am happy to provide one if you would like. I do hold to the ironic insight, intuition and position that to the extent that science claims a greater standing in the understanding the world based on testing repeatability and distance from values it tends to act more like religion. Specifically it does this by establishing a set of "rules" if not truths that have a socially and politically hierarchical role which is largely without accountability. In many religions, certainly most of western religions only God can establish rules(constants) whose values cannot be questioned. I know of no areas of human activity or understanding that lie outside of the domain of values, although there may well be one or one may emerge. To put this more strongly, I know of now no areas of human activity or understanding that are better for lying outside the domain of values. Even the physical constants (speed of light and so on) remain constant only when qualified to the degree of certainty allowed by their instruments of measurement. The fact that...some mathematics used by contemporary science creates an illusion of "without fuzziness" or as I would describe it "being out of time"...is no more a testament that what it describes is out of time than that line drawings creating the illusion of dimensionality is actually the dimensionality it draws illusion to. Most problematic of all is that science has helped to create and reflect the most fearful expression of the human spirit, nuclear weapons. I am somewhat well versed in the history of the American creation of nuclear weapons. I am well versed enough at least to understand, even be sympathetic to the historical complexities out of which these weapons arose. Even though many scientists are working quietly and often behind the scenes to remove, limit and withdraw nuclear weapons, science, especially physics, has yet to lead or demonstrate ways of removing, limiting and withdrawing nuclear weapons from the future prospect of the world. Or bringing the conversation of how to limit, remove and withdraw nuclear weapons to the public and even to our political leaders. Maybe for this reason science and scientists feel under attack. Attacking science and scientists is wrong and counter to moving forward. Lets figure out how to reinvigorate the conversation about limiting, removing and withdrawing the nuclear weapons prospect from the world by bringing art and science and all forms of understanding together in respectful interaction. Lets pioneer antidotes, sequestrations and confinements. However we got here the nuclear weapons problem now belongs to all of us. I'm sure you well know that a sound philosophical system must be internally consistent. This it shares with a sound theory in physics. But an important difference is that each of the particular philosophical systems is dependent on its own, often distinct, premises. My toughest test for a sound philosophical system is not that it be internally consistent. A philosophical system that can express, contain and value paradox and ambiguity is, as in some aspects of Buddhism (in my view more a philosophy than a religion although both), much more valuable. But in any event for me the toughest test of a philosophical system is the degree and extent to which it brings meaning to human existence and experience. Aristotle's natural philosophy, which we now call physics, was followed for about 2000 years, and was finally found wanting by the thinking of Galileo and Newton. More recently, when we thought there were seven planets about the sun, a famous philosopher (Was it Hegel? I will look it up.) showed why that would have to be the case, on philosphical grounds.. That is, until there were found to be more than seven planets. And, of course, we all know something about the religious and philosophical arguments about why the sun goes around the earth. One of my heroes is Galileo. Not simply because he helped reveal through measurement principles underlying falling bodies and helped underscore through instruments a heliocentric few of the solar system but because he courageously and peacefully pursued his intuition with instruments so that others could see through his eyes. It is his character that I most admire. Importantly though, Galileo was not the first to find Aristotle's natural philosophy wanting. There were for example, heliocentric theories among the Greeks. Aristarchus of Samos about 310-230 BC held such a heliocentric view in which the Earth rotated around the Sun as well as other heliocentric insights. Akhenaton, the Egyptian pharaoh, decided that the sun was the source of life and the organizing principle of the world and reformed Egyptian civilization to reflect his decision. Certainly this is another kind of heliocentric few. My sense is that both heliocentric views have insight and meaning in addition of Galileo's. A discussion of why these earlier heliocentric views did not gain currency is beyond the scope of these comments. All of our disciplines need each other. And again, nothing I have said is in opposition to the view that the arts are needed to serve as a guide in this time more than ever. This is an idea you have so eloquently expressed. I heard the folk poet Jim Wayne Miller a long time ago say that we need the "world of born as well as the world of made". We need to realize that many of our intellectual struggles belong to the world of born. This includes the sciences as well as the arts. They reinforce each other in our efforts to be truly human. We agree that the arts must assume a special role in this time in intellectual history. Jack About this we are in complete agreement! All disciplines need each other! I hope my comments have articulated some new ways in which we can move forward together. Respectfully, Ann ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
