A scientist may function as an engineer, and an engineer may function as a scientist. But that doesn't change the differences between science and engineering.
-- Russ On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Frank Wimberly <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 mankindhumankind. > 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 >
============================================================ 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
