It seems to me that you are mixing people and disciplines. Scientists and engineers are people. People can be noble, mean-spirited, guilt-ridden, etc. Science and engineering are disciplines. As such, they do not have the same properties as people. It's a simple distinction. The theory of general relativity is a theory about the structure of nature. It is not noble. It is not evil. It is a theory. Einstein on the other hand, was a character, noble in some ways and not very nice in others. Einstein's personality has nothing to do with general relativity as a theory of the way nature is. Let's not mix categories.
-- Russ On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Douglas Roberts <[email protected]>wrote: > Guys, (Frank excluded, as he obviously has a good grasp of the realities > of this particular bit of human nature): the attempt to distance the > "scientists" from the "engineers", either in general, or in particular for > their respective roles on the Manhattan Project is a crutch. *Everybody* > involved with that project knew what the potential destructive power of the > end product of their labors would likely be. > > I grew up in Los Alamos, 1950 - 1964, and then came back to work there from > 1984 - 2005, and I'm here to to tell you that the *scientists* at Los > Alamos have always known what the capabilities of that particular class of > WMD were as well as did the the engineers who routinely turned the concepts > into reality. It is as true today as it was in the days of the Manhattan > Project. Why do you think there is such a disproportionate number of > churches in Los Alamos, compared to average small town America? > > Answer (Duh!): guilt. > > Scientists aren't any more special, or noble, or incisive than engineers. > Or vice versa. Please get off that pulpit. They are just people who > approach problems from different perspectives. > > --Doug > > > On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:09 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
