Glen, I agree that there are some big science projects that would require government funding, especially--and perhaps only--when there is a verifiable public good as a possible potential outcome, IMHO. No, no Constitutional amendments as long as science remains science ... big or not ... but *science *may be in a process of being redefined in a much looser way. Even theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss is a bit worried here <http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2005/11/theory_of_anything.html> .
With respect to John Horgan, and notwithstanding his reputation with some of the folks he interviews perhaps, I see him among other good science writers who keep a public eye on what is going on in science. We don't have to like or agree with him but Horgan is not shy about casting a critical light on otherwise very speculative (government and academic) institutional activities (e.g., his *From Complexity to Perplexity*). Personally, as an outside observer, I tend to learn more from a critical angle than from one that is promoted from the inside by the promoters, who would be less critical of their own work of course. His writings encourage me to look deeper. Even Lawrence Krauss is a bit worried here. Also, I do respect arguments like the one Feyerabend brings about public funding of science for the same reason. These have the potential to create public conversations in important areas that otherwise many see as beyond comprehension. That's the job of a science writer. For example, do we need or want to build our own national facility to rival LHC? If so, why? How will it improve our lives? Or, do we want to fund our own national project to rival Henry Markam's Blue Brain Project (now the Human Brain Project ... notably to rein it in)? Is the premises of this project sound? Many think not <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-brain-project-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/>. We do have our own national brain project--the White House Brain Initiativ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative>e--but it is fundamentally different in terms of its mission. Of course, there can be merit in speculative research. This is how discoveries are made. However, I think Horgan is urging us to be careful here going forward. as the cost of these potential discoveries is getting steep and there is the likelihood that we will learn nothing more. The law of rapidly diminishing returns is setting in. So how do we decide? Niels Bohr once declared that the opposite of a profound truth is also a > profound truth. This is the charmed predicament of the Blue Brain project. > If the simulation is successful, if it can turn a stack of silicon > microchips into a sentient being, then the epic problem of consciousness > will have been solved. The soul will be stripped of its secrets; the mind > will lose its mystery. However, if the project fails—if the software never > generates a sense of self, or manages to solve the paradox of > experience—then neuroscience may be forced to confront its stark > limitations. Knowing everything about the brain will not be enough. The > supercomputer will still be a mere machine. Nothing will have emerged from > all of the information. We will remain what can’t be known. I think that the question Horgan--and certainly Feyerabend-- is trying to raise is, "Should our government fund *ironic science*?" Ironic science is science that ceases to be science methodologically. This is where scientists cross the line into metaphysics or philosophy. Feyerabend would say religion. Cheers On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:02 PM, glen ⛧ <[email protected]> wrote: > Whew! I'm a huge fan of Feyerabend. For a minute I was afraid you were > allowing wackos like this guy: > > http://youtu.be/8XjR9f0DZJc > > I tend to think the way out of the trap is through citizen science (eg > DIYBio and our own friends at GUTS). To some extent anything in big science > must be gov funded. Even if you don't call it "government", it's still > pooled resources with minority management, which implies a government of > some sort. And anytime a minority make judgments for the majority, we'll > hear cries of bias and for "separation". The real measure of progress is > watching how scientific experiments that used to be only doable by big > science are now doable by citizens in their garage. As long as that > happens, we have to admit there's an important role for government funded > science. If we don't get our own high energy colliders we can run on saw > horses in our garage, _then_ we'll push for a Constitutional amendment. > > Anyway, arguments like this are why so many scientists think little of > Horgan. His arguments are rife with over simplification. Yahoos like Mike > Adams <http://www.naturalnews.com/About.html> use similar rhetoric, which > is unfortunate for relatively authentic people like Horgan. > > On 05/18/2016 12:58 PM, Robert Wall wrote: > > It took me a while to find where I read that argument. But, as it turns > out, the argument was recounted by John Horgan in his /The End of Science > /(1996) the first paragraph at the top of page 47 in the chapter titled > "The End of Philosophy." There, Horgan was recounting the argument put > forth by philosopher Paul Feyerabend who wrote in his /Against Method/ [p > 295]: > > > > “The separation of state and church must be complemented by the > separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and > most dogmatic religious institution.” > > > > > > Horgan writes: > > > > Feyerabend also objected to the claim that science is superior to > other modes of knowledge. He was particularly enraged at the tendency of > Western states to foist the products of science--whether the theory of > evolution, nuclear power plants, or gigantic particle accelerators--on > people against their will. "There is separation between state and church," > he complained, "but none between state and church. > > > > > > Paul Feyerabend has been called the worst enemy of science by a 1987 > /Nature /essay. Maybe this is justone reason among many < > https://www.quora.com/Is-it-common-among-scientists-to-scorn-philosophy> > why it is perceived that scientists--especially physicists--dislike > philosophers. But no public funding for science research?! What's not to > like? 🤔 > > > -- > ⛧ glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
