thomas malloy wrote:
Frankly, I cannot imagine that anyone at the P.O. would ever
believe that we have reached the "end of science"!
That would be rather self defeating wouldn't it.
Exactly! It would be against their interests, so even if it were true
it is not likely they would recognize it.
The editors at Sci. Am. believe that, but they are extraordinarily
stupid people. You wonder how they ever got where they are. I
suppose "Parkinson's Law" explains it.
Either that or they have an agenda.
My impression based on their articles and letters to me is that they
are stupid.
This is also my impression of the Bush administration's war in Iraq.
I do not believe this outcome was masterminded to secure Iraqi oil.
Their tactics are much too risky and wasteful. If they were smart,
they could have secured the oil without destroying the country and
without getting 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed, and 29,000 wounded.
Actually, come to think of it, while equally stupid people might
end up in the P.O., I doubt they would think this is the end of
science. Extreme stupidity that inhibits the central task of the
institution is rare.
Yah, what about Baldwin Locomotive? Then there is GMC, which has,
AFAIK still not produced a hybrid vehicle.
I said that such stupidity is rare, not unheard of. Large
institutions seldom collapse because of stupid decisions, but it does
happen, as Parkinson, Tuchman and other authors have shown.
Large institutions all go extinct eventually, for a variety of
reasons. Stupidity is often a factor, but so are bad luck, obsolete
technology, aging and death of the founders, and the factors
described by Christensen in "The Innovator's Dilemma" (summarized by
in my book, chapter 7). A few institutions, such as Enron, were
destroyed by criminal behavior. This is rare.
The central task of Sci. Am. is to sell magazines and make Sci. Am.
look authoritative. Attacking cold fusion and declaring that this
is the end of science helps sell magazines.
Why?
Controversy sells. Lurid scandal sells. Crystal healing energy and
end-of-the-world, apocalyptic hokum sells, and the "end of science"
hypothesis is more of the same. As Robert Park says, controversy
"spikes above the noise in Washington." If he were to write: "I don't
understand experiment X but I doubt it is valid" no one would pay
attention. So, instead, he says something like: "Prof. Y is a
creationist and a fraud." That gets attention.
- Jed
