Let's start with the first sentence. Abbot writes...
"Science is a creative endeavor that requires the free and open exchange of ideas to thrive."
Ok then, so in the spirit of a free and open exchange of ideas, let us please inquire in to the degree to which science should thrive. Let's not just blindly assume that it should as if that were an obvious given.
Please introduce us to the scientists whose careers are focused on a serious, sustained, disciplined investigation in to the question of how much more knowledge and power human beings can successfully manage. Please introduce us to the scientists who are willing to explore beyond the nearly universal group think consensus of the science community which assumes without questioning that more knowledge is always better, without limit. Show us the scientists who aren't blindly clinging to a "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and proclaiming that as a superior "one true way", much in the same manner that fundamentalist Christians cling to their holy books.
It's not going to be possible to keep ideology out of science so long as it is the scientists themselves who are building science on a foundation of a simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous 19th century "more is better" relationship with knowledge philosophy which they should have begun seriously questioning at the moment that the first atomic weapon ignited over Hiroshima in 1945, seventy five years ago. That's an ideology too guys.
Krauss, meaning no personal disrespect, but given your work with The Bulletin, you of all people should understand who it is that the science community is determined to give ever more power at an ever accelerating rate.
As you know, we are the species who invented a city killing device, and then mass produced it, and who can't figure out how to get rid of it, so we've decided to ignore the threat, and turn our attention instead to producing ever more powers of vast scale which will inevitably fall in to the hands of the worst among us. We are the species who, having learned how to split the atom to catastrophic effect, decided it would be a good idea to study even more fundamental particles with enthusiastic zeal. This is the species which the science community is determined to give ever more power to.
Look, I like scientists. I really do. You are very intelligent people who are overwhelmingly operating from good intentions. But please stop lecturing us about ideology. You don't even know that you have an ideology, a blind faith relationship with knowledge that you are so rarely willing to examine, let alone question.
Where is the proof that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge and power delivered at any rate? Please explain why we are supposed to ask for proof of every claim, except the claim modern science is built upon.
In the spirit of a free and open exchange of ideas, please proceed to try to rip this post to shreds. No offense will be taken, the challenge is welcomed with open arms. If you can, stick with the process. Try not to just fire off a couple of quick sentences and then run.
We share a belief in the power of reason, so let us reason together.
Thanks much to those liking this post for your encouragement.
If you should like to encourage such discussion further, let us reason together. Hit the reply button if you wish. Say something. Anything. Yell at me if you want, no problem at all, that would be fair. Or ignore me and address the topic from your own perspective.
Or, if not here, where? If you know of where such discussion is already underway please share a link, thanks.
Abbot writes, "How can we ensure political neutrality in science?"
But you don't want political neutrality, you want to win, to get your way, to have your philosophy prevail. You should of course make your case and argue your position. Just don't call it "neutrality" please.
Abbot writes... "Keeping politics out of science is something that all people of good will, both Democrats and Republicans, should be able to agree on."
Except that you don't want to keep politics out of science, you want to keep everybody else's politics out of science. The notion that the public should pay scientists to pursue their philosophy of "more knowledge is always better" is inherently political, because in one way or another it typically involves public funds, and the future direction of the society we are all part of. The assumption that ""more knowledge is always better" is a philosophy, an ideology, and when public funds are involved, a political position.
So if we are to have a free and open exchange of ideas, which is an excellent plan, then the philosophy that modern science is built upon should be on the table for examination and challenge too, just like all other positions. If we were to blindly accept the knowledge philosophy of the science community as a matter of faith in authority without such examination and questioning, we would be doing the very thing that Krauss rightly objects to in the field of religion.
So what much of what the science community often writes sounds kinda like this. "Never believe anything on faith, unless it's we the science community who are speaking."
Abbot writes, "Society has benefited immensely from scientific progress..."
This is indisputably true, agree of course.
But it doesn't automatically follow from that fact that therefore we should continue to proceed exactly as we have in the past. The spectacular success of science over the last century or two has created a revolutionary new environment which we are required to adapt to. You'd think that scientists of all people would understand this.
In the long era of knowledge scarcity it was perfectly rational to seek ever more knowledge without limit. Today we no longer live in the knowledge scarcity era, but in a radically different new era where knowledge is exploding in every direction at what seems to be an ever accelerating rate.
What the science community is doing is meeting the revolutionary new environment which the science community itself created with a "more is better" knowledge philosophy left over from the 19th century.
If you really believe in a "free and open exchange of ideas", here's your chance to prove it. Just hit reply and start typing.
Our candle in the dark is at risk of being extinguished because of the relentless incursion of aspirational victimhood and identity worship. We need to continue highlighting this anti-scientific nonsense. Excellent work Dorian.
Yes, I agree, a bit heavy handed. And as best I can tell from past experience, it won't enlighten anybody. The status quo will continue to blindly lumber forward until it crashes in to some real world event which will educate us in a manner no amount of reason can.
I would be happy to see others make the same case (whether they believe it or not) in a more detached objective manner minus the frustration infection which I am often afflicted with. When I can find intellectual elites making this case in a manner more suitable to academic audiences, I will be happy to applaud their skill.
What I have discovered so far in my journeys on this topic is that scientists aren't philosophers, and philosophers aren't interested. When you beat your head on that brick wall enough times, there is a tendency to become a bit too heavy handed.
Let's start with the first sentence. Abbot writes...
"Science is a creative endeavor that requires the free and open exchange of ideas to thrive."
Ok then, so in the spirit of a free and open exchange of ideas, let us please inquire in to the degree to which science should thrive. Let's not just blindly assume that it should as if that were an obvious given.
Please introduce us to the scientists whose careers are focused on a serious, sustained, disciplined investigation in to the question of how much more knowledge and power human beings can successfully manage. Please introduce us to the scientists who are willing to explore beyond the nearly universal group think consensus of the science community which assumes without questioning that more knowledge is always better, without limit. Show us the scientists who aren't blindly clinging to a "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and proclaiming that as a superior "one true way", much in the same manner that fundamentalist Christians cling to their holy books.
It's not going to be possible to keep ideology out of science so long as it is the scientists themselves who are building science on a foundation of a simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous 19th century "more is better" relationship with knowledge philosophy which they should have begun seriously questioning at the moment that the first atomic weapon ignited over Hiroshima in 1945, seventy five years ago. That's an ideology too guys.
Krauss, meaning no personal disrespect, but given your work with The Bulletin, you of all people should understand who it is that the science community is determined to give ever more power at an ever accelerating rate.
As you know, we are the species who invented a city killing device, and then mass produced it, and who can't figure out how to get rid of it, so we've decided to ignore the threat, and turn our attention instead to producing ever more powers of vast scale which will inevitably fall in to the hands of the worst among us. We are the species who, having learned how to split the atom to catastrophic effect, decided it would be a good idea to study even more fundamental particles with enthusiastic zeal. This is the species which the science community is determined to give ever more power to.
Look, I like scientists. I really do. You are very intelligent people who are overwhelmingly operating from good intentions. But please stop lecturing us about ideology. You don't even know that you have an ideology, a blind faith relationship with knowledge that you are so rarely willing to examine, let alone question.
Where is the proof that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge and power delivered at any rate? Please explain why we are supposed to ask for proof of every claim, except the claim modern science is built upon.
In the spirit of a free and open exchange of ideas, please proceed to try to rip this post to shreds. No offense will be taken, the challenge is welcomed with open arms. If you can, stick with the process. Try not to just fire off a couple of quick sentences and then run.
We share a belief in the power of reason, so let us reason together.
Thanks much to those liking this post for your encouragement.
If you should like to encourage such discussion further, let us reason together. Hit the reply button if you wish. Say something. Anything. Yell at me if you want, no problem at all, that would be fair. Or ignore me and address the topic from your own perspective.
Or, if not here, where? If you know of where such discussion is already underway please share a link, thanks.
Abbot writes, "How can we ensure political neutrality in science?"
But you don't want political neutrality, you want to win, to get your way, to have your philosophy prevail. You should of course make your case and argue your position. Just don't call it "neutrality" please.
May I summarize? "The unexamined life is not worth living" ! :)
Abbot writes... "Keeping politics out of science is something that all people of good will, both Democrats and Republicans, should be able to agree on."
Except that you don't want to keep politics out of science, you want to keep everybody else's politics out of science. The notion that the public should pay scientists to pursue their philosophy of "more knowledge is always better" is inherently political, because in one way or another it typically involves public funds, and the future direction of the society we are all part of. The assumption that ""more knowledge is always better" is a philosophy, an ideology, and when public funds are involved, a political position.
So if we are to have a free and open exchange of ideas, which is an excellent plan, then the philosophy that modern science is built upon should be on the table for examination and challenge too, just like all other positions. If we were to blindly accept the knowledge philosophy of the science community as a matter of faith in authority without such examination and questioning, we would be doing the very thing that Krauss rightly objects to in the field of religion.
So what much of what the science community often writes sounds kinda like this. "Never believe anything on faith, unless it's we the science community who are speaking."
Abbot writes, "Society has benefited immensely from scientific progress..."
This is indisputably true, agree of course.
But it doesn't automatically follow from that fact that therefore we should continue to proceed exactly as we have in the past. The spectacular success of science over the last century or two has created a revolutionary new environment which we are required to adapt to. You'd think that scientists of all people would understand this.
In the long era of knowledge scarcity it was perfectly rational to seek ever more knowledge without limit. Today we no longer live in the knowledge scarcity era, but in a radically different new era where knowledge is exploding in every direction at what seems to be an ever accelerating rate.
What the science community is doing is meeting the revolutionary new environment which the science community itself created with a "more is better" knowledge philosophy left over from the 19th century.
If you really believe in a "free and open exchange of ideas", here's your chance to prove it. Just hit reply and start typing.
Our candle in the dark is at risk of being extinguished because of the relentless incursion of aspirational victimhood and identity worship. We need to continue highlighting this anti-scientific nonsense. Excellent work Dorian.
A bit heavy handed. I wonder what audience it was designed to enlighten.
Lawrence(You, Your)
Yes, I agree, a bit heavy handed. And as best I can tell from past experience, it won't enlighten anybody. The status quo will continue to blindly lumber forward until it crashes in to some real world event which will educate us in a manner no amount of reason can.
I would be happy to see others make the same case (whether they believe it or not) in a more detached objective manner minus the frustration infection which I am often afflicted with. When I can find intellectual elites making this case in a manner more suitable to academic audiences, I will be happy to applaud their skill.
What I have discovered so far in my journeys on this topic is that scientists aren't philosophers, and philosophers aren't interested. When you beat your head on that brick wall enough times, there is a tendency to become a bit too heavy handed.