"As the Nobel Prizewinning Physicist Richard Feynman stressed, we need to spend at least as much time trying to prove our best ideas wrong, as right.
The tools of science—skeptical questioning, logical reasoning and analysis, prediction, testing, and retesting, combined with a willingness to be wrong—not only lead to scientific progress, but when applied more broadly can provide policy makers and the public with better ways to deal with the global challenges we face. Now more than ever society needs to be guided by reason and science, while allowing for free and open discourse across echo chambers. No subject should be taboo because only by open discussion can good ideas flourish and bad ideas fall by the wayside. At the same time, we should celebrate the wonders of the universe that science has uncovered, and the mysteries that still remain."
----------
I agree enthusiastically with the above. In that spirit it interests me to explore the following.
What if "skeptical questioning, logical reasoning and analysis, prediction, testing, and retesting, combined with a willingness to be wrong" should point in the direction of doing less science instead of more?
In your estimation, how might the science community respond to such an inconvenient answer? What happens if the "tools of science" should come in to conflict with "the tools of reason"? If that were the case, which might they choose? Where is their bottom line loyalty?
Your statement above seems to assume (correct me where needed) that more scientific progress is automatically a good thing? Is that assumption on the table for skeptical analysis too?
the whole process leads to more knowledge so it is hard to see how the process of science, uncovering how the universe works, can lead to that conclusion.. it always generates more questions, and methods for answering them.. that is simply the way the process works..
Do you believe that human beings can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate?
Knowledge development feeds back on itself leading to an ever accelerating pace of knowledge development. If you generally accept that principle, then the next question can be, what are the limits of this process, if any?
It may help if we can make a distinction between the scientific method and our relationship with knowledge (and thus science). I'm not presenting any challenge to the scientific method, or scientists as people. It's the relationship with knowledge that interests and concerns me.
To me, the fact that the scientific method works remarkably well is not automatically proof that therefore we should do as much science as possible without limit.
Putin could end civilization in the next 30 minutes. Kim Jong-un is racing towards the day when he'll be able to collapse America's largest cities. The Chinese are rapidly building their nuclear arsenal. Genetic engineering is being handed out to every yahoo on the planet. The knowledge explosion is providing such people with ever more, ever larger powers, at an ever accelerating rate.
Where will we hit the wall exactly? Nobody knows, including me. But we're working hard to find out.
This is addressed in the Pugwash Conferences , which originated following Bertrand Russell’s anti nuclear proliferation manifesto signed by Albert Einstein and Joseph Rotblat among many other Nobel laureates.
Hi there Dr. Krauss, I just signed up to explore your interest in inconvenient questioning. You write...
"More troubling still has been the attack on academic freedom, where faculty are sometimes removed from positions or even fired due to performing research that is not politically correct, or asking inconvenient questions."
That's troubling indeed, but increasingly normal in our evolving tribal society. I share your concern, and am hoping to better understand the degree to which you might be receptive to asking inconvenient questions about our relationship with knowledge, and thus science.
As just a quick example for now, do you believe that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge delivered at any rate? If you answer yes, I'd love to hear your reasoning. If you answer no, that would seem to be an inconvenient challenge to the science culture group consensus. Inconvenient challenges to any widely held assumption of a group consensus interest me.
I wanted to offer this point of view on free speech for your consideration but I could not find the appropriate post. I will put the link here and you can delete/move it.
FYI: another academic firing case: un-islamic vs islamophobic
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20230108&instance_id=82170&nl=todaysheadlines®i_id=2126998&segment_id=121945&user_id=533c5302d6ed1b7d883bb25940e780cd
Another article for your consideration with some stats about peer review
https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-gender-bias-worsened-the-peer-review-crisis?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_5842974_nl_Academe-Today_date_20230103&cid=at&source=&sourceid=&cid2=gen_login_refresh
This is why I signed up. You wrote...
----------
"As the Nobel Prizewinning Physicist Richard Feynman stressed, we need to spend at least as much time trying to prove our best ideas wrong, as right.
The tools of science—skeptical questioning, logical reasoning and analysis, prediction, testing, and retesting, combined with a willingness to be wrong—not only lead to scientific progress, but when applied more broadly can provide policy makers and the public with better ways to deal with the global challenges we face. Now more than ever society needs to be guided by reason and science, while allowing for free and open discourse across echo chambers. No subject should be taboo because only by open discussion can good ideas flourish and bad ideas fall by the wayside. At the same time, we should celebrate the wonders of the universe that science has uncovered, and the mysteries that still remain."
----------
I agree enthusiastically with the above. In that spirit it interests me to explore the following.
What if "skeptical questioning, logical reasoning and analysis, prediction, testing, and retesting, combined with a willingness to be wrong" should point in the direction of doing less science instead of more?
In your estimation, how might the science community respond to such an inconvenient answer? What happens if the "tools of science" should come in to conflict with "the tools of reason"? If that were the case, which might they choose? Where is their bottom line loyalty?
Your statement above seems to assume (correct me where needed) that more scientific progress is automatically a good thing? Is that assumption on the table for skeptical analysis too?
Thanks!
the whole process leads to more knowledge so it is hard to see how the process of science, uncovering how the universe works, can lead to that conclusion.. it always generates more questions, and methods for answering them.. that is simply the way the process works..
We could try this if you want.
Do you believe that human beings can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate?
Knowledge development feeds back on itself leading to an ever accelerating pace of knowledge development. If you generally accept that principle, then the next question can be, what are the limits of this process, if any?
It may help if we can make a distinction between the scientific method and our relationship with knowledge (and thus science). I'm not presenting any challenge to the scientific method, or scientists as people. It's the relationship with knowledge that interests and concerns me.
To me, the fact that the scientific method works remarkably well is not automatically proof that therefore we should do as much science as possible without limit.
Any of this interest you?
Not directly.. because I don't think we are near any limits
Putin could end civilization in the next 30 minutes. Kim Jong-un is racing towards the day when he'll be able to collapse America's largest cities. The Chinese are rapidly building their nuclear arsenal. Genetic engineering is being handed out to every yahoo on the planet. The knowledge explosion is providing such people with ever more, ever larger powers, at an ever accelerating rate.
Where will we hit the wall exactly? Nobody knows, including me. But we're working hard to find out.
Definitely looking forward to that conversation. What a brilliant scientist and fascinating human being he is. I hope you two discuss quasars .🤓
This is addressed in the Pugwash Conferences , which originated following Bertrand Russell’s anti nuclear proliferation manifesto signed by Albert Einstein and Joseph Rotblat among many other Nobel laureates.
Indeed.. wait for the next podcast with Martin Rees
Hi there Dr. Krauss, I just signed up to explore your interest in inconvenient questioning. You write...
"More troubling still has been the attack on academic freedom, where faculty are sometimes removed from positions or even fired due to performing research that is not politically correct, or asking inconvenient questions."
That's troubling indeed, but increasingly normal in our evolving tribal society. I share your concern, and am hoping to better understand the degree to which you might be receptive to asking inconvenient questions about our relationship with knowledge, and thus science.
As just a quick example for now, do you believe that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge delivered at any rate? If you answer yes, I'd love to hear your reasoning. If you answer no, that would seem to be an inconvenient challenge to the science culture group consensus. Inconvenient challenges to any widely held assumption of a group consensus interest me.
Thanks, and congrats on your successful blog!
I just noticed I was automatically billed for a year, and not a month. Do you understand what happened? Thanks.
No. You can sign up for either. Perhaps you clicked the wrong button?
Could be. It was just a button on your page that said Upgrade. When I clicked it I was charged for a year.
I wanted to offer this point of view on free speech for your consideration but I could not find the appropriate post. I will put the link here and you can delete/move it.
https://therealnews.com/free-speech-is-whatever-the-rich-say-it-is?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The+Real+News+Network&utm_campaign=892bf4dc9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_12_26_free-speech&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-892bf4dc9d-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=892bf4dc9d&mc_eid=6f03a4e152
Thanks for this article.. I enjoyed it.