NP: scientists not playing God

[Monte Davis]

JT> ...there are quite a few prominent scientists who speak in very
non-provisional and at times absolutist language...  the enterprise
sometimes has qualities more reminiscent of theological arguments or battles
over who will have an authoritative voice than testable provisionality.

Yes, that happens. It shouldn't, but some people must wrap themselves in
authority whatever their calling.

Two editors at now-long-gone OMNI recently started a Facebook site that's
sampling the magazine issue by issue. My 1979 interview with Richard Feynman
just went up there

https://www.facebook.com/notes/omnimagazine/qa-with-richard-feynman-omni-may
-1979-by-monte-davis/592460847452249

An earlier one, with Freeman Dyson, was in the inaugural issue:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/omnimagazine/omni-qa-freeman-dyson-by-monte-d
avis/573986679299666

There aren't any typical high-energy physicists any more than there are any
typical stained-glass artisans -- but both of these voices are notably
"provisional" and far from "absolutist."

That said, some of Feynman's points don't play very nicely with Raymond
Tallis in that column we were talking about recently, e.g. its claim that
"Fundamental physics is in a metaphysical mess and needs help" [from
philosophers]. He's also less than charitable to Spinoza re the latter's
attempt to do [what we now call] physics with the tools of metaphysics. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/27/physics-philosophy-quant
um-relativity-einstein


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of Joseph Tracy
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40 PM
To: P-list List
Subject: Re: TRP and Science 2 (was: Science Plays God)

I fully agree that what you describe is an ideal way to do science, and many
scientists will also agree; probably a sizable majority will embrace this.
But there are quite a few prominent scientists who speak in very
non-provisional and at times absolutist language. Both Hawking and Stephen
Gould come to mind. And there  are even more scientists who scoff at and
resign to the category of not worthy of investigation phenomena/experimental
data etc. that are either unexplained or suggest a flaw in current theory.
Part of this is a battle for grant money, and a valid desire not to waste
time, but hasn't a kind of orthodoxy in particular fields sometimes
inhibited important science?  So this is not a a put down of all science but
an observation that the enterprise  sometimes has qualities more reminiscent
of theological arguments or battles over who will have an authoritative
voice than testable provisionality. I sometimes read science journals on
controversial topics and the response of reader scientists can be shockingly
disparate, and often vehemently mean-spirited.  To the layman this doesn't
sound like what you are talking about.

On Jun 13, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Monte Davis wrote:

> AW> science is more prone to this lie [claiming truth] than the makers of
wit and fiction
>  
> That's the nub of it, isn't it? Sadly, like so many Aliceisms, it falls
apart under examination. Scientific "truth" is always provisional, with
explicit procedures for testing it. When you publish experimental results
and offer your explanation, the journal will send it back if it doesn't have
a section on "what are the other possible explanations, and what are the
detailed reasons for choosing mine over any of the others?". and another on
"if I'm right, that implies corollaries and consequences that should be
tested by further experiments A, B and C."  
>  
> One does come across that in the best history, criticism, etc., but less
frequently and typically with  much less rigor.
>  
> The idea that scientists go around thinking "I have the cold stone Truth,
unlike those vague fuzzy generalizations they have over in the arts and
letters quad," is pure - what's that word you like so much? - projection.