Salvaging Science

[TFian]

As the title suggests, it's a post by the Grand Archdruid John Michael Greer about what can, and can't be salvaged from modern "science".

To break it down,

He repeats the point from earlier postings that in a post peak world, specialization will not be viable, and ties this into science.

Explains a bit of the history of science, and the emergence of the history of science as a profession.

This in particular stuck out

It’s rarely remembered these days that until quite recently, scientific research was mostly carried on by amateurs. The word “scientist” wasn’t even coined until 1833; before then, and for some time after, the research programs that set modern science on its way were carried out by university professors in other disciplines, middle class individuals with spare time on their hands, and wealthy dilletantes for whom science was a more interesting hobby than horse racing or politics. Isaac Newton, for example, taught mathematics at Cambridge; Gilbert White founded the science of ecology with his Natural History of Selborne in his spare time as a clergyman; Charles Darwin came from a family with a share of the Wedgwood pottery fortune, had a clergyman’s education, and paid his own way around the world on the H.M.S. Beagle.

It took a long time for scence as a profession to catch on, because—pace a myth very widespread these days—science contributed next to nothing to the technological revolutions that swept the western world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Until late in the nineteenth century, in fact, things generally worked the other way around: engineers and basement tinkerers discovered some exotic new effect, and then scientists scrambled to figure out what made it happen. James Clerk Maxwell, whose 1873 book Electricity and Magnetism finally got out ahead of the engineers to postulate the effects that would become the basis for radio, began the process by which science took the lead in technological innovation, but it wasn’t until the Second World War that science had matured enough to become the engine of discovery it then became. It was then that government and business investment in basic research took off, creating the institutionalized science of the present day.

Compares the current scientific culture to the ancient Greek logic culture, and corresponds and compares the two with the emerging death of science (like logic previously) being seen as a tool to discover all knowledge.

He makes the astute point we're probably at the end of scientific discovery.

I know it’s utter heresy even to hint at this, but I’d like to suggest that science, like logic before it, has gotten pretty close to its natural limits as a method of knowledge. In Darwin’s time, a century and a half ago, it was still possible to make worldshaking scientific discoveries with equipment that would be considered hopelessly inadequate for a middle school classroom nowadays; there was still a lot of low hanging fruit to be picked off the tree of knowledge. At this point, by contrast, the next round of experimental advances in particle physics depends on the Large Hadron Collider, a European project with an estimated total price tag around $5.5 billion. Many other branches of science have reached the point at which very small advances in knowledge are being made with very large investments of money, labor, and computing power. Doubtless there will still be surprises in store, but revolutionary discoveries are very few and far between these days

Also talks about the rampant corruption in the sciences, and how scientific consensus has become a matter of simply a political grant or two.

Any scientists, engineers, etc. and those interested in science want to give their two cents on this piece? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

http://energybulletin.net/stories/2011-08-03/salvaging-science

 

[Kid Eager]

What a load of wrongness.

The absence of a title "scientist" does not indicate the absence of science. Where do you think the title came from?

Or do you think you have to be called a scientist to do science and scientific research? That would result in some interesting contortions of logic...

 

[TFian]

The absence of a title "scientist" does not indicate the absence of science. Where do you think the title came from?

Err, I'm not meaning to be rude, but did you actually read the post (and his post for that matter?), he never remotely said "science didn't exist before scientists", he was simply describing the history of the creation of the profession of "scientist", or the job of conducting scientific research and interpretation, amongst other things in the post.

Or do you think you have to be called a scientist to do science and scientific research? That would result in some interesting contortions of logic...

He clearly explained throughout history science was done by amateurs as a hobby, please read it before commenting

 

[Kid Eager]

Err, I'm not meaning to be rude, but did you actually read the post (and his post for that matter?), he never remotely said "science didn't exist before scientists", he was simply describing the history of the creation of the profession of "scientist", or the job of conducting scientific research and interpretation, amongst other things in the post.



He clearly explained throughout history science was done by amateurs as a hobby, please read it before commenting

I think you should take some of your own advice: the source article says:

"....It took a long time for scence as a profession to catch on, because—pace a myth very widespread these days—science contributed next to nothing to the technological revolutions that swept the western world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Until late in the nineteenth century, in fact, things generally worked the other way around: engineers and basement tinkerers discovered some exotic new effect, and then scientists scrambled to figure out what made it happen."

 

[TFian]

I think you should take some of your own advice: the source article says:

"....It took a long time for scence as a profession to catch on, because—pace a myth very widespread these days—science contributed next to nothing to the technological revolutions that swept the western world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Until late in the nineteenth century, in fact, things generally worked the other way around: engineers and basement tinkerers discovered some exotic new effect, and then scientists scrambled to figure out what made it happen."

Yeah, so? Where does that state science wasn't conducted beforehand? It's simply that scientific knowledge and discipline contributed little to the technological revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Are you disputing this? If so, why?

 

[lionking]

Well Greer's wrong at most everything. Just add science to the things he's wrong about.

 

[TFian]

Well Greer's wrong at most everything. Just add science to the things he's wrong about.

In what way is he wrong here?

 

[Kid Eager]

Yeah, so? Where does that state science wasn't conducted beforehand? It's simply that scientific knowledge and discipline contributed little to the technological revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Are you disputing this? If so, why?

More to the point, how on earth are you claiming that scientific knowledge and discipline was *not* being undertaken? Because that's what the article is claiming.

Here's a little history lesson on the scientific method that skewers that furphy quite nicely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[TFian]

More to the point, how on earth are you claiming that scientific knowledge and discipline was *not* being undertaken? Because that's what the article is claiming.

He's not. He's claiming the profession of scientist did not exist until recently in human history, and that it wasn't scientists that created much of the technological advancements in the 18th and 19th century. He's clearly claiming it was being undertaken, by amateurs. He even gives a (brief) list at the link.

 

[Dave Rogers]

He makes the astute point we're probably at the end of scientific discovery.

I don't think there's anything particularly astute about it, given that it appears to be made from a basis of ignorance and sweeping generalisation. I've been trying to track down a quote, without success, from about 1900, when an far more astute observer noted that science had successfully explained almost all phenomena in the real world, and the only remaining things to be explained were the ultraviolet catastrophe and the null result in the Michelson-Morley experiment. As it turned out, one required special relativity, and the other quantum theory, for an explanation, leading to the radical expansion of our understanding of physics that has made the profession of scientist both viable and necessary. There's nothing new, timely, or particularly clever about predicting the death of science; the tricky bit is identifying the unanswered questions that are about to give it a new direction.

Dave

 

[TFian]

I don't think there's anything particularly astute about it, given that it appears to be made from a basis of ignorance and sweeping generalisation. I've been trying to track down a quote, without success, from about 1900, when an far more astute observer noted that science had successfully explained almost all phenomena in the real world, and the only remaining things to be explained were the ultraviolet catastrophe and the null result in the Michelson-Morley experiment. As it turned out, one required special relativity, and the other quantum theory, for an explanation, leading to the radical expansion of our understanding of physics that has made the profession of scientist both viable and necessary. There's nothing new, timely, or particularly clever about predicting the death of science; the tricky bit is identifying the unanswered questions that are about to give it a new direction.

Dave

But, what about

In Darwin’s time, a century and a half ago, it was still possible to make worldshaking scientific discoveries with equipment that would be considered hopelessly inadequate for a middle school classroom nowadays; there was still a lot of low hanging fruit to be picked off the tree of knowledge. At this point, by contrast, the next round of experimental advances in particle physics depends on the Large Hadron Collider, a European project with an estimated total price tag around $5.5 billion. Many other branches of science have reached the point at which very small advances in knowledge are being made with very large investments of money, labor, and computing power.

Full quote above. I think he makes a good point there.

There's also the fact he brings up the vast amount of monetary (and otherwise) corruption in modern science.

 

[Kid Eager]

He's not. He's claiming the profession of scientist did not exist until recently in human history, and that it wasn't scientists that created much of the technological advancements in the 18th and 19th century. He's clearly claiming it was being undertaken, by amateurs. He even gives a (brief) list at the link.

Well actually, he is:
"...science contributed next to nothing to the technological revolutions that swept the western world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."

 

[Lamuella]

He's not. He's claiming the profession of scientist did not exist until recently in human history, and that it wasn't scientists that created much of the technological advancements in the 18th and 19th century.

except that his claim wasn't "scientists contributed next to nothing to the technological revolutions that swept the western world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries", it was "science contributed next to nothing to the technological revolutions that swept the western world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries".

 

[TFian]

Well actually, he is:
"...science contributed next to nothing to the technological revolutions that swept the western world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."

Well, it didn't. What's your point of contention?

 

[TFian]

Here's a little history lesson on the scientific method that skewers that furphy quite nicely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Well, I think you mean to link to the Wikipedia page on history of the scientific method...

Which squarely fits with Greer's interpretation of the historical role and birth of the profession of "scientist"

 

[Lamuella]

Well, it didn't. What's your point of contention?

so are you claiming that the industrial revolution could have happened without (to pick one very small example) the science of metallurgy?

 

[TFian]

so are you claiming that the industrial revolution could have happened without (to pick one very small example) the science of metallurgy?

I'll use Greer to answer that question

The core problem is that scientific research was necessary, but not sufficient, to create today’s industrial societies. Cheap abundant energy was also necessary, and was arguably the key factor. In a very real sense, the role of science from the middle years of the nineteenth century on was basically figuring out new ways to use the torrents of energy that came surging out of wells and mines to power history’s most extravagant boom. Lacking all that energy, the technological revolutions of the last few centuries very likely wouldn’t have happened at all; the steam turbine, remember, was known to the Romans, who did nothing with it because all the fuel they knew about was committed to other uses. Since the sources of fuel we’ll have after fossil fuels finish depleting are pretty much the same as the ones the Romans had, and we can also expect plenty of pressing needs for the energy sources that remain, it takes an essentially religious faith in the inevitability of progress to believe that another wave of technological innovation is right around the corner.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But, what about

Full quote above. I think he makes a good point there.

"Science is very expensive" is not the same as "Science has nothing more to discover." And it's worth noting that he's concentrating on the most expensive areas of big science, when there are still areas - like, for example, biotechnology or materials science - where worthwhile work can be done at reasonable cost. If society collapses to the point that we can't afford scientific research, there will be far more pressing problems to deal with; but it would be the collapse of society, not the completion of our understanding of the physical world, that would be the reason.

There's also the fact he brings up the vast amount of monetary (and otherwise) corruption in modern science.

Having spent my entire professional life working in modern science, I have yet to see evidence that this corruption is as widespread and pernicious as those who are idealogically opposed to technological development would have us believe. Science is done by human beings with no more or less of the same faults as other human beings, but has the advantage over some other areas where corruption is felt to be a major issue - like, say, politics, law enforcement or journalism - that scientific work has to pass the ultimate test of functionality; scientific theories are either useful or not useful, and it's not actually that hard to tell which is which.

Dave

 

[TFian]

like, for example, biotechnology or materials science - where worthwhile work can be done at reasonable cost.

Those still take a vast information technology industry and a stable society to produce any results, do they not?

If society collapses to the point that we can't afford scientific research, there will be far more pressing problems to deal with;

I agree, he's just pointing out science as we understand it is coming to an end.

but it would be the collapse of society, not the completion of our understanding of the physical world, that would be the reason.

True, but with the means to understand the physical world through science gone forever post peak oil, it's still the effective end of science as we understand it for the human species.

Having spent my entire professional life working in modern science, I have yet to see evidence that this corruption is as widespread and pernicious as those who are idealogically opposed to technological development would have us believe. Science is done by human beings with no more or less of the same faults as other human beings, but has the advantage over some other areas where corruption is felt to be a major issue - like, say, politics, law enforcement or journalism - that scientific work has to pass the ultimate test of functionality; scientific theories are either useful or not useful, and it's not actually that hard to tell which is which.

I'll use Greer again to answer this

Yet there’s another factor pressing against the potential advancement of science, and it’s one that very few scientists like to talk about. When science was drawn up into the heady realms of politics and business, it became vulnerable to the standard vices of those realms, and one of the consequences has been a great deal of overt scientific fraud.

A study last year published in the Journal of Medical Ethics surveyed papers formally retracted between 2000 and 2010 in the health sciences. About a quarter of them were retracted for scientific fraud, and half of these had a first author who had had another paper previously retracted for scientific fraud. Coauthors of these repeat offenders had, on average, three other papers each that had been retracted. Americans, it may be worth noting, far more often had papers retracted for fraud, and were repeat offenders, than their overseas colleagues.

I don’t know how many of my readers were taught, as I was, that science is inherently self-policing and that any researcher who stooped to faking data would inevitably doom his career. Claims like these are difficult to defend in the face of numbers of the sort just cited. Logic went through the same sort of moral collapse in its time; the English word "sophistry" commemorates the expert debaters of fourth-century Greece who could and did argue with sparkling logic for anyone who would pay them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

These are cases of scientific fraud that were detected, right? That's rather my point; fraud is possible in the short term, but in the end it'll be found out. In the physical sciences, where data is inherently more physical and less statistical, it's even harder to maintain a fraud for long.

Dave