Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society, by Freeman Dyson(edge.org)
edge.org
Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society, by Freeman Dyson
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
9 comments
From my point in view, encouraging scientists to be socially/politically active is a good thing (what's the alternative?) The problem is the funding process. You don't get money for saying that you don't know.
In my field, a semi-prominent researcher recently published a paper showing that the solar cycle is fundamentally unpredictable. He was ignored, because if it's true, a lot of grant money will just vaporize (the solar cycle destroys satellites every 11 years or so). The same effect is at work in climate science, for sure. Some researchers on solar activity try to claim that the sun is tied to global warming, to get a slice of that pie.
It's all very, very unfortunate, and it's hard to think of a solution. Technologically, it might be wise to register formally all (quantifiable) predictions by an individual, to hold them accountable, and to know whom to trust.
In my field, a semi-prominent researcher recently published a paper showing that the solar cycle is fundamentally unpredictable. He was ignored, because if it's true, a lot of grant money will just vaporize (the solar cycle destroys satellites every 11 years or so). The same effect is at work in climate science, for sure. Some researchers on solar activity try to claim that the sun is tied to global warming, to get a slice of that pie.
It's all very, very unfortunate, and it's hard to think of a solution. Technologically, it might be wise to register formally all (quantifiable) predictions by an individual, to hold them accountable, and to know whom to trust.
> From my point in view, encouraging scientists to be socially/politically active is a good thing (what's the alternative?)
Maybe thinking scientifically?
Maybe thinking scientifically?
That way we could have discounted Einstein's relativity theory after he failed to explain the capillary effect.
I have all sympathy for heretics, but to claim that CO2 is not a problem because there could be a countermeasure seems like very flawed logic. Apart from the countermeasure not really convincing me (genetically engineer plants to grow faster???), without recognizing the problem, it is unlikely that the countermeasures would be taken, so it would still remain a problem (assuming it is a problem - I merely wanted to point out the flawed logic).
I don't think that was his point. His point was: Look at me taking wild and unsubstantiated CRAZY ideas to this here CO2 thing. And then laying out why the ideas are quite tame, substantiated, and rational after all, but due to prevailing hip culture, these ideas require a heretic to take root.
At least, that's how I read it.
At least, that's how I read it.
BoingBoing featured this and a rebutting article:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/15/two_views_on_climate.ht...
Interesting. Shame the rebuttal contains no references, whereas Dyson's is littered with them.
Though - the idea that global climate change, even if it ends up making the world a better place, will undoubtedly lead to tension and possibly even war, is almost axiomatic, and something Dyson glossed over.
Though - the idea that global climate change, even if it ends up making the world a better place, will undoubtedly lead to tension and possibly even war, is almost axiomatic, and something Dyson glossed over.
If you mean littered as in spread randomly and being worthless then sure. Plenty of massive assertions in that Dyson's piece with no facts, no figures and no cites.
Other than that, if Kurzweil is right about exponential growth and technology, approaching problems possibly solvable by biotech in a lazy fashion may in fact be the wisest of all approaches. Makes me think of the Albert Bartlett quote, "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."