Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The good scientist: Addressing the problems of today & the future

#1
C C Offline
https://aeon.co/essays/how-can-scientist...the-future

EXCERPTS (Martin Rees): . . . The sharp demarcation between scientists and humanities scholars would have perplexed [earlier] intellectuals [...] In 1959 the novelist, critic and chemist C P Snow bemoaned this divide in his iconic lecture on the ‘Two Cultures’ ... However, Snow presented the dichotomy too starkly – a consequence, perhaps, of the social milieu in which he moved. He felt an affinity with scientists and engineers who had been part of the war effort in the Second World War, and retained a robust sense of optimism about the role of science in human betterment...

The issues that concerned Snow loom only larger today. Societies are increasingly dependent on advanced technology; science pervades our lives more than ever. But the glad optimism about science has faded. In many quarters, observers view the impact of new breakthroughs with more ambivalence than excitement. Since Snow’s time, our ‘marvellous’ new technologies have created fresh hazards and raised new ethical quandaries. Many commentators are anxious that science is getting out of hand, such that neither politicians nor the public can assimilate or cope with it. The stakes are higher now too: science offers huge opportunities, but future generations will be vulnerable to risks – nuclear, genetic, algorithmic – powerful enough to jeopardise the very survival of our civilisation.

In a later publication based on his original lecture, Snow suggested that there was a ‘third culture’, one embracing the social sciences. Today it might be truer to say that the very idea of ‘culture’ has many interweaving strands. Nonetheless, intellectual narrowness and ignorance remain endemic, and science is a closed book to a worrying number of people in politics and the media. [...] Charles Darwin’s ideas [...are still...] culturally and philosophically resonant ... Darwin was perhaps the last scientist who could present his research in a way accessible to general readers; today ... When asked about religion, Darwin offered a diffident response: "The whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can."

His reply strikes a chord with me. Science should straddle all faiths. Modern scientists evince a variety of religious attitudes; there are traditional believers as well as hardline atheists among them. If we learn anything from the pursuit of science, it’s [...] skepticism about any dogma, or any claim to have achieved more than a very incomplete and metaphorical insight into some profound aspect of existence. Atheist scientists are surely aware that many of their colleagues follow some religious practices. Rather than attacking pro-science mainstream religions, they should strive for peaceful coexistence with them, and thereby broaden the alliance against brands of fundamentalism that are indeed hostile to science.

[...] Scientists don’t fall into a single mould. ... Darwin reminds us that the thought processes of most scientists are not intrinsically different from those of other professionals, nor indeed from those of a detective assessing the evidence at a crime scene. They’re not monolithic, either. It’s simplistic to refer to ‘the scientific method’; the methodology varies widely depending on the topic, and demands a different mix of mathematical modelling, experiments and fieldwork. Each subfield requires diverse styles of thinking and attracts different personality types. Some scientists see themselves as intellectuals, others as technocrats.

The heterogeneous business of science is always a ‘work in progress’. Some theories are supported by overwhelming evidence; others are provisional and tentative. But, however confident we might be in a theory, we should keep our minds ajar if not open to the possibility that some intellectual revolution will offer a drastically different perspective. Scientists tend to be severe critics of other people’s work. Those who overturn an established consensus to contribute something unexpected and original tend to garner the greatest esteem. But scientists should be equally critical of their own output: they must not become too enamoured of ‘pet’ theories or be influenced by wishful thinking. Many of us find that very hard.

[...] The path towards a consensual scientific understanding can be winding, with many blind alleys explored along the way. Occasionally, a maverick is vindicated. We all enjoy seeing this happen – but such instances are rare, and rarer than the popular press would have us believe. Sometimes a prior consensus is overturned, but most advances transcend and generalise the concepts that went before, rather than contradicting them. Albert Einstein didn’t ‘overthrow’ Newton, for instance. He transcended Newton, offering a new perspective with broader scope and deeper insights into space, time and gravity.

What about ideas ‘beyond the fringe’? As an astronomer, I haven’t found it fruitful to engage in dialogue with astrologers or creationists. We don’t share the same methods, nor play by the same evidence-based rules. No one should let a craving for certainty – for the easy answers that science can seldom provide – drive us towards the illusory comfort and reassurance that these pseudosciences appear to offer.

If you ask scientists what they’re working on, they will rarely say that they are ‘trying to understand the Universe’ or ‘curing cancer’. Their normal response is something very narrow and specific. [...] Only cranks or geniuses try to solve the big questions in one go; the rest of us tackle a problem that’s bitesize, and hope to make incremental progress that way. [...] Even if we explain ourselves badly, we benefit from exposure to general audiences who focus on the big questions and remind us of how much we still don’t know. Sometimes, the most familiar questions are the ones that baffle us most – whereas some of the best-understood phenomena are far away in the cosmos.

[...] A theme of Snow’s lecture was that scholars in the humanities failed to appreciate the creativity and imagination that the practice of science involves. But it can’t be denied that there are differences in what those things mean for the artist, as opposed to the scientist. ... If "A" didn’t discover something, in general "B" soon would; indeed, there are many cases of near-simultaneous discovery. Einstein made a more distinctive imprint on 20th-century science than any other individual – but, had he never existed, all his insights would have been revealed by now, though probably by several people rather than by one great mind. Any scientist is ‘replaceable’, in a way that an individual artist is not. As the British immunologist Peter Medawar remarked, when Richard Wagner diverted his energies for 10 years in the middle of the Ring cycle to compose Tristan und Isolde and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, the German composer wasn’t worried that someone would scoop him on Götterdämmerung.

[...] Societies now confront difficult questions ... These cannot be addressed without deploying scientific expertise, but they straddle practical policies too. ... Now that the impact of research can be so much greater, scientists have a still-deeper responsibility to engage with society than they did in previous centuries. At the same time, they must accept that they speak as citizens and not as experts when it comes to the economic, social and ethical aspects of policy. Yet if the discussion is to rise above mere sloganeering, everyone needs enough of a ‘feel’ for science to avoid becoming bamboozled by propaganda and bad statistics, and to sidestep over-deference to experts. The need for proper debate will become more acute in the future, as the pressures on the environment and from misdirected technology get more diverse and threatening.

[...] Scientists who have worked in government often end up frustrated. It’s hard to get politicians to prioritise longterm issues ... Even the best politicians focus mainly on more urgent and parochial matters, and on getting re-elected. Scientists can often gain more leverage indirectly. Sagan, for instance ... would have been a leader in our contemporary age of protests and marches, electrifying crowds through his passion and his eloquence. We need such figures today.

Unlike our 17th-century forebears, we know a great deal about our world – and indeed about what lies beyond. Technologies that our ancestors couldn’t have conceived enrich our lives and our understanding. Many phenomena still make us fearful, but the advance of science spares us from irrational dread. We know that we are stewards of a precious ‘pale blue dot’ in a vast cosmos – a planet with a future measured in billions of years, whose fate depends on humanity’s collective actions. But all too often, the focus is parochial and short-term. We discount too heavily the problems we’ll leave for our grandchildren. And we downplay what’s happening even now in countries that seem far away... (MORE - details)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article How today's universities killed the academic (pseudo philosophers running the asylum) C C 0 41 Mar 22, 2024 04:28 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article 10 great ideas in philosophy from the past 50 years, according to one scientist C C 4 133 May 4, 2023 03:18 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Exclusive "3:16" interview with David Hume (if he was alive today) C C 1 148 Dec 1, 2022 12:00 AM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Biology won’t solve your problems with abortion (philosophy of biology) C C 1 112 Oct 7, 2021 06:51 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Laws of robotics: The ethical problems of artificial intelligence C C 5 218 Aug 22, 2021 06:22 AM
Last Post: Leigha
  How philosophy makes a better scientist + Alexander Klein discusses William James C C 0 252 Apr 26, 2021 03:16 AM
Last Post: C C
  Question addressing Langan's Vocabulary and Obfuscation Ostronomos 1 91 Mar 23, 2021 07:26 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
Question Problems may be inevitable, why not solutions? Leigha 2 203 Dec 1, 2020 12:56 AM
Last Post: C C
  I obtained Parinirvana today by uniting with the source Ostronomos 4 898 Jul 9, 2018 02:37 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  Where eugenics philosophy was still practiced; sterilisation continues today C C 1 509 Jun 7, 2018 04:34 AM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)