Modesty, Humility.
But what is this urge not only to write, but to publish one's work? Besides the pleasure of being praised, there is the thought of communicating with other souls capable of understanding one's own, and thus of one's work becoming a meeting place for the souls of men.
"The very people who believe that everything has already been discovered and everything said, will greet your work as something new, and will close the door behind you, repeating once more that nothing remains to be said. ... Newness is in the mind of the artist who creates, and not in the object he portrays.
-- Eugene Delacroix, 14 may 1824.
everything that can be discovered, has been discovered.-- 1899, Charles Duell, head of the US patent office, suggested that his office be abolished.
Just because we know a lot more than we used to, doesn't mean that we know anything resembling all there is to know. We cannot start with raw inorganic material and build a worm, much less a human, so clearly there is a great deal that we do not know about biology. Physicists have not yet figured out what gravity is. Dieticians change their recommendations in light of new research every couple of years. Nuclear power was to provide power too cheap to meter, and IBM in the early 50's forecast the market for computers would be about half a dozen machines. Chaos theory didn't exist 30 years ago, and neither did anomalocaris (or at least, neither had been discovered.) We still have precious little insight into how a brain works.
We need to observe and wonder at all the knowledge we have so far acquired through scientific method, the disciplined application of reason to the natural world, and accept, with humility, there there is so much more out there that we just don't know. Humility serves us well. Nuclear power seemed like a great idea until the problem of nuclear waste remained unsolved. Genetic engineering seems like a great idea, except no-one can predict what will happen to the new life forms when they interact with the natural world. Even if we do ten years of studies on new prescription drugs before we prescribe them to people, it is pretty hard to know what the drugs will do. Drug testing does not magically confer omniscience on the experimenter.
There is no better way to find out what a drug does than to unleash it on millions of people and watch for effects. Strangely, that is the opposite of what we do. We test very carefully on a small number of people, then issue a general release, to make it available to millions, with only very moderate supervision, and that is mostly done by the manufacturer (hmm...) We have too much confidence in the definitive nature of the testing of a product that can be done before launch. Tests are rarely definitive, and often fail to capture real world conditions.
There are people out there who, on hearing about the results of a single scientific study, swear off eating salmon. If one followed all the studies, dietary choices available would rapidly approach zero. You cannot depend on single results, or even results of a few years research. When figuring out what "Science" tells us, you need to completely avoid what scientists are talking about.
What? Look at things that have stayed consistent over the long term. Ideas that have been well supported and become uncontroversial (within the specialist realms) If scientists are talking about it, then it is still controversial, if they are publishing about minutae, then it the basics are well established.
Figure out what they stopped talking about twenty years ago. If it is still uncontroversial now, then there is probably good reason to think that it is the best guess we can get.
Unfortunately, no-one goes about collecting what people agree on. It's extremely boring, you won't get any drama. But that's what useful scientific information for plain folk is.
Are eggs good for us? I frankly have no idea. They used to be good, then they were bad, then they added Omega3, and I don't know anymore. What is the rational position to take in the face of a constant barrage of new evidence? We need to face results with conservative humility, understand that we don't know much, not take it too seriously, and go with common sense until it gets sorted out. Eat a balanced diet, balance your poisons by eating a wide variety of foods. When folks agree on something, it will be obvious. You've heard about relativity? pretty solid, Evolution? pretty solid. String Theory? oh... wait a bit, we're not sure about that one just yet.
When the latest scientific results come out, ignore them, unless you are interested in intellectual conversations and trivia. They have no more significance than sports scores. All that being said, you can ignore them, but that doesn't mean you reject them. Modesty and humility means that you let every result stand or fall on it's own. It is up to everyone interested to look at the data and decide for themselves, but that doesn't mean you bet the farm on the latest sports scores.
Relying on science is the only hope for improvement in the human condition. That doesn't mean twitching about following every fad and latest result. Pay attention, be open to wonder, but conservative in what you accept.
Bibliography:
General Influences:
"The very people who believe that everything has already been discovered and everything said, will greet your work as something new, and will close the door behind you, repeating once more that nothing remains to be said. ... Newness is in the mind of the artist who creates, and not in the object he portrays.
-- Eugene Delacroix, 14 may 1824.
everything that can be discovered, has been discovered.-- 1899, Charles Duell, head of the US patent office, suggested that his office be abolished.
Just because we know a lot more than we used to, doesn't mean that we know anything resembling all there is to know. We cannot start with raw inorganic material and build a worm, much less a human, so clearly there is a great deal that we do not know about biology. Physicists have not yet figured out what gravity is. Dieticians change their recommendations in light of new research every couple of years. Nuclear power was to provide power too cheap to meter, and IBM in the early 50's forecast the market for computers would be about half a dozen machines. Chaos theory didn't exist 30 years ago, and neither did anomalocaris (or at least, neither had been discovered.) We still have precious little insight into how a brain works.
We need to observe and wonder at all the knowledge we have so far acquired through scientific method, the disciplined application of reason to the natural world, and accept, with humility, there there is so much more out there that we just don't know. Humility serves us well. Nuclear power seemed like a great idea until the problem of nuclear waste remained unsolved. Genetic engineering seems like a great idea, except no-one can predict what will happen to the new life forms when they interact with the natural world. Even if we do ten years of studies on new prescription drugs before we prescribe them to people, it is pretty hard to know what the drugs will do. Drug testing does not magically confer omniscience on the experimenter.
There is no better way to find out what a drug does than to unleash it on millions of people and watch for effects. Strangely, that is the opposite of what we do. We test very carefully on a small number of people, then issue a general release, to make it available to millions, with only very moderate supervision, and that is mostly done by the manufacturer (hmm...) We have too much confidence in the definitive nature of the testing of a product that can be done before launch. Tests are rarely definitive, and often fail to capture real world conditions.
There are people out there who, on hearing about the results of a single scientific study, swear off eating salmon. If one followed all the studies, dietary choices available would rapidly approach zero. You cannot depend on single results, or even results of a few years research. When figuring out what "Science" tells us, you need to completely avoid what scientists are talking about.
What? Look at things that have stayed consistent over the long term. Ideas that have been well supported and become uncontroversial (within the specialist realms) If scientists are talking about it, then it is still controversial, if they are publishing about minutae, then it the basics are well established.
Figure out what they stopped talking about twenty years ago. If it is still uncontroversial now, then there is probably good reason to think that it is the best guess we can get.
Unfortunately, no-one goes about collecting what people agree on. It's extremely boring, you won't get any drama. But that's what useful scientific information for plain folk is.
Are eggs good for us? I frankly have no idea. They used to be good, then they were bad, then they added Omega3, and I don't know anymore. What is the rational position to take in the face of a constant barrage of new evidence? We need to face results with conservative humility, understand that we don't know much, not take it too seriously, and go with common sense until it gets sorted out. Eat a balanced diet, balance your poisons by eating a wide variety of foods. When folks agree on something, it will be obvious. You've heard about relativity? pretty solid, Evolution? pretty solid. String Theory? oh... wait a bit, we're not sure about that one just yet.
When the latest scientific results come out, ignore them, unless you are interested in intellectual conversations and trivia. They have no more significance than sports scores. All that being said, you can ignore them, but that doesn't mean you reject them. Modesty and humility means that you let every result stand or fall on it's own. It is up to everyone interested to look at the data and decide for themselves, but that doesn't mean you bet the farm on the latest sports scores.
Relying on science is the only hope for improvement in the human condition. That doesn't mean twitching about following every fad and latest result. Pay attention, be open to wonder, but conservative in what you accept.
Bibliography:
- http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Bioethics/PreimplantationGeneticDiagnosisAndOurFuture/
- http://www.constable.net/arthistory/glo-delacroix.html
- http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/ordersoftrilobites.htm
- http://www.geocities.com/goniagnostus/anohome.html
General Influences:
- The Demon-Haunted World Carl Sagan
- Darwin Adrian Desmond and James Moore
- Why People Believe Weird Things Michael Shermer
- All of Isaac Asimov's fiction. The dedication to logic and consistency was terribly infective.
posted by philobyte at 3:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home