Charles
Murray introduced me to the idea in Human
Accomplishment:
The
Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950.
Now that the Periodic Table is filled out, and so many overarching
theories are proven,
what’s a producing scientist to do?
Ever
since I read that, I’ve noticed how few scientists are actually
doing science. Most are teaching or opinionating, or manipulating
policy. This week I read The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age by John Horgan, an ostentatious display of mastery by an author uniquely qualified to ask top scientists, “What is the future of Science?”
For the last 25 years he has been interviewing noteworthy scientists and publishing those interviews, principally in Scientific American magazine. This book is a reordering of many of those interviews around a single premise, long on examples that lead to an optimistic, well reasoned conclusion.
Along the way there are some valuable observations, after all, he has made a career out of talking with the best of the best.
Earlier
this week, I was involved with beer and the question came up, “What
is the relationship between science and engineering, especially in
education?” I know many busted scientists who look down at
excellent engineering, glaring that if you have to ask, you are
obviously too stupid to know.
So
when I stumbled across this, I wanted
to know.
Horgan
records that the difference between science and engineering is that
the scientist seeks what is true, while the engineer seeks what is
good. p258
Or,
as I see it, calling
a tomato is a fruit is true. Not putting a tomato in a fruit salad is
good. That’s useful.
Another
useful point as I’m being bombarded with pseudo-scientific
propaganda and opinion is:
“...verification
and validation of
numerical models of natural systems is impossible.” p202 Ooh,
good one!
As
I have written, a model is a simplified version of reality, useful
when it allows you to predict what happens. Every sales manager I’ve
ever known has confused the model with the reality. When the model is
no longer accurate, build a better one.
A
more elegant stipulation of model hysteria is No matter how
hard you do the wrong thing, it never quite works.
Horgan
is properly in awe of his subjects best thinking, and reverent when
it has proven true and useful. He has a better grip on the role of
irony and criticism than his subjects, and he knows that the big
ideas seemed fanciful when first introduced.
When
confronted with energetically delivered caca de vaca, he doubles down
on reporting what was said, letting the subject fall on its own. Doing many major interviews gives Horgan confidence to
trust the process.
The
last few pages gave a new example of the future of science that was
earned through all the interviews.
Many
years previously he found himself in a rigorous thought experiment
that showed the future of science. He was somewhat hesitant reporting
the story, as he thought it was unique.
As
I read his story, the hairs on the back of my neck went up. I had had
a similar experience forty years ago. I wonder how unique the
experience really is?
The
lesson for those
considering the
End of Science is that science has never been “out there,”
but always “in here,” between the ears. Realizing
that, I thought of Horgan’s interviews in the book of scientists
who rued that they hadn’t had a good idea to follow in years.
Which
explained the education, opinionating, and policy manipulation of so many former scientists. As
Waylon said, “It ain’t love, but it ain’t bad.”
And
for those wondering about that future? Well you can come back baby,
science never forgets.
