Information Technology, Science and Society.

Introduction: Milestones in the History of Science: Module One

Academic "thintelligence" in Michael Crichton in Jurassic Park

Very obviously many scientists are more concerned with "can we do it?" than "why should we do it" or "ought we do it?" or "what will happen if we do it?" Too many are concerned with proving they can outstrip others without considering what the implications are for that so-called progress. A point aside, the research imperative of many universities means people are forced into competition instead of co-operation to the detriment of progress and common sense. A few more people taking into account a movement in any direction might mean better progress and a possibility that other deliberations may be made. This in not to downgrade the very real discoveries that are mostly made by mavericks, but often they need a "still small voice" to say ".. and then what?"

There's a similar discussion in a young adult book Skitzo by Graham Marks (Marks, 1997, p 11-12) when the scientists discover that atomic structure is coming unglued because of the energy they are using

"The wheel's just an object...it can be fatal if you put one at each corner of a box and hurtle down a steep hill with no brakes. We've known for centuries that for every action there's a reaction, we just assumed that, with Tellkind's Charm Principle mankind had found the answer to all its prayers - an incredibly cheap. totally clean and completely unlimited source of power"

"And nothing's ever that easy?"...

" Precisely,..And for over half a millennium we've cheerfully ignored the fact. We did it with fossil fuel, we did it again with nuclear power - why change the habits of so many lifetimes?"

"That's the problem,isn't it? ...We can't change anything from the past - once Pythagoras had conceived his Theorem, and Einstein his Theory they were there. They couldn't be unthought"

"They could have been changed.. if they didn't work properly"

"E=MC² works fine...it's just a very dangerous idea, and nothing can change that."

When it becomes clear that a special kind of time travel may be able to rescue the planet another discussion ensues (Marks, 1997, p18 -19)

"Time travel is probably the most dangerous thing ever invented. In the wrong hands, as you yourself said... the results could be catastrophic"

"You must have known this from the outset..so why go ahead?"

"You're a scientist...You know we're in love with concepts, not consequences. It was pure research until Parmar and his team proved they could do it"

"So if this hadn't happened ..the project would have just disappeared. like it'd never existed?"

"That's a very naive comment...History is littered with ideas that were too dangerous for their time, as you well know - Copernicus, Galileo..."

"But their ideas surfaced eventually"

These seem to be the main arguments about scientific progress. First, that scientists are merely concerned with ideas and what happens to those ideas in practice is immaterial. Second, that scientific ideas have time when they force their way on to the world arena an nothing can stop them

Marks, Graham (1997) Skizo London: Scholastic Children's Books Point SF.

Science from Then to Now: Milestones, Promises and Change A Lively History of this thing we call Science

Ferris, Timothy (1988) Coming of Age in the Milky Way New York: Doubleday

Preface

A comment I found interesting was:

" The real history of science is a maze, in which most paths lead to dead ends and all are littered with the broken crockery of error and misconceptions....A book that assigned a full measure of devotion to the mistakes of science would, however, be almost unreadable. Plowing through it would be like reading a collection of mystery stories of which only one or two came to any satisfactory resolution, which in most the detective switched careers before the identity of the culprit could be ascertained or the butler was irrelevantly run over by a bus."

Obviously from Ferris's point of view including such information would not make for an interesting book. If you wanted a realistic view for aspiring scientists maybe it would be salient to read about some of these mistakes. Phd's do not commonly include the mistakes or dead ends. Scientific papers rarely discuss what didn't work. But scientists make mistakes. Experiments go wrong... and go nowhere. The drive for fresh ideas and new concepts may be less frenetic and less unconcerned with ethics and consequences if it were clear that they are few and far between; and that there is time to consider all avenues.

Part One Space

Chapter 1 "The Dome of Heaven"

"As he was more interested in perfection than imperfection, Plato wrote encomiums to the stars but seldom went out at night to study them"

A common theme that comes through often in scientific history. Even scientists who pride themselves on superior method are seduced by "what ought to be" instead of "what is" . What's the saying? "Don't let reality get in the way of a beautiful theory" This can especially apply to questions of consequences. "It should be trouble free...because I want it to be"

Ferris when discussing Aristotle, who though known for his empiricism, was "addicted to explanation and intolerant of ambiguity, qualities not salutary in science" Maybe not salutary but fairly common.

Chapter 2 Raising ( and Lowering) the Roof

It's interesting to read of Aristarchus who understood a sun centred universe but whose ideas Archimedes used for a mathematical exercise but whose theories are lost and sunk for hundreds of years. Ptolemy's ideas were more symmetrical and supported humans' inflated view of themselves much more. The Christian universe that followed although less concerned with human glorification was so little concerned with the material world that little progress was made.

Chapter 3 The Discovery of the Earth

The exploration of the greater world mainly for profits (of money and souls) included gains for scientists too."the dimensions of the known world had doubled by the year 1600, prompting a corresponding expansion in the cosmos of the mind". Leon Frobenius writes "This lack of horizon is something new"; Nicolas of Cusa pointing out that "up" and "down" are relative terms

Chapter 4 The Sun Worshipers

Copernicus searched for answers because the Ptolemaic lacked "unitary beauty" (p64). I love this way scientists have of reaching for beauty and simplicity. For someone like me who is a Christian, this makes sense: many scientists would ridicule this but still they search for symmetry. On the other hand, when the simplicity they discover comes out complicated they stick to it anyway..puzzling. "For decades he turned it over in his thoughts, a flawed jewel, luminous and obdurate. It would not yield" (p67)

Flawed it may have been but the longhand sketch he made, privately circulated for fear of Church repercussions, was so much further along than anything that had come before"too technically competent for the professionals to ignore it" (p68)

I love Ferris's word pictures of Tycho "expansive , despotic giant of a man" (p 74) and Kepler " prototypical outsider" interspersed with the description of Tycho's painstaking tables and Kepler "flinging open the door to the depths of cosmic space" (p75).Interesting too Kepler's inspiration "the Pythagorean doctrine of celestial harmony " (p75) And yet it is he who discards the perfect circle and realises that "the orbit of the planet is a perfect ellipse"(p79) Still perfect we notice! "the music of the spheres made audible at last" (p81) But despite his marvellous discovery he died poor and alone, unable to feed his family. "The grave has vanished, trampled under in the war" (p82)

Chapter 5 The World in Retrograde

Galileo we learn didn't drop stuff of the tower, instead he made telescopes (that he didn't invent) to pay the bills. But he did use the telescopes rather effectively to help him with questions of gravitation and inertia, although he meanly didn't help Kepler with one. And this vanity and pride get him in trouble especially as he doesn't have proof merely analogies but he has to abjure even this and dies under house arrest. The Church hierarchy doesn't come out well in this episode, either as they overreact and ban books that have been available for years, and force a man to pretend he doesn't believe what he obviously does.

6: Newton's Reach

I find it fascinating that "the last of the magicians" is still influencing us today -enough for Bill Anders to reckon he was driving his space craft. I loved to find out about his drive and interest in truth and finding out. He was also like a kid in his oppositional views to Descartes, but that opposition was the start of many discoveries. Maybe that should reassure us when our students say "no!" What is amazing to us in our "publish or perish" world that he didn't publish his gravitational theories or his calculus for so long. Imagine Halley's delight when Newton not only is certain of the planets' elliptical orbit but can calculate it! And when Newton writes the book his writing is "characterised less by sudden flashes of inspiration than by constant, indefatigable hammering away at immediate specific problems"

7. A Plumb Line to the Sun

The problem of longitude, something we see as a plague fro students seemed so insoluble! I am impressed with John Harrison, the carpenter who succeeded so well with such hard work, and never got the whole prize! The trials of those who tried to see the transits of the planets are incredible! Poor Gentil! Here is Cook and the Endeavour in a different guise than we in Australia usually note him. I'm impressed with Bradley's aunt who calmly allowed holes to be cut in her roof. And ends with a nice images of the "shards of the sun" being hammered into the Endeavour.

8. Deep Space

Theory and observation in a halting stagger. Very true..lots of bending one and cooking the other consciously or unconsciously. Fascinating how Kant uses a vague version of Wright's theories to begin thinking of the "galaxies adrift in the vastness of cosmological space", and Lambert, "the man in the dark", imagines a whole lot of Milky Ways. With Smith and Ferguson leading Herschel backs ideas with observations, building his own telescope... and discovers Uranus because he knows the sky so well. The trouble with limited funds is as old as science, the episode with the horse dung mold is amusing. He is someone who can change his mind as to his theories too, very refreshing! He is "more delighted by the variety of the sky than bothered at being wrong". He is so interesting as he was "endeavoring to chart the starshoals of intergalactic space" I note. too, the support he gets from his female relative, this time his sister Caroline.

9. Island Universes

It's interesting how people keep saying we can't know about something...and then we do! Comte in this case about nebulae and then the spectroscope comes along! And think about Ramsden 's circle delivered 23 years after contract, now that's an overrun! Such excitement as Huggins, the amateur sees a gaseous nebulae. Fascinating as the "bandwagon complex" takes over and people see "what they thought they ought to see" Very human.. and far from the much touted scientific objectivity. Then the self correction...Hard working Hale recruits Shapley who in turn locates the sun in the Milky Way. (I find it so interesting that Henrietta Leavitt, a human "computer", doing the hard work too menial for well paid astronomers, discovers the period-luminosity function.) Shapley gets wedded to his theory that the Milky Way is bigger than it is until Hubble finds different. Another time the theory takes over from observation because he wanted it to be so!

10 Einstein's Sky

Incredible the knots scientists get into to prove something that doesn't fit the theory of aether drift! Einstein has to get rid of the absolutes. He was a rebel and didn't fit, maybe that's why he could create such great theories outside the usual tram tracks. He sees Maxwell's field theory can apply to space which even Maxwell had not. His presentation of the special theory of relativity is so downbeat and "unscientific" includes all of space and time from dynamos to planets. He solves m= E/c² for mass, others did not consider as practical the release of "frozen energy" implicit in the famous equation. And the general theory making the universe finite and unbounded is mind boggling.

11 The Expansion of the Universe

Hubble's "red shift" find doesn't fit the theories he is familiar with. Lemaitre sees but no-one listens, and the expanding universe takes quite a while to b understood.

Part Two:Time

12 Sermons in Stone

All these extracts are from the book Dixon, Bernard (ed) (1989) From Creation to Chaos: Classic Writings in Science London: Cardinal

Group 1

Bush, V. (1967) Extracts from Science Is Not Enough.p. 19.

Bush's analogy of workers excavating a site with scientists is very useful, spelling out the varied behaviour found, much of which is not a search for the truth or anything like it. Bush values "knowledge for the sake of understanding" rather than fame, money , position. The analogy points out that the usual search is not usually this at all.

Lightman, A. (1985) Smile. pp. 142-145.

Lightman, in his story, shows us very clearly that understanding all the features of human biology does not even begin to explain the motivation or action of even one movement. The exact explanation of every neuron's path will not bring us much closer to comprehending what or who people are.

Gould, S. (1984) "Adam's navel", from Natural History. pp. 85-97.

Gosse's ridiculous explanation for why the fossil are there : as an explanation , an illusory past makes us smile. Gould quite correctly points out that is argument makes proof impossible so as science it is useless. This extreme example is easy to refute, but I seem to remember Ferris pointing out scientists who proved their theories by adding in corrective equations to "prove" their conclusions.

Hill, A. (1952) An extract from "The ethical dilemma of science". p. 113.

Hill's question about whether doing good will create evil is interesting. Malthus' argument about what would happen to human populations, and the calculations about how many tons of horse manure would bury our streets are in the same category. My opinion is you do good where you can. The fatalistic argument that famine and war will then prevail is specious. You do what you can when you can to help your fellow human beings, in my opinion.

It's far more likely that scientists will create/ make discover things that will almost certainly do harm without too much thought. Taht is the more common ethical dilemma

MacFarlane, G. (1979) An extract from Howard Florey. pp. 147-153.

MacFarlane's statement that "scientists have in common a disciplined scepticism that demand s concrete proof for any statement or belief concerning the real world" is far from the truth. Many of the scientists Ferris tells us about twisted reality or ignored it if it did not fit their theories. Florey was obviously one scientist who was concerned with the truth and objective honesty. He seemed to be a man who felt both an imperative and a joy to experiment. He liked the discovery and the solving of mysteries and he cared about people: these things are what make a great scientist.

Proctor, R. (1903) A footnote in "Astrology", from Myths and Marvels of Astronomy. p. 200.

Proctor is amazed at the number of people who take notice of omens. Notice how many people read and take note of their astrology forecasts today. It's quite amusing. Proctor says they must possess lively imaginations. Frankly, I doubt it. A bit like Alice "I believe six impossible things before breakfast"

Raven, C. (1932) An extract from The Creator Spirit. p. 201.

Raven's description of a human being as an elusive personality with great possibilities is what I believe and I would loudly echo his "we must not allow ourselves to fall back into the old error of mechanistic materialist".

Roszak, Theodor E. (1973) An extract from "Techocracy's Children", from The Making of a Counter Culture. pp. 201-203.

Roszak's view of a technocracy seems to me a nightmare. "..nothing is any longer small or simple to the non-technical man" This allies technology to magic; removes understanding to a select few magicians. The statement that even "self-help" has to be assisted by experts is amazing. The assumption that only the expert can keep everything running efficiently; that the citizen should "defer on all matters to those who know better" is quite horrifying. He makes a terrifying picture, even the more so because it is becoming real in the world around us. How many schools are already dominated by what the IT department decides?

Group 2

Boden, M. (1983) In Search of Unicorns. pp. 9-18.

Boden's argument about the any differing views of psychology I found interesting up to the time she started talking about computational psychology as the solution to these. As a tool, and a view among many, it may provide some help. As a superior way of finding out about people's minds I think it lacks ambiguity. How she can say it provides "lasting insight" I fail to see. Measuring has never explained. (E.g. Lightman's Smile)

Churchill, W. (1932) Part of "Fifty years hence", a chapter of Thoughts and Adventures. pp. 24-27.

Churchill's suggestion that the hydrogen atoms' combination could provide huge amounts of energy are true. True also is his idea that a detonator is/was lacking. The explosion is true enough. His projection into the future does not see pollution or cancer only the positive aspects of future of energy. We are no closer to all being vegetarians than in 1932. And even supposing abundant food or energy was available, would it be shared equally across the earth? Certainly more energy and more food is produced but it is not shared equally or anywhere near it.

Gould, D. (1985) An extract from The Black and White Medicine Show. pp. 84-85.

Gould's condemnation of doctors is very timely. Many people contend doctors rarely are concerned with the person. Most retreat to prescriptions or tests. Few listen and treat the patient. Few will say they do not know the answer, preferring to blame the patient when treatment doesn't work.

Humphrey, N. (1984) "The social function of intellect", chapter 2 of Consciousness Regained. pp. 118-134.

Ford's contention that the kingpins were too good, finds few parallels now with the built-in obsolescence in every kind of technology. Intelligence as the ability to change appropriately or as needed is quite helpful. His analysis of subsistence technology not requiring intelligence presupposes that nothing changes when this is not so. Over along period of time that might be. In the life time of each person in such an environment , enough variation is needed to cope with the trials and difficulties of everyday life to need a creative intelligence.

Medawar, P. (1964) Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?, BBC radio broadcast. pp. 170-175.

Medawar's contention is interesting. Obviously, scientists don't just measure stuff without an aim, a theory or premise in the back... or even the front of their minds. When I was a school student writing up experiments, the lab report always started with a hypothesis (which I was supposed to "prove"...sometimes resulting in a bit of fudging of results!) Even if there were no theory, once results came, with our penchant for finding order we would very soon create one and not wait till all results came in!

Group 3

Calder, N. (1983) An extract from Timescale: An Atlas of the Fourth Dimension. p. 20.

A very mixed up paragraph! I like the imagery "the Age of Barnacles" The telling phrase is, of course, "wagered their genes against a mushroom cloud that knowledge was a Good Thing" , calling into question our arrogance and blindness.

Polkinghorne, J. (date?) "Perplexities", chapter 1 of The Quantum World. pp. 195-199.

Polkinghorne discusses "the nature of reality and the nature of measurement" .." the payoff ..is the consequent gain in understanding of the way the world is constructed" but he points out that with quantum theory we are unable to pin things down, the very act of measuring one aspect forces us to be unable to measure another. He says this discontinuity is unique to quantum mechanics. Maybe, but maybe our instruments in other areas of physics are too imprecise to measure that it happens in other areas too.

Rowan-Robinson, M. (1979) An extract from Cosmic Landscape. pp. 206-217.

Rowan-Robinson states "The scientist is trying to comprehend the richness of nature and its phenomena rather than convey its richness to others" but is that true? Aren't all scientists tied up in a bind where their discoveries mean nothing unless they are explained to others?

He explains to us what we would see of the universe in different wave lengths of light, and his description is poetic and full of imagery.

His excursion into talking about other intelligent life is fairly negative. And not quite in keeping with his "interconnected unity" The universe is only a landscape because we see it? Mmm, maybe

Wilkinson, D. (1980) The Organisation of the Universe. pp. 318-348.

The interplay of gravity, electricity strong and weak forces fascinates and confuses. It seems clear that we are a long way from fully understanding these forces, their constituent parts and how they really behave. I think that it is possible we have still to investigate the smallest parts of matter, just as we are still far from understanding the creation of the universe.

Group 4

Atkins, P. (1981) An extract from "Why things change", a chapter of The Creation. pp. 1-8.

His idea that behaviour of everything is the "complex organisation of simple processes", I reject. While it may be true of chemical , biological reactions I do not believe it is true of human behaviour. Maybe, it is true, that that there is "simplicity underneath" of chemical activity , still the perception of humans is more than this (Lightman's "Smile" is all about this). I do not believe "free will is ultimately corruption" in the way that Atkins does. We are more than the sum of our parts. Even animals behave in ways that are not entirely predictive, and certainly thoughts and feelings and morality are not reducible to chemical reactions.

Dyson, F. (1979) "The argument from design", from Disturbing the Universe. pp. 60-69.

I don't think you can separate knowledge and values. Even the biologists explanations of human bodies does not begin to explicate the course of disease let alone behaviour.

I love the statement "'Chance' cannot be defined except as a measure of the observer's ignorance of the future".

I agree, that the act of observing changes the reality, from what we observe to how we make sense of it.

The thousands of accidents, remote possibilities that occurred just for life, let alone intelligent life to exist must make us think.

And why do scientists look so much for the pattern and design?

A mind, cosmic mind ? Maybe, I prefer to call "it " God

Smith, J.M. (1986) "The definition of life", chapter 1 of The Problems of Biology. pp. 227-234.

Some interesting thoughts about life (a bit different from primary school definitions which were about growth and change). The thoughts about causes of evolution are interesting. The idea that populations evolve because of cultural behaviour is an interesting twist. As are his questions about 'functional' and 'causal' relationships.

Thomas, L. (1974) "Notes of a biology watcher: to err is human", from New England Journal of Medicine. pp. 254-258.

The "contented dazzlement of surprise", what a great image of humans! Another investigation of how unlikely life, intelligent life is. The selves that share information, that seek to make contact, but insist on the separate self the real conundrum of human life.

Thomas, L. (1977) "Biomedical science and human health: the long-range prospect", from Daedalus. pp. 258-270.

An interesting analysis of medicine. I'm fascinated by the the assumption that anything has changed in doctor's attitudes from the early days. In my experience, and in anecdotal experience of many others

of treating everything , with anything available-- with medicine or herbs or vitamins

On one hand, the doctors give the impression they know it all

On the other hand I see little evidence that doctors are trusted advisors and guides in difficult times!

I agree that doctors should be more open about their ignorance and maybe people would trust them.

It seems sensible to further research the proper functioning of the body in detail before blindly trying things out.

Wallace, A. (1875) "The limits of natural selection as applied to man", chapter 10 of Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. pp. 291-312.

Wallace's notions of brain size and savages leave me quite angry, based as I know on faulty research themselves., but his ideas about the fact of large brains and the absence of back hair, the range of the human voice are interesting if speculative.

His ideas about justice, truth and art are far more interesting. Despite his prejudices, it is clear that humans from the earliest times did create art and reach for truth and search for a spiritual realm which can not be explained by mere evolution or biology.

Williams-Ellis, A. (1928) The opening chapter from How You Began. 349-351.

This is "cute" , I don't like it and nor would any self respecting child! "little bit of jelly ..seemed to know in a sort of a way what it was doing" seems to typify what we do know about how life grows...nothing.

Wald, G. (1964) An extract from his article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. pp. 351-352

"We are not looking into the universe from outside. We are looking at it from the inside" Salutary comment. The position we take as observers changes what we view.