A Conversation with Alan Lightman

An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience has an interview with Physicist, novelist, and science writer, Alan Lightman with regards to the future of science and what the next "big" discoveries might be. From the article: "Generally attack against science is part of a greater attack against intellectualism in general. I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again."

Comments

Re:I'll be the Grinch...

[mhore]

OK, can anyone point to a single line in that interview that suggests this guy knows anything that qualifies him to hold forth on "the future of science"? He seems to have a strong layman's familiarity with current work in physics, a high school student's background in any other science and a lot of pompous namedropping about the novels he's read.

Sure. He has a B.Sc. in Physics from Princeton, a Ph.D. in Physics from Caltech... his thesis advisor there was Kip Thorne... and is good friends with many of the big names in science (for example, Gell-Mann... the quark guy). I'm sure he has a much stronger familiarity with physics than a layman. You'd be surprised what being in those circles does for one's perspective on science and its direction. :) Mike.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[abigor]

Can you explain how a "theory" differs from "proven science"?

Here's why I ask: you don't prove theories. They are simply the best explanations available for all the available data. So far, relativity, evolutionary theory, Big Bang theory, quantum electrodynamics, and so on have held up in a stellar fashion. Calling something a "theory" in the scientific sense elevates it to the highest degree of certainty there can be. The only controversy around them involves tweaking them as new data appears, and attempting to cloud their acceptance by saying they are "only theories".

So I'd be interested in hearing about this "proven science".