Slashdot Mirror
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."
No kidding. This Kansas evolution/intelligent design stuff has been going on for years and years. However, in present day it is convenient ammo for anti-republican rhetoric.
> I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States
It is normal for the dominant fashion of a nation to be modelled on its leader (eg making yourself look like you've got syphillis was popular hundreds of years ago, when the rich and powerful all had syphillis).
Ignore the people around you- the ones you have to worry about in terms of being an "intellectual" state would be the people in the government- and they could be more supportive.
Seriously? US federal, state and local governments are promoting more science and math instruction, then this sort of thing comes along.
-h-
Can't say I agree with you. Look at our recent elections -- winners have won through largely anti-intellectual platforms. Of course, they haven't done it overtly, but through portraying themselves as common, simple people and by portraying intelluctuals as untrustworthy.
But don't pretend that the pendulum is swinging back, or is going to anytime soon. We've been resting on our laurels and are complacent. A lot of us don't know how to read, and the ones that do don't even grok grammar. lol. In short we're going to get beaten to all hell by globalism (despite our 'free trade' treaties where we actually try to forestall it). And when you can't compete on competence or skill or qualifications you have two choices a) pretend you are 'all that' anyway and keep sinking or b) get depressed about it, and maybe do something about it.
People these days don't want to face the reality. It's hard work just to say "we're fucked and we need to do something about it". We'd rather just take a chill pill and follow. This is what I sardonically call malignorance, the willful, malignant ignorance of those anti-intellectuals that active go out of their way not to learn. This administration is a prime example.
Nice guy. Living in Memphis and all, I had the chance to meet him a few months back. He gave a lecture mirroring his new book (The Discoveries -- good book, by the way. Has a physicists perspective on ground-breaking pubs, and then the original pubs themselves, mostly unabridged). Since I also live in Memphis, there is a lot of that bible-belt mentality here... Earth is only 6,000 years old, etc. Anyway... somebody asked a question at the end, obviously of a pro-Intelligent Design slant, trying to get him to comment on it. It's refreshing to hear his take on the absurdity... and I can only hope that since he has status outside of the science community as well as within that his comments will make people think. (Basically... his answer was science and religion address different questions. Don't try to mix them).
Mike.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
Global warming is the opposite of what you're talking about. Both the people who say that global warming is caused by emissions and the people who discount it claim the ability do so based on credentials, purporting to be experts. I haven't seen anyone saying, "This average Joe on the street doesn't believe that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions; therefore it isn't." There is quite a bit of gathering experts on both sides, and acknowledgement that it is important to be a trained scientist in order to ascertain the truth. That doesn't say anything about the quality of the credentials or the number of people on either side, but those are irrelevant. The fact is that global warming *is* an intellectual debate. You just have an axe to grind and you argued yourself into a corner. The only response you can come up with now is that people who discount global warming concerns aren't smart enough and you know more than they do. I hope you are an expert in the debate. Otherwise, how could you tell who's right?
I don't get why this has to be an either-or proposition. I consider myself an intellectual, yet I live a simple life. In fact, I find most pure intellectuals to be very simple people. They eat simply, don't get very involved in politics, and generally keep to things that interest them. I find those who portray themselves as being sophisiticated to be generally dishonest, because they take things that they know little about and pretend as though they're experts.
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Anything to do with cosmology and string theory will have no impact on our daily lives by 2100. Stem cells, while interesting, have been blown way out of proportion relative to their actual importance. They will (in some incarnation) probably play a role in the only point I agree with here - the biotechnical merging of man and machine. I think the anime series "Ghost in the Shell" is not terribly far off the mark with respect to how this will transform our lives.
On the other hand, there are two big technological transformations that were completely missed that I am convinced will happen this century:
1: AI. It's always 30 years away. But it is much less than 100 years away. Computers will be as smart as us by mid-century and much smarter by 2100, by when we will have the MotherBrainSkyNet.
2: The energy revolution. A combination of rising dinofuel prices, falling renewable prices, and mid-century industrial fusion will completely change our use of energy. Global warming will be large averted.
The world of 2100 will be richer, cleaner, and more peaceful than that of today. The biggest problem will be convincing people to have enough babies.
I think the OP is confusing those issues, yes. But some of the confusion arises precisely because the overwhelming majority of experts (e.g. engineers and scientists) are so busy building and doing things that they don't comment on matters of public interest. IMO, an intellectual in this sense is an expert who contributes to public debate. The wikipeda entry calles these people public intellectuals.
My favourite example (and not least because he is a man whom I truly, truly admire) is David Lorge Parnas. He's a computer scientist and software engineer of the highest order, but is also a true intellectual. He is never shy to comment on any area of public policy which falls within his area of expertise. For example, he publically resigned from the advisory board of the Star Wars missile defence system, and became one of its most vocal critics.
Every time Bruce Schneier speaks, someone on slashdot berates him for being a media whore. This, believe it or not, is a symptom of anti-intellectualism. Schneier is a true expert who involves himself in public debate, and is therefore a public intellectual, whether you agree with him or not. (He's also a media whore, but if you ever want "our side" heard in public debate on security systems, somebody has to be.)
Other modern-day public intellectuals who regularly turn up on slashdot include Lawrence Lessig, Ed Felten and Vint Cerf.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I always thought the big bang theory sounded a lot like genesis "in the beginning", if someone were to have written it a few thou years ago. Taken with a little grain of salt and lacking good terms (at the time), it fits precisely. And I have seen nothing in the bible that discredits evolution, either, it says the animals and everything were made, but says nothing about after the fact, leaving gradual evolution totally inside the sphere. Well, that's my opinion as a non fundy believer. I've never had a problem with it.
As to anti intellectualism, scientists are sometimes their own worst enemies,(they are human, I don't blame them for being human,but they have "weaknesses"), anyone who steps out of the currently accepted norm is immediately labeled a quack or a crackpot. Witness thus, just an example because it directly relates to my own personal anecdotal, something that changed my life because I *know* now this subject is quite valid (direct, indisputable observation), but ignored and ridiculed: there are billions of galaxies out there, we'll take that as a given, the odds of more life are huge, the odds that more life could be more advanced than us are huge because of the sheer age of the universe, the odds that even a thousand years (whatever) more advanced than us would mean some pretty spiffy space travel and drive tech and stealth tech, etc, are almost probable. See where this is going? So how come, despite millions of sightings by people all over the planet,going back hundreds of years, we can't get a rational UFO discussion going? How many governmental whistleblowers from how many nations does it take to sink in? How many redacted documents that get leaked out or dragged out from FOIA requests, etc, etc, will it take? How much more evidence is needed to see that there has been an ongoing mulit-governmental decades long cover-up? Where are the mainstream scientists on this? Oh ya, afraid of getting blackballed "out of the community" and away from grants and a paycheck, so they chicken out and shut up, except for a few brave ones.
There's more out there, that's just one glaring example that comes to mind.