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

[Alex P Keaton in da]

From TFA: "In the next 100 years we will have some organisms that are half human and half machine."
Half defined how? By mass? By function? There are hybrid man machines now- mechanical hearts, knees, and implanted erection pumps.
For the hubub about attacking science, is there really that much innovation being stifled? The loudest people get the media coverage. That is why, despite the fact that everyone knows they are nuts, PETA is always on the news. And why when anti-science groups go after science, they are on the news.

Anti-intellectual?

[DarkHand]

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.

Anti-intellectual? The US is more pro-intellectual than it has been in a very long time. It's finally cool to be smart, to an extent. If anything, the pendulum is only just beginning to swing back in our favor. It may not look like it now, but we just need to give the pendulum more time.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[HardCase]

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-

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[ZipR]

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.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[smorpheus]

Actually, no, the fact that these cases are now coming to court, and that the Kansas Board quite recently decided to include ID in the classroom is why the issue has come to a forefront of media coverage.

These are titantic anti-intellecutal events that go signficantly beyond "anti-republican rhetoric."

Let's not forget recent events at NASA which seem more concerned with crippling science in order to avoid hurting creationist's feelings. The scientists (i.e. IMO, intellectuals), won that battle, but they shouldn't have even had to have fought it in the first place.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Peter Trepan]

Anti-intellectual? The US is more pro-intellectual than it has been in a very long time. It's finally cool to be smart, to an extent. If anything, the pendulum is only just beginning to swing back in our favor. It may not look like it now, but we just need to give the pendulum more time.

If you're basing this on the newfound popularity of computer geeks, I'd argue that it's not cool to be intellectual, but to be percieved as potentially rich and powerful. If anything, I'd say American society is trending toward complete apathy.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[smorpheus]

Let's read specifically what the NASA PR guy wrote:

"The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.""

Sounds to me like he doesn't want to upset creationists. What does it sound like to you?

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[toddbu]

Of course, they haven't done it overtly, but through portraying themselves as common, simple people and by portraying intelluctuals as untrustworthy.

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.

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".

Is there a reason I should consider this important

[mmell]

or is this just another guy wasting oxygen?

Here, I'll tell ya where science'll go in the next quarter-century - first, in the area of physics we'll rediscover the stick and the stone. In the area of astrology, we'll rediscover the power of the stars over our lives and our fates. In the area of biotechnology, we'll discover that we should wash our hands before we eat our latest kill; and also not to hang around the warm, softly-glowing remains of the "cities".

There. My predictions look like they have at least as much chance as Mr. Lightman's (for the record, he seems to have spent some thought on his answers, and he exhibits a certain intelligence level, but this is like me preparing a schedule for my boss showing all unplanned outtages for the next three months!).

The future of science

[truthsearch]

Frink: Well, you should think of stuff that people need, but which do not exist yet.
Homer: You mean like an electric-blanket-mobile?
Frink: Well, I suppose that's possible...or you could think of stuff that exists and find a new use for it, like...
Homer: Hamburger earmuffs.
Frink: Well, that may...
Homer: So long sucker!
Frink: What?! Okay, calm down, Frinky. These babies will be in the stores while he's still grappling with the pickle matrix!

After we outlaw all Science

[WillAffleckUW]

words that he's said like this response:

"I think science has always been under assault to some extent. I think there are fashions in cycles in which science is attacked for a period of time and is embraced for a period of time and it's attacked again. 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. I agree with you that we're not seeing anything now that hasn't happened in earlier centuries."

will come back to haunt him.

Everyone knows that any so-called science that attempts to invalidate The Great Spaghetti Monster is heresy and will be rewritten - or rather, redrawn with crayons - in the classrooms of our nation.

pendulum? more like a downslope.

[Red Flayer]

Well, /.ed for me. But to comment on the summary:

""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." "

I'm not so sure about the pendulum eventually swinging back. I think American culture tends to look away from those things we are not the best at -- and since we're losing the lead in science, Americans will no longer consider scientific achievement to be a benchmark of success. Sour grapes and all that.

he fact of the matter is that intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches, fame, or other rewards in the US. Sports figures and other entertainers dominate pop culture. Intellectuals do not get elected to national positions of leadership, nor do they often get elected to state leadership positions.

As other nations take the lead in various areas (whether it's scientific achievement, literature, or what-have-you), Americans will always find something else to feel superior and smug about. We've seen this since the dawn of mass media.

What scares me is that the American superiority/inferiority complex seems to be directing itself at world power. Sure, we're not the smarterst anymore. Nor are we the most productive. But you can bet yer bottom dollar that we could whup anyone if we devotyed the resources to it.

My end point is this -- the American inferiority complex, reinforced by the loss/coming loss of our lead in economy, science, athletics, etc, is leading to a classic bully syndrome. The wars in the Mideast we'll be fighting aren't just about oil -- they're also about proving to ourselves that we're still #1 in some fashion, that we still matter.

Sorry for the long-windedness, but the only way we're going to "swing back" is if people push really hard for it. There's no natural tendency to do so, IMO.

Lightman... cool guy.

[mhore]

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.

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:pendulum? more like a downslope.

[Expert Determination]

intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches

Look at the Forbes 400. I think you'll find more intellectually inclined people than sports figures and entertainers. They include software developers, mathematicians, economists.

Elected?

[PCM2]

Intellectuals do not get elected to national positions of leadership, nor do they often get elected to state leadership positions.

Maybe not, but you could rightly describe Karl Rove as an intellectual.

Whoever said that intellectualism contributes toward strong leadership? You could say the two are somewhat exclusive -- one requires a degree of introversion and introspection while the other calls for the opposite.

Really what you need are leaders who recognize and respect the value of intellect, and who will act upon the recommendations of smart people. To a certain extent, George Bush owes his successes to the fact that he actually does do that. I don't buy that he's as much of a hayseed as he pretends to be. The reason he doesn't do what I would like to see done isn't because he's stupid; it's because he doesn't share my priorities.