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

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?

[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?

[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?

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.

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.