🚀 go-pugleaf

                     MEMORANDUM
                   June 2nd 1997

FR: Kirby Urner, 4D Solutions
TO: sci.astro,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,
    bit.listserv.geodesic
RE: Science and the Internet
CC: Synergetics-L

Since the advent of the internet, and the web in
particular -- which grew out of CERN's concern to keep 
its people updated as to one another's deflections 
of this or that particle -- we've seen an explosion 
of information regarding what might be considered 
'science' -- might not.  That's where the hard sifting 
part enters and where verifiability becomes especially 
important.

Although we're given a text book model of what
constitutes verifiability (laboratory experiment),
we all know that many of the special case phenomena
which science endeavours to encompass within its
framework are too vast or fleeting to permit 
capture in laboratory setups, which have their
obvious (as well as subtle) limitations.  

The geological timescales associated with life's 
formation and development aboard this planet is an 
obvious example of a phenomenon we may work to model, 
but have not the benefit of running over and over 
under the watchful whirring of our data recorders.  
This is not to say laboratory or duplicatable field 
studies are irrelevant to such theories, only that 
science by design over reaches, trying to tie together
more than it is really in a position to completely
substantiate.

Because even good science is in the business of
pushing the limits, going a little beyond the edge
of what we think is known (i.e. 'speculation' is
not a dirty word in scientific circles), there's
this difficulty, amplified by the internet, in 
distinguishing what's promising from what's likely
bogus and a waste of time. Telling the difference
is sometimes not easy, and we often err in both
directions, thinking bogus stuff might pan out,
or thinking tomorrow's accepted science is doomed
to a fringe existence.  The historical record is
full of stories about people making such errors.

My feeling is that science, as an enterprise, 
would do well to turn inward and scan itself from
many angles, in order to better elucidate for 
those coming from outside what is the status of
various research initiatives.  I realize this is
a difficult undertaking, because although we have
peer review systems in place, a lot of compart-
mentation among the disciplines has put up walls
between the separate peer systems, making it 
difficult to get assessments from people who 
have enough distance from the research to not
immediately leap into an evangelizing role, as
happens when funding is at stake.  Scientists
seem to prefer a kind of tacit agreement to not
call each other on stuff, even if those in 
discipline A have a lot of suspicion that those
in discipline B are full of it, or are at least
flirting with bogus notions, drifting off in 
directions that are less than promising, even
from a speculative point of view.

My recommendation is that scientists stop trying
so hard to defend 'science' (as some unified
enterprise) from 'religion' or other perceived
threat, such as 'irrational new age belief systems'
or whatever, recognizing that those battles have
largely been won (at least for the sake of my 
argument). The real work now is to turn inward 
and, as scientists, look at the whole of the 
scientific enterprise, with less regard for walls 
and barriers aimed at keeping out critical viewers, 
even if those doing the viewing are themselves 
highly trained scientists, and are recognized as 
such.  In other words, lets take the gloves off 
and trade frank opinions, in a public, cross-
disciplinary fashion, about what might be promising 
speculation versus time-wasting dead ends.  As 
just one example, let me throw out 'torsion fields' 
as a place to direct some of our examinations.

My personal sense is that science on opposite sides 
of what used to be known as the iron curtain has 
pursued somewhat different tracks.  To be more 
specific, my reading is that in the context a 
state apparatus insistent upon removing super-
naturalism from its curriculum, the sciences were 
harder pressed to expand their frameworks into 
phenomenological zones more safely ignored in 
states more prone to compartmentalize spirituality 
from science.  As a result, the eastern bloc is
much more steeply invested in 'psi phenomena',
whereas the west has mostly left this aspect of
human interest for packaging as entertainment 
-- hence the X-Files, hugely popular with the 
younger set, while treating of topics largely 
marginalized by academia.

There's some irony in this outcome, as we begin
experiencing greater convergence of east and west.
Scientists in the Anglo-American tradition keep
finding their presumably sane counterparts in 
the former Soviet republics and satellite states 
have gone off the deep end (from their perspective) 
in many dimensions. Therefore some of the cross-
departmental sifting I'm recommending has to do
with getting the global conversation back on track 
within a more globally aware scientific community, 
a conversation historically disrupted by political
concerns over nutty professors and their secret
weapons research -- the Dr. Strangelove mentality.

As we put the Cold War behind us, we have the 
opportunity, via the internet especially, to 
honestly and openly engage in serious and 
professional discussions, recognizing in advance
that a lot of these chats (some informal, some
less so) will have a somewhat alien ring to them, 
given that we're now trying to communicate across 
greater distances, both geographically and 
philosophically -- and not forgetting the many 
language barriers involved.

Finally, let me add that in focussing on the 
European context, the principal theater wherein
the Cold War was waged (and where the most dramatic
signs of its ending have been staged), I am not
dismissing other speculative sciences as irrelevant
or of secondary importance.  My call is for more 
clear minded interdisciplinary communication as
we take stock of our entire inventory of science-
oriented projects and try to get a sense of where 
we might look forward to some important break-
throughs  and/or consolidate technological appli-
cations around pilot projects that have already
matured.

My own bias is to focus on the continuing challenges
of human suffering, especially where science already
has sufficiently addressed the causes, but has yet to 
implement the necessary remedial programming around 
the world.  For example, my own assessment of our 
inventory suggests that we have the means at our 
disposal to eliminate starvation as a cause of death, 
and could do so rapidly, if only our scientific 
community were given the option to announce this 
finding to the general public in terms that were 
sufficiently persuasive and backed by relevant global
data. Upon receiving this intelligence, I think the 
general public would demand immediate action.  That's 
high on my agenda in any case (a priority shared by 
many), about which I'm not at all apologetic or 
secretive, but of course the global conversation 
I'm encouraging would serve many other complementary 
agendas as well.

Kirby

----------------------------------------------------
Kirby Urner  "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU
Email: pdx4d@teleport.com
Web:   http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/