🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3393a3be.232950@news.teleport.com>, pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby
Urner) wrote:

>                      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/


I appreciate hearing a call for social action.  It seems to me that we
endlessly talk and dispute--too often forgetting that for whatever cause
we have, it is we human beings ourselves that must choose to "implement
the necessary remedial programming around the world."  In a measure, we
all are scientists (or we all have scientists as our representatives). 
Now I suggest that we also all are, or should be, individually responsible
philosophers who have sociological concerns.

"To eliminate starvation as a cause of death" must, of course, begin with
a certain philosophical position -- based on a certain principle -- to
become truly effective.