Dear Coyote,
Oh, yes, I totally agree that scientists are in every possible way suffer
from the same foibles as the rest of humankind. As a scientist, I work
regularly with colleagues who are some of the most obstinate, egotistical,
narrow-minded, brash, opinionated, and out-spoken people I know. But the
thing that makes them different from the other obstinate, egotistical, etc
... people in my life is that they base their beliefs upon what can be
objectively determined with repeatable experiments and observations.
There is no authority in science, no matter how senior the researcher,
except nature itself. Many times, I've knocked down a theory of my
adviser with a decided experiment, and he would immediately concede and
proceed along the new avenue of thought as directed by the results. In
that sense, scientists are the most humble souls on the planet, because
our interest is in only what can be firmly agreed upon in an objective,
rational manner.
The nature of the kinds of arguments and disagreements in science is
different from the nature of the kinds of arguments and disagreements in
other human endeavors. In fact, it is the responsibility of scientists to
tirelessly probe and challenge each other's models of the world, and only
those models which stand up to repeatable experiments and observations
grounded in reality will survive. Many a theory, regardless how beautiful
and elegant and appealing, failed the litmus test of objective
experimentation and have been summarily tossed into the trash-bin of
useless ideas. The presence of arguments and disagreements at the
frontiers of knowledge only show that we don't fully understand those
topics very well yet. That's what keeps us motivated to continue probing
and playing ... there's so much in nature to be elucidated!
Let me put it this way: every scientist's dream is to make a discovery
worthy of the highest honor given to a scientist ... the Nobel Prize in
her field of study. Believe me, if cloud-busting and rain-making and
mental control of weather could be put on a firm, objective, rational
basis, that researcher would definitely be awarded a Nobel Prize
immediately!! Maybe two! Maybe ten! That no one has yet says something
important. Instead, the evidence is strongly the other way, and every
objective examination of the issue suggests it's much more profitable to
spend our time and energies on other more consistent methods to control
the weather. After all, weather control is not about human power over
nature, but of alleviating human suffering. In a higher sense, true
scientific exploration of weather control IS a practice of mind over
matter, because it is with these wonderful brains that we learn about and
come up with ideas to effectively control our environment. (The
consequences of such tinkering with natural forces opens up a whole new
can of worms!)
At the same time, let me not come across as a poo-pooer of new ways of
thinking and new paradigms. Perhaps you will be the first to perfect mind
control over weather (or other things in the natural world). If you do,
you will win the Nobel Prize for sure, I can guarantee that! And I
encourage you to experiment and explore along those lines. At the same
time, I encourage you to be totally objective in the true spirit of the
scientific method, which is designed specifically to prevent us from
deceiving ourselves. Yes, there are a lot of jewels to be found, but let
us also be completely honest and acknowledge that there is a lot of
garbage, too. May we have the wisdom to discern between them.
And please continue to share your progress ... I for one would be most
interested. From one scientist to another, I wish you the best,
HF
