Dear Lord_Shandor,
Thank you for your thoughts and the further opportunities you offer me to
help clarify some misunderstood issues regarding science and how it is
done.
I had originally composed a long-winded reply to defend each of your new
attacks, but then I realized that it probably wouldn't be appreciated
anyway. The debate we are engaged in began in ancient Greece, and I
laughed at myself that I could ever hope to resolve it with something as
simple as a forum posting. Instead, I point you to other authors who have
more eloquently regarded the issue, for example, Dr. Seven L. Goldman
(Lehigh University), who recently produced a fantastic lecture series,
"Science Wars & Science in the 20th Century" produced by the good people
at The Teaching Company.
The one thing I do feel compelled to answer in this response is your
question to me about who I am and how it is that I came about my vision
and appreciation for the scientific enterprise. I am a physicist (Ph.D.)
and have been engaged in active research and education for the past two
decades. I have been schooled at some of the most respected institutions
in our country (which I will not name out of modesty), and have worked in
industry, government, and academia. I have been involved in numerous
cutting-edge projects at the frontiers of technology and knowledge, and
have been responsible for the allocation and usage of significant
resources to these ends. I'm well-published and well-respected among my
colleagues, and I have many friends in high-places, so to speak, including
NASA, the Space Science Institute (which operates the Hubble Space
Telescope) and various national laboratories, not to mention universities
and colleges. Over the years, I have lectured to thousands of people,
given countless specialized seminars/colloquia, as well as regularly
reached out to the public in outreach-type of events.
Of course, at this point, I know you have to take me at my word when I
claim these things, as the Internet is rampant with deceptors and
agenda-pushing cons. If you are truly interested in verifying my
identity, I invite you to contact me via e-mail, and we can set up a
meeting. This offer is open to anyone else, too.
So, with this experience, let me say that in all my years of actually
doing science, I can assure you that the notion that all scientists are
self-serving, agenda-pushing "priests" of a highly technological "cult" is
a myth that must've been created by some psychotic lunatic who must've
been offended at one point in his life by someone in the scientific
establishment (or maybe by an impatient high school teacher?) and decided
thereafter to devote the rest of his life to spreading disinformation.
All my colleagues are the most level-headed, rational people I know.
Quite a few of them have ideas which challenge the prevailing theories,
and such outside-the-box thinking is routinely encouraged, because
sometimes, they lead to measurable progress. But sometimes, these ideas
make predictions which are not validated by experimental evidence, and
these ideas must be re-examined more critically in light of what is
actually observed. Every one of us knows that if we truly have a truly
significant and verifiable idea far outside the current paradigm, we will
surely be in line for a Nobel Prize. Doing science is very exciting and
lively, and filled with (sometimes heated) argumentation and debate, which
are regular aspects of our work. I wish you could see how science is
actually done, and that would instantly change your view that science is
some kind of religion. Believe me, if it were as you say, I would be the
first to leave the "religion."
Let me add one more thing regarding how science projects are funded.
Many of my proposals (which were based on the prevailing theories and, if
I may say so myself, quite good) have been rejected over the years. The
reality is that there just isn't enough money to support every project, no
matter how good they are. It's not that we selectively pick and choose
our pet-favorite theories and only support those ideas. It's just that
with a limited amount of money, we can only try to fund projects which
seem to have the highest chances of success in telling us something
important about nature. When one of my proposals are rejected, I don't
become disgruntled about the scientific enterprise, I don't bash the
funding agents as blind and ignorant and self-serving, and I don't trash
my original ideas. And I certainly don't quit and devote my life to
bashing science as a whole. Rather, I find other ways to do my project,
sometimes at my own expense. And you know, there were times when I
actually succeeded, and the results, even though not formally supported by
grants through official channels, contributed significantly to our
understanding of nature and were well-received by the scientific
establishment.
Anyway, I think I've rambled long enough, and while I have a hunch that
while you won't appreciate what I've shared, my hope is that someone else
surfing the net who, after reading one too many baseless anti-science
web-sites out there on the Net, stumbles across this posting will perhaps
be inspired to think rationally for herself. I invite that individual to
actually visit a lab where science is done, perhaps at a college or
university, and to judge for herself how lively and open is the current
scientific endeavor and the good intention of those scientists who are
engaged in this worthwhile goal. If that person happens to be in my neck
of the woods, please e-mail, and I would be more than happy to give you a
grand tour of the kinds of projects which I am doing.
I wish you all the best, and may we find strength in our similarities and
devote our energies to those things which support the common good,
HF
P.S. Out of respect for Coyote and his thread about cloud-making, perhaps
you could start a new thread to continue our interesting exchange about
science, if you wish. This will allow Coyote to focus this thread on
reporting his progress. Thanks.
