The natural world exists with or without humanity’s interpretation of it. As observers, and users of symbols, it is easy to mistake ourselves for the creators and masters of what we are trying to explain.
And this from Michael Crichton
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Consensus is the business of politics….The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
A lot of it comes down to hubris, we do not really know how to interfere with the way the world is. The way the world actually is, is an enormously complex interrelated organism.
To modify F.A. Hayek, “The curious task of (todays scientists) is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
I agree with your assessment that our biggest failing as a species is the hubris that leads us to believe we can build accurate models of complex systems, and intervene in them without reaping unintended consequences. I think we can all see how that's worked out.
With that "specialisation has made people stupid" point, it makes me think about what we know about 'Experts': they know more and more about less and less until they know everything about...nothing! :-D
Excellent post Robyn, refreshingly honest and mountains of food for thought. I shall be reading more from Steve Patterson. (Indeed the Earth is round, just not spherical)
It's only a couple of hours old, and I haven't read it yet, but I see Igor's got a post about an article in Scientific American called Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better.
1. Israel, Hans, Ruckhaber, Erich, Weinmann, Rudolf (1931) "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein." Apparently Einstein appropriately retorted — "to defeat relativity one does not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact." (se non è vero, è ben trovato.)
2. "We live in a technological dark age," (1972) Professor Gian-Carlo Rota during a dinner conversation.
I favor Albert Jay Nock's idea of a "remnant" of humanity, folks at the fringe, that stand separate for their boundless humanity (and humor and common-sense), irregardless of genius status.
Brilliant article, I will be looking at Patterson's work, thanks.
This is a quote from Heather Heying's substack
https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/natures-prose
The natural world exists with or without humanity’s interpretation of it. As observers, and users of symbols, it is easy to mistake ourselves for the creators and masters of what we are trying to explain.
And this from Michael Crichton
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Consensus is the business of politics….The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
A lot of it comes down to hubris, we do not really know how to interfere with the way the world is. The way the world actually is, is an enormously complex interrelated organism.
To modify F.A. Hayek, “The curious task of (todays scientists) is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
I love Heather's writing. She has such a gift for presenting the art in science.
And that Crichton quote is priceless. I included it in my article The Death of Science (https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/the-death-of-science) because it nails the issue so perfectly.
I agree with your assessment that our biggest failing as a species is the hubris that leads us to believe we can build accurate models of complex systems, and intervene in them without reaping unintended consequences. I think we can all see how that's worked out.
Anyway, we can be reassured that "experts" the ABC always quote on health matters would not be part of the dark ages :-)
The ABC has offered their studios to host the Inquisition.
With that "specialisation has made people stupid" point, it makes me think about what we know about 'Experts': they know more and more about less and less until they know everything about...nothing! :-D
Yup, that pretty much nails it!
Excellent post Robyn, refreshingly honest and mountains of food for thought. I shall be reading more from Steve Patterson. (Indeed the Earth is round, just not spherical)
Three-dimensionally round, perhaps?
Patterson's work will keep you busy for quite some time - in the best possible way!
JP explains how modern science works.
https://youtu.be/oFzDye5yGp0
Scientific American looks like it's now well down the slippery slope, at least on trans issues.
https://unherd.com/thepost/heres-why-human-sex-is-binary/?mc_cid=d9445e6378&mc_eid=8001adde18
There are definitely times when an emoji sums up my response better than the most carefully-chosen words. This is one of those times. 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
It's only a couple of hours old, and I haven't read it yet, but I see Igor's got a post about an article in Scientific American called Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better.
Big surprise coming from them!
Well said.
1. Israel, Hans, Ruckhaber, Erich, Weinmann, Rudolf (1931) "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein." Apparently Einstein appropriately retorted — "to defeat relativity one does not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact." (se non è vero, è ben trovato.)
2. "We live in a technological dark age," (1972) Professor Gian-Carlo Rota during a dinner conversation.
It's the true geniuses and innovators who can see it.
I favor Albert Jay Nock's idea of a "remnant" of humanity, folks at the fringe, that stand separate for their boundless humanity (and humor and common-sense), irregardless of genius status.
Fair enough. 'Genius' is too narrow a category. One doesn't need to have a super-high IQ to be a free thinker.
the singular litmus test for holistic moral and intellectual integrity is naming or refusing to name those that shant be named... very, very simple
Voldemort must be named!
Excellent post Robyn! Looking forward to reading more from Steve Patterson. Loved it!
I think you'll enjoy the next few parts of this series :).
Thank you Robyn! Love what you do!!🧡😁
Hi Sadly we have been dumbed down for the last fifty years so much so that the majority of people do
not question anything.
The coming of Artificial intelligence will all but destroy thinking and we will enter a time whereby you will just use the internet.
Anthony C
... or the Internet will use you, as a source of data.