Memory, Hugos, and Thorns
Jul. 15th, 2006 05:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
countrycousinRecently, several of my FL have posted the Hugos meme
Partial list:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
stoutfellow http://stoutfellow.livejournal.com/184143.html
sebastian_tombs http://sebastian-tombs.livejournal.com/210595.html
kd5mdk http://kd5mdk.livejournal.com/134564.html
I started reading SF before there were Hugos; my greatest unfamiliarity is at this end. I won't post the list here - I might some day. But the list brought an issue to mind that connected with something else.
One story I knew I had read in serial for was They'd Rather Be Right, from 1955. But it doesn't seem to be the story I thought it was. Back around then, someone, I thought it was Clifton, wrote a story that went thusly:
A group of top scientists is assembled and shown a movie. The movie shows a demo of an anti-gravity machine. But there is an explosion, and the machine and inventor are destroyed. The scientists' task is to recreate the machine. One of the assembled crew gets quite upset; he is convinced that the whole movie is a hoax. He obstructs, and leaves the project. Our hero thinks and thinks and goes fishing and scrambles around and builds a giant anti-grav machine that is not at all like the one in the movie, but it gets off the ground. At the end of the story the project assigner, who had shown the movie, troops in with the actor who had played the blown-up inventor and admits that the movie was indeed a hoax. There was a sequel to this story, where our hero, in true Campbell fashion, goes on to use the mental powers he was driven to develop in story one to do all sorts of strange and wonderful things (one was a gambling device which project assigner from story one recognizes as demonstratring that our hero "really understands" what goes on inside an atom, but which sounds a lot like the ping-pong and air device that some bingo games use.) That was what I thought They'd Rather Be RIght was. But descriptions I looked at make me think my memory was off.
OK, what brought that on? This did. (Story of mathematician who, as grad student, "accidentally" solves previously unsolved problems.)
That occurred, with no chicanery (other than showing up late for class), fifteen years before the story I recall was written.
One of the thorny issues that was part of the subtext of the SF story was the ethical correctness of the ploy of the project assigner. (For one thing, in the story, the person who was certain the movie was a hoax suffered mental damage IIRC.) The assigner's reasoning was that everyone knew that the problem couldn't be solved; he had to create a credible skepticism in order to get any reasonable progress. More of "end justifies the means". Actually, perhaps it does, if one is willing to take responsibility for all of the consequences resulting from using the means. For example, no one will trust technical project managers. (That, of course, has happened - cf Dilbert.)
More consideration of when to use faith and when to use scientific/mathematical knowledge. The latter are based on skepticism. One can never prove a scientific law correct; one can only prove it wrong. Those that survive today are those that haven't been proved wrong yet. Mathematics does a bit better - there are rules of reasoning that will lead to more mathematical truths. But these rules are accepted because they haven't been proved wrong yet - other mathematical truths have been accepted in the past until someone successfully demonstrated a problem with them.
Faith occurs when one has a belief for which incomplete scientific basis exists. (Well, faith also exists in the form of beliefs that directly contradict established scientific knowledge, but I'm firmly ignoring that can of worms.) One needs faith to successfully operate in this world. Team-building exercises exist to help team members develop faith in the capabilities of the team, the other members, and themselves. Faith in battle outcome can have a stronger effect on the actual outcome than material advantage. People who work toward short-term goals often do so based on a faith that these short-term goals will lead toward long-term goals. And they have faith that these long-term goals are, in some way, good goals to work toward.
The process of science depends a lot on faith. We have faith in our fellow scientists, faith that they do their utmost to work correctly and report accurately. We don't expect perfection; we expect skepticism. But working at the edge of knowledge provides opportunity enough for error; sloppiness and falsehood destroy the process.
Recently, a scientist formerly at a local university was sentenced to jail time. He asked to have no jail time. I'd have cheerfully given him a life sentence. Which in some respect he got - he'll never be trusted in that area again. There have been too many of those instances, recently. Poehlman's work involved hormone replacement treatment; it has severe risks and possible benefits. Is falsifying data in such an area to achieve fame and fortune morally less serious than designing a product that is known to be harmful to be more addictive, particularly to children? (yeah, I'm referring to tobacco)
Enough of a ramble.
Partial list:
stoutfellow http://stoutfellow.livejournal.com/184143.htmlsebastian_tombs http://sebastian-tombs.livejournal.com/210595.htmlkd5mdk http://kd5mdk.livejournal.com/134564.htmlI started reading SF before there were Hugos; my greatest unfamiliarity is at this end. I won't post the list here - I might some day. But the list brought an issue to mind that connected with something else.
One story I knew I had read in serial for was They'd Rather Be Right, from 1955. But it doesn't seem to be the story I thought it was. Back around then, someone, I thought it was Clifton, wrote a story that went thusly:
A group of top scientists is assembled and shown a movie. The movie shows a demo of an anti-gravity machine. But there is an explosion, and the machine and inventor are destroyed. The scientists' task is to recreate the machine. One of the assembled crew gets quite upset; he is convinced that the whole movie is a hoax. He obstructs, and leaves the project. Our hero thinks and thinks and goes fishing and scrambles around and builds a giant anti-grav machine that is not at all like the one in the movie, but it gets off the ground. At the end of the story the project assigner, who had shown the movie, troops in with the actor who had played the blown-up inventor and admits that the movie was indeed a hoax. There was a sequel to this story, where our hero, in true Campbell fashion, goes on to use the mental powers he was driven to develop in story one to do all sorts of strange and wonderful things (one was a gambling device which project assigner from story one recognizes as demonstratring that our hero "really understands" what goes on inside an atom, but which sounds a lot like the ping-pong and air device that some bingo games use.) That was what I thought They'd Rather Be RIght was. But descriptions I looked at make me think my memory was off.
OK, what brought that on? This did. (Story of mathematician who, as grad student, "accidentally" solves previously unsolved problems.)
That occurred, with no chicanery (other than showing up late for class), fifteen years before the story I recall was written.
One of the thorny issues that was part of the subtext of the SF story was the ethical correctness of the ploy of the project assigner. (For one thing, in the story, the person who was certain the movie was a hoax suffered mental damage IIRC.) The assigner's reasoning was that everyone knew that the problem couldn't be solved; he had to create a credible skepticism in order to get any reasonable progress. More of "end justifies the means". Actually, perhaps it does, if one is willing to take responsibility for all of the consequences resulting from using the means. For example, no one will trust technical project managers. (That, of course, has happened - cf Dilbert.)
More consideration of when to use faith and when to use scientific/mathematical knowledge. The latter are based on skepticism. One can never prove a scientific law correct; one can only prove it wrong. Those that survive today are those that haven't been proved wrong yet. Mathematics does a bit better - there are rules of reasoning that will lead to more mathematical truths. But these rules are accepted because they haven't been proved wrong yet - other mathematical truths have been accepted in the past until someone successfully demonstrated a problem with them.
Faith occurs when one has a belief for which incomplete scientific basis exists. (Well, faith also exists in the form of beliefs that directly contradict established scientific knowledge, but I'm firmly ignoring that can of worms.) One needs faith to successfully operate in this world. Team-building exercises exist to help team members develop faith in the capabilities of the team, the other members, and themselves. Faith in battle outcome can have a stronger effect on the actual outcome than material advantage. People who work toward short-term goals often do so based on a faith that these short-term goals will lead toward long-term goals. And they have faith that these long-term goals are, in some way, good goals to work toward.
The process of science depends a lot on faith. We have faith in our fellow scientists, faith that they do their utmost to work correctly and report accurately. We don't expect perfection; we expect skepticism. But working at the edge of knowledge provides opportunity enough for error; sloppiness and falsehood destroy the process.
Recently, a scientist formerly at a local university was sentenced to jail time. He asked to have no jail time. I'd have cheerfully given him a life sentence. Which in some respect he got - he'll never be trusted in that area again. There have been too many of those instances, recently. Poehlman's work involved hormone replacement treatment; it has severe risks and possible benefits. Is falsifying data in such an area to achieve fame and fortune morally less serious than designing a product that is known to be harmful to be more addictive, particularly to children? (yeah, I'm referring to tobacco)
Enough of a ramble.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-20 08:09 am (UTC)We also have faith that the universe is comprehensible; organized and understandable by the rational mind.
One of the things that interests me is a seeming assumption in your commment Faith occurs when one has a belief for which incomplete scientific basis exists assumes that scientific evidence is necessary and sufficient for rational proof. Science, love it though I do, is a subset of philosophy, not the other way 'round. How much of mathematics (to give another higher-order (than science) discipline, is capable of proof by the scientific method, frex?
Another: (an aside, really) I'm curious about your claims in re the tobacco plant. If I recall correctly it's been in use as a smokable (as opposed to snuff) for hundreds of years. Surely that kind of "design" (e.g. particularly addictive to the young) was beyond, say 1800s technology?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-20 11:22 am (UTC)I had mentioned math as separate in the previous paragraph; yes, I agree science is a subset of philosophy. I run into people who are reluctant to admit a use for faith; the purpose of this paragraph was to demonstrate that, however objectively and rationally one wishes to live one's live, one cannot do so without employing a lot of faith. That in fact, one cannot even do science on a society-wide basis without a lot of faith. In this case much of it is eventually subject to testing, but the faith is still there. I suppose those who would object to using faith would call that particular usage something like "working assumptions." There are some parts that are not testable. What is the optimum number of grad students to support doing string theory, for example, to use an arcane current controversy :<). I don't mean to imply that such are the only uses for faith :<).
But that led me to think of the many instances recently where scientists have broken faith by reporting falsely. Poehlman's work was applicable to hormone replacement; that has been a life and death matter for many. In my mind, his was as severe a crime as to design a deadly product to be more addictive so that it will sell and make the producers rich. I was referring to late 20th century, documented events - I agree that tobacco got a good start all by its lonesome. Also, when it did start, its danger wasn't established - and perhaps wasn't as severe compared to other risks that were then part of life.
Thanks for dropping by. :<)
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 11:10 pm (UTC)Good point about breaking faith, even if the example you chose struck me as less obvious.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-20 02:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-29 11:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 10:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 10:56 am (UTC)Yes, the detail about the random books and other unfocussed information (and our hero's sceptical reaction) rings bells. Asimov doesn't.