Monday, December 17, 2007

Happy Half-Year Anniversary


THANKS ALL FOR MAKING THIS POSSIBLE!


This Blog has been around for six full months. We've had some 60 New Main Topics and over 300 Comments posted. We've enjoyed some pretty wonderful (and courteous) cross-discussions with some mighty talented and knowledgable people.
Stick with this project, at whatever level: Lurker, Commenter, or Author. Let's make the next six months even more productive.
Ira Glickstein

7 comments:

Howard Pattee said...

Ira, Thank you for running the Virtual Philosophy Club. At my age both body and mind are clearly slowing down, and exercising both are the only way to delay the process. I also want to say that in my opinion discussion with people who always agree with you is very dull; but so is discussion with people who always disagree with you. I find this group is a stimulating happy medium.
So here is another topic of discussion. The technology that makes this discussion possible still amazes me no matter what we are talking about. What bothers me is that almost no one who uses the Internet has the faintest idea of the physics, engineering, manufacturing and programming skills that are essential for making it work. I mean, it’s a total mystery to most people. Of course, the same is true for computers, cell phones, and many other devices.
What I’m thinking is that maybe, ironically, this feeling of mystery (or ignorance) may account for the rise the distrust of science in general and the increase in accepting occult and supernatural beliefs. In other words, if technical devices appear to have an unknown cause, then any event can have an unknown cause. This might account for the great popularity of fantasy films like the Harry Potter series, the Golden Compass, and many others where, unlike good science fiction, any magical event can happen with no apparent restriction of laws or logic.
The earliest technologies were often inventions discovered without a scientific basis, but modern technology depends on basic science. Could it be that the layperson’s dependence on technology and ignorance of its basis results in rejection of the scientific method that created it? What do you all think?

Ira Glickstein said...

You are quite welcome Howard!

Unlike most Blogs, this one is a community effort - a many-headed Hydra! I am extremely pleased by your efforts and that of Joel and Stu and a few others to keep it going and somewhat balanced left and right and fore and aft.

I too am amazed by the technology that makes Blogs and the Internet and Google and Wikipedia and all possible. I agree with you that:

"almost no one who uses the Internet has the faintest idea of the physics, engineering, manufacturing and programming skills that are essential for making it work."

When I was a kid we had no car and no telephone in our apartment. Walk, bicycle or public transit was how we got around Brooklyn and the other boroughs of New York city. The few phone calls we got from relatives were to the candy store in our apartment block and some kid would be dispatched to fetch us. We listened to "Baby Snooks" and other comedy skits on the radio that produced 3D color images in our heads.

TV arrived when I was in high school and was three channels. We had a magnifier lens that stretched the 10" black and white picture to, oh, about 15"!

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (Arthur C. Clarke).

I've been part of the amazing technology revolution that has made electronics and computers endemic. Even as a kid I was handy with the soldering iron and built radios and had an article published in Popular Electronics about an "electronic dice" device I created. As an engineer I programmed computers and designed systems for military aircraft. I was briefly involved with the FBI and New York State police on a fingerprint system and with NASA on the Space Shuttle. My first website was manually programmed by me using raw HTML. Now, with tools like Blogger, any fool can create a full-function Blog (or post to one) with virtually no technological knowledge.

Despite (or perhaps because of) this personal involvement, I probably appreciate the physics and technology and also the business management behind these things - yet they still seem like magic to me!

The Internet will turn out to be the most liberating and revolutionary tool ever created. Talk about "freedom of expression" - now anybody can publish to the entire world at low (or no) cost. Of course, we can't make anybody read our stuff - the popularity of websites and Blogs is mostly a meritocracy.

Is all this technology flying over the heads of most people and making them susceptable to occult and supernatural beliefs? I am not sure if such irrational beliefs are in greater currency today than in years past. I saw the Golden Compass with our grandkids a couple weeks ago and found it suprisingly good. It has been criticized as an anti-religious reaction to Narnia because the bad guys are the "Magisterium" (thinly veiled critique of the Catholic Church). Despite the supernatural magic I found it charming.

My reading of history is that irrational beliefs are central to the success of any society. If they get out of hand -OR- if they are extinguished by pure reason, disaster follows. As always, the "happy medium" is the path to success.

The scientific method is a totally rational ideal that is largely responsible for modern civilization. However necessary, it is by no means sufficient. We still need belief in supernatural magic and other things not literally true to make progress work.

Ira Glickstein

Howard Pattee said...

Ira said, “The scientific method is a totally rational ideal that is largely responsible for modern civilization. However necessary, it is by no means sufficient. We still need belief in supernatural magic and other things not literally true to make progress work.”

I think I generally agree, but with some amendments. An essential part of the scientific method is entirely rational, but another essential part is creative imagination often using irrational analogies and metaphors. Also, for physicists the natural world is super enough so that the religious supernatural appears quite dull.
I also agree with Ira that society needs irrational beliefs, but not those that contradict scientific evidence.
I’m not worried about Ira and his grandchildren watching The Golden Compass because they distinguish between fantasy and reality. What I’m worried about is the growing number of believers who mistake as reality their fantasies, in the form of religious dogma, political ideologies, or just wishful thinking that is contrary to scientific evidence. It is also well to remember that one can be totally rational in choosing a strategy that is unscientific. The government’s distortion and omission of scientific evidence for political ends was a rational decision. It is unethical because it is not the result of ignorance but of intentional dishonesty.

Ira Glickstein said...

Howard and I are agreeing way too much for the good of this Blog :^)

I especially love the following from Howard:

"The government’s distortion and omission of scientific evidence for political ends was a rational decision."

He rightly points out that it can be rational to distort scientific evidence if that distortion furthers political ends that are deemed important for whomever is making the decision to distort.

Howard then goes on to less certain ground:

"It is unethical because it is not the result of ignorance but of intentional dishonesty."

I agree it was intentional dishonesty when Churchill and Roosevelt, for example, minimized the severity of the war situation and withheld knowledge from the UK and US public during the darkest days of WWII. But, was it unethical? That is not clear to me. Had they allowed the full truth to be published, the public might have lost faith in their cause and might have supported those in government who were in favor of an accommodation with Germany and Japan rather than continue to strive for unconditional surrender.

In a less emotionally charged example, is it unethical for the coach of a losing team to give a pep talk in which he or she intentionally ignores the evidence and promises the team victory if they will only try harder? That tactic can sometimes work and indeed lead to victory, as did the intentional distortions of the war situation by Churchill and Roosevelt.

Ira Glickstein

joel said...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (Arthur C. Clarke).

It would seem that the quote from Arthur C. Clarke is just a tautology. What is the definition of "sufficiently" in this context. It clearly must be that a technology is "sufficiently" advanced, if it appears to be magical to the ignorant. That tells us nothing. I think we need a better definition of magic. Here's a try. If there is to be magic there must be a magician, an agent who has special powers not possessed by others. A television set would not appear to be magical to the Founding Fathers, if they could operate it themselves. It might appear to be a wondrous machine, but not magical. On the other hand, simple sleight of hand seems to be magical, because it is under the control of the will of an individual vested with special powers. I don't think a machine or a technology can appear to be magic if anyone can be trained to use it even if they don't understand it. With respect -Joel

Ira Glickstein said...

We need to define "magic" because I think different definitions are being used by Clarke and Joel.

STRICT DEFINITION

According to online dictionaries:

Magic is "any art that invokes supernatural powers" and

Supernatural is "beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature".

For those of us who believe everything is within the laws of nature, which includes Joel and me, there is, strictly speaking, nothing that is really magic. Even if we see a "magic" trick we cannot understand, we are confident there is a rational explanation for it that is totally within the laws of nature.

Even if a scientific experiment comes up with something that cannot be explained by our current understanding of the laws of nature, we are still sure it is not, strictly speaking, magic. We are confident scientists will eventually explain that phenomena and modify our understanding of the laws of nature accordingly.

COMMON DEFINITION

On the other hand, most of us consider what a "magician" does to be "magic" if we cannot do it ourselves. We know there is a rational explanation but we are ignorant of it. If we figure out how the trick is done, or if someone shows us how it is done, then we may no longer consider it magic, even by the common definition.

The same is the case for any technology or craft that we cannot do ourselves. Even if we can appreciate and use the final product of that technology, if we do not understand the innards or cannot make the item ourselves, it appears to be "magic".

Clarke does not say it is magic, just that it is indistinguishable from magic.

Ira Glickstein

Howard Pattee said...

Ira is correct. He has failed to disagree with me! My statement is not valid:
"It is unethical because it is not the result of ignorance but of intentional dishonesty."
Following Ira's WWII example, if Bush believed that God told him to go to war by misleading Congress,it is possible that his belief is mistaken, but his decision based on his belief is not unethical.