Pursuing praxis

I’m a science nerd, it’s no secret. I think science rocks. And yet I’m very excited to see these titles in the "books received" (i.e. "somebody please write a review") section of one of the premier journals: Science. (This description being based solely on circulation numbers.) Because the scientists have to be the ones most ready to pounce on and reveal bad science. Why? Because that’s what pushes science forward, and keeps it going forward. Cheerleaders for Science may foster lots of growing acorns, but they’ll never trim the saplings, many of which turn out to be noxious species, thereby inhibiting and harming the saplings of promise, and then we get a sickly, overcrowded, stunted forest - if one at all. And apart from being in scientists’ best interest to rigorously police their own ranks, it also turns out that they’re the only ones qualified to do it. Someone who’s not neck-deep in the hairy, unruley details of a science can’t distinguish essentials from non-essentials, and will either weed the saplings randomly and non-discriminatingly, or by non-essentials (such as personal favors, fundability, media appeal, or feel-good brownie points). This latter one is especially bad, because it changes the competitive landscape of science by changing what’s valued and what can ‘get ahead’. Instead of the winners being those ideas that have withstood an inferno of testing, assault, critique, re-evaluation, and successful application, instead the winners become the ideas - mongrel or non-essential - of the people that are best at ‘playing the game’ with the bureaucrats doing the selecting. And even if everyone agrees on the same end-point ("good science") how you go about acheiving that goal determines both the short- and long-term products of that endeavor. Garbage in, garbage out. Bureaucracy in science generates good bureaucrats, even if they don the mantle of ’scientist.’

Because science has a moral code, too. And I don’t mean impartiality, ethical conduct on animal and human subjects, be "disinterested", service to the department, etc. I mean intellectual integrity. Utter and ruthless honesty, and it begins first with yourself, and then extends rationally into every aspect of your life - and no less rigorously or rationally into one’s social, professional, and recreational activities. Silence on a matter of quality, a failure to judge and to speak up about it when you are able to judge, amounts to tacit consent. And a scientist who pretends bad science doesn’t exist, or is harmless, is as bad as a businessman who doesn’t distinguish between the clients he serves, the people he hires, or those appointed to manage the enterprise. Or a mother who doesn’t distinguish between good food, bad food, and poison when feeding her children. All have a moral responsibility to look out for their own interests, and their interests are tied up in the health of their fields. A man who doesn’t protect the things which are the means to his livelihood - and presumably things of value to him - does not fundamentally value his own life. He’s handed his life’s steering wheel to others - and no one in particular at that - and no one drives your life better than you. Indeed, no one can. Flip the light on - no one’s behind the wheel. 

The Trouble with Physics  The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, by Lee Smolin.

 - Smolin is an ex-string theorist. I’m interested to hear how he changed his mind on the subject. And even though I haven’t read the book, I’m happy to see someone concerned with the future directions of science, and not afraid to say they look bleak precisely because of the sexy new "cutting edge" research. Science doesn’t crash when its backwaters get slow, mucky or misdirected (although that’s not a good thing; better to keep everyone to as high a standard as possible). It’s when your shining star is empty - that’s bad. Is string theory the Peter Keating of physics? A "brilliant career" ahead, indeed.

The Kantian Legacy in 19th Century Science by Michael Friedman and Alfred Nordmann, eds.

- I’m interested to read this one, though by the dust jacket I’m sure they will be lauding Kant’s influence. The historical details are of interest - they just got the evaluation wrong. And I bet they start with the premise that 20th century physics is the epitome of the entire scientific tradition. At which point their argument (if it’s an argument at all; it might just be a happy after-dinner story) becomes circular and therefore utterly expected.