Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I love this article. Not because I'm convinced Dyson is right, but more because it helps point out the importance of being an impartial observer if one is to be taken seriously as a scientist. Postmodern academia's focus on activism as a proper, and even encouraged, activity for scientists, have done the field of science great disservice, to the point where many lay people no longer believe even half the stuff being touted by so called scientists. Even the ridiculous evolution debate might not have gotten off the ground were most 'scientists' not so obviously politically partial and vested.

Other than that, if Kurzweil is right about exponential growth and technology, approaching problems possibly solvable by biotech in a lazy fashion may in fact be the wisest of all approaches. Makes me think of the Albert Bartlett quote, "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."



From my point in view, encouraging scientists to be socially/politically active is a good thing (what's the alternative?) The problem is the funding process. You don't get money for saying that you don't know.

In my field, a semi-prominent researcher recently published a paper showing that the solar cycle is fundamentally unpredictable. He was ignored, because if it's true, a lot of grant money will just vaporize (the solar cycle destroys satellites every 11 years or so). The same effect is at work in climate science, for sure. Some researchers on solar activity try to claim that the sun is tied to global warming, to get a slice of that pie.

It's all very, very unfortunate, and it's hard to think of a solution. Technologically, it might be wise to register formally all (quantifiable) predictions by an individual, to hold them accountable, and to know whom to trust.


> From my point in view, encouraging scientists to be socially/politically active is a good thing (what's the alternative?)

Maybe thinking scientifically?


That way we could have discounted Einstein's relativity theory after he failed to explain the capillary effect.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: