Top boffin Freeman Dyson on climate change, interstellar travel, fusion, and more

I am keen to use this opportunity to refer to this speech by Richard Feynman in 1974. He had picked up on the beginnings of the slippage that has led to many piled-high intellectual rubbish heaps of what used to be genuine scientific inquiry. So those that picked up the Cargo Cult have taught and are now teaching the subsequent generations likewise.

[anecdote]
My alma mater, Melbourne University & the Medical Faculty in particular, just three years ago had a huge bunfight about the teaching of anatomy to the medical students. The proposition was to cease this plank of teaching in-house, and out-source to a software group. I kid you not. The primary reason was simply cost cutting, apparently to cut face-to-face teaching salaries in favor of new salaries in the admin areas. More clipboard supervisors from the numpty basket to ensure the boxes are being ticked on the social agenda lists. We all need supervision there, right ? { .... and if you object then what are you hiding, eh sport ? } If done blatantly it would have failed so naturally that needed a gaggle of cover stories, and so the discussion ranged far and wide, many fires were set, the smoke drifted across the valley and finally the armies were drawn up for battle. The do-ers on one side and the sit-on-yer-back-siders on t'other. As Wellington said, it was a close run thing, and last time I heard at least we fortunately we still have trained anatomists in play. These human teachers can answer questions of substance. The computer programs cannot eg. "Why is the triquetral bone sometimes slightly rotated with respect to .... " etc. But it is a generational thing, so we age and die, and I guess another run at the topic in future may succeed.

I was fortunate enough to fail paediatrics the first time through in 1983. At my very first ever viva-voce I went to water and babbled. The written was fine. So I had to do it all again from square one onwards. I got to learn it all twice. I got to meet, examine and play with children far more than my peers. Paediatrics has since been one of my strengths. Now I've heard some recent graduates proudly proclaiming that they have avoided examining so-and-so many children. T'is seen as a virtue to not acquire physical signs ( which are pure gold in paediatric diagnosis 'cos they can't tell you what's wrong ). The trick apparently is to order the blood test, do the scan and refer onwards. Say nice heartwarming things to the parents, keep up a nice pat socially aware dialogue with them. Really ? Make sure that you demonstrate to them that you are not a something-ist while you ignore their sick child's plight. Do keep up the chit-chat while the kid is turning blue behind you .... practice hard at that ... because you'll have even more to say at the Coroner's Court.

The best service you can do for the family is to pay close attention to the biology of disease and physiological dysfunction absolutely irrespective of how you feel with regard to your standing rated against social parameters. That's the point of having doctors, independent thinking focused on the best health outcome under the circumstances. The clock always is ticking. A key skill from way back.

Be afraid people, be very afraid.
[/anecdote]

Cheers, Mike.

For whatever my opinion may be worth : I am deeply impressed by the investigative mechanisms in place with the LSC. They have clearly thought very carefully about the sorts of human failings that may elicit trouble in such a large collaboration. See for instance Big Dog, and more recently their response to rumor*.

I have just discovered this recent amazing article in Science on the matter of investigator bias. I say 'amazing' on several grounds :

- finally the elephant in the room is being talked of rationally without the usual shouting-down-blitzes and label-grenade-tossing ( but we'll see I guess ).

{ Beware the table-pounders that never seem to answer the question as put. The best lies are nearly the truth. Most online 'science' discussions are essentially parodies, often self-parodies. What I have seen are thoroughly infested/drowning with hypothesis myopia, texas sharpshooting, asymmetric attention, just-so storytelling and many more without the participants evincing the slightest knowledge that they are doing that. Sort of a "I think, therefore I am right" paradigm followed by "damn the torpedoes .... ". }

- it has appeared in Science, arguably ( IMHO ) one of the worst offenders.

- it reveals difficulties across the board/levels and not just in the high profile/public/political topics that many have bunkered down on.

- it frankly explains how the 'cognitive signals' in intellectual echo chambers may build to the level of frenzy. From then on no useful work can be done.

- it reveals ( for the current generations at least ) the tried and true solutions which have been known all along. So maybe there is hope after all ! :-)

Editorial : I think it is worth saying that the base case for human thinking is indeed mythic. I reckon this is uncomfortable to admit. We have 'happy hormones' that can literally reward us for that. We like that feeling and more so if it is a shared experience eg. we drink ethanol in company for that very aim. The tribe calls us always, so it takes effort and will to abstract from that preset. It is not that the hoi polloi are stupid. Not sheeple at all. It's just that those with low sociability** ( from whatever cause and however clever ) have a far lower threshold to not give a crap about the prevalent trend, and hence stride off from the group with the type of mindset that has been so fruitful in research. Many science practitioners will attract a personality label that at least implies mere non-conformance, perhaps some with implicit derogation, and all unnecessarily so. Science is a very recent arrival for humans. So we need places like the aptly named Perimeter Institute for example, to help us pick up the trail again when we realise that we were waddling around with our heads up our bums.

Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) In a general sense E@H is largely within the 'blind data analysis' wing of LSC. For example this is reflected in the processes we have to allocate work units, or the preset rejection/validation criteria for the returned results, the pre-arranged criteria for signal significance, plus the methodical stomping across the relevant parameter spaces, to name but a few practises in play. This 'metronomic rigour' is the baseplate of the strategy that has consistently produced the many discoveries.

* To be precise : the subsequent course of events within LSC is the same regardless of the actual scientific outcome. So the correct current answer to 'have we just found a gravitational wave ?' is 'that is a question for next year'.

** This is not a derogatory phrase, just descriptive. You could replace it with 'high independence index' if that sounds better. This is one of the troubles with sociology as a study : it is a value laden minefield if not understood properly. The language used can easily and casually trigger offense without such intent.

For an unbeaten roundup of this stuff as it applies to the gravitational astrophysics community then please look at anything by Harry Collins eg. Gravity's Shadow. It yields a great insight into why the investigative check mechanisms of the LSC exist in their present form. Basically some forty or so years ago gravitational wave research needed agreed methodology somewhat akin/related to :

For that matter IMHO many other fields of modern science could benefit quite well from the lessons described.