John Horgan -- The end of science
===================================

We can view "The end of science" as a polemic, in which case we'd
ask whether Horgan is right or wrong.  Or, we can view this book as
analysis, in which case we'd ask "What does he mean?" and "What are
the implications?".  For the most part, I'll try to take the latter
approach.

Horgan discusses both pure science and applied science.  I'll
interpret "applied science" as technology and technological
development.  When he talks about science coming to an end, he is
usually talking about pure science, although I believe he feels that
the rate of progress in applied science and the development of
technology will slow down also.  With respect to pure science, "the
end" means that there are no more big surprises to be expected in
the future -- We, or scientists at least, have a fundamental
understanding of how our world, universe, and reality is structured
and how it behaves; that understanding is basically correct and will
not change in any significant way in the future; and most or all of
what scientific research does in the future will be to fill in
details and to answer questions about more precise measurements.

Examples -- In chemistry, we know how chemical reactions work, but,
in the future, we'll learn a few more things about how they work
under special conditions such as zero gravity, high pressure or a
vacuum, etc.  In botany, we know about butterflies and their typical
life cycle, but we'll learn about a lot more species, especially in
some far off places.  In astronomy, we know the basic structure of
the universe and how it changes, but we'll find and catalog a lot
more stars.  Actually, in astronomy, the claim of an end of science
seems quite shaky because of so many recent findings about the
expanding universe, about how that expansion is accelerating, about
the structure of galaxies and the black hole in them, and how they
function.  But, perhaps our abilities to make those new discoveries
will end soon, too.  Horgan might argue that because astronomers
have recently learned so much, there is much less left to be
learned.

Applied science has made huge progress in the 20th century.  The
innovations and new products are many and impressive.  Horgan finds
ways to worry about that, too, because he feels the recent rapid
progress has used up (discovered and developed) all the easy and
important devices, procedures, medicines, etc (the low hanging,
valuable fruit).  Perhaps the future will bring mostly small tweaks
and frivolous toys.

Horgan is very sure that we will not find *The Answer*, with
italics, underlining, capital letters, and quotation marks.
Although, it seems that what *The Answer* might be depends on what
*The Question* is and who is asking it in what field.  I'm one of
those who feels that asking questions of that kind and spending lots
of time is interesting if you do a little of it, and is wasteful
when you do a lot.

Asking for a single theory that explains two disparate fields seems
misguided to me.  Even if human emotions could be described, in
principle (lots of slippage there), in terms of the behavior of
sub-atomic particles, it would not tell us much about our emotions.
We need different kinds of explanations and descriptions in
different fields, if those explanations are going to be
illuminating.  And, too often, that kind of reductionism comes from
a "my science is better than your science" stance.  And, if you are
trying to unify souls and bodies or minds and bodies, you're best
off with Spinoza rather than a scientist; or you choose your
favorite philosopher.

And, I believe that it's justified to claim that in evaluating
whether science can find "The Answer", Horgan has asked the question
in such a way that it can't possibly be answered: he has set the
goal posts where they can't be reached.  This is not a new problem.
John Locke was warning about trying discover or know what we cannot
support with empirical evidence.  And, Horgan suspects that
scientists in Locke's age did not view science as infinite; they may
have thought that at some point, science *would* be (almost) a
project of filling in details.  Perhaps Locke anticipated and warned
us about what Horgan calls "ironic science", which sometimes seems
like speculation without the support of evidence.

"Ironic science" -- Possibly Horgan just intends this to mean
science-oriented philosophy of some kind.  Certainly, he means that
ironic science is not supported by empirical observation.  Well,
scientists like to do a little philosophy on the side too.  That's
OK, as long as they do not let that amateur work become confused
with their professional work as scientists.  Perhaps, some of the
scientists that Horgan has interviewed have done so.

Progress and a belief in it is relatively recent in human history.
We could argue that it started with The Enlightenment and with
Bacon, Newton, Leibniz, and Descartes.  Before then, humans in
western Europe and medieval times viewed themselves as retrogressing
from the ancient Greek and Roman civilization, rather than
progressing toward something better.  I believe that Horgan is
depressed by the thought of our society also coming to view itself
as moving toward a future that is worse, rather than better.

Why it matters -- It matters just as our view of The Enlightenment"
matters.  It matters because it influences who we admire, who we
emulate, whether we're progressive; whether we're tolerant and
accepting of new ideas and explanations; and whether we are striving
for progress, betterment, and, at the least, change.  In modern
scientific research, funding matters; it matters a lot.  Whether
corporations invest in it depends on their believe that it will
produce valuable results.  Whether governments fund research depends
on various factors, but certainly the attitudes and opinions of
politicians and their constituents and whether they believe in the
possibility of progress and improvement matter.  In support of the
importance of government funding for research and innovation, see
"The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector
Myths", by Mariana Mazzucato.

Horgan is likely right to worry about decreased government funding
for scientific research.  World War II is over.  The Cold War is
over.  The Space Race is (mostly) over.  And, the U.S. government in
particular is no longer as rich as it once was; it's in debt, after
all.  So public funding, in the U.S. at least where we seem to be
taking a conservative turn toward "government is the problem" and
lower taxes (on the rich), likely will decrease.

And "The end of science" can also be read as and thought of as an
analysis of the relationships between science, technology, culture,
and society.  Although we often think of science as being distinct
from culture or even in opposition to it, science, especially since
The Enlightenment, is *part* of our culture.  Witness the recent
"teen sexting" scandal.  Yes, teenagers will always find a way to make
their lives more dramatic and traumatic and angst filled, but their
ability to do it in that specific way depended on the available
technology: smart phones that take digital images, the ability to
upload those images and to send them to others, and the ability to
store them and make them available on the Web.  (see "Why Kids
Sext", by Hanna Rosin, The Atlantic, 10/14/2014,
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/why-kids-sext/380798/)

And, a society that views itself as existing in an earth-centered
system is different from one that views itself as living in a
solar-centered system or a galaxy structured one or one composed of
many galaxies in many clusters etc.  And certainly, a society that
views itself as composed of a species that evolved through a long
series of fortunate (and some not so fortunate) contingent events is
radically different from one that views itself as composed of beings
created in the image of some god or beings that believe they are
favored over other human and non-human beings etc.

For me, Horgan's book is so valuable because it raises so many
issues like the above and provides lots of material on which to hang
our thoughts about those issues.

10/20/2014

.. vim:ft=rst:fo+=a: