
Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society, by Freeman Dyson - corentin
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
======
stuki
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."

~~~
ced
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.

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

Maybe thinking scientifically?

------
Tichy
I have all sympathy for heretics, but to claim that CO2 is not a problem
because there could be a countermeasure seems like very flawed logic. Apart
from the countermeasure not really convincing me (genetically engineer plants
to grow faster???), without recognizing the problem, it is unlikely that the
countermeasures would be taken, so it would still remain a problem (assuming
it is a problem - I merely wanted to point out the flawed logic).

~~~
rzwitserloot
I don't think that was his point. His point was: Look at me taking wild and
unsubstantiated CRAZY ideas to this here CO2 thing. And then laying out why
the ideas are quite tame, substantiated, and rational after all, but due to
prevailing hip culture, these ideas require a heretic to take root.

At least, that's how I read it.

------
ivankirigin
BoingBoing featured this and a rebutting article:
[http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/15/two_views_on_climate.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/15/two_views_on_climate.html)

~~~
rzwitserloot
Interesting. Shame the rebuttal contains no references, whereas Dyson's is
littered with them.

Though - the idea that global climate change, even if it ends up making the
world a better place, will undoubtedly lead to tension and possibly even war,
is almost axiomatic, and something Dyson glossed over.

~~~
greendestiny
If you mean littered as in spread randomly and being worthless then sure.
Plenty of massive assertions in that Dyson's piece with no facts, no figures
and no cites.

