Postscience part 2

Moderator: We now move onto the next speaker, Dr. Penrose.

Penrose: Let me start by saying I have been practicing science for a long time. Nearly forty years, far longer then Dr. Shermer.

Let me add that one thing I find most disturbing and naive about the post-science movement is their complete faith in technology. The fact of the matter is they seem to have it backwards, science created technology, technology does not create science. I don't see then how it is technology is supposed to make science obsolete. I call this blind belief in technology naive because they seem to think it moves faster then it really does. I mean sure we've made some breakthroughs in AI, but remember while it may look intelligent we are dealing with very specialized thought, in reality the AI does not have as much intelligence as a dog, let alone a human being. Next consider the internet and various other information systems mentioned, ranging from virtual to augmented, not only can these be hacked, but they are full of misinformation. Orthodox science would never allow that.

Let's consider the actual discoveries of so-called post-science. To me it just seems like they simply borrow from science, or apply another version of the scientific method. I mean, even post-science requires some method of social verification. If I can't verify that an AI's research is correct, then how do I know that it's true? Do I just take its word for it? What if it's wrong?

As for the Net, simply consider the amount of sheer ignorance and stupidity out there. A lot of those people are not educated professionals. They did not spend years in college studying the subject like I did. And look at the results! There is so much information pollution being spewed out by ignoramuses that I can hardly believe it. In fact, I think some of them even prefer an atmosphere of confusion. It is better to leave these things to the real experts if you want my opinion.

The fact of the matter is that these people did not work to achieve their knowledge. There is no discipline behind it. They do not have the pride in it that a real scientist has.

In any case I simply find the arguments made by post-scientists unconvincing and their discoveries unimpressive.

Moderator: Now a response from Dr. Shermer.

Shermer: Where to begin? First, my opponent mentions how the internet cannot be trusted because it is full of misinformation, yet what I find ironic is that he is saying this over the internet.

Second he mentions how technology supposedly comes from science. That is just factually wrong. Humanity had several kinds of tools- ranging from spears, to fire, to aquifiers, to architectual design long before we had science, unless that is my opponent is going to consider ancient philosophy a kind of science.

Next he mentioned how he found the arguments of post-science uncovincing and unimpressive. That is a completely subjective argument.

Fourth, he argued that science would eventually have made the discoveries of AI, or Neural Networks. I can't say if that's true one way or another, but it is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is you can argue that logic, or philosophy or scholastics may have come to the same conclusions as science given enough time. This goes back to Bacon's analogy of a man digging a hole with his hands instead of a shovel. Sure he can do it, but ultimately what is the point?
As for the substance of post-science, and how it differs from science, as opposed to just being another version I will go into that in more depth. Take for example the need for, as Penrose put it, verification.

The fact is on that matter he is incorrect. And what I mean by that is not what he implied with his false dillemma. What I mean to say is that they don't need the peer review process. They don't need to replicate an experiment. The knowledge doesn't have to spread throughout the entire AI community before we can realize what the AI is saying is true.

Take for example Nanotech's AI synthesizer they have patrolling the web. Nanotech is a state of the art, competitive organization. They are security minded, and they are not only focused on accuracy but speed.

And the fact of the matter is Nanotech doesn't share the results of its AI's research with the scientific community. In fact to this day most of the research conducted by its AI remains undisclosed to the general public. Yet they have credited this AI with several breakthroughs in our knowledge of quantum mechanics and particle physics, and have simultaneously leapt light years ahead of any other organization with respect to the development of nanotechnology.

Take for example their breakthrough in 3-D printing. Simply put, the process involves using lasers, and a box full of nanites to basically create one of various objects virtually out of thin air. The molecules inside the box rise, as they do so you can set a certain amount of mass to be used to create all sorts of various simple objects- a chair, a stack of papers, clothing. There are limits. And nanite printing was hypothesized in science, but even the most optimistic scientists argued it was decades off, in part, due to the fact that certain molecular laws set absolute limits to engineering, the so-called fatty fingers problem.

Clearly Nanotech's AI has found a solution to these problems, and new laws which supersede the old. What these are we cannot say because, as I said earlier, the information is not available to the public. But either we are to believe this is coincidence, that Nanotech says it has an AI doing its research and has, for other reasons, leapt decades, perhaps even centuries ahead of the competition, or we can simply accept the fact that despite our inability to verify or replicate their results in the traditional manner, that we have a new kind of intelligence and a new methodology which works far, far more quickly and differently then what we have traditionally called science, but is still capable of making real discoveries in our material universe.