Post-Science, a future debate

Part 1- Debate begins (need to write the rest, please give ideas/possible arguments for or against)

Moderator: In the year 1600 Francis Bacon shook the very foundations of the world with his publication of Novus Organum, or New Method. To many this was the birth of science itself, though that history is of course a simplification as Doctor Shermer will explain later in greater detail later.

Since then science has grown to the point where there are now roughly eight times as many scientist as there are priests. At the time of Novus Organum, there was not even one. Back then they were known by two names, natural philosophers, and natural historians. The word science didn't even exist.

And yet man was still, up to that point, accumulating knowledge, though not as efficiently. That was the main argument for the New Method, not that it was necessary, but that it was more efficient. To quote Francis Bacon, it was like a man digging a hole with his hands when he may be using a tool. That is what science was proposed to be- a tool.

And as we all know in science, or in my profession, as a sci-fi writer, tools get out of date. They become obsolete. And that is the question confronting us today- has science itself become obsolete? Has science made, by promoting progress, itself obsolete?

Or is such a conclusion premature? Is science perhaps more then a tool, something that cannot be defined?

Sparking this debate is the increasing role of the internet and Artificial Intelligence, both of which have proven capable of accumulating new discoveries and establishing theories, neither of which seems to follow the method most people think of when they refer to science.

For example, AI research has little to no peer review, and yet, it can make discoveries at several times the rate of a scientific team. The reason being that the AI is capable of being far more objective, foregoing the need for the peer review process that is intended to avoid the distortion of facts due to human bias. Likewise, dialogue on the internet between cybernetically linked minds, what proponents call hyper-dialectics, seems capable of making new, more deductive discoveries by the process of analysis and synthesis. In a sense, both seem to indicate either observation without peer review, or peer review without observation. Both seem able to complement each other so as to make new discoveries, or work alone. It is perhaps this modular, customizable aspect of the new theories which seem to make them so radically different then science. And most importantly, both these methods seem to be much, much faster then that of what we have tended to consider science.

Another example, instead of training a team to look into astrophysics, one can simply develop a machine with the right programming and sensory equipment. This machine, by itself, can make new discoveries that a team of scientists without the machine cannot.

At the same time however, one can note that this may not be so much a displacement of the scientific process, as much as it is the evolution of science. One can also note that there seems to be something dangerous, and inhuman, about removing the social component from research and relying too much on technology like AI or the internet.

Here today we have two proponents, each a big name in their respective fields, both coming from opposite angles. The first is an esteemed mathermatician, Dr. Rupert Penrose, who will be arguing for the traditional scientific method as we know it. He has won the Nobel Prize for his research on cancer, and has been awarded a Grand Ph.D for his work with the UN.

The second is a leading Marxist philosopher who teaches as a variety of universities. She has worked with many scientists and, according to her, post-scientists in trying to create a unified system of classification regarding postscientific research under the heading of Dialectic Materialism, which she believes is the key element that distinguishes modern day post-science, from the superstitious philosophies of the past- including science itself. Please welcome Professor Elissa Shermer.

Shermer's opening statement: Thank you Moderator. Let me first say that I am not calling science a superstition per se, or at least, not one of the same degree as religion or mysticism. Science is clearly more accurate and reliable then that, and we will go into the reasons why. But at the same time, there has always been a kind of contamination in the traditional method we call science due to its more superstitious heritage. What I mean by that, is that the people who pioneered science were superstitious, and while they may have been great minds, they were still subject to their social conditions.

Take Descartes who, like Bacon, pioneered the underlying philosophy of what we call science now at days. To him the world was divided, between a mechanistic side and a divine, or mystical side. Science, the rational method could deal with the former but not the latter. The latter was only open to faith and divine revelation.

This idea of a sort of metaphysical divide which forever limits scientific inquiry has become a sort of staple across the scientific field known as the Official Doctrine, and it has really held back social knowledge and inquiry. Even Albert Einstein, Karl Popper, and Charles Darwin to an extent believed certain parts of reality were, for this reason, always cut off from any sort of rational or material analysis. Science explains the how and not the why. And it wreaked havoc in certain fields, most recently with respect to Pre-Big Bang Cosmology but in the past with psychology, sociology, and before that, biology.

The reason is simple, where do you draw the line? Who or what determines that? For past thinkers this question was easy to answer- God, or some sort of mystical spirit drew the line. The problem however is this- the more we begin to know, the more this line seems to be receding, causing some of us to wonder if there is even a good reason to imagine this line exists in the first place.

What ultimately makes questions of "how" different from questions of "why"?

One field where this is important is axiology, the study of ethics and aesthetics. Up until the late 20th century it was presumed that ethics had no place in rational study. They were why questions. Ethics was thus seen as the sole province of religious, philosophical or ideological leaders. Then came evolutionary psychology, and new tools for analyzing cognitive and emotive processes, and that all began to change. Evolutionary psychologists found that various animals had what they called pre-moral sentiments, although this classification was itself arbitrary. Simply put, various higher social animals- wolves, chimps, whales, exhibited behavior that we may call moralistic. Around the same time brain scans were revealing that moral sentiments arise from specific brain activity. Furthermore, disrupting key parts of the brain will alter moral behavior.

Up until that time it was generally believed that morality came down to a matter of reason, and that a deficiency of moral sentiment was due to some error in a person's logic, or a lack of knowledge.

But psychologists have always known otherwise. Take sociopaths for example. A sociopath is a person that does not feel guilt about any moral transgression, for them it simply doesn't exist. It is like being color blind, they simply don't have a sense of it at all. And if they can commit an immoral act, and get away with it, they will.

Now a sociopath can be a perfectly rational and knowledgeable human being. They can, for reasons of long-term self-interest, behave in a completely ethical manner. But there is something different about a person who is good because it is in their nature, and someone who is good simply because they fear consequences, and psychologists have always known this.

In fact, it had been known for a long time that all the religious, philosophical, and ideological reasoning in the world will not change a sociopath. Often times the only thing keeping them from expressing their amoral behavior is some sort of social consequence.

So why did it take so long, over a century, for psychologists to realize that the difference between a moralist and a sociopath was some kind of physical difference in the brain, and not some error in reasoning?

I believe it is because they adhered to this Official Doctrine, which had been made a staple in science since it's inception, largely for religious reasons.

This ideology has expressed itself in other ways as well. With positivism and logical positivism, philosophies which attempted to reduce all thought to either immediate sensation or a combination of immediate sensation and algorithmic logic back in the 19th and 20th century. This philosophy was ultimately found to be pretty unworkable, but was very popular among the scientific establishment during its time.

Or let's consider how scientists have treated the so-called "soft sciences" in general, relegating them to a lower status regardless of the specific theory and its underlying evidence of methodology. Again this is another prejudice that was built into the scientific method back in the middle ages, and while it has become less relevant with time, it represents a more or less intrinsic feature that has held back human knowledge at various times.

Now none of these changes have been sufficient to establish a new method, and much of science has been the self-correction from these initial mistakes. Science has itself been thus reforming into a less superstitious method over time, and I have no doubt that given a long enough time line the problem would correct itself. But this goes back to the question of the man digging a ditch with his bare hands, why should we wait for this when we already have a working tool that can do the job of increasing social knowledge and understanding more easily and efficiently? This is where the new methods that I call post-science come in. It does so with the invention of new tools- cybernetics, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, virtual reality and information networks which allow modern society to qualitatively leap ahead in terms of thought, research and method far ahead of what human scientists were limited to in the past. Their methods thus, while materialistic, naturalistic and rational, cannot be considered science as it has been traditionally understood. Comparing these post-scientific methods to modern science would be like comparing modern science to ancient philosophy.

And this is where I will continue by line of argument, as my time has almost expired.

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.