Post - 9/19/2020
In my last few posts, I have brought up several blocks to creativity in large groups, such as nations, religions, and armies. These blocks may have served us thousands of years ago, but are not serving us as well now . I would like to bring up one that was not an issue then, but is large and increasing now. That is poor understanding of science and technology,.
One reason is that the two are tightly linked, but can be separated. Dictionaries have no problem. The two below are among the many definitions on the internet.
Science—The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Technology:—The entities, both material and immaterial, created by the application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value. In this usage, technology refers to tools and machines that may be used to solve real-world problems.
Consider the JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) spacecraft built to go to Mars. Scientific data is what they are after. Technology is the process of designing and building the machinery and instruments necessary to do this, and the data that is measured and returned to earth is for science. When JPL was founded as part of Caltech in 1936, it was to do research on rocketry, which was obviously coming in the future, but poorly understood. Scientific research was needed. This is somewhat still the case, but the principles of jet engines, military rockets, and boosters for spacecraft, are well enough understood that they fit the definition of technology.
The first block to innovation in large groups, is the natural confusions between what the two words mean. I studied engineering at Caltech (very sciency), worked for years in the “techy” part of JPL, taught in the engineering school at Stanford for years, and also chaired a program formerly named Science, Technology, and Society, which attempted to explain the nature of each of these. I fact I wrote a book named Flying Buttresses, Entropy, and O-Rings, which among other goals attempted to explain the nature of each .The book sold pretty well. But then I began to feel that the book overly simplified the difference, so I started another one called Heroes, Hustlers, Nerds, and Normals, using people involved in these activities to demonstrate the difference and interactions between people who call themselves engineers and technicians, and science and scientists. I thought it was probably better than the first one, but my publisher didn’t like it, and I was tired of trying to push the nature of technology and science, so I did not further push it. But I may revive it.
But if I look at the world now, or even the U.S., I can see some large blocks due to lack of understanding of what these are. Scientists are driven to better understand their topic, and tend to work in relatively narrowly defined areas, with colleagues who may be spread all over the earth who are interested in the same area. They often choose their area through personal interest. And are valuable adding to knowledge, even if nothing instantly results. But eventually something will. Two of my favorite professors at Caltech were Linus Pauling, a chemist who was very interested in molecular structure, and Richard Feynmam, a theoretical physicists, who was known for his sense of humor among other things. Both were headed for the Nobel Prize, and I was honored to be a teaching assistant to Pauling and take a beginning class from Feynman. The classes were both mind-blowing. Most of os students thought we had missed a couple of .lasses somewhere. But Pauling was one of the big names in determining the structure of
RNA and DNA, and look how far we have come in those years. And Feynman,was
obsessed with quantum theory, which violated everything we thought we knew about atomic structure. Now we are facing having computers based on quantum theory all over the place, and most of us are still running rapidly to keep up with old fashion ones. The message is that the work of outstanding scientists often does not reach the public for many years (I graduated from college in 1955) and I am still trying to get my head around quantum theory what the life scientists at Caltech are up to.
The pace of science will not become less in the future, because we have major problems in areas such as understanding and attacking problems such as climate control, disparity of income, pandemics, and how to use our rapidly increasing knowledge in genomics. There are many more, all involving words we are not comfortable with, and capable of resulting either in wonderful steps forward in the human condition, or not so wonderful steps backward.
Since everyone seems to be obsessed with the present pandemic (coronavirus 19) and thinking about it, let us use it as an example. It is obviously having extremely negative effects in the world. There are many highly educated specialists working on the problem, but we cannot be expected to understand what is going on, because most us went through an education that spent very little time on pandemics, even though they are not all that rare. So we are incapable of understanding the mechanisms that the virus utilizes to kill us, or even to spread. President Trump has neither a background in science or technology, so he follows his “instincts” and backs them up by surrounding himself with people who are “experts”. He recently added a new face to his growing band of such people. This is a physician named Scott Atlas, whose specialty is neuro-radiology, and agrees with Trump’s theories (let time do its work). They do not agree with physicians who have studied infectious diseases and pandemics, and spent their lives in public health care (Fauci). Trump seems to think that by showering money on drug companies, a vaccine will be developed in record time. Maybe, but the distribution and usage will not be instant. The anti-vaccine movement in the U.S. is unfortunately growing rapidly, with respect to such well tested and known diseases of measles and common flu, but they are lying in wait to return.
We have a huge variation in our attitude about and approach to science and technology. Trump seems to think he is smarter than the scientists, so he is in good shape if he surrounds himself with people who agree with him (not experts) Most people I know are following the basic rules (social distancing, wearing a mask when social distancing is not possible, avoiding crowds, avoiding indoor crowded spaces, and washing or sanitizing hands frequently.)
Many people are clearly flaunting these rules. But most people are having less fun. Some people are just not thinking about the whole situation.
What is up? First of all, we have not been educated as to the nature of science and technology. We see a few of the tools used in such activities, but spend most of our “science” time with some of these basic tools, and get little exposure to the process that new ideas go through to become available to the public. I am biased, of course, but I think that we can no longer just assume that some group out there will do what is best for us. There is no such group. Capitalism alone no longer leads us in a direction that is best for us. We all need to get more involved in the process of being more creative as large groups. It is okay for some members of a country to disagree about scientific and technological directions, but not if they affect us all. Religions can set about to try to enlist more and more people to their beliefs, but not through violence. Armies seem to be necessary, but not if equipment and expectations are built on the last war.
Enough ranting. More of us need to get a bit deeper about what’s going on with science and technology, or our kids and grand-kids may have a much less rewarding life than we have been privileged to have.
I will send out a post on present progress on my attempts to rescue worthy but unloved machines. If I can get adequately organized, I may even put together a past history for those who are interested.
Recent Comments