Vlad(imyr) -
It doesn't surprise me that people who are smarter than we are
intimidate us. We are often intimidated by people who are bigger or
more attractive, why not smarter (more educated, more functional in
abstract but relevant topics)? A more general question might be "why do
we vilify or scapegoat those more able than us?" One good reason might
be that on average, humans have a propensity for "taking advantage",
using what advantages they have over others in a selfish way. We can be
thoughtless bullies.
I am of two minds on this one. (does that imply schizophrenia?)
On one hand (mind?), as a member of the class of people who are educated
in math and sciences and have some apparent innate ability with these
subjects, and who has been subject to "blameful" rhetoric from those who
are not educated (or adept?) in such intellectual pursuits, I am very
aligned with your thesis about "scapegoating".
On the other hand (mind?), I have observed that a great deal of
conventional mathematics and science is based in very analytic and
reductionist approaches. <preaching-to-choir> Such approaches can have
great utility for isolating and understanding subsystems in said
relative isolation. Unfortunately they can obscure total system
behaviour/understanding and lead to unfortunate (mis)understandings.
<goofy-personal-anecdote-about-contemporary-science> I feel lucky to
have come of age in Math/Science as nonlinear science was just beginning
to get a foothold (early 80's). While I never became a harp-playing
crystal-gazer, the New Age movement of the 80's and it's influence or
congruence with modern science (Tao of Physics, etc.) has been a
positive thing. Even "old" modern physics (early 20 century) like
Relativity and Quantum Theory has offered science some new paradigms for
thinking about reality and even causality than it's roots in Descarte's
and Plato and the like.
<long-winded-attempt-to-summarize>
The point of this is that the narrow application of reductionistic,
linear approaches to science (and engineering and economics and ...) may
have very inconvenient, outrageous, unintended consequences. Smart,
educated people (like mathematicians and scientists and engineers) who
have been exposed to other ways of thinking who continue to "hold the
throttle down" as we plunge toward a potential abyss might not be
without blame for the resulting disasters in our various global systems
(climate, biosphere, economy, socio-religio-economic)...
I'm not big on labels like "evil" but I do think we all deserve to
(continue to?) reflect on our role in the myriad global scale problems
the world might be facing. Some of us feel absolved when we throw our
plastic packaging into a recycle bin, or buy a hybrid car, but it goes
just a tad deeper than that, and there is a passive "evil" to stopping
there (if that far).
If horrific possibilities (and realities) of nuclear physics didn't wake
us up, and the consequences of rampant greenhouse gas release doesn't
wake us up, then will it be a silly "unexpected" consequence of genetic
engineering or nanotechnology? I believe in the "grey goo" scenario
about as much as I might have that the first nuclear explosion might
have "ignited the atmosphere", but the probability is not zero and the
consequences are about as high as we can measure... not sure how to
resolve the limit of the infinite divided by the infinitesmal in this
case... but I don't think we can dismiss it entirely. Don't say oops!
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
