Is Science Merely an Arbitrary Conception of the Universe?

[amigocabal]

In reading, Michael Crichton's book, Sphere, I came across this passage.

Historians of science thought that was nonsense, too. They pointed out that what we called “science” actually consisted of a rather arbitrary conception of the universe, not likely to be shared by other creatures. Our ideas of science were the ideas of visually oriented, monkey-like creatures who enjoyed changing their physical environment. If the aliens were blind and communicated by odors, they might have evolved a very different science, which described a very different universe. And they might have made very different choices about the directions their science would explore. For example, they might ignore the physical world entirely, and instead develop a highly sophisticated science of mind-in other words, the exact opposite of what Earth science had done. The alien technology might be purely mental, with no visible hardware at all.

Are there any historians of science who claimed this idea?

Could any species ignore the physical world entirely?

[Crossroads Inc.]

NO...
Science is science, Math is math, physics is physics.
Michael Crichton knew how to make a good fiction story, but when it comes to him "explaining" science he's usually full of crap.

Now then, to be fair different races may have wholly different views of the universe. A race that communicates only through odors and cannot see would evolve very different and come to conclusions in a very alien way. But however it would create Math, 2+2 will still = 4

[Sarevok]

Could any species ignore the physical world entirely?

Other than magical energy beings ? No.

Any advanced species would study the same universe as us and thus share scientific concepts only described differently due to mental and cultural differences. Pi is same regardless of whether you speak chinese,arabic or are an extraterrestrial living on a planet orbiting another sun...

[Simon_Jester]

Creatures with different senses and needs would surely develop the sciences in a different order, with emphasis on different subjects. They might consider some things safe that we think are dangerous, and vice versa. They might have very strange technologies to provide for their unique needs, based on different ideas about what it means for things to 'work' properly.

But they'd still have to deal with the same universe we do, so some of the basics would look the same. Or at least be translatable, in that they have a concept that covers the subject, does and says all the same things, but looks different from ours.

[Darth Wong]

Michael Crichton is a supporter of "intelligent design" creationism. That might inform your assessment of anything he writes about science.

In reading, Michael Crichton's book, Sphere, I came across this passage.

Historians of science thought that was nonsense, too. They pointed out that what we called “science” actually consisted of a rather arbitrary conception of the universe, not likely to be shared by other creatures. Our ideas of science were the ideas of visually oriented, monkey-like creatures who enjoyed changing their physical environment. If the aliens were blind and communicated by odors, they might have evolved a very different science, which described a very different universe. And they might have made very different choices about the directions their science would explore. For example, they might ignore the physical world entirely, and instead develop a highly sophisticated science of mind-in other words, the exact opposite of what Earth science had done. The alien technology might be purely mental, with no visible hardware at all.

Are there any historians of science who claimed this idea?

Historians of science would (obviously) study its history, rather than attacking its philosophical foundations using New Age metaphysical nonsense reasoning.

Could any species ignore the physical world entirely?

Sure, but no intelligent species would. The fact is that scientific conclusions are limited by physical feedback; there is only so far that they can deviate from empirical observation without the models becoming totally unworkable. His arguments regarding science are based on the utterly childish notion that science is somehow limited to (and dictated by) our physical senses: an argument I've seen from many creationists and one which seems to be blissfully unaware of all the high-tech observational devices we have at our disposal.

You can ignore the physical world, but the physical world won't ignore you.

In fact, you could make the argument that all species have a naturally scientific (or at least empirical, albeit simplistic) mindset, in that they only react to that which they can actually detect. It is only humans who seem to spend a lot of time reacting to entirely imaginary phenomena without having suffered some sort of brain injury first.

[Terralthra]

Michael Crichton is a supporter of "intelligent design" creationism. That might inform your assessment of anything he writes about science.

Is he actually? I've found a number of references to a speech he gave against what he terms "consensus science" being referenced by ID websites and such to give themselves the veneer of being bold scientists bucking the establishment, but the speech itself doesn't reference ID in any way, nor can I find any direct connection between Crichton and ID.

[Darth Wong]

Michael Crichton is a supporter of "intelligent design" creationism. That might inform your assessment of anything he writes about science.

Is he actually? I've found a number of references to a speech he gave against what he terms "consensus science" being referenced by ID websites and such to give themselves the veneer of being bold scientists bucking the establishment, but the speech itself doesn't reference ID in any way, nor can I find any direct connection between Crichton and ID.

It's always possible that my memory is playing tricks on me. I seem to recall seeing some quotes from him which were pretty clearly ID, but I can't recall exactly where that came from.

[Academia Nut]

It's always possible that my memory is playing tricks on me. I seem to recall seeing some quotes from him which were pretty clearly ID, but I can't recall exactly where that came from.

Jurassic Park and the Lost World both have characters spouting ID bullshit, particularly Ian Malcolm, talking about how life is too complex to have arisen by chance. Also, at the end of the Lost World one character tells another character that in a hundred years people will look back and laugh at the fact that we believed in things like electrons.

Actually, the biggest irony is that the guy saying that life is too complex to occur by chance then compares life to a crystal, which is to say that he was this close to remembering that life is a chemical reaction and those don't occur by chance.

[Terralthra]

Jurassic Park and the Lost World both have characters spouting ID bullshit, particularly Ian Malcolm, talking about how life is too complex to have arisen by chance. Also, at the end of the Lost World one character tells another character that in a hundred years people will look back and laugh at the fact that we believed in things like electrons.

Actually, the biggest irony is that the guy saying that life is too complex to occur by chance then compares life to a crystal, which is to say that he was this close to remembering that life is a chemical reaction and those don't occur by chance.

I really don't remember any of that. I do remember Malcolm saying that life (and especially an ecosystem) is a system with unexpected and emergent behavior, too complex to shove into a theme park and expect to behave in a simple fashion.

As for laughing at the fact that we believe in electrons....:: Our knowledge of subatomic physics is incomplete. We could be right about electrons as-is, or we could be wrong. A hundred years ago, the most cutting-edge science in the world indicated that protons were indivisible entities, which we now know to be not the case. Whatever model is least wrong a century from now may not include electrons as we understand them today. It will have something which is comparable to an electron, as our understanding of electrons is too congruent with experimental evidence to simply erase, but if we unravel, for example, the particle/wave duality, we may discover that the concept of an electron is inadequate for explaining the universe.

A little over a hundred years ago, electricity was believed to be a fluid, after all, with experimental evidence that backed that view. Don't arrogantly assume that we are correct now.

[Academia Nut]

I remember specifically that the whole bullshit "eye is irreduceably complex" argument brought up to talk about how life was too complex to have emerged on its own. Now, admittedly I'm pretty sure the character was stoned out of his mind on morphine at the time, but the author was expressing it as a serious argument anyway.

As for the electron thing, I know the character specifically asks to be handed an electron and takes the battered survivor's inability to do so right that instant as proof enough of his point. This ignores things like Millikan's oil drop experiment where we do isolate individual electronic charges and single electron scattering events, and also plays into the same idea that creationists often use that because a theory is incomplete it is therefore wrong. Crichton has lots of these sorts of things playing through works that indicates he never really "got" science. Like blaming the disaster in Jurassic Park on the scientists that cloned the dinosaurs, rather than the greedy corporate executive who was cutting corners and should have been strangled by his own engineers for reckless disregard for safety protocols and general sanity. Like the fact that one guy was capable of bringing down the whole park because he was more or less the only guy in the IT department and no one was monitoring his activities despite the fact that he had a giant "I am a dangerously disgruntled employee" sign over his head. Again, Crichton consistently treats human and engineering errors as if they were scientific inevitability, that the park had to fail because of cosmic decree, an indication he didn't really understand the deeper philosophies of science.

[Darth Wong]

Crichton's use of chaos theory is downright hilarious when you think about it:

"Chaos theory means that you cannot predict what will happen ... therefore I can predict with certainty that the dinosaurs will pwn you!"

[Serafina]

Of course it doesn't really matter who he is, the argument is wrong on his own merits rather than due to who said it.


Simon Jester already said it - developing science if a different order is quite possible, coming to completely different conclusions is not.
A smell-based species would certainly develop their chemistry or psychology faster, and they would describe their findings differently than we do. But they would still eventually develop Newtonian Mechanics, since thats simply how the universe works and they still interact with physical matter. They would still describe how light works, since light is an actual thing that affects you even if you can't see it*. And we humans can't see subatomic particles either, yet we still have working models of their behaviour.
Their astronomy would also lack significantly behind ours, since only dedicated scientists would do any at all and there would be no early driving interest because everyone can see the stars. And their description of it would be very different from ours - but it would still describe the same thing. And thats the important part he doesn't get - that that alien species would still interact with the same universe. They might interact with it in a different manner - but just because you are blind doesn't mean that you are not affected by light, you just don't register it visually.


*though a totally blind yet sufficiently intelligent for science and tool use species seems a bit unlikely, but thats not the point.

[Darth Tedious]

Could any species ignore the physical world entirely?

Other than magical energy beings ? No.

I'm going to share a little story here, partly because it's kinda relevant, and partly 'cause it's a LOL.

A few weeks ago, I was sitting by myself while riding on a train. This 17yo dude comes up and invites me to sit with him and another guy (a roof tiler in his mid-20s), so he can show me some 'trippy stuff'.

He explains to us that we are all magical energy beings, and that the physical world is juts a manifestation of our thoughts and feelings.
He explains how, by realising this we can enable our true nature, and achieve 'mind over matter'.
He takes out a coin, and says that we can determine whether it will land on heads, tails, or even its side if we focus our thoughts on it doing so.
After failing to predict the outcome of his coin tosses about a dozen times in a row (seriously, Lady Luck was bitchslapping this guy), he explains that the only reason it didn't work was because we didn't concentrate and believe hard enough, that because we showed doubt, we had forced the coin to land on the wrong side.

After he left the train, the roof tiler (who seemed like a pretty down-to-Earth guy) said to me:

"I love how much enthusiasm that kid has for his beliefs. That's why I didn't have the heart to punch in the face and show him just how wrong they are."

[Crossroads Inc.]

Crichton has lots of these sorts of things playing through works that indicates he never really "got" science. Like blaming the disaster in Jurassic Park on the scientists that cloned the dinosaurs, rather than the greedy corporate executive who was cutting corners and should have been strangled by his own engineers for reckless disregard for safety protocols and general sanity. Like the fact that one guy was capable of bringing down the whole park because he was more or less the only guy in the IT department and no one was monitoring his activities despite the fact that he had a giant "I am a dangerously disgruntled employee" sign over his head. Again, Crichton consistently treats human and engineering errors as if they were scientific inevitability, that the park had to fail because of cosmic decree, an indication he didn't really understand the deeper philosophies of science.

I was just 13 when the movie came out, but even back then I remember thinking how silly and ineffective the "Safety" measures were. I mean even back then I realized that everything got out just because the power went off and that no zoo in the real world has such a set up. Not to turn this into a Crichton bash fest, but it really needs to be said how much he does not "get" science like you said.

If he really wanted to drive home the "Man should not meddle in such things!" message, he should have built a park with the most extreme security. One where the dinos get out despite everything in place, not just because the power goes off...

The truth is if you replaced all the dinosaurs with normal lions, wolves, bears, and other dangerous wild animals, you would have had the EXACT same result with them getting out and harming people.
The deaths and harm had nothing to do with "Man meddling in gods domain" and Dinosaurs. But poor safety measures and stupidity.

[amigocabal]

Of course it doesn't really matter who he is, the argument is wrong on his own merits rather than due to who said it.


Simon Jester already said it - developing science if a different order is quite possible, coming to completely different conclusions is not.
A smell-based species would certainly develop their chemistry or psychology faster, and they would describe their findings differently than we do. But they would still eventually develop Newtonian Mechanics, since thats simply how the universe works and they still interact with physical matter. They would still describe how light works, since light is an actual thing that affects you even if you can't see it*. And we humans can't see subatomic particles either, yet we still have working models of their behaviour.
Their astronomy would also lack significantly behind ours, since only dedicated scientists would do any at all and there would be no early driving interest because everyone can see the stars. And their description of it would be very different from ours - but it would still describe the same thing. And thats the important part he doesn't get - that that alien species would still interact with the same universe. They might interact with it in a different manner - but just because you are blind doesn't mean that you are not affected by light, you just don't register it visually.


*though a totally blind yet sufficiently intelligent for science and tool use species seems a bit unlikely, but thats not the point.

Of course, if sensory limitations make it unlikely for those species to even observe light, then it is possible that there are features of the universe which we are unlikely to stumble upon, due to our sensory limitations, but a "sufficiently intelligent for science and tool use species" with a sense that we can not even imagine, might be able to use that sense to easily observe such features, such as those that would help us formulate a Grand Unified Theory, if we ever observed them.

[Thanas]

Are there any historians of science who claimed this idea?

I am unaware of any.

That being said, it seems as if he is taking a correct assumption (we perceive the world with our eyes) and take it to the breaking point a la "other species have different eyes ergo different worlds with different physics." Nobody claims that.

[Channel72]

In general, sci-fi writers always seem to fall into one of two camps: the "Jules Verne" camp, where science and technology is something exciting that will change our world in interesting ways, and the "Mary Shelley" camp, where science is something dangerous that will cause grotesque, disastrous consequences if we push too far. Say what you will about Star Trek's pseudo-scientific techno-babble, but Gene Rodenberry was firmly in the "science is awesome" camp. Crichton, unfortunately, seems to think it's more interesting to explore the potential dangers of pushing science too far than to explore the ways in which science will improve the human condition and open up new and exciting possibilities.

[Darth Wong]

Is the stupid line "Lord help us, we're in the hands of engineers" in Crichton's original book, or was it added to the screenplay independently? Because that was a truly idiotic line; were they not in the hands of engineers on the helicopter ride into the island? And whose idea was it to design the animal paddocks for maximum customer proximity and visibility rather than security? That stinks of a businessman's decision, not an engineer's decision.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I'll admit I did not read the book myself, so the question of the various truely stupid "safety" measures in place, how many were done for dramatic effect, and how many were from the book?

Because from the movie I can list the following issues:
Enclosures that could not withstand the natural strength of it's occupant once power is down.
Doors on enclosures that can be opened remotely without manual lockdowns.
Tour buses powered by electricity and LOCKED on a set rail with no backups with loss of power.
Doors that could only be locked by power and have no manual backup.

Basically, at least in the movie, the whole park is geared in such a way that when power goes off everything goes wrong. And in truth, it is the only way the story can happen. If the park had been built with manual backups in case of power loss, the story never takes place and the dino's never get out.
For me the most glaring is the T-Rex fence. The idea that you would make a fence that could not withstand the natural strength of the t-rex, is like making a Lion enclosure with an electric fence, but the fence is made out of thin chicken wire the Lion could easily claw through.

In the movie, the owners tag line was "We spared no expense!" in truth one is forced to think he was lying through his teeth when he said that.

[TheFeniX]

Is the stupid line "Lord help us, we're in the hands of engineers" in Crichton's original book, or was it added to the screenplay independently? Because that was a truly idiotic line; were they not in the hands of engineers on the helicopter ride into the island? And whose idea was it to design the animal paddocks for maximum customer proximity and visibility rather than security? That stinks of a businessman's decision, not an engineer's decision.

It's been over 15 years since I've read the book, but I don't think it was. The book had Crichton's anti-science slant (which isn't that bad when compared to TV and movies), but I don't remember it being anywhere near what was presented in the movie. Hammond was presented as a ruthless business man (he had more in common with the "blood-sucking lawyer," rather than rich Santa as he was portrayed in the movie) looking to exploit the science for maximum profit and ended up dying horribly.

Ian Malcolm was also portrayed much less charismatically IIRC. His main bent seemed to be the arrogance of Hammond trying to control nature rather than science itself. I believe it was also pointed out a few times about how poorly the entire system was setup and that's what lead to the disaster, rather than actually breeding dinosaurs being bad. However, his "life will break free/find a way" line was taken almost verbatim from the book. He also spends half the book narrating annoyingly while strung out on morphine.

Hell, most of the characters weren't all that likeable. I think Crichton has issues with writing flawed, but likeable, characters. I remember even Grant being enough of a dick that I wasn't all that fond of him. With the exception of Satler and the little boy (wonder), you tend to root for the dinosaurs through the novel.

The movie, while still great, whitewashed a lot of the "irresponsible business" undertones from the novel. Book Hammond had no intention of making dinosaurs viewable to the general public, unless they could pay through the nose for the privilege.

[Terralthra]

Responding to multiple people in one post. I'm re-reading Jurassic Park, because a lot of whats being said about the novel don't match my recollection, and I don't want to have any debate without the facts.

I remember specifically that the whole bullshit "eye is irreduceably complex" argument brought up to talk about how life was too complex to have emerged on its own. Now, admittedly I'm pretty sure the character was stoned out of his mind on morphine at the time, but the author was expressing it as a serious argument anyway.

Haven't gotten there yet, but when I get to the post-attack Malcolm ranting, I'll post again.

As for the electron thing, I know the character specifically asks to be handed an electron and takes the battered survivor's inability to do so right that instant as proof enough of his point. This ignores things like Millikan's oil drop experiment where we do isolate individual electronic charges and single electron scattering events, and also plays into the same idea that creationists often use that because a theory is incomplete it is therefore wrong.

Again, when I get there, I'll post back with what was actually said.

Crichton has lots of these sorts of things playing through works that indicates he never really "got" science. Like blaming the disaster in Jurassic Park on the scientists that cloned the dinosaurs, rather than the greedy corporate executive who was cutting corners and should have been strangled by his own engineers for reckless disregard for safety protocols and general sanity.

He does not do any such thing. The entire first 20% of the book is taken up by at least as much the actual scientists (Malcolm, Sattler, Grant) pointing out either mentally or verbally that various elements of the design of the park are not done with care, or have been hastily-modified (bars on the windows, e.g.) after initial installation (indicating insufficient care during the original design). Sattler points out the poisonous plants. Malcolm points out that expecting a system to remain isolated is unrealistic, and that traditional zoos modify existing natural environments to be securable, a much easier problem than recreating new environments from scratch, and animals escape from traditional zoos all the time.

Additionally, a significant part of the book so far concerns itself not with "WHAT HAS SCIENCE WROUGHT!?" but that the corporate control of science results in experimentation without concern for ethics or safety, but solely for profit. One of the antagonist characters is a scientist who was dismissed from Harvard for not getting suitable clearances before trying human testing, and continued to test a new rabies vaccine on poor farmers without telling them what was going on. Hammond creates the park as a money-making enterprise, not for scientific discovery, and the company which is trying to steal the embryos that have been created so they can compete.

The theme of the novel so far isn't "science bad," but that scientific endeavor which is driven by corporate profit interests is inherently unsafe.

Like the fact that one guy was capable of bringing down the whole park because he was more or less the only guy in the IT department and no one was monitoring his activities despite the fact that he had a giant "I am a dangerously disgruntled employee" sign over his head.

Dennis Nedry was not the only guy in the IT department. His name is first introduced as "IT Project Supervisor," which implies he had people working under him. He was capable of bringing the park's security down because he was in charge, not because he was the only one, and even then, the only way he "got away" with it was that the park wasn't up and running, and most of the planned staff either weren't there yet, or had been evacuated because of an impending tropical storm.

Again, Crichton consistently treats human and engineering errors as if they were scientific inevitability, that the park had to fail because of cosmic decree, an indication he didn't really understand the deeper philosophies of science.

Crichton's use of chaos theory is downright hilarious when you think about it:

"Chaos theory means that you cannot predict what will happen ... therefore I can predict with certainty that the dinosaurs will pwn you!"

He puts words sort of like that in Malcolm's mouth, but that's not exactly what he says. What Malcolm says is that a system like the park, which is more or less an artificial ecosystem, is a complex system which can't be predicted with linear dynamics; the system's evolution is highly sensitive to initial conditions, leading to difficulty predicting the eventual outcome (the example he gives is weather prediction).

He doesn't say "dinosaurs will pwn you," he says that because they're trying to take a complex system and treat it simply, it will inevitably have unpredicted behavior, an "accident waiting to happen," and that Hammond will have to "shut it down." With proper attention paid to safety margins and a real engineering concern for unpredictable behavior and outcomes, these concerns could have been ameliorated, but the park was designed by businessmen and a dinosaur enthusiast, not real engineers, thus the park's shoddy design and the poor outcome.

I was just 13 when the movie came out, but even back then I remember thinking how silly and ineffective the "Safety" measures were. I mean even back then I realized that everything got out just because the power went off and that no zoo in the real world has such a set up. Not to turn this into a Crichton bash fest, but it really needs to be said how much he does not "get" science like you said.

If he really wanted to drive home the "Man should not meddle in such things!" message, he should have built a park with the most extreme security. One where the dinos get out despite everything in place, not just because the power goes off...

That wasn't actually his point! He wasn't saying man shouldn't meddle, he was saying "doing this shit for a profit motive without concern for ethics and the complexity of the underlying system leads to bad outcomes." Does anyone actually argue with "businessmen and lawyers shouldn't try design engineering without intimately involving scientists and engineers"? Dennis Nedry, the aforementioned disgruntled IT supervisor/engineer, is disgruntled precisely because Hammond et al. don't respect him as a professional, ignoring his concerns and insisting he stick to budget instead of giving him the resources he needs to secure the park.

The truth is if you replaced all the dinosaurs with normal lions, wolves, bears, and other dangerous wild animals, you would have had the EXACT same result with them getting out and harming people.
The deaths and harm had nothing to do with "Man meddling in gods domain" and Dinosaurs. But poor safety measures and stupidity.

Yeah, that's more or less what Crichton's novel says: shitty engineering of complex systems is bad. What Spielberg did with the film aren't really Crichton's fault.

Is the stupid line "Lord help us, we're in the hands of engineers" in Crichton's original book, or was it added to the screenplay independently? Because that was a truly idiotic line; were they not in the hands of engineers on the helicopter ride into the island? And whose idea was it to design the animal paddocks for maximum customer proximity and visibility rather than security? That stinks of a businessman's decision, not an engineer's decision.

Haven't come across that line in the novel, yet, but as above, a major theme of the novel is that the park and its systems weren't well-designed by engineers, but by businessmen and for a profit motive, and that is what he is condemning in the novel

[Darth Tedious]

Dennis Nedry was not the only guy in the IT department. His name is first introduced as "IT Project Supervisor," which implies he had people working under him.

Not neccesarily- small companies may have people nominated as a 'supervisor' just because they're head of their department, even when they're not in charge of anyone. My dad was Maintenance Supervisor for a hotel for about 8 years, most of that time he had noone working under him (he eventually got a gardener).

Having Nedry be the only IT guy works better for the story- it makes everything a shit-ton harder to fix when he sabotages it all, also shows more corners being cut to keep costs down (why get a second IT guy when one can do it by himself?).

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, but the "complex systems" angle is completely irrelevant to the design problems of the park. The design failures were due not to unpredictability, but to the logical and foreseeable consequences of completely predictable events, such as the fact that power failures do occasionally happen.

[Terralthra]

Dennis Nedry was not the only guy in the IT department. His name is first introduced as "IT Project Supervisor," which implies he had people working under him.

Not neccesarily- small companies may have people nominated as a 'supervisor' just because they're head of their department, even when they're not in charge of anyone. My dad was Maintenance Supervisor for a hotel for about 8 years, most of that time he had noone working under him (he eventually got a gardener).

Having Nedry be the only IT guy works better for the story- it makes everything a shit-ton harder to fix when he sabotages it all, also shows more corners being cut to keep costs down (why get a second IT guy when one can do it by himself?).

There are repeated references to him having a team of programmers under him, and he uses communicating with them (transferring data) to work through bugs as an excuse to tie up the phone lines during his espionage attempt. He's not the only IT guy.

[Guardsman Bass]

Nedry's betrayal was more understandable in the book, too. The film mentions that he has financial issues and that Hammond "got cheap on him", but the novel outright says that InGen demanded a ton of last-minute revisions that required a lot more work by his team, but refused to pay extra for them (forcing Nedry to eat the costs). To make matters worse, they combined that demand with hinted blackmail by threatening his reputation back at the university he was based from IIRC.