|
Nerenberg Lecturer Asks "Why Does Science Work?" by Mitchell Zimmer In the sixth annual Nerenberg
Lecture, given on March 17th 2003 by the Department of Applied Mathematics,
theoretical physicist Dr. Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute explored
different facets of science in society. Smolin asserts that science works
because scientists are part of an ethical community. Inside this structure
there are the simultaneous components of respect and rebellion. People within the community argue in good faith from shared evidence to
shared conclusions. Anyone can be part of this community as long as they
can master a relevant craft. Smolin asserts that participating in such a
community as modeled above teaches citizens to be part of a democracy.
Progress in science, art and
politics shape and are shaped by the prevalent world-view. Our concepts
of society have paralleled our understanding of space and time. From the
hierarchical mindset of Aristotelian age to the time of Sir Isaac Newton,
the concept of the universe had changed substantially. Newton set forth
the ideas that properties were all defined with respect to an eternal absolute
background of space and time. All atoms were equal, and all have properties
independent of relations to the others with an omniscient observer "god"
outside of the universe. John Locke took the new theory in physics and applied
it to liberal political and legal theory. Locke said that rights were defined
against abstract absolute principles. Now the concept of the universe
has shifted again. The universe is nothing but an ever evolving network
of relationships. All properties are about relations between subsystems.
There is no view or observer from outside the universe, only internal
observers with a partial view. This viewpoint is central to general relativity,
quantum theory and now critical legal studies. This means that different
observers have different knowledge, there is no omniscient view, only local
knowledge. Fundamental physics is about networks and their evolution.
As a result the fields of mathematics and logic are becoming more relational.
As the mindset of physics is becoming more relational, there is a corresponding
search for a relational theory of law. Smolin emphasized that it is important
to keep in mind that relationism is not the same thing as relativism. Unlike
relativism, all points of view and all experiences are not equally valid
in a relational context. This attitude is part of a
transition to a relational pluralistic world. Beauty and truth are no
less real for not being anchorable in any eternal, absolute, transcendent
background. In a pluralistic world, where artists and scientists are members
of ethical and imaginative communities, there can be progress in art, science
and society. Truth and beauty exist, but they are fragile, even open to
challenge, to surprise and novelty. It is our job to discover them and
protect them. Ultimately the story of science, like those of art and politics is a human story. |
|
Also visit: Campaign Western - Foundation Western Please send your questions or comments on "Science Flashpoint" to: iwona@uwo.ca Please forward
this copy of "Science Flashpoint" to another UWO grad you know and
tell them that in order to receive their own copy of "Science Flashpoint"
they must register with Western's @lumni Community.
We're also online at The Science
Flashpoint |
Scientific communities
are also imaginative communities so that they make room for surprises
and new ideas. As anyone can be part of the process, the community is
pluralistic. Even more so now as the numbers of "Global Souls" increase,
(a term invented by the writer Pico Iyer referring to people who were
educated or are working in a country different from that of their birth
and who have a spouse from yet another different country). An exponentially
increasing number of people in science, art, entertainment are made up
of these global souls. As a result, these people are increasingly influential
in terms of ideas in sciences and the arts. However, there is a corresponding
detachment from local politics. Smolin then considered the option of whether
the scientific community can be a pluralistic model of democracy appropriate
to a community of global souls. 