Lets take a look at some "giants" of science. See if you recognize these names:
Lord Kelvin - A fine product of Cambridge, a "second wrangler" and you probably know the name from the temperature scale. Yep, did a lot of good stuff but couldn't help himself in passing out this wisdom; "X Rays are a hoax" and he didn't stop there, "Heavier than Air Flying Machines are Impossible."
The New York Times - "A Rocket will Never be able to Leave the Earth's Atmosphere." (modern journalism consulting "experts" haven't improved much)
Darryl Zanuck - "Television won't Last..."
Ken Olson President of DEC in 1977 - "There is no Reason for any Individual to have a Computer in his Home" With leadership like that it is easy to see how DEC went away while other competitors with less resources became enormous successes.
IBM execs to the founders of Xerox - "The World Potential Market for Copy Machines is 5000 at Most." Great financial advice, wouldn't you say? Yeah, IBM has got it wrong MANY times.
There are thousands of such pearls of wisdom spouted by the "experts" of the day. If we have learned anything let it be that the ability to contest the conventional wisdom of the day is how we make progress through the scientific method. When we suppress voices, deny evidence, and promote opinions over reproducible facts we simply stagnate under the weight of hubris, or worse, get lost in a confusing meaningless propaganda that serves an ideology which can't stand on it's own. The so called elite, often live in an echo chamber and like so many before them become convinced that they see further, know more, and are the only visionaries that can steer the boat. LOL, steer it onto the rocks that is. Good ideas, even great ideas come from everywhere. Ivy league and expert status - just like the scientific method - should never be a matter of blind trust. That is ridiculous.
The systems analysis folks think they have the answers, piffle. Good tool, know and admit it's limitations and you'll be a better analyst. With all do respect to the embryonic Limits to Growth work. A great start, but where are the decentralization and regional autonomy equations that examine localization, energy independence based on conservation and sustainable zero growth (not zero carbon by the way)? Perhaps those models exist there were a couple of other reports written that have yet to be published. Lord only knows what models with whatever errors they have, were all about. Models and analysis is great stuff. I have spent a few decades doing analysis and simulation of complex systems. I have never forgot that the real world is orders of magnitude more complicated than what Kelvin, Olson and a whole host of egg heads get funded to talk about. Models can say anything my friends. Real data, equations with explained variables, scrutiny and debate... that's what keeps those who live way high up in the towers from academic, egoistic, asphyxiation. One of my pet peeves is this topic. If you want to dodge the hard edge of truth, do a meta analysis. You can ALWAYS weasel your way out with a Meta Analysis. Right all you experts at the CDC? - Yeah... it's as good as a placebo but we can't rule it out.... gah,, this should drive any scientist bonkers if you care about what you do, publish and say. Then again, these days a lot of "situational ethics" seem to be in play and hey, what about those patent bennies? I gotta retire some day.
"Question everything" - Albert Einstein I might add, especially this stuff.
It's not that hard to think for yourself! Please do so.
AML NLO, JRO and SEO AML
No comments:
Post a Comment