Reflections, Ideas, and Dreams

(A) Karl Popper argues that all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is negative. That is, we never know anything to be true, and the aggregation of knowledge proceeds through falsification.

(B) The study of the physical world through science, then, is an endless quest. Science will never reach a conclusion because positive knowledge is unattainable, and though theories may provide better explanations of observed phenomenon they will never be comprehensive across all domains.

(C) In a tautological worldview, an endless quest for knowledge is unnecessary. Tautologies can expand and be revised when new observations disrupt the former order, but in a steady state a tautology need not challenge itself. A comprehensive mythological interpretation of the physical world, for example, can posit satisfactory explanations for all facets of daily life and requires little to no regular modification of the framework.

If a tautological framework is simpler and more satisfying than the endless quest of empirical knowledge through falsification, then why do science at all?

(D) If we consider a dichotomy between “pure science” (gaining knowledge for its own sake) and “technology” (application of knowledge to solve a problem), then it is the latter that is typically used in justification of scientific research–especially in today’s funding environment. From (B), the pursuit of pure science is an endless quest (an asymptotic search for truth at best). A worldview based entirely
upon pure science will always be less complete than a tautological worldview because the theories of pure science are always conjectural. The justification of science as “knowledge for its own sake”, then, is perhaps no more than a quixotic delusion.

(E) The success or value of a scientific theory often seems related to its consequences. Part of the success of Newtonian mechanics was its wide reaching explanatory powers and technological applications. On the other hand, a brilliant theory that arrives fifty years too soon may lay forgotten in wait until the idea eventually becomes pragmatic. Science, it seems, is fundamentally consequentialist.

(F) If science is consequentialist, then it is primarily technologically driven. Pure science, or the quest for knowledge, is not the driving force of science but instead is a tool for technological development. The quest for knowledge, too, is directed by the consequences: not all knowledge is considered equally valuable, and knowledge that produces results will direct future lines of investigation.

If science is technological consequentialism, then is there any reason to be a “pure scientist”, aside from love of the endless quest?

I had this dream back in late October of 2004:

In the University of Minnesota astronomy TA office, I find a cool looking hat. I put it on and leave the office for band practice at my church—which is actually my old church of 4 years ago and led by a pastor who left 5 years ago.

Halfway into the first song, I catch myself falling behind tempo and having a hard time concentrating. No problem, I just put some extra mental energy into it. The problem persists, though, and I start feeling a bit drowsy and lightheaded. One of my drumsticks falls out of my hand as my vision fades slightly. I manage to finish the song single-handed before falling off the drum throne and passing out on the floor. Eventually I return to the TA office where a graduate student informs me that the hat is a “tequila mist hat”, which surrounds the wearer with a fine mist of tequila, causing a slow and steady intoxication.

Shortly after I dreamt this, a good friend volunteered his interpretation:

I thought maybe it was a comparison of your astronomy hat to your drumming hat where you felt like you were inadequate at something in astronomy. However, now I’d suggest that another possibility is that maybe you’re feeling a little conflict between your musical self and your scientist self.

I wasn’t too sold on his analysis back in 2004, but now I think there’s some truth to it. I’ll never give up science or music, and I’m doing my best scheming to simultaneously pursue both professionally.

I’ve learned something from software development and travel.

The world is simply too big and too diverse for any kind of global management.

There is no one software architecture to solve all problems.

There is no one political model to solve all problems.

There are only best practices.

From Brent at $ man blog

If religious knowledge, like any other form of knowledge, develops through a process of falsification, then an immutable religious tradition is unattainable. Cultural continuity, on the other hand, allows a given religion to develop with time–and even acknowledge past mistakes–without forsaking the tradition at hand.

To put it bluntly, classical Christianity is itself now our Old Testament… We have to use traditional Christianity in the same way as Christianity itself has always used the Old Testament. In both cases there is a great gulf but there is also continuity of spirit and religious values… When a Christian sings a psalm he knows there is a religion-gap and a culture-gap, but it does not worry him because he believes his faith to be the legitimate successor of the faith of the psalmist. Similarly, since the Enlightenment there has developed a religion-gap and a culture-gap between us and traditional Christianity, but we may still be justified in using the old words if we can plausibly argue that our present faith and spiritual values are the legitimate heirs of the old.

–Don Cupitt, Taking Leave of God (HT: Exploring Our Matrix)

Present-day fundamentalist theology makes a position of cultural continuity nearly impossible, though strangely enough almost no fundamentalist position (perhaps none at all) has remained constant with time.

This past Wednesday Col Maybury, host of the Australian radio show The Starlight Zone, interviewed Shawn and I about covering the far side of the Moon with mirrors as a remotely detectable technosignature.

Listen to the complete (~5 minute) interview at the Starlight Zone

This idea got far more press than either of us had anticipated, so we tried to use our air time to do some damage control and clarify the idea beyond the scope of a brief news write-up. We are currently in the process of drafting the manuscript for submission.

This work is unfunded: We came up with this idea following the Pale Blue Dot III meeting as a solution to particular problems with the SETI approach to finding intelligence; however, we are not funded to develop this idea nor do we have any intentions of proposing construction of mirrors on the Moon to any funding agency. (Our global society can’t even agree upon a consistent program to address climate change issues–I seriously doubt our ability to maintain a long-term signaling project.)

Our signal is omnidirectional: A targeted broadcast such as a radio signal or laser pulse is limited because of its directionality. Our scheme, though, covers the far side of the Moon with mirrors on pivots (with dark solar panels on the opposite side) so that the albedo of the Moon can be effectively changed from 0 to 1, resulting in a 20% change in luminosity for the Earth-Moon system. This change in luminosity will be observable from almost any direction at any time and will not require a targeted broadcast.

Our signal is broadband: Because the light reflected from the Moon’s mirrors comes from the Sun, the detected change in luminosity will span a large section of the electromagnetic spectrum (depending on the particular mirrors used). This further increases our chance of success because we make fewer assumptions about the preferred observational/communicative frequency of extraterrestrials (whereas conventional SETI presumes radio beacons or other narrow-band broadcasts).

This beacon requires current and near-future technology: The mirror/solar panel pivots can be constructed with current technology. Furthermore, we are detecting new extrasolar planets every day. In 2009, Kepler will launch in search of terrestrial planets around other stars, and in the next 10-20 years the Terrestrial Planet Finder will be able to observe these planets and take spectra of their atmospheres. In other words, within the century it will be within our technological grasp not only to build such a signal but also to detect a similar signal around a distant world.

ET’s may use a similar technique: Even if we never construct a technosignature using the Moon, it is conceivable that a technological extraterrestrial society may signal their presence using a similar method. If the Terrestrial Planet Finder were to detect an Earth-sized planet around another star blinking in the prime numbers, we would at least have a hypothesis to explain this seemingly deliberate signal.

NewScientist wrote a short article on an idea Shawn and I have been discussing:

Mounting mirrors on the Moon and using them to signal across space could let ET know we Earthlings are here.

Ever since radio broadcasts began we’ve been trumpeting our presence to nearby parts of the galaxy, so far without reply. To improve the chances of being found, Shawn Domagal-Goldman and Jacob Haqq-Misra of Pennsylvania State University in State College reckon we should cover half of the Moon with mirrors.

Read the full article at NewScientistSpace.

Risk makes us feel alive.

Last day of AbSciCon tomorrow. The conference has been useful and thought provoking, though I have almost reached my saturation level for absorbing new information from fifteen minute talks. I present my talk on the climate of the Archean Earth (2.8 billion years ago) tomorrow morning. I also didn’t realize this until I arrived here, but apparently I have my name on four abstracts at the conference!

A Revised, Hazy Methane Greenhouse for the Archean Earth, J. Haqq-Misra, S. Domagal-Goldman, P. Kasting, J. Kasting

Synthesizing Archean Models and Data: A Self-Consistent Evolutionary History, S. Domagal-Goldman, J. Kasting, J. Haqq-Misra

Sustainability and the Fermi Paradox, J. Haqq-Misra

TPF-SETI, S. Domagal-Goldman, J. Haqq-Misra

Compared to the other conferences I’ve attended, it’s quite rewarding to feel like I’ve contributed something to the astrobiology community. More on the conference when I get back this weekend!

…sez Tower of Power!

Seth came to visit last week, Frank Warren gave a talk on Monday, I trekked down to Harrisburg last night for the Average White Band & ToP show, and I’ve stayed busy this week preparing for the Astrobiology Science Conference in Santa Clara next week. I’ve been away from blogging, but I’m having fun!

I’ve been thinking that before leaving this region of the country I need to take six months off my life and hike the Appalachian Trail, which I could reasonably do ~2-3 years from now, after graduation. Talking with Ryan last week got me interested in a southbound hike:

Southbound thru-hikers start in June or July at Katahdin and finish in Georgia in November or December. A southbound hike will allow you much more solitude, but you will be “breaking in” on the most rugged part of the Trail. A Maine-to-Georgia hike also requires that you traverse long distances between resupply points in the early part of your trek. In many ways it’s a tougher hike than a northbound thru-hike. Fewer than 500 people have reported completion of the A.T. southbound.

Ryan mentioned that a friend who traveled southbound was treated differently by northbound hikers, from shouts of “You’re going the wrong way!” to near animosity at times. I’ll enjoy the near-solitude of southbound travel, but I’m still looking for a traveling companion…