Science Revisited

I see the "scientists" are at it again. Mask mandates, boosters, shots for infants and toddlers. And, of course, the convincing factor provided (and accepted by most people) is "The science is settled." I've written about this before, but I think it might be time to revisit this idea, that "The science is settled." How often have we heard that in the past few decades, more recently in dealing with Covid? "The science is settled." The statement, for a variety of reasons (political, nefarious, economic), has been summarily used to push agendas. It has been successful to discourage challenge and debate, especially when challenges and open discussion are feared. It has succeeded in swaying people who don't really know, but think the scientific community is always right. (You can read "medical community" into that, too.) How easy it has been to disarm (or at least try to disarm) opponents of certain agendas by tossing out, "The science is settled." Who, it has been asserted, but the most ignorant of people would argue with "science?" In recent decades the best example has been "global warming," er, "climate change"--or whatever it's called now. I'm old enough to remember the Newsweek magazine cover in the '70s that proclaimed "A New Ice Age?" Then there was the assurance that, due to acid rain, all of our lakes would soon be destroyed. Of course, now (the past couple of years) it's how we deal with the Corona virus. "The science is settled." It's distressing enough to hear politicians, even Presidents themselves, echo this. But when scientists do likewise, it seems to me they have forgotten a basic principle of what they have studied. No, the science is not settled. It never is. That is the essence of science, that there are unknowns and there is always something new, more to learn. But the phrase, "The science is settled," has been politicized to further agendas, to stifle debate (however compelling that debate may be), dissent, and challenges. It lends a legitimacy, perhaps undeserved, and a sense of credibility to a viewpoint. Worse, it sways and even convinces people who don't know much about an issue, but, well, if the science is settled, that's good enough for them. That the science is never settled is one of the important lessons I learned in my Physics courses at Amherst. I admit to not recognizing that at the time; it took some years before it "clicked," before I could rejoice, "I get it!" Consider..... For centuries, literally hundreds of years, the Western world believed that there were four elements in nature--earth, water, air, and fire (and sometimes something called "ether"). This was not disputed, not by anyone credible. People, even scientists, accepted this because Aristotle (and Empedocles and other Greek scientists) said so. Other cultures, Chinese, Indian/Buddhist among them, had similar beliefs. The science had been settled. No challenges allowed! In 1633, if I recall correctly, the most famous European scientist of the day, Galileo Galilei, was put on trial--with the very real possibility of losing his life and soul (excommunication, the death penalty of the soul). His crime was to challenge the accepted scientific and Church beliefs regarding the geocentric theory of Ptolemy, another of those Greeks. He postulated that the sun, stars, and entire universe moved around a stationary earth. Galileo's observations led him to agree, at least in part, with the heliocentric theory of the Polish scientist Copernicus and other. The earth was not stationary, but in fact revolved around the sun. (Copernicus didn't get it exactly right, but he was headed in the right direction.) Such blasphemy/heresy (What did the Church know about science? How many "heretics" were killed because of the Church's scientific ignorance?) almost cost Galileo his life--and his soul. The science had been settle. No challenges allowed! More than two and a half centuries after Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein said this about the greatest of British scientists. "To Newton, nature was an open book whose letters he could read without effort. Newton stands before us, strong, certain, and alone." Einstein was hardly the only one to recognize this "most genius" of scientists. Alexander Pope, a contemporary of Newton, penned this. "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night. God said, 'Let Newton Be' and all was light." There was only one universe, physicists once said, and Newton had discovered all of its laws--optics, gravity, planetary orbits, wave motion, calculus, and, of course, his three laws of motion. I think Newton would have disagreed with much of this. To him, the entire universe was open for continued scrutiny. 20th Century science has, if not disproved, at least modified many of Newton's theories. These include Einstein's work with relativity and the quantum mechanics of Max Planck and others. But for 250 years, the science was settled. No challenges allowed! The 20th Century astronomer/astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument. My position is mistaken.' And then they would actually change their minds." So, the science isn't really settled. But apparently only scientists, well, some of them who haven't sold out to politicization, sources of funding, and their own arrogance, know that. This is something we should all think about the next time, whether it's climate change, how do deal with the virus, or whatever, we hear, "The science is settled." It's not and it never is.

Augustus

I just finished a novel by John Williams, Augustus. I enjoyed it a lot, but realize it's likely not for everyone. If I didn't learn much new, the book did lead to a great deal of thinking. Can a book, fiction or otherwise, receive any higher a compliment? When we think of Augustus, we think of power, of authority. As the first emperor of Rome (creating the Roman Empire), he had as much power as modern-day dictators (with allowances for technology, military advances, etc.).  He had many titles, Imperator (military conqueror, almost like emperor), Caesar (after his uncle and adoptive father, who was declared a god), Pater Patria (Father of his country), Consul (the highest "elected" office, elected by the Senate), Magisterium (highest judge), and Augustus ("Revered One") and Pontifex Maximus ("Great Bridge Builder") both religious titles. But among them all, his favorite title was Princeps, which implied he was the first citizen of Rome, but nevertheless, a citizen of Rome first and foremost. Despite all of his power, he was quite tolerant.  When a poet wrote a satirical, demeaning, and perhaps even blasphemous poem about Augustus, he not only took no action against the poet, but decreed nobody else was to do that either.  In effect, this poet was being protected by the man he had lampooned.  "I was never hurt by the bark of a dog" it was claimed he once said. In addition, he re-created Roman society, its economic life, so that any Roman citizen, regardless of the station of his birth, could become as wealthy as his efforts  (and accidents of life!) would take him. Forty or more years of Roman civil war, "Romans killing Romans" he lamented, were ended, too, at least for a while. In his last days, Augustus wrote, "It is remarkable to have grown so old that one must depend upon the work of others to search into one's own life."  He was a valetudinarian, no, not the graduate with the highest GPA in his/her class. He was like a hypochondriac on steroids, often thinking he was on his deathbed. How close he actually was might be questioned, but at least six times before he died at the age of 76 he thought he was checking out. He also warned his successors of policies that would, in a little more than a century after his death, lead down the long road to the downfall of Rome.  He was incredibly prescient. The legacy of Augustus isn't merely that he was the first and greatest of all the Roman emperors. It is that he saved Rome, "the world" at the time.  In doing so he also paved the way for (saved?) the Western Civilization to come a millenium and a half later.  Had he not saved Rome, is it likely that the West would have become what it did, the beacon for the rest of the world to emulate (although much of it chooses not to do that)? I know it's not fashionable to pay tribute to old white men, but Augustus is deserving of accolades.

Meeting of Minds

Steve Allen was a Renaissance man of sorts. He composed music (thousands of songs) and was an actor (including starring as Benny Goodman in the biopic of the jazz legend). He hosted pioneering radio and television shows (the original host of the Tonight Show). "And he was the author of 50 or more books (including Ripoff, the first book I ever reviewed for publication). One of his television and book projects was called "Meeting of Minds." It was a brilliant concept, at least to me. The premise was gathering "minds" of the past to discuss the past, present, and future. Each episode was a roundtable discussion, usually centered around dinner. Topics discussed included religion and religious toleration, women's rights, slavery, race, and specific historical events such as the Civil War. He presented personalities from all walks of life, from different time periods, and from the world over. For instance, one "dinner" included US Grant, Marie Antoinette, Karl Marx, and Sir Thomas More. Another "starred" Galileo, Emily Dickinson, Charles Darwin, and Attila the Hun. Actors and actresses, including his wife Jayne Meadows, played the parts, with Allen providing them a great depth of research. My question is this: If you could host a Meeting of Minds, who would you invite? You could have several episodes, so you wouldn't be restricted to four or five personalities. You, like Allen, could plumb the depths of history, all ages/eras, and travel the world. I'm pretty sure regular readers and those who know me recognize Abraham Lincoln would likely be my first invitee. Who would be his fellow first diners? So many from which to choose! Reserving the right to change my mind, I would initially complement him with Augustus, the first and greatest Roman emperor, Theodora, the wife and at least co-ruler of the Byzantines with her husband Justinian in the 6th Century, Mark Twain, and maybe David, of Goliath fame. Leonardo da Vinci would certainly help form a second group, maybe paired with Henry Ford. I might add Karl Marx and Aristotle. Another set might include Isaac Newton, George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Augustine. How interesting to have Genghis Khan for dinner with Emily Dickinsn and Jeanette Rankin, the first woman member of the US Congress who was the only person to vote "NO" to declarations of war for both the First and Second World Wars, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar. Imagine this conversation between Atilla t. Hun and Emily Dickinson: "Attila, would you mind passing the bread?" "But of course Emily. Love your poetry by the way." "Can I call you Atti? Or how about Hunny?" Let me consider one more: Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass, and Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. The possible lists are endless and we could mix and match! If you had your "Meeting of Minds," who would be invited?