Author Topic: Ideologija Nauke?  (Read 91579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

crippled_avenger

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 20.534
    • http://dobanevinosti.blogspot.com
Ideologija Nauke?
« on: 03-05-2007, 15:58:26 »
"Kako se zaštititi od nauke?"

Pol Fajerabend, filozof nauke

Anarhistički pogled Pola Fajerabenda
otkrio je totalitarizam u naučnom stilu mišljenja

Piše: Jovana Gligorijević


Naučni stil mišljenja je dominantan jer nauka u potpunosti spoznaje konture i tokove funkcionisanja prirode, društva i čoveka. Autoritet nauke u hijerarhiji svih delatnosti ljudskog roda danas je neprikosnoven.

Pa, ipak, treba li joj poklanjati slepo poverenje?

Iz ugla savremenog čoveka bilo bi sumanuto negirati način na koji naučne činjenice opisuju svet. Ali, ovde nije reč o tome, već o posledicama koje strogo naučni pogled na svet ima po vrednosni sistem ljudi. Strogo gledano, najizrazitija karakteristika nauke jeste njen ateistički odnos prema prirodi i čoveku. Na prvi pogled, ništa strašno:
"ako nauka kaže da boga nema, onda ga nema,

 i šta sad" - nastavljamo dalje –

 verujući neka veruju, ostali ne moraju."

Etički problem

Međutim, pogledajmo stvari ovako: nauka je dominantni način mišljenja u savremenoj kulturi, ona u potpunosti “pokriva” sve regione prirode, društva, ljudske delatnosti, tako da bi se moglo reći da je način života u našem dobu strogo-naučni. I upravo tu nas čeka “kvaka 22” u ovoj priči: nauka, iako modus vivendi savremenog čoveka, ne poseduje nikakav etički karakter.

Austrijski filozof nauke Pol Fajerabend (1924-1994), prvi je uočio ovaj problem, pa je najveći deo svog rada posvetio demistifikaciji autoriteta moderne nauke. Fajerabend  ne gleda na nauku kao na vrhunac ljudske delatnosti, ona za njega nema nikakav povlašćen položaj, već je samo još jedna u nizu, ravnopravna sa svim ostalim.  

“Želim da odbranim društvo i njegove pripadnike od svih ideologija, uključujući i nauku. Sve ideologije moraju se posmatrati u perspektivi. One ne smeju biti uzete suviše ozbiljno. Treba ih shvatiti kao bajke koje imaju da kažu mnogo interesantnih stvari, ali koje u sebi takođe sadrže i gnusne laži, ili kao etičke propise koji mogu biti korisna praktična pravila, ali su kobni kada se slede doslovno” - rekao je Fajerabend u svom predavanju pod nazivom “Kako zaštititi društvo od nauke”.


Šovinizam nauka

U knjizi “Protiv metode”, Fajerabend kaže da u periodu od XVII do početka XX veka, šovinizam nauka nije postojao.

Nauka nije bila totalitarna,
jer se država još uvek nije snažno opredelila za nju.

Pravi značaj nauka tada se ogledao u praksi: imale su snagu oslobađanja i istinskog napretka, a u isto vreme, ograničavale su uticaj drugih ideologija – naučnici su u to vreme bili borci za istinu i slobodu. Međutim, po Fajerabendovom mišljenju, sa naukom se dogodilo ono što se inače često sa ideologijama događa: izopačila se u sopstvenu suprotnost – totalitarizam.

Razvoj nauke u XIX i XX veku, a naročito posle Drugog svetskog rata, po Fajerabendu pokazuje da trijumf određenih ideja i institucija istovremeno znači i njihov kraj, upravo zbog toga što su u pitanju ideologije, to jest, totalitarne institucije. Nauka poprima karakter sistema, odnosno, totalitarnog procesa i postaje sluga tiranske religije ovih ili onih interesa, totalitarnih merila. Konačna posledica jeste da nauka postaje rigidna koliko i one ideologije protiv kojih se borila:

izuzeta je od spoljne kritike,  
a sud naučnika prima se sa slepim poverenjem,  
baš kao što je to nekada bio slučaj sa sudom kardinala ili biskupa.  

Ono što je kompatibilno sa naukom, treba da živi, ono što nije, treba da umre, konstatuje Fajerabend. Predstavnici moderne nauke nesposobni su da kritički misle o sebi. Ovakvu situaciju Fajerabend naziva samoubilačkom narcisoidnošću – najveća moguća sreća svedena je samo na napredak, a napredak je moguće zamisliti bez ikakvog smisla i humaniteta.


Monstrum istine


U predavanju “Kako zaštititi društvo od nauke” Fajerabend se pita da li je ovaj opis pomalo nepravedan prema nauci i nije li on sam predstavio stvar u iskrivljenom svetlu, prećutavši da nauka, iako je postala kruta i prestala da bude instrument promene i oslobađanja, ipak – otkriva istinu.

"Kad se ovo ima u vidu - kaže Fajerabend -
  mogli bismo zaključiti da krutost nauke nije rezultat ljudskog htenja,
  već da leži u prirodi  stvari:
  kad jednom otkrijemo istinu,
  šta nam drugo preostaje osim da je sledimo?" ,

Međutim, Fajerabend nam ubrzo otkriva da stvari uopšte ne stoje tako. Gornji odgovor upotrebljava se uvek kad jedna ideologija želi da pojača veru svojih sledbenkika:

“’Istina’ je tako divno neutralna reč.
  Niko to neće poricati - a ipak niko ne zna šta takav stav znači.  
  Lako je na taj način izvrnuti celu stvar  i preokrenuti -  
  odanost istini u svakodnevnom životu,  
  u odanost Istini te ideologije”,  

kaže Fajerabend i nastavlja: “Naravno, nije tačno da moramo slediti istinu. Mnoge ideje su vodiči ljudskog života. Istina je jedna od njih. Sloboda i duhovna nezavisnost su druge. Ako se istina, kako je neki ideolozi shvataju, sukobljava sa slobodom tada smo u situaciji izbora. Možemo da odbacimo slobodu. Ali možemo da odbacimo i istinu.” U ovom citatu krije se ključna tačka Fajerabendove kritike moderne nauke: ona sputava slobodu mišljenja. A ako nauka sputava slobodu zato što je otkrila istinu, Fajerabendov odgovor glasi: “Postoje bolje stvari nego pronaći i slediti takvog monstruma.”


Dole rezultati!  

“Nauka može da vrši uticaj na društvo,  
 ali samo u onoj meri u kojoj je to dozvoljeno bilo kojoj političkoj
 ili nekoj drugoj grupi za vršenje pritiska na javnost”,

Pol Fajerabend (1924-1994)


Pristalice povlašćenog položaja nauke mogle bi pokušati da se odbrane tvrdnjom da nauka zaslužuje takav položaj zahvaljujući tome što daje rezultate. Međutim, Fajerabend pobija i ovaj argument, tvrdeći da on stoji jedino ako se može uzeti kao činjenica da ništa drugo nikada ne proizvodi rezultate.

Doduše, Fajerabend priznaje da su oblici života različiti od nauke nestali ili su potpuno degenerisani, što onemogućava komparaciju. Ali, po njemu, situacija nije toliko beznadežna:

“Upoznali smo metode medicinske dijagnostike i terapije koji su efikasni (a možda čak i efikasniji nego odgovarajući delovi zapadne medicine) i koji su još uvek zasnovani na ideologiji koja je radikalno različita od ideologije zapadne nauke. Saznali smo da postoje pojave kao što je telepatija i telekineza, koje je naučni pristup jednostavno izbrisao a koje bi mogle biti upotrebljene za istraživanja na jedan potpuno nov način. (…) Takođe, istina je da pojave kao što su telekineza i akupunktura mogu biti na kraju apsorbovane u korpus nauke i na taj način nazvane ‘naučnim’. Ali zapazite da se ovo dešava jedino posle dugog perioda otpora za vreme koga nauka, ne sadržeći još ove fenomene, pokušava da uspostavi kontrolu nad onim oblicima života koji ih sadrže”.

Činjenica da nauka ima rezultate računa se u njenu korist samo ako su ovi rezultati postignuti od same nauke, bez ikakve pomoći sa strane. Međutim, Fajerabend smatra da nauka jedva da ikada postiže rezultate na ovaj način i navodi niz primera koji potkrepljuju ovu tezu:

kada je Kopernik uveo novi pogled na univerzum,  
nije konsultovao naučne prethodnike već -
“jednog ludog pitagorejca” kakav je bio Filolaj,  
mehanika i optika mnogo duguju zanatlijama,  
medicina babicama i vešticama

Fajerabend navodi i jedan savremeniji primer: kada su kineski komunisti vratili na univerzitete i u bolnice tradicionalnu kinesku medicinu, po njegovom mišljenju, rezultati su premašili dostignuća zapadne medicine.  

Po Fajerabendu, ne postoji ni jedan jedini argument koji bi mogao da bude upotrebljen u prilog ove izuzetne uloge koju nauka danas igra u društvu. Nauka je učinila mnogo stvari, ali to su učinile i druge ideologije.

Nauka je samo jedna od mnogih ideologija
koje pokreću društvo,  
i treba da bude tretirana kao takva.


Naučni anarhizam


Najvažnija konsekvenca Fajerabendovog razmatranja jeste to da je neophodno formalno odvajanje države i nauke, baš u smislu u kome sada postoji formalna podvojenost države i crkve. “Nauka može da vrši uticaj na društvo, ali samo u onoj meri u kojoj je to dozvoljeno bilo kojoj političkoj ili nekoj drugoj grupi za vršenje pritiska na javnost”, kaže on. Naučnici mogu biti konsultovani u vezi sa važnim projektima, ali krajnji sud mora biti ostavljen demokratski izabranim savetodavnim telima koja se sastoje od laika.

Na logično pitanje da li će laici biti sposobni da dođu do ispravnog suda, Fajerabend odgovara da je to sasvim izvesno, jer su kompetencija, komplikovanost i uspeh nauke mnogo preuveličani. Reč je o disciplini koju može da ispituje i kritikuje bilo ko od zainteresovanih. Ona izgleda teška i duboka samo zbog sistematske kampanje zamagljivanja koju vode naučnici.

Fajerabend smatra da je nauka u suštini anarhistički poduhvat.

Anarhizam možda nije najsrećnija pozicija u smislu političke filozofije nije najatraktivniji, ali se pokazuje kao najbolji lek za epistemologiju i za filozofiju nauke.

Epistemološki anarhizam razlikuje se
i od skepticizma i od političkog (religijskog) anarhizma,  
jer isključuje nasilje,  pa je zato najbliži dadaizmu.


Epistemološki anarhista se ne usteže da brani
ni najtrivijalnije, ni najneumerenije iskaze.


To je očigledno i kod samog Fajerabenda koji se ne ustručava da napiše: “Tri puta ‘ura’ za kalifornijske fundamentaliste koji su uspeli u tome da se dogmatska formulacija teorije evolucije ukloni iz udžbenika i da se prikaz Postanja uvrsti u njih.”

Naravno, Fajerabend naglašava da je svestan da bi oni postali isto tako šovinistički i totalitaristički nastrojeni kao što su naučnici danas, samo kada bi im bila data šansa da sami upravljaju društvom:

“Ideologije su čudesne -
 kada se upotrebljavaju zajedno sa drugim ideologijama.

 One postaju dosadne i doktrinarne
 čim njihove zasluge dovedu do uklanjanja njihovih oponenata.”


Slepa vera u demokratiju


Pozicija nauke među svim oblastima humanističke delatnosti postala je centralna tokom XX veka. U tim i takvim okolnostima, potpuno smo okrenuti zemaljskim, materijalnim stvarima, verujući da će upravo nauka u najvećoj meri doprineti poboljšanju kvaliteta ljudskog života.

Suština Fajerabendove filozofije jeste da nauku treba podvrći demokratskoj kontroli i  humanizovati je, to jest učiniti je ljudskom, dostojnom čoveka, a to određuju svi građani u slobodnom društvu  u demokratiji, a ne samo eksperti.

Stručnjake plaćaju građani
i zato građani treba da imaju nad njima kontrolu,  
kao i nad drugima koji su u službi javnosti .

Međutim, Fajerabendovi kritičari uočili su u ovim razmatranjima jednu ozbiljnu manu – pojednostavljivanje: s jedne strane stoji bauk nauke, u kojoj Fajerabend vidi samo ono što je prinudno i restriktivno, a s druge, on suviše idealizuje demokratiju, posmatrajući je kao utopiju i idealno rešenje za sev probleme proistekla iz dominacije nauke.

Priznajući da on s pravom nema poverenja u nauku,  
Fajerabendovi kritičari pitaju se -

"da li s pravom poklanja puno poverenje demokratiji?"
Nema potrebe da zalis me, mene je vec sram
Nema potrebe da hvalis me, dobro ja to znam

S.

  • 3
  • Posts: 599
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #1 on: 03-05-2007, 22:09:00 »
Ermmm... ovo je - sta? Pokazna vezba sta se sve pod kapom nebeskom moze i misliti i pisati? Lepo.

Nauka nije ideologija. Tacka. I dalje me mrzelo da citam, pregledala sam na preskok. Pa mi zapalo za oko ono oko "demokratske kontrole", te da nije "humanizovana", da je "nedostojna coveka", "neljudska". Mislim, da, naukom se bave Marsovci, a ne ljudi? I jos me zanima kako bi gradjani da  "kontrolisu nauku" kad se u gro ljudi bori i rukama i nogama protiv bilo kakvog naucnog saznanja?

A i ono o otsustvu etike me bas dirnulo, onako duboko i ljudski. Eh.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.898
    • IP Tardis
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #2 on: 04-05-2007, 00:58:08 »
ma dalo bi se ljucki isvađati samo o validnosti prve dve rečenice ovog tekstića:

Quote
Naučni stil mišljenja je dominantan jer nauka u potpunosti spoznaje konture i tokove funkcionisanja prirode, društva i čoveka. Autoritet nauke u hijerarhiji svih delatnosti ljudskog roda danas je neprikosnoven.
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

S.

  • 3
  • Posts: 599
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #3 on: 04-05-2007, 12:16:21 »
:mrgreen: da se videti da si jos svez urednik ili pomocnik urednika neke pisane reci, "stil je dominantan u potpunosti svih delatnosti neprikosnovenih", da vidis da moze i recenica da se sastavi, oko sokolovo! :lol:

Blagodeti edit-a... Zanimljivo procitati o coveku samom  izmedju ostalog i:
"2.3 The War (1939-1945)

As far as his army record goes, Feyerabend claims in his autobiography that his mind is a blank. But in fact this is one of the periods he tells us most about. Having passed his final high school exams in March 1942, he was drafted into the Arbeitsdienst (the work service introduced by the Nazis), and sent for basic training in Pirmasens, Germany. Feyerabend opted to stay in Germany to keep out of the way of the fighting, but subsequently asked to be sent to where the fighting was, having become bored with cleaning the barracks! He even considered joining the SS, for aesthetic reasons. His unit was then posted Quelerne en Bas, near Brest, in Brittany. Still, the events of the war did not register. In November 1942, he returned home to Vienna, but left before Christmas to join the Wehrmacht's Pioneer Corps.

Their training took place in Krems, near Vienna. Feyerabend soon volunteered for officers' school, not because of an urge for leadership, but out of a wish to survive, his intention being to use officers' school as a way to avoid front-line fighting. The trainees were sent to Yugoslavia. In Vukovar, during July 1943, he learnt of his mother's suicide, but was absolutely unmoved, and obviously shocked his fellow officers by displaying no feeling. In December that same year, Feyerabend's unit was sent into battle on the northern part of the Russian front, but although they blew up buildings, they never encountered any Russian soldiers. ..."

lilit

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 11.014
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #4 on: 04-05-2007, 13:51:08 »
heheh.
draga zlockava S.
samo da ti kazem da mi tvoji komentari ulepsaju dan :lol:.
ja se vec dva dana lupkam po prsticima posto nisam sigurna da bih bila tako odmerena i fina prema autoru clanka.
no, kad si vec pomenula Krems, evo table sa ulaska u grad (isla ja pre nekoliko nedelja da vidim izlozbu Carla Barksa :) ):

proslavljali ljudi 50 godina od kraja saveznicke okupacije.
nije da ih ne razumem. :wink:

edit: typo + smajli
That’s how it is with people. Nobody cares how it works as long as it works.

varvarin

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.763
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #5 on: 04-05-2007, 14:01:28 »
"...Suština Fajerabendove filozofije jeste da nauku treba podvrći demokratskoj kontroli i humanizovati je, to jest učiniti je ljudskom, dostojnom čoveka, a to određuju svi građani u slobodnom društvu u demokratiji, a ne samo eksperti. (!!)
Stručnjake plaćaju građani i zato građani treba da imaju nad njima kontrolu, kao i nad drugima koji su u službi javnosti ."

S, bila si suviše obzirna.
Ne, nauka nikako nije ideologija. (Ja bih to drugim rečima, ali neću sada, jer sam već na lošem glasu, na ovom forumu...)
Možda je  Austrijanac samo zanimljivi ekscentrik. A možda je ova knjiga (ili šta je već), još jedan pokušaj u sistematskom srozavanju nekih opštih mesta u današnjoj nauci (poput relativizovanja Darvina u korist kreacionizma), izjednačavanju subjektivnih i objektivnih istina... što u krajnjoj liniji vodi povratku dobrog, starog Boga. Ukratko, duhovna kontrarevolucija (primer - Poljska, a ima još .)
Primer sa tradicionalnom kineskom medicinom nije dobar - ona je TAKOĐE nauka, starija od evropske medicine, i postiže rezultate. A to je valjda merilo.
Telekinezu, tako dragu autoru, još nisu dokazali, ali on je uzima kao primer da napada nauku... Ukratko, ta nauka je sumnjiva - i NEMORALNA. A ako je istina bolna - ignorišimo istinu.
Ovde mi pada na pamet prepiska između Ajnštajna i Bora, u vezi kvantne teorije koja se Ajnštajnu nikako nije dopadala, pa je pisao: "Ne verujem da se Bog kocka Vasionom!" Na šta je Bor odgovorio: "Prestani da propisuješ Bogu šta će da radi!"
Ili, kako ja shvatam - kad siđete dovoljno duboko u česticu, ima mesta i za Boga, ako vam je do njega. Ali, čak ni ON ne poništava kvantni efekat, ni Hajzenbergov princip neodređenosti.
To postoji. A vi se odredite prema njima.

Alexdelarge

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.312
  • Enfant terrible
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #6 on: 04-05-2007, 15:24:31 »
Interesantno razmisljanje...mene sumanute ideje uvek privuku(a posle se cudim sto me ljudi posmatraju kao cudaka).Ima li kod nas knjige od ovog autora da se kupe?
moj se postupak čitanja sastoji u visokoobdarenom prelistavanju.

srpski film je remek-delo koje treba da dobije sve prve nagrade.

S.

  • 3
  • Posts: 599
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #7 on: 04-05-2007, 18:15:09 »
@lilit_depp :shock: jel' tamo lokalni SPO na vlasti? I molim te da se ne lupas po prstima, pisi, bre, na opstu radost i veselje :lol:

Isto vazi i za varvarina, mislim, dosta tog povlacenja varvara, dokle bre? A?!

Ako dobro citam onu biografiju glavno, ako vec ne i jedino delo "Against method" je iz 1975 i da je pre svega i iznad svega o Zapadnom drustvu.  Vrlo mi je tesko da branim neke po meni smislene stavove koje je tu i tamo iznosio, posle ovoga: "...his conclusion that “objectively” there may be nothing to choose between the claims of science and those of astrology, voodoo, and alternative medicine,..." :(

A mene i dalje zanima sta cripple kaze, zarad cega ovo copy-paste bez komentara?

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 11.979
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #8 on: 04-05-2007, 18:52:24 »
Naukom ne dolazimo do zaključka da nema Boga, nego da nema potrebe za Bogom, tj. nema potrebe da uvodimo pretpostavku da Bog postoji da bismo objasnili neki fenomen. Možda postoji čisto ljudska potreba za Bogom, ali to nije naučni problem (možda eventualno tema za psihologe). Taj naučni nedostatak potrebe za Bogom se potvrdio toliko puta da sada automatski isključujemo Boga kad se sretnemo s nečim trenutno neobjašnjivim. Krajnji zaključak je da ako se Bog toliko potrudio da nestane iz našeg sistema verovanja onda to treba i poštovati, i ne uzimati Njegovo ime uzalud :)

Naukom može da se dođe do zaključka da akupunktura daje bolje rezultate od klasične medicine tako što bi se dva metoda uporedila u eksperimentu. Ono što je bitnije je mehanizam akupunkture, a nauka nema odgovor na to. Dokle god ne znamo mehanizam nećemo moći ni da u potpunosti interpretiramo rezultate hipotetičkog eksperimenta. Šta ako akupunktura zapravo ima neku manu koja trenutno ne može da se uoči?

Spominjanje telepatije i telekineze su smešni. Gde su te telepate i "telekinezi"? Ja ih slabo nešto viđam po gradu. Zapravo, sve provere postojanja takvih fenomena, koje bi vodio neko specijalizovan za otkrivanje prevara, na kraju pokažu da je u pitanju i bila jel'te prevara.

Problem nauke nije u samoj nauci nego u naučnicima, koji su samo ljudi, tj. nikad savršeno objektivni, i često pomalo sujetni. Stvar je u tome što su ljudi u svim poljima i ideologijama takvi, tako da nauka nije neki izuzetak. I kao što za demokratiju važi da je najbolji politički sistem jer boljeg nemamo, tako je i nauka najbolja "ideologija" (ili šta već), jer bolje nema.

Paramecijum

  • 2
  • Posts: 86
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #9 on: 06-05-2007, 12:35:13 »
Pitanje Boga nije da li ga ima ili nema, pa je tako naučnim metodama nemoguće dokazati da ga nema; pitanje Boga je pitanje vere... ili veruješ ili ne veruješ. A njega svakako nema niti se može dokazati da ga nema. To je paradoks na kome religija opstaje milenijumima.

Demo(n)lisher

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 555
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #10 on: 07-05-2007, 18:51:17 »
Quote from: "Paramecijum"
Pitanje Boga nije da li ga ima ili nema, pa je tako naučnim metodama nemoguće dokazati da ga nema; pitanje Boga je pitanje vere... ili veruješ ili ne veruješ. A njega svakako nema niti se može dokazati da ga nema. To je paradoks na kome religija opstaje milenijumima.

Tacno. Ja smatram da je Isus bio odlican psihijatar. On je odlicno razumeo covekovu svest, sposobnost rasudjivanja i razuma i zbog toga je nametnuo cuveno religijsko pitanje : Da li postoji onaj svet? Da li cu ici u pakao ako celog zivota budem bio gresnik? Bolje da budem fini prema ljudima, jer se dobro vraca istom merom, kao i zlo. U ovaj milenijum smo zakoracili sa totalnom bezbostinom, anarhijom zahvaljujuci mnogim zanimljivim teorijama i praksom.
I`m a self - improved evil baby.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.191
    • The Cult of Ghoul
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #11 on: 07-05-2007, 19:03:41 »
Quote from: "Jimmy Conway"
U ovaj milenijum smo zakoracili sa totalnom bezbostinom, anarhijom zahvaljujuci mnogim zanimljivim teorijama i praksom.


TAKO JE!

FALI NAM RED, RAD I DISCIPLINA!

ZA KRALJA I OTADŽBINU!

DUH SVETOSAVLJA!

PROVERENE VREDNOSTI!

TRADICIJA!

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #12 on: 08-05-2007, 09:32:06 »
Fale nam malo i padeži...

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.191
    • The Cult of Ghoul
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #13 on: 08-05-2007, 10:21:31 »
ja ovde vrlo svesno ideju 'RED, RAD I DISCIPLINA' tretiram kao jedan entitet (ako si na to mislio)

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #14 on: 08-05-2007, 10:25:23 »
Naravno da nisam, pobogu. Mislio sam na

Quote
zahvaljujuci mnogim zanimljivim teorijama i praksom.

Tex Murphy

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 16.832
    • Radioaktivna aleja
Hm...
« Reply #15 on: 08-05-2007, 12:35:16 »
Zavisi od konteksta. Ako dio rečenice stavimo u zagradu

Quote
(zahvaljujuci mnogim zanimljivim teorijama) i praksom.


ondak nema greške.

Merlin of Britain

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 113
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #16 on: 17-05-2007, 13:27:08 »
Quote from: "Paramecijum"
Pitanje Boga nije da li ga ima ili nema, pa je tako naučnim metodama nemoguće dokazati da ga nema; pitanje Boga je pitanje vere... ili veruješ ili ne veruješ. A njega svakako nema niti se može dokazati da ga nema. To je paradoks na kome religija opstaje milenijumima.


pazi, nauka (osim u socijalistickim zemljama) uglavnom ne osporava postojanje Boga. Cak sta vise, potreban joj je Veliki Arhitekta ili Prvi Pokretac. Ono sto se osporava je jedna od milion (ili sve) antropomorfnih predstava Boga koje su posledica usmenog i pismenog prenosenja ljudske spoznaje (i neznanja) o svetu putem gluvih generacijskih telefona tokom mnogo hiljada godina istorije.

Demo(n)lisher

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 555
Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #17 on: 18-05-2007, 18:33:37 »
Quote from: "Merlin of Britain"
Quote from: "Paramecijum"
Pitanje Boga nije da li ga ima ili nema, pa je tako naučnim metodama nemoguće dokazati da ga nema; pitanje Boga je pitanje vere... ili veruješ ili ne veruješ. A njega svakako nema niti se može dokazati da ga nema. To je paradoks na kome religija opstaje milenijumima.


pazi, nauka (osim u socijalistickim zemljama) uglavnom ne osporava postojanje Boga. Cak sta vise, potreban joj je Veliki Arhitekta ili Prvi Pokretac. Ono sto se osporava je jedna od milion (ili sve) antropomorfnih predstava Boga koje su posledica usmenog i pismenog prenosenja ljudske spoznaje (i neznanja) o svetu putem gluvih generacijskih telefona tokom mnogo hiljada godina istorije.

Hm to je kao u knjizi o Nikoletini Bursacu, kad mladi (partizanski) delija objasnjava svojim bliznjima da Bog vise ne postoji, zbog jednog jednostavnog razloga : "Komandir je rekao da Svemoguceg vise nema".
I`m a self - improved evil baby.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #18 on: 29-08-2010, 17:25:40 »
Nauka jeste ideologija.

Samim tim što upravlja našim životom ona je ideologija.

npr pronađu pacijentu da ima srčanu aritmiju zbog koje može da umre u sljedećih 5 godina ako ne pije neke tablete.

Ako se zapitaš zašto bi pio te tablete oni će da te pogledaju kao budalu.

Ti nemaš slobodu da izabereš da ne piješ te tablete.

Reći će ti da je svaki život SVET, ali naučno neće moći dokazati da ti moraš da popiješ te tablete.

Upravo tu je nauka ideologija, čak i religija.

Ona može pronaći srčanu manu ( ustvari to je samo u nauci mana, a u stvarnosti je meso kao i ostatak tijela) ali sama priča da ti moraš da ispraviš tu manu je ideološka.

To ne znači da treba odbaciti nauku, ali je ni ne tretirati kao svetu kravu.

Je li ono Amenabar snimio film o čovjeku koji je propagirao pravo da se ubiješ?
Paradoksalno, nenormalno, ludo, ali slobodno.
S druge strane može biti razumno, naučno, istinito, ali totalitarno i zarobljavajuće.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.234
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #19 on: 30-08-2010, 14:04:04 »
To sto ce ti reci da 'moras' da pobijes tabletu odnosno 'ispravis' manu nema ama bas nikakve veze s naukom.

To jeste ideologija. Nauka, onako kako sam ja mislio do pre pet minuta da je na planeti Zemlji shvataju, kao sto rekoh, nema ama bas nikakve veze s tim.

Za to o cemu ti pricas, sto svakako postoji, ce ti biti potrebna nova rec, bojim se.  :lol:
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Loni

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.743
  • Mejnstrim Paša
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #20 on: 30-08-2010, 14:50:01 »
Istina i nauka ne mogu biti ideologije.

Problem je u tome što čovek nikada ne može saznati apsolutnu istinu i apsolutno spoznati nauku.
A ako spozna nešto i samo 90 % može izvući pogrešan zaključak, koji eventualno može proizvesti i pogrešnu ideologiju.

Vrlo je interesantnao pitanje da li je čovek bez religije bolji ili gori.
Moguće je da postoje ljudi, koji ne otimaju, ne tuku i ne ponižavaju samo zbog straha od boga.
Neko to neće raditi jer oseća empatiju jer ne uživa da drugima u njegovoj okolini bude loše.
Drugi pak nemaju taj osećaj empatije pa će se suzdržati samo zbog straha o boga ili kosmičke pravde, koja će ih jednom stići.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #21 on: 30-08-2010, 15:26:57 »
To sto ce ti reci da 'moras' da pobijes tabletu odnosno 'ispravis' manu nema ama bas nikakve veze s naukom.

To jeste ideologija. Nauka, onako kako sam ja mislio do pre pet minuta da je na planeti Zemlji shvataju, kao sto rekoh, nema ama bas nikakve veze s tim.

itekako ima, jer ona propagira ideal poželjnog (zdravog) tijela.

To nema veze sa tm da li je istina da ova ili ona terapija funkcioniše, pa u tome je i poenta ideologije.

Ona se i predstavlja kao nešto sasvim prirodno i normalno.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #22 on: 30-08-2010, 15:31:35 »
Nemam vremena da nešto ozbiljnije doprinesem, ali nauka je pre svega disciplina, dakle sistematizovano ponašanje. U tom smislu ona se naravno može proglasiti ideologijom i uvek se koreni te ideologije daju trasirati do temeljnih vrednosti koje nauka - iako propituje sve drugo - ne dovodi u pitanje. Logika, na primer je temeljna vrednost većine (svih?) nauka. Kauzalnost takođe itd. Možda nauka onda eksplicitno postaje ideologija ako dovedemo u pitanje te temeljne principe? Ajnštajn je između ostalog bio upamćen po užasnutom kriku kako se Bog valjda ne igra bacajući kockice kada se upoznao sa principima kvantne mehanike. To je prilično ideološka reakcija.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.234
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #23 on: 30-08-2010, 15:58:17 »
itekako ima, jer ona propagira ideal poželjnog (zdravog) tijela.


First time I'm hearing about it.
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 11.979
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #24 on: 30-08-2010, 16:04:30 »
Ajnštajn je između ostalog bio upamćen po užasnutom kriku kako se Bog valjda ne igra bacajući kockice kada se upoznao sa principima kvantne mehanike. To je prilično ideološka reakcija.

Mnogo veći ispad mu je bio kad je uveo kosmološku konstantu da našteluje jednačinu opšte teorije relativiteta da bi održao statički svemir. A onda se saznalo da se svemir širi :-)

A što se tiče Boga i kockica, Ajnštajn nije opovrgavao model kvantne mehanike, nego je smatrao da taj model nije kompletan (u istom smislu u kome se danas recimo smatra da Darvinova teorija evolucije ne objašnjava baš sve u vezi sa evolucijom, niti da je Frojd objasnio sve u vezi sa psihom). S tim u vezi Ajnštajn je sa još dva naučnika formulisao misaoni paradoks (EPR paradoks) koji je trebao da ukaže na nekompletnost modela kvantne mehanike. To im nije uspelo, jer su imali pogrešnu polaznu pretpostavku da svet nije paradoksalan. Eksperimentalno je utvrđeno da jeste :-)

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #25 on: 30-08-2010, 16:10:00 »
Znači sve sam u pravu što sam rekao!!!!

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 11.979
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #26 on: 30-08-2010, 16:33:17 »
Pa da. A moguće je i da nam samo treba drugi fizički model.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #27 on: 30-08-2010, 17:00:57 »
itekako ima, jer ona propagira ideal poželjnog (zdravog) tijela.


First time I'm hearing about it.

ne znam šta ima tu da se čuje, postoje udžbenici ljudske anatomije, i ako imaš tri kosti tamo gdje su dvije ili tri bubrega - ti si sa medicinskog stanovišta anomalija. U udžbeniku tačno piše kako treba da izgleda neki organ.

Isto kao što u političkom programu neke partije piše kakva treba biti fiskalna ili neka druga politika.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.234
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #28 on: 30-08-2010, 17:06:40 »
Ne. Nauka po definiciji ne donosi value judgement. Nauka je ono sto ce ti reci da toliki i toliki procenat ljudi ima dve kosti a toliki tri, na tom i tom mestu.

A ako neko hoce da ima negativan stav oko toga, i pokusa da 'ispravi', to je potpuno druga stvar.

Nauka je u biti dispassionate i disinterested. Ako pocnes da navijas vise nisi naucnik. Onda si neko ko koristi saznanja koja ti je nauka obezbedila u korist svoje ideologije, ma sta ona bila.
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #29 on: 30-08-2010, 17:07:22 »
Albedo, mislim da malo pojednostavljuješ stvari. Anomalija si ali ne u ideološkom smislu. Ovde se radi o funkcijama i nekakvoj efikasnosti u delanju. Mislim da bi mnogo efektniji primer bilo isticanje kako su osobe koje žive sa određenim poremećajima na mentalnom planu isključene iz političkog i socijalnog života jer nauka insistira da nisu sposobni za donošenje samostalnih odluka koje su prihvatljive sa stanovišta zajednice. Tu bi već bilo materijala za potezanje ideologije.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 28.512
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #30 on: 30-08-2010, 17:30:46 »
Нешто гледам овај топик, али веселије је да читам него да пишем. xjestera
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.234
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #31 on: 30-08-2010, 17:31:49 »
Da, ali i tu - nauka je ta koja bi pokusala da utvrdi koliko su sposobni za sta, a politicari ti koji bi odlucili koga iskljucuju iz cega i zasto.

Drustvo u kome ne bi bili iskljuceni ni iz cega ne bi odjednom bilo 'manje naucno' drustvo, zar ne?
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #32 on: 30-08-2010, 17:52:21 »
Albedo, mislim da malo pojednostavljuješ stvari. Anomalija si ali ne u ideološkom smislu. Ovde se radi o funkcijama i nekakvoj efikasnosti u delanju. Mislim da bi mnogo efektniji primer bilo isticanje kako su osobe koje žive sa određenim poremećajima na mentalnom planu isključene iz političkog i socijalnog života jer nauka insistira da nisu sposobni za donošenje samostalnih odluka koje su prihvatljive sa stanovišta zajednice. Tu bi već bilo materijala za potezanje ideologije.

tu bi ideologija bila samo najjasnija i najjača. ALi ne može se za nešto reći da jeste ili nije ideološko već da je manje ili više ideološko (kao što reče Jape, društvo koje uključuje sve nije ništa manje ideološko)

Samostalne odluke su sasvim proste odluke, tipa da li ćeš da jedeš prasetinu ili ne. Zamisli da ti pune glavom pričama o holesterolu ili salmoneli, već ti nije toliko ukusna, zar ne?

Nama su mngoe stvari čudne jer mi još nismo stvarno ''naučno'' društvo.

Npr, negdje sam pročitao da je najzdravije za muškarca da se obreže, kao bolja higijena, uopšte zdravije i tome slično. Ti imaš tu informaciju ali sam odlučuješ šta ćeš sa njom (e moj Meho :)

Ali u Americi je to odavno ''neslobodna'' odluka, naime, skoro 80% je osunećeno, iako je velika većina WASPovaca. Možda samo neki hardcore južnjaci i nacisti još nisu osunećeni.
To kod nas tek treba da dođe u vidu nekog pomodarskog diskursa o zdravom životu i tome slično.

Dakle nama su neke stvari nezamislive ali one se odavno masovno praktikuju u Americi.

nije to samo pitanje nekog čovjeka slona koga treba primiti u društvo





trebali bi pitati Warlocka da li mu je onaj Žikin model osunećen, pošto kažu da je 99% glumaca odavno to uradilo :lol:

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #33 on: 30-08-2010, 18:30:09 »
Jasno je da ja ne jedem prasetinu u okviru svoje ishrane koja ne uključuje nikakvo meso.

No. Ovde je sad pitanje koliko je nauka sama po sebi ideološka a koliko se njeni operativni rezultati instrumentalizuju od strane društva, odnosno donosilaca odluka u društvu. Na primer, nauka već decenijama tvrdi da je duvan štetan po respiratorne organe, plod u trudnoći, potenciju itd., ali tek se u poslednjih par decenija može primetiti ozbiljan društveni pritisak na industriju i kulturu od nje zavisnu. Nauka nije (značajno) promenila svoje stanovište o duvanu ali društvo jeste.

U Hitlerovoj Njemačkoj nauka je bila silno instrumentalizovana a naučnici su naučno dokazivali superiornost jedne rase u odnosu na drugu itd. što je podupiralo ideologiju na vlasti. Ipak, ideologija na stranu, nalazi te i takve nauke danas bi trebalo da se prihvataju ili odbacuju samo na osnovu toga jesu li ti nalazi dokazivi u ponovljenim postupcima itd. Problem je u osetljivosti materije, dakako. Sličan primer su klimatske promene & njima odnosno globalno zagrevanje. Veli se da nauka potvrđuje tezu o globalnom zagrevanju kao posledici industrijskog zagađenja, no prošle godine je isplivala prepiska između naučnika koji se ovim problemom intenzivno bave iz koje se dalo zaključiti da su određeni rezultati koji ne govore u prilog ovoj priči sklanjani u stranu i prećutkivani. Ovde je ponovo nauka u službi određene ideološke matrice ali je li sama po sebi ideologija?

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #34 on: 30-08-2010, 20:14:40 »
poenta je: zašto bi nauka uopšte istraživala uticaj duvana na zdravlje?

Ko je to odredio duvan (otrov) i zdravlje kao naučne kategorije? Te kategorije su ideološke.


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #35 on: 30-08-2010, 20:19:28 »
Dobro, ali zašto bi istraživala uticaj praseta nas zdravlje? Zato što su i prase i duvan praksa. Slažem se da postoji ideološka pozadina u korenu određivanja mete istraživanja ali to je ipak neka najšira ideologija funkcionalnosti jedinkeu zajednici i zajednice kao celine itd. No to mi se čini kao preplitka tema za istraživanje i slutim da ti želiš nešto dublje da grizeš.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #36 on: 30-08-2010, 20:30:25 »
nije neka velika filozofija reći da nauka služi nečijim interesima, vojnim kad treba da se rascijepa atom i napravi bomba za Hirošimu, ili zdravstveni kada buržuji žele da što kasnije (a po mogućstvu i nikad) dobiju bore.

Jedan rođak je išao na specijalizaciju u Norvešku i tamo vidio da mnogi dovode svoje male ćerke na jahanje ponija ili konja, prosto je bilo opšte popularno. Jedan norveški ljekar mu je objasnio da to rade da bi im se raširila karlica, što je ideal klasične ljepote (stara ženska oblina koju npr Anđelina Džoli nema i nikad ne može biti stvarna seks bomba, a samim tim što me realnost pobija i mnogi balave nad njom, dokaz je da su muškarci sve više pederasti, onako kako je Edgar Moren govorio, prvo se koncentrišu na lijepo žensko lice, a nakon toga tijelo može biti i muško. Žensko lice je samo posredni fetiš oji vodi ka homoseksualizmu).

I ne samo radi širenja karlice već i zato što olakšava porođaj.

Nije to plitak ugriz, ovo nam govori da su mnoge naše predstave o polovima svojevrsna mitomanija, neka definicija ''ženskog'', kalup u koji osoba sa vaginom mora da se uklopi.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.234
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #37 on: 31-08-2010, 11:57:04 »
Pa da, meni je Angelina neprivlacna u licu, a telo svakako treba da bude sto manje zenstveno.  :lol:
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #38 on: 02-02-2012, 11:04:38 »
Koga ne mrzi da čita, Wired ima jako dugačku meditaciju Jonaha Leherera o tome zašto nas nauka izdaje
 
 Trials and errors: Why science is failing us
Quote

On November 30, 2006, executives at Pfizer -- the largest pharmaceutical company in the world -- held a meeting with investors at the firm's research centre in Groton, Connecticut. Jeff Kindler, then the CEO, began the presentation with an upbeat assessment of the company's efforts to bring new drugs to market. He cited "exciting approaches" to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, fibromyalgia and arthritis. But Kindler was most excited about a new drug called torcetrapib, which had recently entered Phase III clinical trials, the last step before filing for approval. He confidently declared that it would be "one of the most important compounds of our generation".
His enthusiasm was understandable: the potential market for the drug was enormous. Like Pfizer's blockbuster medication Lipitor -- the most widely prescribed branded pharmaceutical in America -- torcetrapib was designed to tweak the cholesterol pathway (in the UK, simvastatin is the most-prescribed, and serves a similar function). Lipitor works by inhibiting an enzyme that plays a key role in the production of cholesterol in the liver. The drug lowers the level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or so-called bad cholesterol. Recently, scientists have begun to focus on a separate part of the cholesterol pathway, the one that produces high-density lipoproteins (HDL). One function of HDL (referred to as "good cholesterol") is to transport excess LDL back to the liver, where it's broken down. Torcetrapib was designed to block a protein that converts HDL cholesterol into its sinister sibling, LDL. In theory, this would cure cholesterol problems, creating a surplus of the good stuff and a shortage of the bad. In his presentation, Kindler noted that torcetrapib had the potential to "redefine cardiovascular treatment".
There was a vast amount of research behind Kindler's bold proclamations. The cholesterol pathway is one of the best-understood biological feedback systems in the human body. Since 1913, when Russian pathologist Nikolai Anichkov first experimentally linked cholesterol to the build-up of plaque in arteries, scientists have mapped out the metabolism and transport of these compounds in exquisite detail. Torcetrapib had already undergone a small clinical trial, which showed that the drug could increase HDL and decrease LDL. Kindler told investors that, by the second half of 2007, Pfizer would begin applying for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The success of the drug seemed a sure thing. And then, just two days later, on December 2, 2006, Pfizer issued a stunning announcement: the torcetrapib Phase III clinical trial was being terminated. Although the compound was supposed to prevent heart disease, it was actually triggering higher rates of chest pain and heart failure and a 60 per cent increase in overall mortality. The drug appeared to be killing people. That week, Pfizer's value plummeted by $21 billion (£14 billion).
***
The story of torcetrapib is one of mistaken causation. Pfizer was operating on the assumption that raising levels of HDL cholesterol and lowering LDL would lead to a predictable outcome: improved cardiovascular health. Less arterial plaque. Cleaner pipes. But that didn't happen. Such failures occur all the time in the drug industry. (According to a recent analysis, more than 40 per cent of drugs fail Phase III clinical trials.) And yet there is something particularly disturbing about the failure of torcetrapib. After all, a bet on this compound wasn't supposed to be risky. For Pfizer, torcetrapib was the pay-off after decades of research. Little wonder that the company was so confident about its clinical trials, which involved 25,000 volunteers. Pfizer invested more than $1 billion (£650 million) in the development of the drug and $90 million (£58.33 million) to expand the factory that would manufacture the compound. Because scientists understood the individual steps of the cholesterol pathway at such a precise level, they assumed they also understood how it worked as a whole.
This assumption -- that understanding a system's constituent parts means we also understand the causes within the system -- is not limited to the pharmaceutical industry or even to biology. It defines modern science. In general, we believe that the so-called problem of causation can be cured by more information. Scientists refer to this process as reductionism. By breaking down a process, we can see how everything fits together; the complex mystery is distilled into a list of ingredients. And so the question of cholesterol's relationship to heart disease becomes a predictable loop of proteins tweaking proteins, acronyms altering one another. Modern medicine is particularly reliant on this approach. Every year, nearly $100 billion is invested in biomedical research in the US, all of it aimed at teasing apart the invisible bits of the body. In Europe, that figure is estimated to be at least €17 billion (£15bn). We assume that these new details will finally reveal the causes of illness, pinning our maladies on small molecules and errant snippets of DNA. Once we find the cause, of course, we can begin working on a cure.
The problem with this assumption is that causes are a strange kind of knowledge. This was first pointed out by David Hume, the 18th-century philosopher. He realised that, although people talk about causes as if they are real facts -- tangible things that can be discovered -- they're actually not at all factual. Instead, Hume said, every cause is just a slippery story, a catchy conjecture, a "lively conception produced by habit". When an apple falls from a tree, the cause is obvious: gravity. Hume's sceptical insight was that we don't see gravity -- we see only an object tugged towards the earth. We look at X and then at Y, and invent a story about what happened in between. We can measure facts, but a cause is not a fact -- it's a fiction that helps us make sense of facts.
The truth is, our stories about causation are shadowed by all sorts of mental short cuts. Most of the time, these work well enough. They allow us to discover the law of gravity, and design wondrous technologies. However, when it comes to reasoning about complex systems -- say, the human body -- these short cuts go from being slickly efficient to outright misleading. Consider a set of classic experiments designed by Belgian psychologist Albert Michotte, first conducted in the 40s. His research featured a series of short films about a blue ball and a red ball. In the first film, the red ball races across the screen, touches the blue ball and then stops. The blue ball, meanwhile, begins moving in the same basic direction as the red ball. When Michotte asked people to describe the film, they automatically lapsed into the language of causation. The red ball hit the blue ball, which caused it to move. This is known as the launching effect, and it's a universal property of visual perception. Although there was nothing about causation in the two-second film -- it was just a montage of animated images -- people couldn't help but tell a story about what had happened. They translated their perceptions into causal beliefs. Michotte then began subtly manipulating the films, asking the subjects how the new footage changed their description of events. For instance, when he introduced a one-second pause between the movement of the balls, the impression of causality disappeared. The red ball no longer appeared to trigger the movement of the blue ball. Rather, the two balls were moving for inexplicable reasons.
Michotte would go on to conduct more than 100 of these studies. Sometimes he would have a small blue ball move in front of a big red ball. When he asked subjects what was going on, they insisted that the red ball was "chasing" the blue ball. However, if a big red ball were moving in front of a little blue ball, the opposite occurred: the blue ball was "following" the red ball.
There are two lessons to be learned from these experiments. The first is that our theories about a particular cause and effect are inherently perceptual, infected by all the sensory cheats of vision. Hume was right that causes are never seen, only inferred, but the truth is we can't tell the difference. And so we look at moving balls and see causes, a melodrama of taps and collisions, chasing and fleeing.
The second lesson is that causal explanations are oversimplifications. This is what makes them useful -- they help us grasp the world at a glance. For instance, after watching the short films, people immediately settled on the most straightforward explanation for the ricocheting objects. Although this account felt true, the brain wasn't seeking the literal truth -- it just wanted a plausible story that didn't contradict observation. There's a fundamental mismatch between how the world works and how we think about the world.
The good news is that, in the centuries since Hume, scientists have mostly managed to work around this mismatch as they've continued to discover new cause-and-effect relationships at a blistering pace. This success is largely a tribute to the power of statistical correlation, which has allowed researchers to pirouette around the problem of causation. Though scientists constantly remind themselves that mere correlation is not causation, if a correlation is clear and consistent, then they typically assume a cause has been found -- that there really is some invisible association between the measurements.
But here's the bad news: the reliance on correlations has entered an age of diminishing returns. At least two major factors contribute to this trend. First, all of the easy causes have been found, which means that scientists are now forced to search for ever-subtler correlations, mining that mountain of facts for the tiniest of associations. Is that a new cause? Or just a statistical mistake? The line is getting finer; science is getting harder. Second -- and this is the biggie -- searching for correlations is a terrible way of dealing with the primary subject of much modern research: those complex networks at the centre of life.
While correlations help us track the relationship between independent measurements, such as the link between smoking and cancer, they are much less effective at making sense of systems in which the variables cannot be isolated. Such situations require that we understand every interaction before we can reliably understand any of them. Given the byzantine nature of biology, this can often be a daunting hurdle, requiring that researchers map not only the complete cholesterol pathway but also the ways in which it is plugged into other pathways. Unfortunately, we shrug off this dizzying intricacy, searching instead for the simplest of correlations. It's the cognitive equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
These troubling trends play out most vividly in the drug industry. Although modern pharmaceuticals are supposed to represent the practical pay-off of basic research, the R&D to discover a promising new compound now costs about 100 times more (inflation-adjusted) than it did in 1950. It also takes nearly three times as long. This trend shows no sign of letting up: industry forecasts suggest that once failures are taken into account, the average cost per approved molecule will top $3.8 billion (£2.46 million) by 2015. What's worse, even these "successful" compounds don't seem to be worth the investment. We are witnessing Moore's law in reverse.
This returns us to cholesterol, a compound whose scientific history reflects our tortured relationship with causes. At first, cholesterol was entirely bad; the correlations linked high levels of the substance with plaque. Years later, we realised that there were multiple kinds and that only LDL was bad. Then it became clear that HDL was more important than LDL, at least according to correlational studies and animal models. And now we don't really know what matters, since raising HDL levels with torcetrapib doesn't seem to help. Although we've mapped every known part of the chemical pathway, the causes that matter are still nowhere to be found. If this is progress, it's a peculiar kind.
Today, back pain is an epidemic. There's an 80 per cent chance that, at some point in your life, you'll suffer from it. There are so many moving parts in the back that doctors have always had difficulty figuring out what, exactly, was causing a person's pain. As a result, patients were typically sent home with a prescription for bed rest. This treatment was very effective. Even when nothing was done to the lower back, about 90 per cent of people with back pain got better within six weeks. The body healed itself, the inflammation subsided, the nerve relaxed.
For years, this hands-off approach remained the standard medical treatment. That all changed, however, with the introduction of magnetic-resonance imaging in the late 70s. These diagnostic machines use powerful magnets to generate stunningly detailed images of the body's interior. Within a few years, the MRI machine became a crucial diagnostic tool. The view afforded by MRI led to a new causal story: back pain was the result of abnormalities in the spinal discs, those supple buffers between the vertebrae. The MRIs certainly supplied bleak evidence: back pain was strongly correlated with seriously degenerated discs, which were in turn thought to cause inflammation of the local nerves. Consequently, doctors began administering epidurals to lessen the pain, and if it persisted they would surgically remove the damaged disc tissue.
But the vivid images were misleading. It turns out that disc abnormalities are typically not the cause of chronic back pain. The presence of such abnormalities is just as likely to be correlated with the absence of back problems, as a 1994 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed. The researchers imaged the spinal regions of 98 people with no back pain. Two-thirds of normal patients exhibited "serious problems" such as bulging or protruding tissue. In 38 per cent of these patients, the MRI revealed multiple damaged discs. But none of these people was in pain. The study concluded that, in most cases, "the discovery of a bulge or protrusion on an MRI scan in a patient with low back pain may frequently be coincidental".
This is not the way things are supposed to work. We assume that more information will make it easier to find the cause, that seeing the soft tissue of the back will reveal the source of the pain, or at least some useful correlations. Unfortunately, that often doesn't happen. Our habits of visual conclusion-jumping take over. All those extra details end up confusing us; the more we know, the less we seem to understand. The only solution for this mental flaw is to ignore a wealth of facts, even when the facts seem relevant. This is what's happening with the treatment of back pain: doctors are now encouraged not to order MRIs when making diagnoses.
The failure of torectrapib has not ended the development of new cholesterol medications -- the potential market is simply too huge. Although the compound is a sobering reminder that our causal beliefs are defined by their oversimplifications, that even the best-understood systems are still full of surprises, scientists continue to search for the magic pill that will make cardiovascular disease disappear. Ironically, the latest hyped treatment, a drug developed by Merck called anacetrapib, inhibits the exact same protein as did torcetrapib.
The initial results of the clinical trial, made public in November 2010, look promising. Unlike its chemical cousin, this compound doesn't appear to raise systolic blood pressure or cause heart attacks. (A larger clinical trial is under way to see whether the drug saves lives.) Nobody can conclusively explain why these two closely related compounds trigger such different outcomes or why, according to a 2010 analysis, high HDL levels might actually be dangerous for some people. We know so much about the cholesterol pathway, but we never seem to know what matters.
Chronic back pain also remains a mystery. Doctors have long assumed that there's a valid correlation between pain and physical artefacts -- a herniated disc, a sheared muscle, a pinched nerve -- yet there's a growing body of evidence suggesting the role of seemingly unrelated factors. A recent study published in the journal Spine concluded that minor physical trauma had virtually no relationship with disabling pain. Instead, the researchers found that a small subset of "nonspinal factors", such as depression and smoking, were most closely associated with episodes of pain. We keep trying to fix the back, but perhaps the back isn't what needs fixing. Perhaps we're searching for causes in the wrong place.
The same confusion afflicts so many of our most advanced causal stories. Hormone-replacement therapy was supposed to reduce the risk of heart attack in postmenopausal women -- oestrogen prevents inflammation in blood vessels -- but a series of recent clinical trials found that it did the opposite, at least among older women. (Oestrogen therapy was also supposed to ward off Alzheimer's, but that doesn't seem to work, either.) We were told that vitamin D supplements prevented bone loss in people with multiple sclerosis and that vitamin E supplements reduced cardiovascular disease. Neither turns out to be true.
Given the increasing difficulty of identifying and treating the causes of illness, it's not surprising that some companies have responded by abandoning research. Most recently, two giant firms, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, announced that they were scaling back research into the brain. The organ is too complicated, too full of networks we don't comprehend. We live in a world in which everything is knotted together, an impregnable tangle of causes and effects. Even when a system is dissected into its basic parts, those parts are still influenced by a whirligig of forces we can't understand or haven't considered or don't think matter.
This doesn't mean that nothing can be known or that every causal story is problematic. Some explanations work better than others, which is why, thanks largely to improvements in public health, the average lifespan in the developed world continues to increase. Although our reliance on statistical correlations has strict constraints -- which limit modern research -- those correlations have managed to identify many essential risk factors, such as smoking and poor diet.
And yet, we must never forget that our causal beliefs are defined by their limitations. For too long, we've pretended that the old problem of causality can be cured by our shiny new knowledge. If only we devote more resources to research or dissect the system at a more fundamental level or search for ever more subtle correlations, we can discover how it all works. But a cause is not a fact, and it never will be; the things we can see will always be bracketed by what we cannot. And this is why, even when we know everything about everything, we'll still be telling stories about why it happened. It's mystery all the way down.

There are two lessons to be learned from these experiments. The first is that our theories about a particular cause and effect are inherently perceptual, infected by all the sensory cheats of vision. Hume was right that causes are never seen, only inferred, but the truth is we can't tell the difference. And so we look at moving balls and see causes, a melodrama of taps and collisions, chasing and fleeing.
The second lesson is that causal explanations are oversimplifications. This is what makes them useful -- they help us grasp the world at a glance. For instance, after watching the short films, people immediately settled on the most straightforward explanation for the ricocheting objects. Although this account felt true, the brain wasn't seeking the literal truth -- it just wanted a plausible story that didn't contradict observation. There's a fundamental mismatch between how the world works and how we think about the world.
The good news is that, in the centuries since Hume, scientists have mostly managed to work around this mismatch as they've continued to discover new cause-and-effect relationships at a blistering pace. This success is largely a tribute to the power of statistical correlation, which has allowed researchers to pirouette around the problem of causation. Though scientists constantly remind themselves that mere correlation is not causation, if a correlation is clear and consistent, then they typically assume a cause has been found -- that there really is some invisible association between the measurements.
But here's the bad news: the reliance on correlations has entered an age of diminishing returns. At least two major factors contribute to this trend. First, all of the easy causes have been found, which means that scientists are now forced to search for ever-subtler correlations, mining that mountain of facts for the tiniest of associations. Is that a new cause? Or just a statistical mistake? The line is getting finer; science is getting harder. Second -- and this is the biggie -- searching for correlations is a terrible way of dealing with the primary subject of much modern research: those complex networks at the centre of life.
While correlations help us track the relationship between independent measurements, such as the link between smoking and cancer, they are much less effective at making sense of systems in which the variables cannot be isolated. Such situations require that we understand every interaction before we can reliably understand any of them. Given the byzantine nature of biology, this can often be a daunting hurdle, requiring that researchers map not only the complete cholesterol pathway but also the ways in which it is plugged into other pathways. Unfortunately, we shrug off this dizzying intricacy, searching instead for the simplest of correlations. It's the cognitive equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
These troubling trends play out most vividly in the drug industry. Although modern pharmaceuticals are supposed to represent the practical pay-off of basic research, the R&D to discover a promising new compound now costs about 100 times more (inflation-adjusted) than it did in 1950. It also takes nearly three times as long. This trend shows no sign of letting up: industry forecasts suggest that once failures are taken into account, the average cost per approved molecule will top $3.8 billion (£2.46 million) by 2015. What's worse, even these "successful" compounds don't seem to be worth the investment. We are witnessing Moore's law in reverse.
This returns us to cholesterol, a compound whose scientific history reflects our tortured relationship with causes. At first, cholesterol was entirely bad; the correlations linked high levels of the substance with plaque. Years later, we realised that there were multiple kinds and that only LDL was bad. Then it became clear that HDL was more important than LDL, at least according to correlational studies and animal models. And now we don't really know what matters, since raising HDL levels with torcetrapib doesn't seem to help. Although we've mapped every known part of the chemical pathway, the causes that matter are still nowhere to be found. If this is progress, it's a peculiar kind.
 
Today, back pain is an epidemic. There's an 80 per cent chance that, at some point in your life, you'll suffer from it. There are so many moving parts in the back that doctors have always had difficulty figuring out what, exactly, was causing a person's pain. As a result, patients were typically sent home with a prescription for bed rest. This treatment was very effective. Even when nothing was done to the lower back, about 90 per cent of people with back pain got better within six weeks. The body healed itself, the inflammation subsided, the nerve relaxed.
For years, this hands-off approach remained the standard medical treatment. That all changed, however, with the introduction of magnetic-resonance imaging in the late 70s. These diagnostic machines use powerful magnets to generate stunningly detailed images of the body's interior. Within a few years, the MRI machine became a crucial diagnostic tool. The view afforded by MRI led to a new causal story: back pain was the result of abnormalities in the spinal discs, those supple buffers between the vertebrae. The MRIs certainly supplied bleak evidence: back pain was strongly correlated with seriously degenerated discs, which were in turn thought to cause inflammation of the local nerves. Consequently, doctors began administering epidurals to lessen the pain, and if it persisted they would surgically remove the damaged disc tissue.
But the vivid images were misleading. It turns out that disc abnormalities are typically not the cause of chronic back pain. The presence of such abnormalities is just as likely to be correlated with the absence of back problems, as a 1994 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed. The researchers imaged the spinal regions of 98 people with no back pain. Two-thirds of normal patients exhibited "serious problems" such as bulging or protruding tissue. In 38 per cent of these patients, the MRI revealed multiple damaged discs. But none of these people was in pain. The study concluded that, in most cases, "the discovery of a bulge or protrusion on an MRI scan in a patient with low back pain may frequently be coincidental".
This is not the way things are supposed to work. We assume that more information will make it easier to find the cause, that seeing the soft tissue of the back will reveal the source of the pain, or at least some useful correlations. Unfortunately, that often doesn't happen. Our habits of visual conclusion-jumping take over. All those extra details end up confusing us; the more we know, the less we seem to understand. The only solution for this mental flaw is to ignore a wealth of facts, even when the facts seem relevant. This is what's happening with the treatment of back pain: doctors are now encouraged not to order MRIs when making diagnoses.
The failure of torectrapib has not ended the development of new cholesterol medications -- the potential market is simply too huge. Although the compound is a sobering reminder that our causal beliefs are defined by their oversimplifications, that even the best-understood systems are still full of surprises, scientists continue to search for the magic pill that will make cardiovascular disease disappear. Ironically, the latest hyped treatment, a drug developed by Merck called anacetrapib, inhibits the exact same protein as did torcetrapib.
The initial results of the clinical trial, made public in November 2010, look promising. Unlike its chemical cousin, this compound doesn't appear to raise systolic blood pressure or cause heart attacks. (A larger clinical trial is under way to see whether the drug saves lives.) Nobody can conclusively explain why these two closely related compounds trigger such different outcomes or why, according to a 2010 analysis, high HDL levels might actually be dangerous for some people. We know so much about the cholesterol pathway, but we never seem to know what matters.
Chronic back pain also remains a mystery. Doctors have long assumed that there's a valid correlation between pain and physical artefacts -- a herniated disc, a sheared muscle, a pinched nerve -- yet there's a growing body of evidence suggesting the role of seemingly unrelated factors. A recent study published in the journal Spine concluded that minor physical trauma had virtually no relationship with disabling pain. Instead, the researchers found that a small subset of "nonspinal factors", such as depression and smoking, were most closely associated with episodes of pain. We keep trying to fix the back, but perhaps the back isn't what needs fixing. Perhaps we're searching for causes in the wrong place.
The same confusion afflicts so many of our most advanced causal stories. Hormone-replacement therapy was supposed to reduce the risk of heart attack in postmenopausal women -- oestrogen prevents inflammation in blood vessels -- but a series of recent clinical trials found that it did the opposite, at least among older women. (Oestrogen therapy was also supposed to ward off Alzheimer's, but that doesn't seem to work, either.) We were told that vitamin D supplements prevented bone loss in people with multiple sclerosis and that vitamin E supplements reduced cardiovascular disease. Neither turns out to be true.
Given the increasing difficulty of identifying and treating the causes of illness, it's not surprising that some companies have responded by abandoning research. Most recently, two giant firms, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, announced that they were scaling back research into the brain. The organ is too complicated, too full of networks we don't comprehend. We live in a world in which everything is knotted together, an impregnable tangle of causes and effects. Even when a system is dissected into its basic parts, those parts are still influenced by a whirligig of forces we can't understand or haven't considered or don't think matter.
This doesn't mean that nothing can be known or that every causal story is problematic. Some explanations work better than others, which is why, thanks largely to improvements in public health, the average lifespan in the developed world continues to increase. Although our reliance on statistical correlations has strict constraints -- which limit modern research -- those correlations have managed to identify many essential risk factors, such as smoking and poor diet.
And yet, we must never forget that our causal beliefs are defined by their limitations. For too long, we've pretended that the old problem of causality can be cured by our shiny new knowledge. If only we devote more resources to research or dissect the system at a more fundamental level or search for ever more subtle correlations, we can discover how it all works. But a cause is not a fact, and it never will be; the things we can see will always be bracketed by what we cannot. And this is why, even when we know everything about everything, we'll still be telling stories about why it happened. It's mystery all the way down.
Jonah Lehrer is the author of Imagine: How Creativity Works (HMH), out in March.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #39 on: 29-08-2012, 10:18:17 »
Science, such a sweet mystery 
Quote

 By David P. Barash August 16, 2012  I have been teaching and doing research at the university level for more than 40 years, which means that for more than four decades, I have been participating in a deception — benevolent and well intentioned, to be sure, but a deception nonetheless. As a scientist, I do science, and as a teacher and writer, I communicate it. That's where the deception comes in.

When scientists speak to the public or to students, we talk about what we know, what science has discovered. Nothing wrong with this. After all, we work hard deciphering nature's secrets and we're proud whenever we succeed. But it gives the false impression that we know pretty much everything, whereas the reality is that there's a whole lot more that we don't know.

Teaching and writing only about what is known risks turning science into a mere catalog of established facts, suggesting that "knowing" science is a matter of memorizing: this is how cells metabolize carbohydrates, this is how natural selection works, this is how the information encoded in DNA is translated into proteins.

In my first college-level biology course, I was required to memorize all of the digestive enzymes and what they do. Even today, I can't stomach those darned chemicals, and I fear the situation is scarcely much better at most universities today.

Paradoxically, the strong point of American higher education — our talent as a nation vis-a-vis, say, China — is that we are supposed to be more open to innovation and original thinking, whereas they are more "into" rote learning. It is time, therefore, to start teaching courses, giving lectures and writing books about what we don't know about biology, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics.

There's plenty to communicate because we are surrounded by mysteries, far more than are dreamt of in anyone's philosophy. But don't get the wrong idea, Horatio: Mystery is not the same as mysticism, and I'm not referring to some sort of ineffable, spiritualistic claptrap beyond the reach of natural law and human understanding. Just as "weeds" are plants that haven't yet been assigned a value, scientific mysteries are simply good questions waiting for answers.

I'm not thinking here of the obvious unknowns, such as "Is there life on other planets?" or "How many particles can dance on the head of the CERN accelerator?" Rather, there is plenty we don't know about the things we think we understand. Nor is this a problem or a momentary lack of closure. Science is altogether dynamic and wonderfully incomplete.

Looking just at my field, evolutionary biology, the unknowns are immense: How widespread are nonadaptive traits? To what extent does evolution proceed by very small, gradual steps versus larger, quantum jumps? Why does sexuality occur at all, since it is fully one-half as efficient in projecting genes into the future compared with its asexual alternative? What is the purpose of all that "junk DNA"? Did human beings evolve from a single lineage, or many times, independently? Why does homosexuality persist? Why do women — unique among mammals — conceal their ovulation, possess conspicuous nonlactating breasts and experience orgasm, as well as menopause? Why is the life span of men so much shorter than that of women? Why do we have such big brains? Why are we conscious? Why do we age, sleep, dream, blush, cry or yawn? This is but a partial list.

Don't be discouraged, however. "Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious," writes Richard Dawkins. "Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: It gives them something to do."

And we've got plenty to do. We might start by acknowledging our ignorance. We could then revel in the numerous hypotheses that have already been proposed to rectify that ignorance; there are, in fact, a dozen or so potential explanations for each of the mysteries listed above — we just don't know, yet, which ones are the most promising.

There is a difference between science as a body of knowledge and science as the pursuit of the unknown. Ideally, there would be no tension between the two because it's only by pursuing the unknown that we obtain knowledge. And yet, these two aspects of science coexist uneasily. This wasn't always the case.

Between 1751 and 1765, the Encyclopédie was published in France. It endeavored to summarize all human knowledge in its 18,000 pages of text, 75,000 different entries and 20 million words. Its primary editor, Denis Diderot, was one of the heroes of the Enlightenment, and indeed, the Encyclopédie represents a culmination of Enlightenment thought, which valued reason, science and progress — what we know — above all else.

It is paradoxical testimony to how much we have learned in the intervening 250 years that today no one could seriously entertain the prospect of summarizing all human knowledge in a book, or series of books, or even via the Internet. And yet, the temptation remains: to rest on our laurels, to celebrate our truly encyclopedic knowledge, to teach it, write it, speak it, learn it, demand that it be mastered as if what we know now is enough. (Or, worse yet, to glumly conclude that we have reached "the end of science.")

To be sure, we need to keep celebrating and transmitting what we know, but, at least as important, we had better keep our eyes on what we don't know if the scientific enterprise is to continue attracting new adherents who will keep pushing the envelope of our knowledge rather than resting satisfied within its cozy boundaries.

"There is a crack in everything," writes poet-songwriter Leonard Cohen. "That's how the light gets in."

David P. Barash is an evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington; his most recent book is "Homo Mysterious: Evolutionary Puzzles of Human Nature." 

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #40 on: 21-10-2012, 08:47:32 »
Oh... naučni članak koji se bavi matematikom, a koga je napisao softver, kombinujući nasumične iskaze u gramatički ispravnim rečenicama prihvaćen od strane relativno male publikacije  :lol:
 
Mathgen paper accepted!
 
Quote

 
I’m pleased to announce that Mathgen has had its first randomly-generated paper accepted by a reputable journal!
 

On August 3, 2012, a certain Professor Marcie Rathke of the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople submitted a very interesting article to Advances in Pure Mathematics, one of the many fine journals put out by Scientific Research Publishing. (Your inbox and/or spam trap very likely contains useful information about their publications at this very moment!) This mathematical tour de force was entitled “Independent, Negative, Canonically Turing Arrows of Equations and Problems in Applied Formal PDE”, and I quote here its intriguing abstract:


 
Let ρ=A . Is it possible to extend isomorphisms? We show that D
is stochastically orthogonal and trivially affine. In [10], the main result was the construction of p -Cardano, compactly Erdős, Weyl functions. This could shed important light on a conjecture of Conway-d’Alembert.
The full text was kindly provided by the author and is available as PDF.
After a remarkable turnaround time of only 10 days, on August 13, 2012, the editors were pleased to inform Professor Rathke that her submission had been accepted for publication. I reproduce here (with Professor Rathke’s kind permission) the notification, which includes the anonymous referee’s report.

Dear Author, Thank you for your contribution to the Advances in Pure Mathematics (APM). We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript:
ID : 5300285
TITLE : Independent, negative, canonically Turing arrows of equations and problems in applied formal PDE
AUTHORS :Marcie Rathke
has been accepted. Congratulations!

Anyway, the manuscript has some flaws are required to be revised :
(1) For the abstract, I consider that the author can’t introduce the main idea and work of this topic specifically. We can’t catch the main thought from this abstract. So I suggest that the author can reorganize the descriptions and give the keywords of this paper.
(2) In this paper, we may find that there are so many mathematical expressions and notations. But the author doesn’t give any introduction for them. I consider that for these new expressions and notations, the author can indicate the factual meanings of them.
(3) In part 2, the author gives the main results. On theorem 2.4, I consider that the author should give the corresponding proof.
(4) Also, for proposition 3.3 and 3.4, the author has better to show the specific proving processes.
(5) The format of this paper is not very standard. Please follow the format requirements of this journal strictly.
Please revised your paper and send it to us as soon as possible.
 
The author has asked me to include her responses to the referee’s comments:
 
  • The referee’s objection is well taken; indeed, the abstract has not the slightest thing to do with the content of the paper.
  • The paper certainly does contain a plethora of mathematical notation, but it is to be hoped that readers with the appropriate background can infer its meaning (or lack thereof) from context.
  • It is indeed customary for a mathematical paper to contain a proof of its main result. This omission admittedly represents a slight flaw in the manuscript.
  • The author believes the proofs given for the referenced propositions are entirely sufficient [they read, respectively, "This is obvious" and "This is clear"]. However, she respects the referee’s opinion and would consider adding a few additional details.
  • On this point the author must strenuously object. The LA TE X formatting of the manuscript is perfectly standard and in accordance with generally accepted practice. The same cannot be said of APM’s required template, which uses Microsoft Word [!].
Professor Rathke is pleased that the referee nevertheless recommends the paper be accepted, since clearly these minor differences of opinion in no way affect the paper’s overall validity and significance. However, in spite of this good news, there is a mundane difficulty which will apparently prevent the article’s publication. As an open access journal, APM naturally imposes a “processing charge” on its authors, which for this paper would amount to US$500.00. Unfortunately, due to recent budgetary constraints at the U. of S.N.D. at H., Professor Rathke finds that her research funds are insufficient to meet this expense. It therefore appears that APM’s estimable readership, and the mathematical community at large, will sadly be deprived of seeing the fruits of Professor Rathke’s labor in print.
Bummer.

lilit

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 11.014
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #41 on: 21-10-2012, 10:31:46 »
bladi hel i horor!
al nije ni čudo imajuću u vidu overprodukciju kojekakvih casopisa, a da ne pominjem nekompetentnost velikog broja rivjuera.
hm, arogantno, nego kako!
That’s how it is with people. Nobody cares how it works as long as it works.

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #42 on: 21-10-2012, 10:58:17 »
Hm, mislila sam da Sokal ne bi uspeo da se radilo o egzaktnoj nauci, a ono grešim? :(

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #43 on: 21-10-2012, 11:31:13 »
o, pa vidim da sam ovdje svašta pametovao, ali i dalje sam u pravu  8)

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #44 on: 20-02-2014, 10:34:10 »
Mislim da je ovo pravi topik za ovakvu vest. Dakle, izvesna matematička teorema je dokazana putem postupka koji ne može da se smesti u manje od 13 gigabajta teksta pa je time praktično neproverljiv od strane ljudskih bića:


Wikipedia-size maths proof too big for humans to check

Quote
If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as mathematics? That's the intriguing question raised by the latest computer-assisted proof. It is as large as the entire content of Wikipedia, making it unlikely that will ever be checked by a human being.
"It might be that somehow we have hit statements which are essentially non-human mathematics," says Alexei Lisitsa of the University of Liverpool, UK, who came up with the proof together with colleague Boris Konev.
The proof is a significant step towards solving a long-standing puzzle known as the Erdős discrepancy problem. It was proposed in the 1930s by the Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős, who offered $500 for its solution.
Imagine a random, infinite sequence of numbers containing nothing but +1s and -1s. Erdos was fascinated by the extent to which such sequences contain internal patterns. One way to measure that is to cut the infinite sequence off at a certain point, and then create finite sub-sequences within that part of the sequence, such as considering only every third number or every fourth.
Adding up the numbers in a sub-sequence gives a figure called the discrepancy, which acts as a measure of the structure of the sub-sequence and in turn the infinite sequence, as compared with a uniform ideal.
 Wikipedia-size proof Erdős thought that for any infinite sequence, it would always be possible to find a finite sub-sequence summing to a number larger than any you choose - but couldn't prove it.
It is relatively easy to show by hand that any way you arrange 12 pluses and minuses always has a sub-sequence whose sum exceeds 1. That means that anything longer – including any infinite sequence – must also have a discrepancy of 1 or more. But extending this method to showing that higher discrepancies must always exist is tough as the number of possible sub-sequences to test quickly balloons.
Now Konev and Lisitsa have used a computer to move things on. They have shown that an infinite sequence will always have a discrepancy larger than 2. In this case the cut-off was a sequence of length 1161, rather than 12. Establishing this took a computer nearly 6 hours and generated a 13-gigabyte file detailing its working.
The pair compare this to the size of Wikipedia, the text of which is a 10-gigabyte download. It is probably the longest proof ever: it dwarfs another famously huge proof, which involves 15,000 pages of calculations.
It would take years to check the computer's working – and extending the method to check for yet higher discrepancies might easily produce proofs that are simply too long to be checked by humans. But that raises an interesting philosophical question, says Lisitsa: can a proof really be accepted if no human reads it?
 Non-human mathematics Gil Kalai of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, says human checking isn't necessary for a proof to stand. "I'm not concerned by the fact that no human mathematician can check this, because we can check it with other computer approaches," he says. If a computer program using a different method comes up with the same result, then the proof is likely to be right.
Kalai was part of a group that decided in 2010 to work on the problem as a Polymath project, an exercise in which mathematicians use blogs and wikis to collaborate on a large scale. Running different software, the group managed to test a sequence of length 1124 – close to the threshold Konev and Lisitsa have now shown was necessary – but gave up when the program wouldn't scale to higher numbers.
When it comes to the Erdős discrepancy problem, there is still some hope for humans, however. Erdős's hypothesis was that a discrepancy of any value can always be found, a far cry from the discrepancies of 1 and 2 that have now been proven. Lisitsa's software has been running for weeks in an attempt to find a result for discrepancy 3. But even if subsequent programs show that higher and higher discrepancies exist for any infinite sequence, a computer cannot check the infinity of all numbers.
Instead, it's likely that computer-assisted proofs for specific discrepancies will eventually enable a human to spot a pattern and come up with a proof for all numbers, says Lisitsa. "The outstanding problems are like lighthouses; they give us targets for our abilities," adds Kalai.
Reference: arxiv.org/abs/1402.2184

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #45 on: 09-03-2014, 07:47:16 »
Da li se ikada može smatrati da je nauka po nekom pitanju došla do finalnog zaključka o kome nikad više ne treba raspravljati?

 Can Science Ever Be “Settled”?

Ovi sa medium.com su dohakali mom kompulzivnom kopipejstovanju time što su im tekstovi prepuni ilustracija. Kliknuti na link i čitati.

Dzorig FSB

  • 2
  • Posts: 92
    • Agarta, Večna vatra
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #46 on: 10-03-2014, 11:26:38 »
Наука "по дефиницији" никад није дошла до финалног закључка, теоретски је увек могуће побити новим подацима било коју теорију. Зато ја кажем креационистима - докажите и стајем у ред да вам честитам Нобела. Осим математике, једном ваљан математички доказ важи заувек! Е сад, шта му значи то "да ли треба"? xrotaeye Ти можеш претпоставити да је нека прича завршена, па није рационално трошити ресурсе (менталне и остале) на исправљање кривих дрина... Мада постоји могућност да се и ту докаже супротно.

Занимљив је почетни текст. Рецимо, избор слобода или истина... Подсетиме како су детерминисти мирили свој став са слободом. По Спинози слободнији си кад је нешто сигурно, "слобода је спозната нужност". Дакле, кад се нешто више не може изменити, спокојан си и ослобођен брига. По Лајбницу слободнији си баш кад не знаш како је одређено, јер онда различита твоја дејства имају различите последице. Што не значи да треба бити глуп, јербо што више знаш, више и знаш да не знаш...

Развод државе и науке мало је могућ баш због проклетих резултата. Уосталом, црква и држава се нису развеле докле им је брак давао резултате  :mrgreen:

А демократија? Систем у којем 10 дегенерика надгласа 6 генијалаца. Нека хвала...

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #47 on: 18-03-2014, 10:21:22 »
Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science



Quote
Last April, President Obama assembled some of the nation’s most august scientific dignitaries in the East Room of the White House. Joking that his grades in physics made him a dubious candidate for “scientist in chief,” he spoke of using technological innovation “to grow our economy” and unveiled “the next great American project”: a $100 million initiative to probe the mysteries of the human brain.
Along the way, he invoked the government’s leading role in a history of scientific glories, from putting a man on the moon to creating the Internet. The Brain initiative, as he described it, would be a continuation of that grand tradition, an ambitious rebuttal to deep cuts in federal financing for scientific research.
“We can’t afford to miss these opportunities while the rest of the world races ahead,” Mr. Obama said. “We have to seize them. I don’t want the next job-creating discoveries to happen in China or India or Germany. I want them to happen right here.”



Absent from his narrative, though, was the back story, one that underscores a profound change taking place in the way science is paid for and practiced in America. In fact, the government initiative grew out of richly financed private research: A decade before, Paul G. Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft, had set up a brain science institute in Seattle, to which he donated $500 million, and Fred Kavli, a technology and real estate billionaire, had then established brain institutes at Yale, Columbia and the University of California. Scientists from those philanthropies, in turn, had helped devise the Obama administration’s plan.
American science, long a source of national power and pride, is increasingly becoming a private enterprise.
In Washington, budget cuts have left the nation’s research complex reeling. Labs are closing. Scientists are being laid off. Projects are being put on the shelf, especially in the risky, freewheeling realm of basic research. Yet from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, science philanthropy is hot, as many of the richest Americans seek to reinvent themselves as patrons of social progress through science research.
The result is a new calculus of influence and priorities that the scientific community views with a mix of gratitude and trepidation.
“For better or worse,” said Steven A. Edwards, a policy analyst at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “the practice of science in the 21st century is becoming shaped less by national priorities or by peer-review groups and more by the particular preferences of individuals with huge amounts of money.”
They have mounted a private war on disease, with new protocols that break down walls between academia and industry to turn basic discoveries into effective treatments. They have rekindled traditions of scientific exploration by financing hunts for dinosaur bones and giant sea creatures. They are even beginning to challenge Washington in the costly game of big science, with innovative ships, undersea craft and giant telescopes — as well as the first private mission to deep space.
The new philanthropists represent the breadth of American business, people like Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor (and founder of the media company that bears his name), James Simons (hedge funds) and David H. Koch (oil and chemicals), among hundreds of wealthy donors. Especially prominent, though, are some of the boldest-face names of the tech world, among them Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric E. Schmidt (Google) and Lawrence J. Ellison (Oracle). Continue reading the main story This is philanthropy in the age of the new economy — financed with its outsize riches, practiced according to its individualistic, entrepreneurial creed. The donors are impatient with the deliberate, and often politicized, pace of public science, they say, and willing to take risks that government cannot or simply will not consider.
Yet that personal setting of priorities is precisely what troubles some in the science establishment. Many of the patrons, they say, are ignoring basic research — the kind that investigates the riddles of nature and has produced centuries of breakthroughs, even whole industries — for a jumble of popular, feel-good fields like environmental studies and space exploration.
As the power of philanthropic science has grown, so has the pitch, and the edge, of the debate. Nature, a family of leading science journals, has published a number of wary editorials, one warning that while “we applaud and fully support the injection of more private money into science,” the financing could also “skew research” toward fields more trendy than central.
“Physics isn’t sexy,” William H. Press, a White House science adviser, said in an interview. “But everybody looks at the sky.”
Fundamentally at stake, the critics say, is the social contract that cultivates science for the common good. They worry that the philanthropic billions tend to enrich elite universities at the expense of poor ones, while undermining political support for federally sponsored research and its efforts to foster a greater diversity of opportunity — geographic, economic, racial — among the nation’s scientific investigators.
Historically, disease research has been particularly prone to unequal attention along racial and economic lines. A look at major initiatives suggests that the philanthropists’ war on disease risks widening that gap, as a number of the campaigns, driven by personal adversity, target illnesses that predominantly afflict white people — like cystic fibrosis, melanoma and ovarian cancer.
Public money still accounts for most of America’s best research, as well as its remarkable depth and diversity. What is unclear is how far or fast that balance is shifting, since no one, either in or out of government, has been comprehensively tracking the magnitude and impact of private science. In recognition of its rising profile, though, the National Science Foundation recently announced plans to begin surveying the philanthropic landscape.
There are the skeptics. Then there are the former skeptics, people like Martin A. Apple, a biochemist and former head of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents.



Initially, Dr. Apple said, he, too, saw the donors as superrich dabblers. Now he believes that they are helping accelerate the overall pace of science. What changed his mind, he said, was watching them persevere, year after year, in pursuit of highly ambitious goals.
“They target polio and go after it until it’s done — no one else can do that,” he said, referring to the global drive to eradicate the disease. “In effect, they have the power to lead where the market and the political will are insufficient.”
And their impact seems likely to grow, given continuing federal budget wars and their enormous wealth. Indeed, a New York Times analysis shows that the 40 or so richest science donors who have signed a pledge to give most of their fortunes to charity have assets surpassing a quarter-trillion dollars.
There are also signs of a growing awareness, among some philanthropists, that this influence brings a responsibility to address some of the criticisms leveled at them. Last year, a coalition of leading science foundations announced a campaign to double private spending on basic research over a decade — to $5 billion a year — as a counterweight to money rushing into health and other popular fields. Continue reading the main story “Today, federal funding of basic research is on the decline,” the group said. “The best hope for near-term change lies with American philanthropy.”
A New Template
When Mr. Ellison, chief executive of the Oracle Corporation, heard a Nobel laureate biologist give a talk at Stanford about artificial intelligence, he was mesmerized. It was the early 1990s, and the idea of applying fast computers to genetic riddles was new. “I had never experienced anything like it,” Mr. Ellison recalled.
He invited the scientist, Joshua Lederberg of Rockefeller University, to visit him at his California estate. The visit went so well that Mr. Ellison handed the scientist a key to the house and asked him to think of it as his second home. Dr. Lederberg took him up on the offer, and over many dinners in what he would call “the most gorgeous setting in the world” — complete with Japanese teahouse, strolling gardens and ponds of ornamental fish — the men discussed many things, from Mr. Ellison’s early interest in molecular biology to the idea that great wealth can do great good.
In 1997, the friendship gave birth to the Ellison Medical Foundation. Hundreds of biologists have benefited from its patronage, and three have won Nobel Prizes. So far, Mr. Ellison, listed by Forbes magazine as the world’s fifth-richest man, has donated about half a billion dollars to science.
It’s not that Mr. Ellison is the biggest or most visible of the philanthropists. (That distinction probably belongs to Bill Gates, who has donated roughly $10 billion for global public health.) But his work is very much a template for the new private science.
In the traditional world of government-sponsored research, at agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, panels of experts pore over grant applications to decide which ones get financed, weighing such factors as intellectual merit and social value. At times, groups of distinguished experts weigh in on how to advance whole fields, recommending, for instance, the construction of large instruments and laboratories costing billions of dollars.
By contrast, the new science philanthropy is personal, antibureaucratic, inspirational.
For Wendy Schmidt, the inspiration came in 2009, from a coral reef in the Grenadine islands of the Caribbean. It was her first scuba dive, and it opened her eyes to the riot of nature.
She talked it over with her husband, Eric, the executive chairman of Google, and the two decided that marine science needed more resources. (The government’s research fleet, 28 ships strong in 2000, has shrunk by about a third and faces further cuts.) So they set up the Schmidt Ocean Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., and poured in more than $100 million. The centerpiece is a ship nearly the length of a football field that, unlike most research vessels, has a sauna and a helicopter pad.
“We want to rapidly advance scientific research, to speed it up,” Mrs. Schmidt said in an interview.


The philanthropists’ projects are as diverse as the careers that built their fortunes. George P. Mitchell, considered the father of the drilling process for oil and gas known as fracking, has given about $360 million to fields like particle physics, sustainable development and astronomy — including $35 million for the Giant Magellan Telescope, now being built by a private consortium for installation atop a mountain in Chile.
The cosmos, Mr. Mitchell said in an interview before his death last year, “is too big not to have a good map.” Continue reading the main story Eli Broad, who earned his money in housing and insurance, donated $700 million for a venture between Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to explore the genetic basis of disease. Gordon Moore of Intel has spent $850 million on research in physics, biology, the environment and astronomy. The investor Ronald O. Perelman, among other donations, gave more than $30 million to study women’s cancers — money that led to Herceptin, a breakthrough drug for certain kinds of breast cancer. Nathan P. Myhrvold, a former chief technology officer at Microsoft, has spent heavily on uncovering fossil remains of Tyrannosaurus rex, and Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, a hedge fund, has lent his mega-yacht to hunts for the elusive giant squid.
The availability of so much well-financed ambition has created a new kind of dating game. In what is becoming a common narrative, researchers like to describe how they begged the federal science establishment for funds, were brushed aside and turned instead to the welcoming arms of philanthropists. To help scientists bond quickly with potential benefactors, a cottage industry has emerged, offering workshops, personal coaching, role-playing exercises and the production of video appeals.
Advancement Resources of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, did its first workshop in 2002 and has now conducted hundreds across the country, mostly to coach scientists and medical institutions in what it calls the art of donor development. “We help make their work accessible to people who do not have scientific backgrounds but do understand money,” said its founder, Joe K. Golding.
Medical institutions are even training their own scientists and doctors in the art of soliciting money from grateful — and wealthy — patients. And Nature ran a lengthy article giving tips on how to “sell science” and “woo philanthropists.” They included practicing an “elevator pitch” — a digest of research so compelling that it would seize a potential donor’s attention in the time between floors.
Practice in front of the mirror and “with anyone who will listen,” it advised. When the pitch is smooth enough, “aim high.”
Government Gloom
In November 2012, the White House issued a thick and portentous update on the health of the nation’s research complex. Produced by Mr. Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it warned of American declines, emphasized the rise of scientific rivals abroad and called for bold policy interventions.
“Without adequate support for such research,” the experts wrote in their cover letter, “the United States risks losing its leadership in invention and discovery.”
The financial outlook had fallen far and fast. Congress had long reached across party lines to support government research, for its economic and military rewards and because the distribution of billions of dollars plays well come election time. After rising steadily for decades, federal science financing hit a high point in 2009, in the early days of the Obama administration, as Congress, to stimulate the economy amid the global financial crisis, allocated about $40 billion for basic science.
That bipartisan consensus eroded with the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections and the budget battles that followed. Spending on basic research has fallen by roughly a quarter, to $30 billion last year, one of the sharpest declines ever.
The cutbacks translate into layoffs: A group of scientific societies recently surveyed 3,700 scientists and technical managers and reported that 55 percent knew of colleagues who had lost jobs or expected to lose them soon.
In an interview, the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, called 2013 one of his agency’s darkest years ever, with fewer grants awarded and with jobs and programs cut. In decades past, research financed by the institutes won more than 100 Nobel Prizes. The cutbacks, Dr. Collins said, were “profoundly discouraging.”
Largely unmentioned in the gloom is the rise of private science. The White House report mentioned philanthropy only in passing. “We didn’t do it justice,” said one of the authors, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report’s preparation.



Science policy has always been shot through with politics. Little surprise, then, that political sensitivities have been stoked by the injection of philanthropic money into this traditionally public sphere.
The official reticence about private science may reflect, in part, a fear that conservatives will try to use it to further a small-government agenda. Indeed, some of the donors themselves worry that too much focus on private giving could diminish public support for federal science.
“It’s always been a major worry,” said Robert W. Conn, president of the Kavli Foundation, which has committed nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to science and is part of the private effort to increase financing for basic research. “Philanthropy is no substitute for government funding. You can’t say that loud enough.”
Representative Lamar Smith would beg to disagree. Mr. Smith, a 14-term Republican from Texas, helped found the House Tea Party Caucus and, after the Tea Party ferment swept the Republicans to power in the House, became chairman of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Last year, after a meteor exploded over Russia and injured more than 1,200 people, Mr. Smith declared that new sensors in space were “critical to our future.” Then he held a hearing to showcase a satellite-borne telescope meant to scan the solar system for speeding rocks that could endanger the planet. Money for the venture comes from leaders of eBay, Google and Facebook, as well as anonymous private donors.
“We must better recognize what the private sector can do to aid our efforts to protect the world,” Mr. Smith said.
In decades past, that job would have belonged to NASA. But at the hearing, the project’s head, Edward T. Lu, a former astronaut and Google executive, testified that the spacecraft’s cost — $450 million — was about half what the government would have spent.
Committee members enthusiastically suggested that the private endeavor pointed the way toward a new era of lower federal spending.
“Congratulations!” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican. “I’m totally supportive.”
In the recent interview, Dr. Collins of the N.I.H. acknowledged that the philanthropists were “terrifically important” for filling gaps and taking advantage of new opportunities. The science, he emphasized, “has never been at a more exciting moment.”
Still, he and other experts are quick to add that the private surge is far too small to replace public financing.
The N.I.H. budget alone runs to about $30 billion — half for basic research. At least for now, said Dr. Press, the board chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, private giving is “still a drop in the bucket.”
Uncharted Billions
For all that, the government knows very little about how much philanthropic money is flowing into science, or how it is being spent.
Science analysts say that knowledge is vitally important: Without it, the government cannot get a comprehensive picture and strive for a smart balance in the nation’s overall science plans.
The issues are considered social as well as intellectual, and so, in their own grant-making decisions, federal agencies strive to ensure that their money does not flow just to established stars at elite institutions. They consider gender and race, income and geography.
Yet even as the federal government finely monitors its own investments in science research, philanthropy remains largely uncharted territory. (The government does carefully track science financed by private industry, but that research tends to produce such practical things as drugs, jets and gadgets, rather than fundamental insights into the mysteries of nature.) Continue reading the main story “People assume we do it,” said John E. Jankowski, a senior analyst at the National Science Foundation, which not only finances research but also tracks science budgets. “But we don’t, because of resource constraints.”
The task is daunting. If government science is centralized, science philanthropy is determinedly not: It is an agglomeration of donors, from the wealthiest patrons to people who write modest checks to their favorite charities.
The National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly urged the government to step up its monitoring of the uncharted billions. And recently, Dr. Jankowski said, the National Science Foundation began developing a pilot survey, to be completed in about a year.
If budgets allow, he added, the agency plans to “ultimately fund” a comprehensive survey.
In the meantime, Fiona E. Murray, a professor of entrepreneurship at M.I.T., has taken a different tack, studying not the donors but the recipients — particularly the nation’s research universities.
To simplify the task, she looked at the 50 leading universities in science-research spending, places like Columbia and Stanford, Duke and Harvard, Michigan and Johns Hopkins.
What Dr. Murray found sheds light on the scope of the phenomenon, as well as questions about who benefits. Private donors now account for roughly 30 percent of the schools’ research money, she reported, adding that the rise of science philanthropy may simply help “rich fields, universities and individuals to get richer.”



The new patrons are responsible for one of the most striking trends on these campuses: the rise of privately financed institutes, the new temples of science philanthropy.
In Cambridge, Mass. — home to M.I.T. and Harvard — they include the $100 million Ragon Institute for immunology research, the $150 million Koch Institute for cancer studies, the $165 million Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, the $250 million Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, the $350 million McGovern Institute for brain research, the $450 million Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and the $700 million Broad Institute for genome research.
“If I’m a rich person, I’m going to give to a leading institution — to Harvard or Princeton,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. That pattern, she added, “poses big issues” for the nation.
A Focus on Disease
If the map of the world of private science has yet to be drawn, one thing is clear: Much of the money is going into campaigns for a cure.
This private war on disease has resulted not only in significant advances in treatment, but also in what experts describe as a major breakthrough in how biomedical research is done. The method opens up blockages that have traditionally kept basic discoveries from being turned into effective treatments — especially for rare diseases that drug companies avoid for lack of potential profit.


“We think it’s potentially transformative,” said Maryann P. Feldman, a professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who studies the approach.
The first success came with cystic fibrosis, which arises when a faulty gene clogs the lungs and pancreas with a sticky mucus. People with cystic fibrosis suffer from coughing, fatigue, poor digestion and slow growth, and die relatively young.
Around 2000, a surge of wealthy donors began making large contributions to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Tom and Ginny Hughes of Greenwich, Conn., had two daughters with the disease, and gave millions of dollars. The family also posed in snapshots for the foundation’s “Milestones to a Cure” updates, and Mr. Hughes, a banker, helped the charity develop strategies to expand its fund-raising.Continue reading the main story Year after year, the foundation held galas, hikes, runs and golf tournaments, eventually raising more than a quarter-billion dollars. With great skill, it used the money to establish partnerships across industry and academia, smashing through the walls that typically form around research teams.
By early 2012, the financial surge produced the first treatment for an underlying cause of cystic fibrosis. The drug counters a gene mutation that accounts for 4 percent of the cases in the United States — about 1,200 people. The medication thinned the deadly mucus, lessening symptoms and drastically improving quality of life.
The success begot a global rush to turn basic discoveries into treatments, a field now known as translational science. It also inspired rich donors to shower new money on disease research.
Many of their efforts are rooted deep in personal or family trauma. Sometimes, by sheer force of genetics and demographics, that impulse may risk widening historical racial inequalities in health care and disease research, disparities that decades of studies have shown to contribute to higher rates of disease and death among blacks, Hispanics and other minority groups.
A review of these campaigns finds that, as with cystic fibrosis — which mainly strikes people of Northern European descent — a significant number are devoted to diseases that disproportionately affect white people.
Ovarian cancer strikes and kills white women more often than minority women. In 2012, after his sister-in-law died of the disease at age 44, Jonathan D. Gray, the head of global real estate at the Blackstone Group, the private equity firm, gave the University of Pennsylvania $25 million to set up a center to study female cancers.
Melanoma, the deadliest of skin cancers, also strikes and kills whites preferentially. Debra Black, wife of the financier Leon Black, survived a bad scare. Soon after, the couple teamed up with Michael R. Milken, the former junk-bond financier, whose charity FasterCures gives advice on how to accelerate research, to found the Melanoma Research Alliance. It quickly became the world’s largest private sponsor of melanoma research, awarding more than $50 million for work at Yale, Columbia and other universities.
Of course, the pervasiveness of most diseases means most philanthropists give comfort and medical relief across the lines of race and ethnicity. When Mr. Milken, for example, learned that he had prostate cancer, he set up a foundation to fight it. The charity has raised more than half a billion dollars, helping save not only him but also many black men, since they develop the disease more frequently than white men do.
So, too, the techniques of translational science, inspired by philanthropy, are now being applied in a federal effort against sickle cell anemia, a blood disorder that mainly strikes black people and has long been something of a research orphan.
Scientists first described sickle cell anemia in 1910 and uncovered its genetic basis in 1949. The discovery, by a team that included Linus Pauling, a Nobel laureate twice over, was central to the creation of the field of molecular medicine. Yet with little financing for sickle cell research, either public or private, no drug has been developed that targets the disease’s underlying cause, even though it has crippled and killed millions of people.
The government effort began with Dr. Collins, the N.I.H. director, who as a biologist had helped uncover the cystic fibrosis gene. As the new cystic fibrosis treatment emerged, he pressed the government to adopt the breakthrough translational method, federal budget cuts notwithstanding. Today, the N.I.H. translational science center has an annual budget of more than $600 million and seeks new drugs for rare diseases, which number in the thousands.


Dr. Collins, who works with many wealthy donors, said the government was trying to level the playing field rather than rush off to where “everybody’s already piled up effort.” An effective treatment for sickle cell disease, he said, has “been a long time coming.”


A candidate drug is undergoing clinical trials and looks promising. In December, the company working with N.I.H. on the research effort announced that a single dose produced a “significant reduction” of pain for up to 24 hours.
Setting the Agenda
In the early 1980s, Leroy Hood, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, proposed to make the first automated DNA sequencer, which he pitched to the National Institutes of Health as a way to rapidly identify the billions of hereditary units in every human cell. His grant proposals were rejected, so he turned to Sol Price, a warehouse-store magnate whose companies ultimately merged with Costco.
The breakthrough of the DNA sequencer led to the Human Genome Project — the federal effort that, at a cost of $3.8 billion, mapped all the heritable units — and, more recently, to the burgeoning field of personal genomics.
Science philanthropy, Dr. Hood said, “lets you push the frontiers.”
Over the years, the flood of private money has also inspired something of a reversal. In gene sequencing, in translational medicine, in the Obama administration’s Brain initiative and in other areas, the federal government, instead of setting the agenda, increasingly follows the private lead.
A decade ago, Anousheh Ansari, a Texas engineer who made a fortune in telecommunications, financed a $10 million prize competition for the first private craft that could send three people into space. Her success spawned a boom. Private donors now back dozens of science awards, and the government offers hundreds of its own, motivated, according to a White House study, “by the success of philanthropic and private sector prizes.”
Sometimes, private donors go to the government’s aid. When budget cuts threatened to shut down a giant particle accelerator on Long Island in 2006, Dr. Simons, the hedge-fund investor, who lives nearby, raised $13 million to bail it out. As a result, research teams were able to keep exploring subatomic aspects of the blast that brought the universe into existence.
If the rich donors are to be believed, their financing of scientific research in the years ahead will expand greatly in size and scope. A main reason is the Giving Pledge.
In 2010, Mr. Gates, along with his wife, Melinda, and the investor Warren E. Buffett, announced the campaign. So far, roughly a fifth of America’s nearly 500 billionaires have signed up, pledging to donate the majority of their fortunes to charity.
A Times analysis of the pledge letters made public shows that more than 40 percent of the signers plan to finance studies in science, health and the environment. With personal fortunes in excess of $250 billion, they are promising, at a minimum, to donate more than $125 billion. How much is destined for science is unclear, but several laid out objectives that are fairly extraordinary.
“We want to eradicate diabetes in our lifetime,” wrote Harold Hamm, a leading figure in the North Dakota oil rush, and his wife, Sue Ann.
Jon M. Huntsman, a Utah billionaire whose son Jon Jr. unsuccessfully sought the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, said his philanthropy would “make sure cancer is vanquished.”


Admirers of the new patrons — and the patrons themselves — say that, over the decades, the surge in donations will probably result in economic growth that helps the United States fend off global challengers. The private gifts, they emphasize, will become especially important if Washington funding continues its downward spiral.
Shortly before he died, Mr. Mitchell, the telescope man, spoke of his concern that American science was already losing its competitive edge. He cited the discovery of the Higgs boson, a subatomic particle seen as imparting mass to the universe. The finding was made at a particle accelerator in Europe after tight budgets shut down a rival machine near Chicago.
“We have no excuse” for losing the lead, Mr. Mitchell said. “We need to fix it.”

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 28.512
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #48 on: 18-03-2014, 10:30:18 »
A šta nisu privatizovali?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.549
Re: Ideologija Nauke?
« Reply #49 on: 18-03-2014, 10:50:42 »
Pa... još uvek imaju relativno kompetitivan svemirski program, privatnici su tu za sada tek podsticajna konkurencija, ali ko zna šta donosi dan a šta donosi noć...