Let Global Public Play with Science by Ajay Bhatla

Rick Searle

Hi Ajay,

I've pasted these reflection on you essay from the comments section of my own:

I liked your essay a lot. I am a big supporter of citizen science. I don't think you mentioned crowd sourcing efforts such as FOLDING AT HOME or even better, in that they better involve individuals crowd sourcing efforts that have individuals scan through astronomical data and the like. I feel that given mobile technology the horizon of citizen science is endless > everything from monitoring and pooling data on local ecosystems to allowing people in the developing world to tap into the scientific knowledge of more technologically developed countries. Mobile could even be used to bring highly localized knowledge in the developing world e.g. medicinal plants, new species, ecosystem health with scientist all over the world.

All the best on your noble effort to bring science to the global public.

Rick Searle

Ajay Bhatla

Rick,

Thank you for being a big supporter of science in the hands of consumers.

I did not mention crowd sourcing as its objective is to put a challenge to a crowd and choose a solution from the many the crowd puts forward.

My approach is very different from crowd sourcing. I believe that no sourcing is required for the goal is not for a crowd to help me with my challenge, but the goal is to get each citizen able to solve their own individual challenge.

I concur on your assessment that mobile technology is too important to ignore and its single biggest benefit will be to get knowledge to, literally, everyone to choose and use.

I'll post this comment on your essay also.

- Ajay

Aaron Feeney

P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

6 - slightly favorable indifference

5 - unfavorable indifference

4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

The following is a general observation:

Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

Ajay Bhatla

Aaron,

I agree with your rating stance and rank definitions, except for one issue. I am not at all sure if any of the essays deserve a rating of 1 or 2. Over the years, I have been consistently surprised, pleasantly, by individuals who said what sounded quite a bit impossible and impractical but became real because the individual completely believed their story.

Fyi, I will rate all the essays, including yours, by end of next week. I'm slowing reading every one and comparing them to see which I like better using the criteria specified by FQXi.

- Ajay

Michael Allan

Hi Ajay, You've good intentions, but I fear you won't convince people to change. At first I thought you were trying to convince scientists. You spoke of the "select few" who alone understand nature (p.4), who "need to make public" their secrets (p. 6) and give others "access to knowledge hidden in the closet called science" (p. 7). But I think that's just your manner of speaking; you know that science (like the humanities and other scholarship) is already public, already part of the public sphere and therefore accessible to any educated person who chooses to participate. Leaving aside the key of education (you don't focus on that), you must be trying to convince people to choose to spend more of their time participating in science. Is that right?

I fear you won't succeed at that. Most folks are already doing what interests them and usually it's not close to science. - Mike

Ajay Bhatla

Mike,

I guess I have not been clear enough in my essay.

I am not trying to change anything other than get scientists and others to communicate what they know in science in ways that ordinary humans can access the knowledge and play, tinker and dream with the knowledge. This is what IT did and see what all dedicated people came up with: some of which we admire, some of which we hate and some we are indifferent to.

Most folks need more resources and I want the knowledge we hold in the science closet to be available to them for their using.

- Ajay

Michael Allan

Thanks Ajay, I understand. We should convince the would-be providers (scientists and others) to make science-play generally available instead of just science-work. But (to explain my point) we'd also have to convince the players to participate. Take me for instance. My interest in nature is above average; I've a degree in science, I occaisonally read books about nature, follow the wanderings of the Mars rover, and so forth. Nevertheless I'm not attracted to the hands-on investigation of how nature works (conducting experiments and interpreting results), which is science. My interests lie elsewhere. And I think the same is true for most people. They're much more interested in other activities (drawn from a wide variety of possibilities) than in doing science. So the science players (like the workers) would always be relatively few in number, nowhere near the general public. They wouldn't be like internet users, for example. The internet is a general tool for a common activity, but science is not; science is a specialized tool for an uncommon activity. You hope to make it more common - and undoubtedly there's some scope for that, I don't mean to suggest there's none - but I think it's relatively small. It'll never be "for anyone and everyone". This is my point. - Mike

Michael Allan

PS - Thanks again for your answers, Ajay, here and below. I'll be rating your essay (together with all the others on my review list) some time between now and May 30. Very best, - Mike

Jonathan Dickau

I enjoyed your essay Ajay,

I daresay that what you are calling for is something that must be done. But I would also have to say that you only begin to articulate how to share the wealth of Science with a broader public. I envision a whole lot of Science centers and Museums where adults can play and experiment, in a safe environment, as a possible step in the direction you seek. IT can carry us only so far, as there needs to be a tangible connection as well. I have a lot more to say, because I think your reasoning is sound but incomplete.

You could have been much more explicit about how the internet has greatly increased the availability of information that could previously only be found in prestigious College libraries, to make it available to anyone. You could also have talked a little more about how playing can foster innovation, but the basic idea of your essay is sound. I would not limit the purview of your premise to the young, however. I think there are a lot of older people who have the Science bug, and would love to play with Science.

The ideas in this essay are definitely a step in the right direction, so I have elevated your ranking somewhat.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Ajay Bhatla

Jonathan,

Thank you for your kind comments and ranking me up, but someone else seems to have ramped me down. I guess that's the way it goes. I do wonder what the rankings would be if we could not see the composite value.

You are quite right in that I could have talked at length about the Internet and made the case more completely. Points well made and taken with thanks. Not an excuse, but a friend told me about FQXi on Wednesday and I wrote the essay overnight on Thursday to get it in on Friday.

Ajay

Daniel Dewey

Hi Ajay,

It does seem that giving as many people as possible the ability to improve their lives through exploration of science and engineering would have many good effects.

I'd be interested to hear how you'd want to trade these benefits off against the potential harms, though. For example, widespread knowledge of contagious diseases and genetic engineering could be quite dangerous; it would only take one mistake by a curious experimenter to kill many people. Do you have ideas about how to address this kind of risk? How could we calculate whether or not to distribute certain types of knowledge?

Because of the risks of future technologies, I tend to think that there may be types of scientific or engineering knowledge that should not be spread freely, at least until we have figured out how to protect against their harms. What do you think?

Best,

Daniel

Crucial Phenomena

Ajay Bhatla

Daniel,

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Similarly, which is more important: reward or risk?

We may have a philosophical difference, but I'm sure you can postulate so many risks that few actions will ever get off the ground. Isn't your question the current issue for decision makers to get past and get moving on global warming?

If prior justification was required, could Google Search ever become real?

The same answer applies to any research arena or researcher, including you and I, and any of your work or mine.

I look forward to reading your essay later this week.

- Ajay

Tommy Anderberg

Thanks for the heads up. Another essay which I seem to have missed completely... :/

A doubt crept up as I was reading yours: do you really mean science, or do you mean technology?

Your leading example, Information Technology, suggests it's the latter. The IT explosion (which I would claim started in earnest in the late 70s, making it closer to 40 now) was about a technology which became cheap enough for individuals to afford (in industrialized countries at least), simple enough for a large section of the population to master, and (for some) fun enough to motivate the effort. There are millions of self-taught hackers now, but if there has been a commensurate growth on the "sciency" side of computing (theory of computation, information theory, complexity and all that), I have completely missed it.

Assuming that you really are after broadening access to other technologies, I guess the obvious lessons from IT is that they must be

- Cheap

- Easy

- Fun

for widespread adoption to happen. And they had better be applicable to real problems for that adoption to be desirable.

I can think of two contexts where something like this already seems to be happening. One is the "maker movement" around electronics and 3D printing: people combining cheap microcontrollers like Arduino, Beagleboard, RaspBerry Pi or Intel Galileo with custom parts made with Fab@Home or similar to build gizmos. The other, maybe even more interesting one is biology, with startups and community initiatives opening up biohacking.

In both cases, IT continues to play a crucial supporting role by enabling information dissemination, community building and crowd founding in ways which would not have been possible even two decades ago. At risk of sounding like a broken record, I think virtual reality could also become important for this kind of thing by allowing rapid concept development and simulated prototype testing in cases where the real thing would be prohibitively costly or risky to build.

Ajay Bhatla

Tommy,

Thank you for your question on science and technology.

Do let me know how the following sits with you:

Science is essentially the knowledge of consequences i.e. Science answers the question: What is the cause of this result? To answer this question, a description of the environment, within which the consequence occurs, is necessary because the same result can be reached with different cause-environment combinations.

Technology, on the other hand, is our attempt at controlling the environment so that a particular action (cause) leads only to one or a very few restricted list of results. This is what IT did very well.

So, two points for you to consider:

1. As circumstances are different all over the world for the same situation (water shortages do not occur with the same local circumstances in place) it is the local person who needs to make real the technology applicable locally.

2. For the local person to make real the specific technology needed locally, all the science must be available to him/her to choose from and adapt.

Looking forward to your reaction.

Ajay

Tommy Anderberg

I like the definition of science handily provided by Wikipedia: "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Going by this (consensus, I think) definition, to do science is to discover and organize knowledge.

My impression is that you are more interested in "the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a pre-existing solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function" (technology).

This is not just nitpicking (I hope), because making the latter widely available, especially in the cheap, easy and fun way needed to achieve broad uptake, is a lot easier than the former. Technology can be standardized and packaged. You can have a set of mass-produced (hence cheap) tools and well-defined (hence teachable) procedures to perform commonly occurring tasks, and let everybody combine them as they see fit to achieve their own, more complicated goals. If you hit the right compromise between granularity and abstraction, you get something like IT. I can pick a bunch of components from a catalogue and assemble a PC without having to brush up on electronics (or trying to design my own microprocessor), or use the high level abstractions of a computer language and supporting libraries to create a program to perform a calculation without having to worry about every detail of the implementation. In both cases, I am using standardized building blocks which hide a lot of the complexity from me, making the process easy and even fun.

To do science is pretty much the opposite. It's about digging deeper, past the convenient layers of abstraction, and looking for loose threads to follow even deeper down the rabbit hole. If you already know what you're going to find, you're probably not doing science. I offer as a corollary that if you're trying to solve a pressing practical problem, you probably don't want to be doing science. What you want is access to a set of cheap, standardized building blocks which can be combined to achieve the desired result.

So that's what needed: a set of convenient building blocks, versatile enough to produce virtually unlimited combinations, yet simple enough to be usable by many people.

Michael Allan

I second Tommy. The scope for participation in technology is greater than in science (I still maintain it's not "for anyone and everyone", but more so than science). And there's more practical utility in terms of direct benefit from the product, which I think is what Ajay is driving at. - Mike

Ajay Bhatla

Tommy and Michael,

I guess, I'm not making myself clear.

The definition of 'science' you quote from Wikipedia is simply wrong for it presumes (a) science knowledge predicts the future and (b) that it is an enterprise. The part of being "testable" is somewhat right.

"Science" is the knowledge of consequences. Consequences talk about finding the root cause of a result i.e. the result B was caused by action A.

This B-A relationship is not saying that A-B is also true. B-A is NOT a predictor of A-B because there are too many factors that are necessary to be in place before B-A is true. Without this long list of factors A-B is not realized and science says so very clearly.

The implication you seem to give when you talk about products and technology is also incorrect and NOT applicable to the knowledge called science. Products have a defined result e.g. I press the computer key with the label "D" on it and a "d" appears on the screen. Everything else the key can do is restricted. Thus, products don't allow themselves to do anything other than the restrictions technology places on these products.

The few minds that figure out how to make 'pressing the D key' produce a smiley face on the screen is the creative result that only knowledge at the "science" level can produce in those hands whose minds are challenged for reasons unknown to the rest of us.

Thank you for identifying what I have to make more clear in my essay.

-- Ajay

Christine Dantas

Dear Ajay,

I read your essay and I found it interesting and well-written, and it is quite good-intended.

I think that what you envision would already be the outcome of a much more advanced civilization, in which every single individual would enjoy a high educational level to the point of being competent in science at some level, or at the level of his/her choice, being completely free to pursue his/her own research according to necessity or just fun, if he/she desires at all, with resources readily available for him/her for an open practice.

I am not sure of what it necessary for we as a species to evolve to that point, although you have proposed some ideas. Something to think about. I think the process is somewhat more involved, though.

Very good essay, which deserves a better rating (I have rated it, for your information).

Good luck,

Christine

Ajay Bhatla

Christine,

I totally agree that the process is more involved.

But the idea, I believe, we both share is not too difficult for open minds to grasp: Get more minds involved in ways that we let them freely contribute. The future is mostly what we can imagine, and I being an eternal optimist, hope and see a wonderful future for every human and living thing.

Good luck to you too!

-- Ajay

Israel Perez

Dear Ajay

Just to let you know that I just read your essay. It is well-written and organized. Although, I think that perhaps you need to be more specific in your objective. It is not clear how you pretend to achieve your goal of letting people play with science. Do you have a program in mind? I also have some doubts regarding some parts of your essay. I would be glad if you could make some comments.

You say: During the recent four decade period, however, after the sciences underpinning digital information technology (IT) were placed in the hands of non-scientists,

Who are you referring to? Who are those non-scientists you claim made exponential progress?

You also say: Scientists must individually put their science within reach of the global public in a form novices can use as they see fit.

I agree that science is another human activity like any other, but, in my view, science must be done by experts and science should be in the hands of scientists only, because they are the experts. The knowledge science generates is shared for free from many institutions. This is how the public get access to science. However, one must be aware that not all knowledge can be shared. One should be careful with knowledge because in the wrong hands it may cause damage. For instance, nuclear physics.

Those who would like to generate knowledge are welcomed to do research following the protocols and guidelines of science. Those who wish to know, scientific knowledge is for free in many institutions and websites. The public nowadays have open access to knowledge.

I wish you good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

pjackson

Ajay,

Thanks for your comments and questions on mine. I responded there as below. From your abstract I'll enjoy reading yours.

"Message 1) is that understanding must be improved to progress. Message 2) is that a new 'non Earth-centric' way to think is needed to achieve that progress, and it's possible now. I tried to show 2 in a more subliminal way, showing the hidden importance of there being "no UP in space" and the power of that next 'Copernican' step away from how we use our on-board quantum computers.

The demonstration of that is the entirely classical reproduction of 'QM correlations', circumventing Bell's theorem. It uses 'joined-up-physics' by applying various important elements (i.e. electron 'spin flip') to expose a coherent geometrical solution to the EPR paradox. No spookyness or FTL nonsense required.

It's a fundamental breakthrough because the same mechanism also applies to SR (light speed changes to local c on arrival and interaction not before!) which allows complete harmonious unification of SR and QM, in 'absolute' time, but with Doppler shiftable 'signals' once emitted (see my prev essays from '2020 Vision in 2011). For that reason it'll probably never be countenanced by any who can't think beyond current doctrine. Unfortunately that seems to be very few so far. I think you caught a first glimpse, far clearer than the established language? A 2nd read often seems necessary."

Peter

pjackson

Ajay,

Great essay. Shocking stuff to 'professional scientists' but a nice attempt at making the point that nature and our planet are the domains of all mankind. I suspect almost all will scream with fear and not understand, as Israel's comment above, but they may invoke the public playing with nuclear weapons so only succeed in entirely missing the point. All those without PhD's are seen as crackpots to be ignored and excluded.

There's an answer to Israel's question. It is that MOST breakthroughs are made from those NOT part of the 'expert' community at the time. You should compile a list. One of my favourites is Heaviside. Typically even though lauded his real contribution was far greater that n the 'experts' wanted to admit. It was he who wrote the so called 'Maxwell' equations!

I am 100% behind your point. Science should not have 'coded' languages to create mystique, cliques and clubs away from prying eyes. The arXiv some years ago demanded plain language. that lasted 5 minutes, now their editors are worse than the worse journals for censorship. The rot grows from within. I smelt it early and stepped back, also then training as an Architect. Architects take the opposite, inclusive, view; "All men are Architects". I am an enabler, using my skills to implement and open the mind to show what's possible and make it happen. Science desperately needs such an ethos but rejects the slightest hint.

My essay shows what's possible with that view. But so did my previous ones, the last 3 in the top 10 and last years 2nd, all completely ignored by the 'expert' physicist judges who keep theory in it's cosy complex rut. Unification of physics is hiding right before our eyes. My young nephew and local barmaid and associates understand it well and call professional scientists 'utter dorks' for clinging on the incoherent and illogical tripe. With a foot in both camps I argue both sides, but it's becoming ever clearer to the public that the king really is rather naked. The longer it takes to escape the rut the more painful it will be.

I hope you understood the shockingly simple dynamics of my hypothesis, I've also explained it in a nutshell in blog comments, but do just ask. Very well and bravely done with yours. I have just one small quibble, that you accept Newton and Einstein too easily without question. We must remember; "All science is provisional", and I find all needs at least some re-interpretation. I shall try your antigravity button (do try mine!) Very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

Ajay Bhatla

Peter,

I agree that I should say it as clearly as possible that "all science is provisional." Thanks for the 100% backing.

The very best in the competition.

-- Ajay

Arthur Woods

Dear Ajay

I enjoyed your essay and especially its optimistic message about having science becoming more accessible to the general public as a strategy for steering the future.

As other readers have pointed out, the Internet and the general availability of information technologies have surely furthered - and will continue to further - your goal in this endeavor.

From my experience as an artist working with art-in-space projects, in order to be taken seriously by the space agency administrators, engineers and scientists, I soon realized it was necessary to learn the "languages" of these disciplines while sharing the my artistic "language" with them. Thus, I had to become competent in various areas of space technology including science and engineering in order to realize my space art projects. Once a credible goal was articulated and understanding from both sides was established, mutual synergy occurred and things happened.

Today, there are a number of artists-in-labs projects located around the world that are enabling and encouraging this kind of multi-disciplinary interchange.

See: Swiss Artists in Labs

As mentioned in my essay, humanity itself must be considered as its most valuable resource. Thus, the more information that becomes accessible, the more significant will be the creative output.

Good luck and best regards

Arthur

Ajay Bhatla

Arthur,

The internet also made me aware of the volume of positive outcomes possible with more sharing without requiring any kind of pre-qualification of recipients.

Your point on "languages" is 100% correct. The internet surfaced one solution for communication issues: If enough individuals have access to the same knowledge then a few self-selecting people will figure out (through play and tinkering) how to use the knowledge.

The "ail" reference you shared is very significant to my work. Thank you.

The very best.

-- Ajay

« Previous Page Next Page »