A different evolution of Science

Arundhati Dasgupta

In this essay, we examine the evolution of science as controlled by `artificial selection'. We describe two concrete ideas which we could be focusing on, in an alternate historical evolution of current science, and place them in a feminine narrative. We discuss how a feminine narrator can be simulated artificially for a different future branching of evolving science.

Download Essay PDF File

Download Reference PDF File

Arved Huebler

There were once two physicists who propagated an Aryan physics and considered quantum mechanics as well as the theory of relativity incorrect because it was "Jewish". Both, the Austrian Philipp Lenard and the German Johannes Stark won a Nobel Prize in their younger years (1905 and 1919) and later developed their Aryan physics inspired by Nazi ideology. In the end, Aryan physics did not make any significant, consistent contribution to natural science, while quantum mechanics as well as relativity theory meant a great increase in knowledge. They were namely not Jewish, but correct.
Conclusion: The success of the natural science and physics does not lie in any assignments, but in their unconditional objectivity. This always aspired objectivity can be sometimes better and sometimes worse, however, it is certainly independent of any quality of the experimenter, discoverer, theory developer. And the requirement for physics is conceivably simple: it correctly predicts reality within the limits of previously defined validity (the reductionism that is always criticized but taken for granted).

Kelvin McQueen

This was an interesting paper! I liked the suggestion that science would have developed faster if it had initially developed information theory instead of geometry. Though I wonder if the discovery of information theory required experimental results using technologies we could not have expected to have had without first developing geometry as we did. One thing that was a little unclear towards the end was what actually counts as feminine and masculine in this context. This would need to be well-defined if we were to actually build the suggested AI that balances both. The example on page 5 put atomic bomb development in the masculine camp and curing cancer in the feminine camp, but it was not clear why. Otherwise, this was an enjoyable read!

pjackson

You very persuasively; "_strongly advocate for an alternate driver for the future evolution of science and its use." And one is certainly required. Why not a new feminine based view? It does seem a potentially excellent way to remove embedded biases and develop a fresh approach, willing to countenance and able to understand new physics. It's a strange thing, but I've had the feeling that the alien intelligence in the interview my own essay reports on was feminine, or certainly somewhat so, not hidebound by mankind's inconsistent beliefs, so agreeing with you, and very directly stating the quite different alien physics they use. Or perhaps it was memories of a previous life, who knows, but one in which I was a female! Nicely written and argued, worth a high score, but are you prepared to face and properly analyse the very different physics that's likely to prove correct?!