To
strive for a healthier science culture environment in China (Part A)
Posted
by Shen-Su
Sun
on Monday,
25 January 1999, at 12:45 p.m.
Downloaded
from OCESTA website: http://www.geochina.org/
Slightly
modified on 29 September 2003
We all know that
there are all kinds of bullshit talks. Some are brilliantly creative with
lateral thinking, some are holy bullshit and others are crappy and stinky
bullshit. It is not surprising to find that some great ideas started from
casual bullshitting peppered with educated intuition.
A Chan (Zen)
story
Recently I made
up a Chan (Zen) story to make a point about "holy bullshit". As you
probably know that Chan stories are often designed to reveal the ridiculous
game play of words, silly metaphysics and the folly of mankind. The moral
teaching of Chan stories often is aimed to give a shock treatment and
hopefully it can lead people to "dunwu" (suddenly understand the
true meaning). My story goes like this: About twelve hundred years ago in the
prosperous city of Chang¡¯an,
the capital city of Tang dynasty, there was a very popular Jewish religion
among Chinese people. This religion was introduced by travelling Jewish
traders. It has an almighty creator whose Jewish name is Haupt-niufen-yah. The
image of this God is quite different from the harsh, vengeful and violent
desert God Yahweh of the Jewish Bible. He is kind, gentle and wants to serve
humanity. He responds to his believers¡¯
requests generously. He preaches paradise on Earth and harmony among the
different races. The Chinese people had great faith in this foreign God, and
believed that he was the only true creator of the Universe and the fertile
world they lived in. By the way, one of this God's main concerns is fertility
of the land.
Some Chinese
scholars in Chang¡¯an
were puzzled to find that a God with such a gentle personality came from a
harsh desert country, they suspected that this God had a Chinese connection as
his name sounds like a Chinese name. Thus, they carried out some intensive
research into the origin of this God and his religion. After many years of
hard work to break through many layers of well designed, cover up metaphysical
myths surrounding this religion they were able to reveal that this gentle God
indeed had a Chinese origin and that his Chinese name meant "Holy
Bullshit". Consequently, they were able to explain why the main concern
of this gentle God was the fertility of the land as bullshit is the one of the
main sources of fertiliser for the Chinese rice paddy fields.
The folly of the
expanding Earth hypothesis
You
may already know that the idea of Earth expansion (i.e., no subduction of the
lithospheric plates into the mantle!) has been promoted by the eminent
Australian geologist, Emeritus Professor Sam Carey of University of Tasmania.
Carey has been an outstanding Earth scientist with creative ideas, has made
major contributions to the theories of continental drift and sea-floor
spreading, and was an inspiring teacher who stimulated many Earth scientists
in Australia and other parts of the world. Since late-1950th Carey has been
strongly promoting the idea of Earth expansion and arguing against plate
tectonics. Apparently, he still regards subduction as "a myth". Dick
Armstrong in 1989 wrote a review for the American Scientist (V.77, 382-284,
1989) on Carey¡¯s
book entitled "Theories of the Earth and Universe: a History of Dogma in
the Earth Sciences" (Stanford University Press in 1988). In this book
review, which is attached below for your interest, Armstrong gave the Earth
expansion model a hard time. By the way, Dick Armstrong was an adviser for my
PhD thesis more than 25 years ago on the global Pb isotopic systematics
observed in basalts of mid-ocean ridges, ocean islands and island arcs, which
fully supported Armstrong¡¯s
view that recycling of crustal material through the subduction zones is a very
important process in the dynamic Earth.
It
is my understanding that Carey¡¯s
mechanism for Earth expansion is by "energy transforming into mass",
changes of gravitation constant G and cosmic Hubble constant. In his papers
and books Carey talked about expansion of the Universe, "Big Zero"
and creation of mass out of nothingness. By the way, in Armstrong¡¯s
book review there are mentions of "magician" and "magic"
attributed to Carey. It is well known that when he was young Carey actually
liked to play magic tricks as an amateur magician. In the earlier version of
Carey¡¯s
expanding Earth model without subduction, the radius of the Earth in Mesozoic
(about 252 to 65 million years before present, compared to the age of the
Earth of about 4550 million years) was only ~60% of the present radius. This
whole thing is incredible to me. I thought an advanced university science
student may know that for energy to transform into trans-iron elements it
needs to go through the process of big bang, nuclear synthesis in the burning
stars and supernova explosion. You may say, okay, the Earth maybe expanding
for some unknown cosmic reason, but why we don¡¯t
see any young rifts on the Moon and the Mars caused by expansion. The answer
you will get is that planets need to have the size close to the Earth or
bigger then they can expand. Here is another rabbit pulled out from the magic
hat?
I
have heard Carey's talks in a few occasions. In ~1977 Carey gave a talk about
"Big Zero" and the expanding Earth in the Department of Geology,
Adelaide University, South Australia. I was there in the audience. After his
talk one of the graduate students, an Italian guy, started arguing with Carey.
This guy pointed out that growth of the Universe out of Nothingness is not a
new idea. For example, the Chinese two thousand years ago talked about origin
of the Universe out of interaction of Ying and Yang which grew out of
Nothingness (in fact, this growth out of Nothingness concept is a common
feeling of prehistoric people worldwide, not a Chinese creation). Their
arguments became semantic and fruitless. Finally, the Italian student
concluded: Your contribution today is a "Big Zero"! In his many
years engaged in arguments of controversial issues Carey must have encountered
many of this kind of comment. Thus, I guess this kind of insult will not hurt
his feeling too much.
In
another occasion I attended Carey¡¯s
international symposium on "The expanding Earth" held in Sydney in
1981. At the end of the meeting I asked an eminent Australian scientist does
Carey knows what he is talking about when he presented those magic numbers and
magic words? After explaining what he thought about my question this eminent
Australian scientist told me a story how the magic works. At the end of one of
Carey¡¯s
expanding Earth talk someone in the audience asked Carey a hard question.
Carey went to the blackboard and wrote down a very complicated equation and
thus, shut up the person who asked the question. Afterwards one of Carey's
friends asked him how could he remember that equation! The reply is, he just
wrote something on the blackboard to shut up the guy, there is no such
equation! I am not able to prove or disprove what I have been told. But, it
sounds like a good story. If it is true, the justification for this magic
trick, I suppose, is that Carey knows the expanding Earth idea is right and
subduction is a myth. In that 1981 expanding Earth symposium one American
retired navy commander wasted about 20 minutes of our time presenting his case
of expanding Earth by addition of material through meteorite infalls! There is
simply no evidence to support this well-worn idea. Even Carey himself would
not consider this option! I was later told that not long after the 1981
meeting someone asked the distinguished geologist Tuzo Wilson what does he
thinks about Carey¡¯s
statement made in that meeting that history will prove him to be right again
(the first time was his support of continental drift and the history has
already proven that he was right)? The reply was that he cannot see the
logical connection between the first one and the second one. In the concluding
remark of his review of Carey¡¯s
book Dick Armstrong wrote: "He was fortunate to have played a major role
in one scientific revolution. Contributing to two revolutions in one lifetime
may be too much to expect.
At
this moment in Australia there is a young fellow who still argues strongly for
Carey's expanding Earth model. This person kept sending letters to the editor
of the newsletter section of The Australian Geologists (TAG) during 1995-1996.
After reading all of his letters on TAG I could not take it anymore, I called
up Phil Schmidt, one of the top guns of Australian paleomagnetician at CSIRO
in Sydney. Phil told me that he was the examiner of this person¡¯s
Master thesis. Since Phil did not want to fail this person and thus, he did
not state in the examiner¡¯s
report that this person completely misunderstood the way how to properly
interpret paleomagnetic data. Instead, Phil only suggested that he should read
a paper by Schmidt and Clark (Geophysical J R Astr. Soc, 61, 95-100, 1980)
where the proper way was explained. If this student is smart enough he will
see the light. Anyway, during this conversation I mentioned to Phil Schmidt
about my concern and suggested that he should do something about it to set the
record straight. Phil said he already has planned to write to TAG. His comment
was published on page 5 of March 31, 1997 issue of TAG. The full paper by
Schmidt and Clark (1980) was reproduced in TAG pages 22-25 of the same issue.
Several
years ago as a result of long-term satellite survey it was shown that the
Pacific Ocean is shrinking. This is consistent with the plate tectonics model
with American and Asian plates moving closer through time. This observation is
obviously against the expanding Earth idea. However, this information has not
prevented some people in Australia, for example, to send letters to The
Australian Geologists supporting the expanding Earth idea. Old soldiers never
die they just fade away (Douglas McArthur). When the old soldiers are gone
many of their ideas will disappear with them. However, their living followers
may carry on their convictions. The idea of expanding Earth is dead! Are you
kidding? It is certainly not dead, it is alive and well in China!
Maybe
it is worthwhile to mention here that my writing about the expanding Earth has
been triggered four months ago by a paper (in English) written by a Chinese
senior scientist who claims that migration of mantle fluids is the key to
understand many major geological processes, including non-biogenic formation
of large gas and oil fields. Migration of mantle fluids can also explain some
mysterious big forest fires and the origin of El Nino (I am not kidding! But,
it does not claim cures for AIDS and common cold.). I have been asked to
provide review comments on this paper. And, I found that the author is
strongly against modern plate tectonics but, supports the silly idea of Earth
expansion. This event was followed by a series of communication with a friend
Dr. Niu Yaoling of University of Queensland (Now in 2003, he is a professor at
University of Houston) a few weeks ago when he was visiting Lanzhou University
before he went to Beijing and elsewhere in China to visit several institutions
(Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing
University, China University of Geosciences in Beijing, University of Science
and Technology of China in Hefei, and Nanjing University) in December, 1998.
In one of Yaoling's message he pointed out that the difficulty in getting a
unified model leads to the proposal of alternative interpretations (such as
the expanding Earth idea) without realising (1) the data we currently have do
not suffice, and (2) the alternative interpretations are even worse and
violate the basic physics. I appreciate what he said. By the way, Yaoling also
mentioned that he would talk about the folly of the expanding Earth to some of
his friends in Beijing and elsewhere when he visits them.
Sometimes
you may wonder why in the world so many people are willing to be bewitched by
some experts of bullshit and become followers. It is true that we are living
in an uncertain world it would be nice to have something to hold on to. I
still can recall that when the American ex-President Richard Nixon was in
deep-shit of the Watergate scandal in the early 1970th he and his close aids
created a network of lies for the cover-up job. The basis for his tactics is
that "People want to believe". No doubt, there is a lot of truth in
this statement. However, as scientists we each have to make some critical
evaluation and follow-up investigation of the "new thinkings" we
hear and then decide what to do with them, I suppose. Furthermore, it is not
simply a matter of "to believe or not to believe" which belongs to
the realm of religion.
Chinese
bullshit and academic opportunists
A
Chan (Zen) monk may ask: What kinds of bullshit do we Chinese experts in the
Earth sciences have indulged in? In addition to the political holy bullshit,
how much crappy and stinky bullshit we have produced? It is easy to joke about
the folly of the western experts. But, once we come to face our own people we
must be extra careful. Otherwise, all sorts of accusation and shit will be
poured over your heads. Since I already have had elephant shit poured over my
head (see below), I may as well take the risk to carry on. During the process
of revising this article I was advised by a respectable friend that I should
take Chinese culture and Chinese attitudes into account when I write about the
Chinese, so as not to upset some mainland Chinese Earth scientists who have
limited contact with the outside world. I greatly appreciate this piece of
advice. Thus, a sort of self-censorship is imposed on what I am going to
write. I will take the risk of turning whistle blow into a muted noise. Under
this circumstance, if someone accuses me of making a lot of thunder noises to
set up the stage, but when the time comes all I can produce is just a few
drops of rain, and, what I am doing is not much more than the shadow boxing,
it is not forthright. In this case, I will plead guilty to these charges. To
make up for these obvious shortcomings maybe I should promise to produce more
rains and write in more details about Chinese experts of bullshit in another
occasion.
More
than two years ago I was amused as well as alarmed to find that there is an
abstract in the 1996 Beijing International Geological Congress (IGC) abstract
volumes suggesting that the Earth radius in the late Archaean (about 2500
million years ago, compared to the age of the Earth of about 4550 million
years) and Cambrian (about 545 to 490 million years ago) was ~80% and 94%,
respective to its present radius. The silly idea of expanding Earth has a
group of strong Earth scientist supporters in China too! It does not surprise
me that the leading scientist of this group which promotes the expanding Earth
idea in China is from the eldest living generation and thus, he can be excused
for being out of touch with the rest of the world. However, this excuse should
not apply to his followers (or prot¨¦g¨¦s), many of whom are believed to have
some overseas experiences in the recent past.
Similar
cases can be found in other institutions in China. The fact that these younger
followers (or prot¨¦g¨¦s) are helping, or perhaps "encouraging"
(manipulating?), the elder-generation scientists to promote ideas like
expanding Earth means that they either truly believe in these ideas, or they
have no idea themselves. Either case they are doing so for their own gain
(i.e. getting huge grants, building up their own power bases, accelerating
their academic promotions, and perhaps eventually getting themselves elected
to the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences). Sometimes, I cannot help
wondering about the possibility that many of these younger people are academic
opportunists who surf on the political tides and these old gentlemen have been
simply used by their followers (or prot¨¦g¨¦s) as cat¡¯s
paws for the power game. After being briefed by a number of reliable sources
plus my own observations, I have the impression that in some places the
manipulation of scientific information and people involved in present day
China has reached the extent of dishonesty or even worse.
The
influence of the older generation super-scientists will naturally diminish
with time, but the impact of the younger generation is going to be greatly
increased and long-lasting. I am happy to see that there are many rising stars
of ~40 years old becoming academic leaders in China. There is no doubt that
some of these stars are very good in their fields. But, there are others who
have climbed high in the sky through dubious and devious routes. The damages
they have done to the xuefeng (ѧ·ç)
is obvious and alarming. Perhaps one of the biggest damages is that they tend
to prevent younger and better people breaking out from the ground and reaching
for the sky.
Some
suggested solutions
It
is not difficult to realise the key to improve this situation (thus, to
improve "xuefeng") is to have a better peer review system for
research grant applications, publication of scientific papers, and academic
promotions. To achieve this goal it it highly desirable that
internationally-accepted procedures and academic standard are implemented. And
if possible, the review system should go beyond the national border. In
addition, I would like to see some sorts of scientific moral discipline be
built into the ego of these rising stars. Only in an environment with a better
xuefeng and fair competition we can prevent crappy and stinky bullshit ideas
becoming a dominant force in China.
When I was in
Japan for three months in early 1997 I was told by more than one successful
and reliable Japanese friends that if one can impress, by fair means or foul,
the officials of the Ministry of Education who control the funding of large
grants, one can have a very good chance of success in the large grant
application. Thus, all kinds of tricks have been used to impress those xueguan
(ѧ¹Ù).
It is thus sad to find some people in China being inspired by "new
thinking" proposed by some Japanese scientists whose main concern is to
create something bizarre to impress their xueguan. To be constructive, I would
like to voice my support of the idea strongly proposed by some senior Japanese
scientists that large grant proposals should be assessed by international peer¡¯s
reviews. And, important projects should have their major achievements written
up for publication in the reputable international journals. Preferably, such
publication is through normal peer¡¯s
review system, but not through publication of invited papers, which can be
more easily accepted without critical reviews.
I
would encourage those who have personal experience of being influenced by
Chinese experts of bullshit to take advantage of this Discussion Forum and to
reflect on their change of minds after studying in foreign countries. Many of
you must have seen that famous poster "We Must be Mushrooms. They Keep Us
in the Dark and Feed Us with Bullshit!" It is time to pour your heart out
(either in Chinese or in English) in the "Discussion Forum" of this
OCESTA website. Muckraking of this kind may not be a pleasant thing to do, but
it will help us to liberate our souls. We examine the past and present for the
sake of the future.
I
can think of several topics for discussion, for examples, heterogeneous
accretion of planetesimals during Earth formation as the key to explain the
formation and evolution of the continental crust, the formation of Archaean
greenstone belts, and the formation of super-giant ore deposits. Also, using
mantle plumes to explain all sorts of giant and super-giant ore deposits in
China; non-biogenic origin of large gas and oil fields from fluids derived
from the mantle and the deep crust; major meteorite impact events are
responsible for most if not all major events of mass extinction, for eruption
of continental flood basalts, and for triggering continental break-up and
drift and orogenesis. I am amazed and amused to find some detailed schemes
have been proposed for these sorts of "new thinking". No doubt, they
are necessarily highly speculative and contain lots of wishful thinking. And,
sometimes even include fabrication of "facts". Furthermore, I wonder
how many of these new thinking are mainly designed to impress xueguan and
senior scientists who are very much out of touch with real frontier research?
However, in spite of my own obsession with these sorts of topics, I would
rather leave the specific topics to the future participants of the forum
discussion. This is a challenge and I hope that there are people out there are
willing to take up this challenge and make the website a hotspot of discussion
of interesting geological issues.
After
reading this article you may wish to read two other Chinese zawen (random
essay) articles of mine, "zhuanzai" in the Special Report section of
this website. They are entitled: 1. Some critical comments and suggestions for
the Earth science research and development in the mainland China (1994,
actually published in 1995); 2. Some critical comments and suggestions for the
Earth science community in Taiwan (1996, actually published in 1997 with Lee
Chao-Shing as co-author). You may be interested to hear that in an open letter
which I received second hand Prof. Wang Xianbin, a Keda (University of Science
and Technology of China) 1963 graduate and the Director of Institute of
Geology, Chinese Academy of Science, located in Lanzhou commented that what I
have done in writing these two zawen articles is like a blind-man feeling the
elephant. The only difference is that I only have touched the elephant shit
dropping on top of me. Did I touch a raw nerve?
To
strive for a healthier science culture environment in China (Part B)
Posted
by Shen-su
Sun
on Monday,
25 January 1999, at 1:40 p.m.
Theories of the
Earth and Universe: a History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences. 5. Warren Carey.
414 pp. Stanford University Press, 1988. $45. Book review by Richard Lee
Armstrong, Geological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Cananda. It
was published on the American Scientist, Volume 77, 382-384, 1989.
This is not a
dispassionate scholarly work on the history of a science. It is a personal
statement, at times autobiographical, and to a considerable degree
self-congratulatory. It captures the essence of the man himself, his strongly
felt views, his bold style, his favorite themes and cherished whipping posts,
and his evaluation of his own role in the revolution that has taken place in
earth science over the past 50 years.
Carey and I met
30 years ago at Yale, where he taught the graduate structural geology course
in a way that has never been done before or since. He was there at a critical
moment in the development of tectonic ideas in North America and clearly has
to be credited with planting the seeds of the plate tectonics revolution in
many places as he promulgated the gospel of continental mobility and ocean
expansion. He was newly arrived at the inspiration to explain everything by
accelerating earth expansion, but most of his audience did not catch that
particular infection. Many, including Hess and Wilson, were persuaded to give
a serious look at mobility, and, as they say, the rest is history. Being a
skilled orator and able to manipulate his audience like a magician did not
hurt his cause.
The ensuing three
decades have flooded us with information and new interpretations of geologic
processes. The plate tectonics model has undergone considerable detailed
testing, modification, and embellishment. Meanwhile, Carey has gone on to
champion earth expansion from ever-more philosophical and universal
perspectives. But his views on earth expansion have changed little since 1959.
The new dogma he espouses is largely a static one-the same arguments, the same
fallacies, and the same points of debate are repeated here with little
accommodation to new discoveries. Of course Carey was nearly 100% right in
1958 about what was going on in the oceans. His detailed view of sea-floor
expansion in 1958 preceded and was not much improved upon by the views of Hess
or Deitz in the 1966s. Carey has a right to feel slighted here. And he
correctly analyzed marginal basins and arcuate orogenic belts decades before
others discovered the truth and accepted credit for it. His feelings sometimes
show: "The precocious visionary bears a sinister taint, and the accolades
for the great advance are worn by the nouveau-wise."
But the essential
flaw in Carey¡¯s
view of the world is his firm belief that compression in mountain belts and
subduction of the ocean floor are "myth" "illegitimate
faith" and "spurious concept" He minces no words in his
dismissal of these essential components of the plate tectonics hypothesis. His
arguments are exemplary of the failures he sees in others, but not in
himself-the blind eye to contradictory data, the resort to fallacious
arguments, and the mustering of non-unique "explanations" of data.
Students of tectonics can only stare in disbelief and amazement as he assaults
the "myths." His discussion denies volumes of modern and ancient
literature on mountain belt structure, decades of study by seismologists, deep
seismic profiles, deep-sea drilling results, and endless lists of quantitative
models of stress and strength distribution, lithosphere bending, earthquake
source mechanisms, gravity field measurements, and virtually all of
geochemistry and petrology.
In one rare
confrontation with recent science, he discusses the observation of the
short-lived, cosmic-ray-generated species 10Be found in some
volcanic rocks erupted above Benioff zones. Conventional wisdom says the
isotope is dragged from Sea floor into mantle and thence to the source of the
magmas. Carey asserts that the observation favors his expansion model for
orogens. For those of us who see such an isotope in rocks being erupted
through 100 million years old crust, that proposition is an absurdity.
Elsewhere he denies the high-pressure origin of blueschists implied by
laboratory experiments, reverting back to a stress mineral concept.
Metamorphic petrologists would not applaud. More than once there are
non-subtle dismissals of "lab-bound expert number jugglers and twisters
of dials on black boxes" or statements like, "Numerical mumbo-jumbo
always carries respect in science." Carey holds Lord Kelvin as his star
villain, the DarthVader of physics whose "elegant numbers" impeded
progress in the geological sciences for decades. His references to things
geophysical are few and often negative. (I recall Carey, in the discussion
following a lecture, rising up¡ªmajestically,
with arms raised-to dispute a sceptical questioner with the words, "I see
the ghost of Kelvin." This broke up the audience and effortlessly
deflected the scientific argument. Oratorical devices won the day over
rational debate.)
The book is
divided into six parts, each containing several chapters. The first part is
the historical review of great geological ideas. Carey may see a bit of
himself in A. G. Werner, who he admires for being a great inspiration to other
scientists of his time, even though wrong. The material presented in this
section is mostly conventional, covered in several other books on the history
of geological science, but here it is spiced with numerous Careyisms-many
items inserted here for elaboration in later chapters. And he goes to
particular length to trace the roots of expansionist thought. The second part
of the book, on mobile continents, is probably the most important, because it
is on that issue that Carey¡¯s
fame rests. He reviews his role and the work of some others that led to the
great revolution.
For the third
part one may want to stock up on grains of salt, for here he develops the
concept of the expanding earth. The arguments are virtually the same as in his
previous book on the topic. Most are well worn. The fallacy that Africa and
Antarctica should be crushed by the new ocean floor being created around them
is repeated here. As has been pointed out before, numerous times, this rests
on the false assumption that the ridges are fixed on their relative positions.
But the majority of the paradoxes, which lead him to expansion, arise from his
denial of subduction and compression in mountain belts. If that is the
premise, then expansion is inescapable. But for all the points he raises there
are plausible, often quantitative, plate tectonic explanations. This is a
logical standoff.
The opening
prejudice, in his case that nothing but expansion occurs on earth, dictates
the conclusion. There seems to be little independent of that single assumption
that supports the expanding earth hypothesis. Carey expects to be vindicated
by geodetic measurements, and cites preliminary results in his favor. But to
date the measurements conform within error with the plate tectonics model and
deny earth expansion. Carey seems oblivious to a problem with the water in the
oceans. His proposition that the ocean waters come up to the earth¡¯s
surface with the rocks that make up the new ocean floor would just not wash
with petrologists who have proven, beyond doubt, that the water content of
ocean floor lavas is exceedingly low. The rejection of subduction at trenches
is made using the creationists¡¯
favorite device of selective citation-the quoting of all who have expressed
opposition or doubt about subduction, regardless of later discoveries or
repudiation.
Section four
concerns vertical orogenesis. Carey presents his absolutely idiosyncratic view
of mountain building-the expanding orogen, everything moving upward and
outward from the center, with secondary lateral spreading driven by gravity.
According to Carey, orogens eventually expand into oceans. This is the
ultimate con job: something for nothing, new crust and mountain root instantly
out of mantle by phase change and hydration. Few have followed him down this
particular path, least of all those who have done fieldwork in mountain belts
and been concerned with balanced sections and precise paleogeographic
reconstructions. The geochemistry and petrology of Carey¡¯s
proposed process are magical, rather than believable.
Part five looks
at tectonics of the whole earth-global expansion, torsions (another Carey
insight that stands quite independent of the expansion model), and global
evolution-from Polygons to successive circum-global orogens to dispersing
continents. His expansion accelerates, with the oceans coming into being only
after the Permian. He casually dismisses the subject of hot spot tracks with
the suggestion that the basement of the island of Hawaii may go back to 80
million years.
As with
accelerating earth expansion, the pretence of the book reaches its culmination
in its concluding section, philosophy of the universe. Carey presents his
speculations on the null universe, where energy and mass cancel one another,
where mass is being created in the centers of massive bodies and between
galaxies in space. He plays a game of numerology-seeing implications in magic
dimensionless numbers involving powers of 10. But what if we had evolved with
four fingers, or six ... we would read these results very differently! The
ideas here will confound astrophysicists and cosmochemists who already have an
elaborate explanation for the history of the universe and a model for element
synthesis that explains observed abundances in terms of the Big Bang and
nuclear reactions in evolving stars. Science does not advance by replacing one
incomprehensible origin with another, unless the new idea makes successful
predictions, or is subject to testing, or provides a better fit to
observational data. Carey does not provide that. The "mumbo-jumbo"
he accuses others of gets pretty thick here as well!
The book
concludes with an epilogue, glossary, and index. In his final cornments we
encounter insight ("the greatest thinkers have been blinkered by their
beliefs"), disappointment ("really important advances are and will
be rejected more often than acclaimed"), and a final warning ("most
heresy is doubtless false").
S.W. Carey is a
brilliant and original thinker. We honor him for his ideas but at the same
time see in him the pathology of genius. He has operated at times on the
fringe of science, belatedly achieving recognition for his original ideas,
eventually slipping out beyond science. He was fortunate to have played a
major role in one scientific revolution. Contributing to two revolutions in
one lifetime may be too much to expect.
American
Scientist editorial footnote: Richard Lee Annstrong¡¯s
review of Theories of the Earth and Universe continues the occasional
publication of essay-reviews that treat topics at greater length than our
space limitations ordinarily allow.
Comment
& Reply
Posted
by Cheh
Pan
on Monday,
15 February 1999, at 4:59 p.m.,
in response to To
strive for a healthier science culture environment in China (Part A),
posted by Shen-Su Sun on Monday, 25 January 1999, at 12:45 p.m.
I feel you are
too emotional while talking about a scientific problem. It may not be that
wise to use not very scientific language to discuss something that at least is
for the knowledge of scientists, even if you feel which is not really
scientific. Your audience, I believe, mostly are scientists or at least
related to scientists. So I think it may be more convincing if you keep a more
scientific manner, and let others judge for themselves on what you have
criticized are truly trashes or not. I have heard of Carey, and, if my memory
is correct, even had attended one of his presentations when I was still a
student. However, I do not recall he had ever impressed me, and I also have
hardly found his work in the literature that I may use. His views, or the
views close to his, are not prevailing, so why not let they go as they are?
People can always express their views, good or bad, if they are able to. But,
as we know, only those views that are truly scientific or that can really
approximate the physical truth will be accepted eventually. I think this is
the way science is.
Posted
by Shen-su
Sun
on Monday,
15 February 1999, at 11:39 p.m.,
in response to Re:
To strive for a healthier science culture environment in China (Part A),
posted by Cheh Pan on Monday, 15 February 1999, at 4:59 p.m.
I appreciate Pan
Cheh's comments and tend to agree with him that the right approach is to let
the expanding Earth idea alone. The expanding Earth idea is basically not
relevant to the modern Earth sciences, even though it has some market in
China. When Chinese Earth scientists in China and overseas read this bullshit
article of mine most of them may feel that it is not relevant to the
scientific reality in China and thus, they will simply ignore it. But, I do
hope that they can be amused by the silly stories in the article. If that
happens I will be quite happy.
By the way, the
title of this article has been changed from "Experts of bullshit" to
"Bullshit and good ideas" to "To believe or not to
believe" to the current one. It was meant to be a light-hearted article
to make a point. But, friends told me that the title with bullshit in it
stinks; "to believe or not to believe" has a religious connotation.
Suggestions made by friends to improve the presentation eventually made the
article an English zawen with a serious concern with xuefeng. During final
revision I thought I might well give it a grand title. To give a bullshit
story such a grand title is a joke itself, I suppose.