Thursday, February 21, 2008

A Vote for Huckabee: Is it really scary?

On a cold January night in Iowa, Mike Huckabee surprised the pundits by handsomely winning the Republican caucuses. His victory was analyzed ad nauseam by the “best political team in the country” and the nugget of wisdom which emerged was that Huckabee had won on the strength of the “evangelical vote.” It didn’t scare anybody in the media, but it did scare many in higher education.

Those who work in institutions of higher learning believe that we are a country at war with ourselves in science education, notwithstanding the fact that scientific advances are what drive the economy. A majority of the evangelical population believes that evolution is not the process by which “we got to where we are” as a species and that creationism also ought to be taught in high schools and colleges. This group recites heavily from scripture and bases its beliefs on concepts that are unverifiable through scientific experiments. If these “scary Huckabee” voters have a say in how public universities and schools are funded, then that becomes a source of worry for many administrators.

It has been widely claimed that public perception of the value of science is terribly lacking, but after Carl Sagan no one has been able to fire up the public’s imagination on scientific endeavors. Is the public’s perception of science and technology really lacking? Have scientists and technologists carved an elitist niche for themselves and ignored the more practical problems of society, thereby fostering “evangelical” beliefs? Let’s take a closer look.

Our tax dollars are funneled through funding agencies for research in science and technology that is supposed to improve the quality of our lives. Over the last three decades there have been virtually no advances in fundamental physics, despite the fact that a lot of federally funded dollars have been poured into research (for more details, please read “The Trouble with Physics” by Prof. Lee Smolin). Smolin argues that string theory makes no new predictions because it comes in an infinite number of versions. Thus, no matter what an experimental result shows, string theory cannot be disproved. But no experiment will ever be able to prove that it is true.

The paradox is succinctly stated by Smolin: “Those string theories we know how to study are known to be wrong. Those we cannot study are thought to exist in such vast numbers that no conceivable experiment could ever disagree with all of them.”

And how did this effort go on for such a long time? A small group of “evangelical physicists,” who utter hymns about “theories of everything,” or “ten-dimensional worlds and worm holes” have succeeded in controlling the purse strings of the federal funding agencies to such an extent that string theorists have turned into a cult, and newcomers with ideas in other areas are forced to work in string theory and publish (or perish if they choose to do something else more valuable and practical for society). The research in this area, which is unverifiable by experiment, would make Galileo and Kepler turn in their graves.

So it is not only the “evangelical Huckabee-ites” who are scary; the “evangelical physicists” are equally scary, if not even more so.

We live in an age where technological advances and the ubiquitous Internet are supposed to “simplify our lives and make us more productive.” These so-called advances do anything but what they are supposed to do in simplifying our lives. I’ll give you just one example; there are several others out there.

Let’s say you purchase a brand new IBM ThinkPad Laptop computer which has built-in hardware to support Bluetooth technology. What is supposed to happen is that you get a Bluetooth compatible headset, pair the headset with the computer, and possibly do a “Restart” to make everything hunky-dory. I guarantee that you will upchuck twice on the way to hell and back before you get this to work successfully on your computer. Try calling the so-called “Customer-Relationship-Management” CRM support line for some help, and they will bob you like a yo-yo before transferring you to a friendly consultant who demands a hefty hourly charge to help you with problems that were not supposed to be there in the first place!

The “evangelical technologists” who design these gizmos and chant mantras like “plug-and-play,” or “interoperability,” or various utterances meant to make things sound simple and easy will have their own scary day in hell to reckon with when the time for redemption arrives.

So who really are the evangelicals that we ought to be scared of: the Huckabee-ites, or the scientists, or the technologists?

I’ll leave you to figure out your own answer. My sensei, the late Mr. Natarajan of IIT Kanpur, would have been no help at all – he would have just replied “Mu,” which basically meant – unask the question.

4 comments:

Beyond Words said...

This is a brief, flippant comment from an "evangelical" Mac user--I will try to post a more thoughtful one on the politics of science and fundamentalism later.

Mac users don't go experience the hell that PC users go through. Simplify your life and convert! :)

G. M. Prabhu said...

Fully agree with you Kathy. Mac users are in heaven compared to us PC folks!

Amrit Yegnanarayan said...

It is not clear to me as to what you want to say. Why should anyone be scared of Hucakbee-ites or anyone else? Fear can only weaken and not strengthen. Also not clear about the laptop analogy, if it ever was supposed to be one. If you feel that some technology does not work for you or does not suit you, then don’t use it. If the funding of string theory research is questionable, then so is the money that fund roads to nowhere. Imposing of one’s belief system on others is different from marketing a Bluetooth device.

G. M. Prabhu said...

Amrit: Pardon me for the long response and clarification.

What I was trying to say about Huckabee-ites is that if the evangelicals gain the majority voice in a state, then they could easily force biblical creationism to be taught in the science curriculum in public schools and universities in that state. Huckabee does not need to win the presidential nomination at all. One of the main criticisms against his supporters is that their beliefs are not secular and not verifiable through scientific dogma and experiment. But when scientists themselves engage in funded research that is not provably verifiable by scientific experiments and they “convert” others into the same “religion” by controlling the funding, it considerably strengthens the evangelicals’ case and that is what scares me.

About the technology and laptop computers, you have surely heard of David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale and a victim of the Unabomber many years ago. In an article written last year (I am not able locate the source now), he said that when new computer boxes arrive in his lab, they sit in storage for more than a month because everyone is afraid to open them. Not because of the Unabomber, but because they know that when the boxes are opened and they have to port all their applications onto the new system, it will set them behind by 3 or more days. He goes on to say that technologists do not solve such problems which simplify the life of users (I’m guessing that his boxes did not contain Macs). In another recent article, Gelernter wrote, “Within the last month I've heard three people shouting (or muttering) curses at their machines. One was a bona fide software virtuoso! These particular three were ticked off about (1) an airline website that was so badly designed it was useless, (2) a commercial web-site-building tool (bought for real money) that made it nearly impossible to build simple structures and (3) a home PC that, despite reasonably sophisticated software counter-measures, was so junked-up with viruses that starting a word processor took five minutes.”

The point is that when certain expectations are presumed from technology, and when one has paid real money for something, it had better work correctly. The Bluetooth example I gave was not about marketing but something sloppier than that. IBM asks you when you call them whether or not a certain light comes on when you press Function F5. If you say yes, then as far as they are concerned, THEIR hardware is working correctly and it is YOU who have some “software configuration issues.” I tell them that I have a lot more issues than that – but humor does not go over well with tech support personnel. They expect you to pay real money to resolve YOUR software configuration issues! Marketing is fine and dandy, but when manufacturers charge you for functional features, then there had better be some meat on the bone.

If it was about marketing, I ought to tell you a real story. A couple of decades ago in the late 1980s, an IBM salesman came to pitch a supercomputer at our university. About 10 minutes into his canned presentation, he boldly said that “this supercomputer is so fast that it can run an infinite loop in less than 2 minutes.” Everyone in the room burst out laughing, except the salesman. The marketing folks had put that into his scripted presentation without explaining its ramifications. Now that kind of marketing I can understand and believe. For the record, we did not buy that technology at the time!