Historical Guidance
(4) Comments
Consider this quote:
“If history is any guide, the money will not bring the dream of fusion energy within reach.”
Where have we heard this?
The jacket of Charles Seife’s book “Sun in a Bottle.”
Is it true?
It’s hard to predict the future. This cuts both ways. In his book the Black Swan, Nassim Taleb points out the inverse corollary: A Turkey could say to itself, “Life is great! If history is any guide, I will keep getting more and more food every day!”
This will be true up until November 24, when Thanksgiving comes calling.
Likewise, “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.”
Another way to look at it:
“Mind the research, the results will take care of themselves.”
There’s a lot of work to be done. Anxiety attacks over historical precedent are not constructive. Hopefully fusion physicists will look towards physics rather than history for guidance on these issues.
Either way, keep calm and carry on. Or not.
Take Action!
This is a good spot to put in links to the history of innovation; tales of inspiration and caution.
Gather historical affirmations for those who need them.
Put history of innovation in perspective.
Deception! Scandal! Fiasco!
Failure?
Comments
For a more in depth discussion, start a thread in the forums.There are (4) comments.
Yep, science must be calm, clue, and corrected.
Except when things work out!
Here’s an inspiring report, that I think supports the case for increased *public* support for fusion research—innovation has often proceeded with government support!
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Case Studies in American Innovation report.pdf
Also, here’s a cool proposal for clean energy research that is actually in Congress right now
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/04/jumpstarting_a_clean_energy_re_1.shtml
Alas, here is a better version of the link above:
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/12/american_innovation.shtml
Reading Seife’s book, I was mildly astonished to find that his argument was based largely on history. Yes, plasmas are tricky, but his scientific argument doesn’t extend much beyond that fact. The problem with the historical argument is that it cuts both ways, since we can’t really know the future.
One reason I like to use the airplane as an analogy is that it’s a historical counter-argument. A lot of intelligent people spent time, effort, and money trying to fly, especially in the century before the Wright brothers’ flight at Kitty Hawk. A lot of them failed. As notable a person as Lord Kelvin declared heavier-than-air flying machines impossible. Then, in the first decade of the 20th century, controlled, powered, heavier-than-air craft flew on several continents. There are still arguments about who flew first, but there’s no doubt that it happened.
A similar example is the “sound barrier”. Once the aerodynamics were understood well enough, it was no barrier at all.
Another historical counter-argument is based on the achievements of fusion research. Sure, it’s been slow: a lot slower than most of us would like. However, we’ve come a long way since ~1950. Fusion yields have continued to increase and, if history is any guide, someone somewhere will reach breakeven within the next twenty years, if not the next five years. Money spent on fusion research could probably be distributed more wisely than it is currently, but reducing or removing it will only ensure that the research advances more slowly, if at all. (For the purposes of this argument, I am not considering public and private money separately. From the researcher’s perspective, either will do the job.)
Post a Comment