Another spectacularly great Science Saturday! Sean and Jennifer pondered how crackpot end-of-the-world narratives dominated media coverage of the LHC. Jennifer expressed frustration and despair, and Sean meted out some degree of responsibility to journalists, the crackpots themselves, and to cautious scientists who are disinclined to assert absolute certainty about anything. Left out of the equation, however, is the public’s distrust of scientists, particularly physicists, particularly around issues of atom smashing. The scientific community’s credibility has been diminished not only by nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, but more fundamentally by the very existence of nuclear arsenals. It is not entirely irrational to wonder the following: If these scientists really knew what they are doing, would we have thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert which a) have already been used to inflict mass murder; and b) represent a grave threat to humanity; i.e., either the utter collapse of civilization or the actual extinction of the human species? The dominance of the doomsday narrative reflects rational reservations about entrusting physicists with billions of dollars for gargantuan projects that entail messing around with atomic energy. A black hole devouring Earth is absurd, but holding scientists accountable

I agree with you, well worth the watch! I know you are aware of Oppenheimer’s remorse. He held himself personally accountable. But of course he was not at fault. Truth will always out. The terrible (yet wonderful) secrets of matter and energy will be revealed one way or another. I would rather argue that those who remain wilfully ignorant of science and mathematics are more responsible for science gone bad than are the scientists who revealed the misused scientific truths in the first place.

Nice piece! Good to have the LHC discussed again. And it never hurts to dispel myths, although this audience is probably aware of the irrationality of the fear about black holes swallowing Earth. I liked Sean's elaboration on the concept of fields, waves, and particles as ripples in their respective fields. Of course, a nice interplay between Sean's scientific views and Jennifer's refreshing lay person's quandaries. They make a nice couple... someone should tell them about it!

There was a stabbing in the local news the other day. I immediately recalled with scorn the stories of cavemen learning to forge iron into steel blades. But this is silly. The real issue for scientists is explaining why we should provide billions of dollars to study things that have no (known) practical application. I'm all for the LHC and I'm opposed to funding manned space travel. But I admit others could reasonably disagree. Late breaking news: the LHC will be down for repairs for two months -- so quickly after the arbitrary "start-up" celebration. This celebration may have been a mistake. I just hope the delay doesn't cause a big PR problem for CERN.

Quoting Simon Willard: Late breaking news: the LHC will be down for repairs for two months -- so quickly after the arbitrary "start-up" celebration. This celebration may have been a mistake. I just hope the delay doesn't cause a big PR problem for CERN.

After waiting for so many years, a couple more months, although disappointing, isn't such a big deal. As a matter of fact, we are being optimistic in thinking that it will only be a couple of months. In eight days or so since the LHC was turned on, there have been two major technical failures. There may be more to come. The problem would be more serious if there are too many flaws, and as a consequence, doubts about the way the entire project is being planned start to appear.

I think there were about a million GIs who didn't consider Hiroshima/Nagasaki as disasters (not to mention the million+ Japanese who would have died in defense of their homeland or in recreating the military-induced mass suicides of Saipan, Okinawa etc). Regarding poker: For two very smart people, Sean and Jennifer barely scratch the surface of a subject that I would love to hear discussed here by the best poker players in the BhTV rotation (listening Bob?). I heard the shameless NPR story a few weeks back talking about McCain as a craps player and Obama as a poker player, clearly implying McCain was a risk-obsessed loser and Obama a thoughtful calculating man who depended on relationships. Left out of the story was whether Obama regularly wins or loses, which would say alot more to me about him. I also prefer poker to craps but the most successful, intelligent, calculating and visionary man I've ever known personally loathed poker and was mad for craps and the absolute greatest poker player of the last 30 years, Stuey Ungar, would routinely skin the best players in the world only to lose all his winnings

I Cant Wait To Hear What The Libertarians Have To Say About The Need For State Capitalism. I Cant Wait To See How Mccardle, Will, And Company Get To Spin The Free Market Panacea Now That Financials Have Been Saved From Themselves, And The Feddie Has Taken The Reigns. State Capitalism Is Here To Stay.

You got the wrong number...

Great Diavlog you should have these 2 on again. Speaking of poker I play poker online for a living and blogglingheads.tv makes for a great listen everyday. I have read books some on game theory and its super interesting. Definately have a diavlog on poker and game theory!!!

There was a stabbing in the local news the other day. I immediately recalled with scorn the stories of cavemen learning to forge iron into steel blades.

Not an apt analogy, in my view. The difficulty with public acceptance of large atom-smashing projects is that they have already led to doomsday machines (nuclear weapons). In the public imagination, these physicists may be the heirs to the Manhattan Project. It does not seem absurd to people who grew up during the Cold War or who listen to the world's leaders repeatedly say that nuclear weapons are the gravest threat facing humanity to ask, "What if these physicists blow up the world?" Since most people have little grasp of theoretical physics, what they are really asking, beyond the doomsday nonsense, is "Can we trust these guys?" It's easy to dismiss the protesters as kooks, but to do so is to ignore the history of moral concern about the dangers of nuclear technology and the evils of weaponizing the atom. The protesters are wrong about black holes, but they are right to worry about "pure" science at the service of governments

Quoting Wonderment: Personally, I love the LHC project, but I won't dismiss its critics as crazy.

I'm not so generous. It's not that hard to understand the arguments pro and con. Those who don't bother to understand the simple facts don't have a right to an assertive opinion. (For example: there are far higher energy collisions occurring all the time in the upper atmosphere than the LHC is capable of. Orders of magnitude higher. If collisions of this sort really posed the sort of danger claimed by doomsday charlatans, the worst would already have occured.)

Quoting harkin: I think there were about a million GIs who didn't consider Hiroshima/Nagasaki as disasters (not to mention the million+ Japanese who would have died in defense of their homeland or in recreating the military-induced mass suicides of Saipan, Okinawa etc).

Regarding poker: For two very smart people, Sean and Jennifer barely scratch the surface of a subject that I would love to hear discussed here by the best poker players in the BhTV rotation (listening Bob?).

I heard the shameless NPR story a few weeks back talking about McCain as a craps player and Obama as a poker player, clearly implying McCain was a risk-obsessed loser and Obama a thoughtful calculating man who depended on relationships. Left out of the story was whether Obama regularly wins or loses, which would say alot more to me about him. I also prefer poker to craps but the most successful, intelligent, calculating and visionary man I've ever known personally loathed poker and was mad for craps and the absolute greatest poker player of the last 30 years, Stuey Ungar, would routinely skin the best players in the world only to lose all his winnings

Quoting ginger baker: I Cant Wait To Hear What The Libertarians Have To Say About The Need For State Capitalism. I Cant Wait To See How Mccardle, Will, And Company Get To Spin The Free Market Panacea Now That Financials Have Been Saved From Themselves, And The Feddie Has Taken The Reigns.

State Capitalism Is Here To Stay.

On the bright side, it will streamline the congressional-military-industrial complex. Makes me think of this:

There is no reason, however, to suppose that the totalitarian capitalist regimes of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan would have proved inferior economically to the democracies had they survived. The inefficiencies that favoritism and unaccountability typically create in such regimes might have been offset by higher levels of social discipline. Because of their more efficient capitalist economies, the right-wing totalitarian powers could have constituted a more viable challenge to the liberal democracies than the Soviet Union did; Nazi Germany was judged to be such a challenge by the Allied powers before and during World War II. The liberal democracies did not possess an inherent advantage over Germany in terms of economic and technological development, as they did in relation

no shit, man. maybe those annoying lala land libertarians will finally stfup. there! was THAT free enough for ya?!

fantastic summary during "What the universe is Made of"
awesome awesome stuff, thanks sean, you are the man. you should interview some of your smart friends sometime for bheads.

Simon Willard’s analogy is spot on. The misuses of iron age technology and nuclear age technology differ only in magnitude. A steel blade can serve as either a scalpel or a dagger; the binding energy of the nucleolus provides human beings with exactly the same dichotomy of use. The ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and the LHC projects are actually related in many ways. LHC is perhaps more leading edge, whereas ITER is both leading edge and application engineering. They share similar physical and engineering problems. They require similar infrastructure and organization. They evidence a kind of international scientific synergy that will help human beings to transcend rather than stagnate at the nuclear frontier and to learn how to control and utilize energy in ways that today are unimaginable, even to science fiction visionaries. They will also provide knowledge that might be misused. ITER has as much or more implication for misuse of technology as does LHC, yet where are the ITER critics? If the LHC critics were really rational, would they not also be critical of the funding for ITER? Of course they would. The LHC critics are simply loony.

I completely agree, Jim. The yammering from the yokels is just unbearable on things like this. I don't know what's worse, the " ZOMG!!! Black holes!!!" types, or those who fret about why we do any sort of experiments in the first place. Cripes, this is what we humans do, or at least, what the best of us do -- we try to take the next step in learning about the universe. The cost is trivial -- it amounts to less than one month's worth of what the US is burning in Iraq, and it's been spread among among dozens of countries, over decades. And so what if there are no immediate practical applications? Basic knowledge always pays off in the long run. Frickin' Stone Age types are really what's going to be the death of us all.

The LHC critics are simply loony.

I am delighted that six or seven people chimed in to assure me of something I never disputed in the first place. The question raised by the two Bheads was, Why did the doomsday story dominate the media's coverage of the LHC? All I'm suggesting is that one of the factors that ought to be acknowledged is the public's fear (rational or not) of nuclear technology.

Quoting Wonderment: All I'm suggesting is that one of the factors that ought to be acknowledged is the public's fear (rational or not) of nuclear technology.

I think that the people who initiated legal action against the LHC are probably a little loony, rather ignorant and also carry the burden of mistrust that the other side of science has brought to us in the last century. I think our BhTV audience is mostly aware of the scientific arguments that dismiss this "paranoid" concern. But there is an aspect, which I think Wonderment is trying to address, that has to do with the lay person's perception of science as not always benign. If we were to consider for a moment the narratives of myth, science has become, in the eyes of many, an obscure magician with a potential for evil. The stories of Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, movies and cartoons about the evil scientist trying to conquer the world, etc, reflect the fear of the unleashed power of nature going wrong. In real life, the mistrust of traditional medicine, denial about climate change, and the LHC story, are all reflecting the same underlying paranoia. Nuclear power, both in its use in war as

Quoting Wonderment: I am delighted that six or seven people chimed in to assure me of something I never disputed in the first place.

There are times when you treat with too much respect irresponsible and ignorant points of view. The way you presented the negative views of science sounded too much like the Nixonian tactic of "Some say," or at least the MSM tic of acting as though "both sides" are equally respectable. Even though I am fairly sure you don't hold such views yourself, it's hard not to be irritated by this. You did say, "but I won't dismiss its critics as crazy." You should.

The way you presented the negative views of science sounded too much like the Nixonian tactic of "Some say," or at least the MSM tic of acting as though "both sides" are equally respectable. Even though I am fairly sure you don't hold such views yourself, it's hard not to be irritated by this.

Not at all. I am perfectly comfortable with scientists telling people there is zero chance of the LHC destroying the world. Zero. I also have no problem with calling climate change deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, moon-landing deniers, and Holocasut deniers a little crazy (functionally paranoic). But I won't say their critiques are culturally meaningless. For example, the 9/11 crowd (something like 50% of the population) is really asking, "What kind of secret stuff is our government up to and capable of that we have no idea about? Can we really trust guys like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush?"

You did say, "but I won't dismiss its critics as crazy." You should.

You're taking this out of context. What I meant, and what I think is clear if you read the whole post, is that if you're trying to find out why the crackpot narrative dominates the media, it is not enough to say

Wonderment: Fair enough. I won't quibble about the details. My first response was driven by emotion. My second was just an attempt to tell you where that emotion came from, something which is virtually impossible to do completely.

Quoting Wonderment: But I won't say their critiques are culturally meaningless. For example, the 9/11 crowd (something like 50% of the population) is really asking, "What kind of secret stuff is our government up to and capable of that we have no idea about? Can we really trust guys like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush?"

And what's wrong with that?
But, seriously. I'll give this another round because there's an important (to me) piece that is getting lost when the topic is polarized. Yes, as far as I can tell we are all in agreement that the people who wanted to stop the LHC are irrationally mistrustful of the scientific community supporting it. Some of us have called that crazy or loony, same thing, irrational and paranoid. And then it starts to get more interesting. Some of us, stop there, dismiss this as craziness, and end of the argument. Some others, and I think that's where Wonderment and others pitched in, say, OK, it's crazy, but this craziness isn't coming out of nowhere. There are other situations that have made some people question the credibility or safety of scientific experimentation or scientific discovery. The argument says, these other "negative", destructive events are precedents that contribute to mistrust. Furthermore, I introduced the

Quoting Ocean: ... instead of dismissing this issue, that it be taken seriously, and that it should be addressed by increasing education about science, not only in formal education, but at all levels.

I agree that the problems of ignorance, and the mistrust that it breeds, need to be taken seriously. But I don't agree that the specifics of their fears need to be given extensive voice. You don't correct people's misapprehensions of the shape of the Earth by starting with an hour-long discussion of all the reasons they think it's flat. It's a waste of time, and it gives too much credibility to the wrong ideas. It is simply not credible to fear the LHC, or particle physics experiments in general, and much more importantly, it's irresponsible to connect those in one phrase to nuclear bombs. It's the same thing as saying people have "a right" to fear chemistry because of gunpowder and pollution.

These fears are only made worse, I think, by a wider gap between what the lay person can reasonably grasp about science, and the progressively more complex body of scientific knowledge.

I'm not sure I agree. There's no question that there's a chasm between my meager lay person knowledge of physics and that of the physicists who have doctorates from MIT or Cal Tech. I will never be able to pass an exam on quarks, leptons and dark matter. What I do know how to do is analyze the arguments in a debate and assess a scientific consensus about subjects like global warming, the collapse of the WTC buildings, evolution vs. intelligent design, or the cosmic dangers of the LHC. I know to what extent to take seriously alternative theories and when to dismiss them as preposterous or of extremely dubious merit. The ability to make these kinds of judgments about science and pseudo-science seems to depend mostly on reading and reasoning skills rather than specialized knowledge.

Quoting bjkeefe: I agree that the problems of ignorance, and the mistrust that it breeds, need to be taken seriously. But I don't agree that the specifics of their fears need to be given extensive voice. You don't correct people's misapprehensions of the shape of the Earth by starting with an hour-long discussion of all the reasons they think it's flat. It's a waste of time, and it gives too much credibility to the wrong ideas.

I agree with the above. Perhaps, it isn't such a big deal for me. It's only a difference of "weight".

It is simply not credible to fear the LHC, or particle physics experiments in general, and much more importantly, it's irresponsible to connect those in one phrase to nuclear bombs. It's the same thing as saying people have "a right" to fear chemistry because of gunpowder and pollution.

I don't agree with this. I sort of know where you are coming from with this, and know what your point is. I personally don't see these two topics as completely separate. And I don't think it's irresponsible to try to understand why people are apprehensive or fearful about something, even when one doesn't share those fears

Quoting Ocean: As people say, we'll have to agree to disagree... did I get that right?

Yes, especially since I'm not really saying what I want to be saying. I'm sounding more absolutist than I really think. You're right that it's important to understand the origin of these sorts of irrational fears. I guess, in the end, that I'm just fatigued by how many people in politics and in the media are happy to play to, and prey upon, these fears, how richly rewarded they are for doing so, and how harmful this whole self-sustaining system of reinforcing ignorance is to our society. I think my frustration level is too high to talk about this sensibly for the time being.

Quoting bjkeefe: I guess, in the end, that I'm just fatigued by how many people in politics and in the media are happy to play to, and prey upon, these fears, how richly rewarded they are for doing so, and how harmful this whole self-sustaining system of reinforcing ignorance is to our society.

Well, I do agree with this! I've been ruminating about this in different threads... It's extremely frustrating and certainly not something that has an easy solution.

Quoting Ocean: Well, I do agree with this! I've been ruminating about this in different threads... It's extremely frustrating and certainly not something that has an easy solution.

Yes. I guess the only real point I've been trying to make in this thread is that there is an important difference between treating ignorant, irrational views as respectable and as understandable in origin.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes. I guess the only real point I've been trying to make in this thread is that there is an important difference between treating ignorant, irrational views as respectable and as understandable in origin.

Respectable vs Understandable: I'm totally confident in saying that you don't want to start a detailed philosophical discussion about the difference between these two. Am I wrong?

sean, a summary of entanglement and holographic theory next time would be sweet!

Quoting Ocean: Respectable vs Understandable: I'm totally confident in saying that you don't want to start a detailed philosophical discussion about the difference between these two. Am I wrong?

Nope.

Hi Wonderment,

In my view, telling all the people who are concerned with the LHC and nuclear technology in general not to worry because atomic bombs and nuclear plants are no more dangerous than knives and blacksmith tools (as was suggested and applauded above) is ridiculous.

That's not really what I meant, though perhaps my first post was too snarky. Your original comment that got my attention was the claim that it may not be absurd to consider

holding scientists accountable for the more perverse applications of theoretical physics.

That's an interesting claim that we could debate, but it rubs me the wrong way. Physicists see themselves as trying to illuminate nature's fundamental rules. If nature allows steel to be forged, or atoms to be split, it's a fact that has little to do with the guy who writes it up for publication. That some of us are still cavemen, well, that's the real problem.

Quoting Wonderment: What I do know how to do is analyze the arguments in a debate and assess a scientific consensus about subjects like global warming, the collapse of the WTC buildings, evolution vs. intelligent design, or the cosmic dangers of the LHC. I know to what extent to take seriously alternative theories and when to dismiss them as preposterous or of extremely dubious merit.

The ability to make these kinds of judgments about science and pseudo-science seems to depend mostly on reading and reasoning skills rather than specialized knowledge.

I had missed your comment! I will assume that you do understand that my original comment was making reference to the lay person who doesn't keep informed about science like you or me, at least, try. For them, any degree of informed consideration about the more complex aspects of science would be beyond reach. And now, let's come back to people like you or me. We are curious and try to keep informed, as much as possible about the progress of science or other topics of interest. We may be more or less thorough and hard working at it. However, there is no way that we

Hi Simon,

Physicists see themselves as trying to illuminate nature's fundamental rules. If nature allows steel to be forged, or atoms to be split, it's a fact that has little to do with the guy who writes it up for publication.

Well, that is almost always the case. But sometimes scientists are called upon to serve the interests of the state. The Manhattan Project is such an instance. A lot of physicists have written and agonized over their participation in that endeavor: Oppenheimer, Einstein, David Bohm and Nobel Peace Laureate (1995) Joseph Rotblat and others. (Rotblat, by the way, was the only physicist to quit the Manhattan Project on moral grounds) So when physicists today try to argue in favor of projects like LHC or nuclear energy, they must do so in the context of Hiroshima, Chernobyl and the nuclear arms race. They've got a rap sheet, so to speak. Try this analogy: Let's say Barack Obama becomes president. He wants to restore trust in the USA, but post-Bush a billion or so people are outraged at America. When he says, "I really want peace for the Middle East," some crazy people are going to respond that Obama has concocted a

I think we're in agreement, Ocean.

But when it comes to more complex scientific concepts, I can only assess who is saying what and based on indirect data, reputation, credibility, etc, decide about which one to "believe".

Yes, but it's not a crap shoot. We know where to look for credible expert opinion, where to look for a debate on that opinion, and we know how to interpret a consensus (or lack of) among peer-reviewed serious scientists.

Quoting Wonderment: I think we're in agreement, Ocean.

Yes, but it's not a crap shoot. We know where to look for credible expert opinion, where to look for a debate on that opinion, and we know how to interpret a consensus (or lack of) among peer-reviewed serious scientists.

Yes, I can agree with that. As an aside, I loooove this forum because I'm learning all these colloquialisms that I had never heard before, like

... crap shoot...

What the heck! It's OK, I can figure the meaning...

Quoting Wonderment: So when physicists today try to argue in favor of projects like LHC or nuclear energy, they must do so in the context of Hiroshima, Chernobyl and the nuclear arms race. They've got a rap sheet, so to speak.

This is an argument on the level of saying atheists and vegetarians have to apologize for Hitler. The LHC is not a weapon. Neither is nuclear energy. There is a debate to be had about the pluses and minuses of nuclear energy in terms of safety and security, among other issues, but nuclear power plants are not designed to kill people. It's not even in the same ballpark. And the LHC is not even the same sport. Why do you keep protesting you don't believe these things, and then go on to repeat them?

So when physicists today try to argue in favor of projects like LHC or nuclear energy, they must do so in the context of Hiroshima, Chernobyl and the nuclear arms race. They've got a rap sheet, so to speak.

To the extent you're commenting on the necessity for scientists to communicate and persuade in order to raise public funding, I do accept your point.