Introduction: Mu Yunqiu, associate professor of the Institute of Science History and Culture of Science of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Jiang Xiaoyuan, the first dean of the institute and chair professor of Jiaotong University, previously sorted out the main "science fantasies" and scientific explorations on extraterrestrial civilizations, and the relevant results were recently published. Cen Shaoyu, a popular science author of the Observer Network, chatted with two scholars about the new book "Exploration of Extraterrestrial Civilizations - From Science to Fantasy". In the two-part dialogue previously published, scholars talked about wormholes and warped flight from "lunar civilization" to wormholes and warped flights, interspersed with discussions on cosmology, scientific standards, and so on. In this final section, we will continue to start from the "exploration of extraterrestrial civilizations" and explore issues such as "techno-technism", the boundary between science and science fiction, and scientific intuition.
Observer Network: The wormholes and warped flights we talked about before are indeed relatively sci-fi, and the real climax of looking for extraterrestrial life should be the METI project that sends signals outward. The mainstream academic community should be said to have basically reached a consensus on the risks involved in it, and also issued a "Normative Statement".
But this kind of thing for those who support METI, there is not much binding force, from the current international pattern, human beings seem to be unable to avoid the adventurism of METI in the short term, can we also "science fiction" imagine, what kind of control mechanism may appear in the future?
meti.org the website page
Jiang Xiaoyuan: This kind of thing is difficult to control, I know an example, not directly related but a little similar. In 1972, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention of The Dumping of Wastes and Other Substances from the Seas, and in 1993, 37 of the States members of the Convention voted in favour of a total ban on the dumping of nuclear waste at sea. This convention is still somewhat binding, and the United States and other countries really dare not fall. When they want to continue to fall, the "effort" is to overturn or circumvent the convention, and if it is completely unconstrained, it is better to simply ignore it.
Japan is now trying to drain nuclear sewage, and it is also making excuses, such as not "dumping" or wastewater is not "waste". Of course, we are firmly opposed to Japan's practice, but it can also be seen from its excuses that it is still a little jealous of the Convention.
But I don't think the convention itself has any strong guarantees, it is a question of whether everyone is willing to abide by it, and if it is not observed, it can only be condemned. Back to METI, I don't think people have fully accepted such constraints, and there are actually many people who are willing to engage in similar activities.
In November 2017, an antenna group belonging to the EISCAT Scientific Association near Trousham, Norway, sent signals into space, including specially composed electronic music and a tutorial on geometry and binary, courtesy of EISCAT, photo by Craig Heinselman
Observer Network: The book identifies METI's proponents as "actually having a 'technocratic' mindset that is only thinking about trying to achieve something technically." Why is it so qualitative?
Literally, "techno-techno-ism" refers more to those who believe that technology can solve everything. And they're like people who are desperate for curiosity, and I prefer to call them "curiosity."
For example, if a child has to put his hand into the hole to explore despite the fact that there may be a snake in the hole, if he regards reaching out as a child's "skill", he may not think that reaching out can solve all problems, but just want to satisfy curiosity. MeTI proponents are similar, not wanting to "solve problems", but only answering questions and satisfying curiosity.
Mu Yunqiu: They can also be regarded as "technocraticism", that is, they have set a goal, and they can achieve it wholeheartedly without considering the ethics behind it, the disasters that may be brought about, and so on.
Jiang Xiaoyuan: "Techno-only" can even consider the goal without thinking about the goal, but only thinking about technology. Of course, they can say they have a goal, to establish contact with aliens.
But in the process of doing it, it will attract all kinds of people in the world who are obsessed with technology, and they don't really think about the goal. Now someone is doing METI, right? Okay, I'll do it too, your power is not big enough, I'll make it big for you, the signal you sent out before others can't understand, let's send a signal that makes it easier for people to understand.
In the 1970s, the Arecibo Radio Telescope sent this image information into space
Observer Network: But the pursuit of higher, faster and stronger is originally one of the driving forces of human progress. The curiosity embodied in the METI project is also one of the driving forces for the development of science. The problem encountered on METI may be where their boundaries are.
Jiang Xiaoyuan: Human desire and curiosity have promoted the development of science, which is the mainstream version we accept now, but in fact, think about it, are these two things good or not? In fact, these two things are very harmful.
Observer Network: Yes, they're going to be harmful to some extent. The boundaries of desire are probably more discussed, so I want to talk about where the boundaries of curiosity are.
Jiang Xiaoyuan: "Curiosity kills cats", this is a Western proverb. But in fact, if you think about it, the cat killed by curiosity is rare in real life, you can't see it, right? So why did such a sentence come about? This shows that people know that curiosity is harmful.
I think when scientists want to use taxpayers' money to make "big toys" for themselves, and they can't say anything for it, they say that they want to satisfy human curiosity, but they actually want to satisfy their curiosity, right?
You want to build a collider, let our taxpayers take money to build it for you, say to satisfy curiosity, who is it to satisfy? I don't have this curiosity, I don't want to build a collider, and now I want to build the taxes I pay for you, is this reasonable? So curiosity is a reason, it's ethically problematic. We have to ask him whose curiosity is it? Your curiosity, or our curiosity.
Observer Network: But if we go back to the early stages of science, it is true that many individual scientists are really driven by curiosity...
Jiang Xiaoyuan: Yes, but they didn't use taxpayer money, and Newton didn't use a penny of taxpayer money. In that early stage, I called the "age of innocence" of science, where scientists didn't use taxpayer money, and you had no problem with any curiosity.
Mu Yunqiu: In the era of small science, you are casually curious, almost infinite boundaries, and you can count yourself on a piece of paper. But at that time, your ability is also limited, nothing more than deducing formulas, or doing small experiments.
Jiang Xiaoyuan: I think you can clearly draw a boundary now – just use your own money.
Mu Yunqiu: But it can't be social funds, then there must be a fund assessment, and it depends on whether the money is worth it.
Jiang Xiaoyuan: I know that there are some entrepreneurs in our country now, a little bit of money, they do whatever perpetual motion machine they do, you can do it if you like it. If you don't use other people's money, you can get it yourself. And of course there are constraints, like you can't break the law, right? You do it at home with all these conditions met, and of course no one cares about you. Now in fact, society operates the same way.
Observer Network: Finally, let's return to the core science and science fiction problems in the book. Near the end of the book, he gives an example of Herschel's argument that the sun is habitable, arguing that his method of argument is "completely in line with the fundamental idea of the development of Western astronomy: on the basis of the existing measured data, construct a physical model, and then use deductive methods to try to predict new observational phenomena from the model."
But, as quoted earlier in the book, Herschel's argument "adopts a 'seriously considered' analogy." The latter statement does not seem to be as rigorous as the previous one describes. How scientists construct an analogy reminds me of their "intuition."
Now scientists also need to use intuition, but can we say that in fact, it only points in one direction, and the conclusions and "predictions" need to be verified by more rigorous science than In Herschel's? Or are they not as "free" as Herschel?
Jiang Xiaoyuan: I don't think there is much difference, now the space for imagination of some things has been compressed, just because there is more accurate knowledge...
Mu Yunqiu: Or the instrument is more sophisticated.
Jiang Xiaoyuan: Right. In fact, spectral analysis is definitely a "killer" for science fiction, after its appearance, we know that the surface temperature of the sun is more than 6,000 degrees, and we will no longer imagine the inhabitants of the sun.
Observer Network: The book mentions that Herschel imagined a double-layer cloud, with an upper cloud emitting bright light, and a lower cloud blocking light for solar organisms, but a high temperature of 6,000 degrees would indeed break such an idea.
Mu Yunqiu: William Herschel was an authority on stellar astronomy, and as the brightest star in the sky, the sun was most concerned with the problem at that time, that is, to figure out the structure of the sun. He imagined that the sun might be a habitable surface, because the prevailing thinking at the time was that the light and heat of the celestial body were split, that is, it did not necessarily produce high heat when it emitted bright light.
Jiang Xiaoyuan: Nature was founded in 1869, and the first editor-in-chief, Lockeyer, was a solar astronomer who discovered helium using spectral analysis methods. He was very hot in solar physics, and spectral analysis had just been invented, and he used it on every star, and many things were analyzed at once, and at this time he knew that the sun was so hot.
The spectral analysis diagram produced by Lockeye is from the 1878 "Spectral Analysis Study", image source: sciencemuseum.org.uk
Herschel, on the other hand, predates him by a century, and in the 18th century it was reasonable to imagine someone on the sun, because he didn't know how hot the sun really was.
Mu Yunqiu: At that time, he could only use such analogies and intuitions. Moreover, Herschel's two papers were published in the Philosophical Journal, the first scientific journal, and to this day it is also very famous.
Observer Network: Do you think scientific intuition can be understood as a direct train connecting science fiction and scientific research, or a real "blurred zone" on the boundary between the two?
Jiang Xiaoyuan: I think intuition may not act as a bridge between science and science fiction. Intuition is much needed, even if it's not on the border between science and fantasy, but in the very traditional realm of science.
Mu Yunqiu: Scientific research is definitely intuitive, like inspiration, epiphany and the like, writing science fiction, may also be intuitive, but the function is different.
Intuition is also a very common way of knowing things. For example, when dealing with people usually, intuition will also be used, and there are some things he did not tell you, and suddenly you perceive it, that is, you invoke intuition.
Jiang Xiaoyuan: I have intuition everywhere, I have intuition when I pat drag, and I also have intuition when I talk to my boss about salary and price. But some of the intuitions in scientific research are indeed only possessed by masters.
For example, Galileo's ideal pendulum, the friction of the shaft is equal to zero, the rope is massless, the ball is rigid, there is no friction when swinging in the air, and it is perfect to make a law in such a case. But why ignore the air? Why ignore friction? Why neglect the quality of the rope? It doesn't make sense... The master knows to ignore these things, and if he ignores them, he will be able to draw this law later. If we do not ignore it, with the physical and mathematical means of the time, we will not get this law at all.
It seems simple, but before him, why didn't anyone else assume the ideal state? This is the master, and only he knows that those factors should be ignored.
In the Cathedral of Pisa, a fresco depicting Galileo observing the swing of a chandelier by Luigi Sabatelli (1772-1850), image courtesy of thoughtco.com
Observer Network: Can this intuition be trained? Do you think science fiction has helped to form this intuition?
Jiang Xiaoyuan: I don't think it will help, I think this intuition may be a talent, brought in the womb, if your parents give you, not to you, you try to die is useless.
I think all kinds of intuitions, individualized, are difficult to develop the day after tomorrow through a course or training.
Mu Yunqiu: Other methods, such as logical methods, empirical and experimental methods can be trained, but this kind of intuitive epiphany cannot be trained.
Jiang Xiaoyuan: Science and science fiction do have a boundary, but intuition is a completely instrumental thing. And what we emphasize in the book is that the boundaries between science and science fiction are open. Because many of the early scientific activities actually seemed to be science fiction today, but at that time people regarded it as science.
The idea that the two have open boundaries is harmless even if it is seen in today's scientific status quo, and we do not need to think that today's scientific activities and science fiction have a clear boundary. Without boundaries, it's good for everyone to let go of their thoughts, and when scientists want to brainstorm, it's also good to find two science fiction writers to talk about.
(End)
This article is the exclusive manuscript of the observer network, the content of the article is purely the author's personal views, does not represent the platform views, unauthorized, may not be reproduced, otherwise will be investigated for legal responsibility. Pay attention to the observer network WeChat guanchacn, read interesting articles every day.