Abstrakte und konkrete Kritik an CERN von H. Maturana und R. Malina auf der Ars Electronica
(English version please see in the comment section below: “Abstract and concrete Critique of CERN by H. Maturana and R. Malina”)
Der berühmte chilenische Philosoph Humberto Maturana beschreibt Gewissheit in der Wissenschaft als wesentlich emotionales Dafürhalten und erstaunt damit die anwesende physikalische Prominenz. Der französische Astronom und „Leonardo“-Herausgeber Roger Malina wünscht sich, dass die LHC-Sicherheitsfrage in einem offenen Kontext und nicht nur im geschlossenen Rahmen von CERN erörtert werde.
Das Kunst- und Technologiefestival in Linz widmete sich heuer unkritisch der Huldigung des gigantischen Teilchenbeschleunigers LHC und des Kernforschungszentrums CERN. Dieses lockte seinerseits mit einem Kunstpreis und will mit der Kunst „enger zusammenarbeiten“. Die Einsprüche waren vor allem philosophischer Art – und die hatten es in sich.
In seinem beeindruckenden und allgemein verständlichen Vortrag beschrieb Humberto Maturana die Grenzen unseres Wissens und dem, was wir gemeinhin für „objektiv“ oder die „Realität“ halten und spickte seine Ausführungen mit einigen trefflichen Pointen: „Sei realistisch, sei objektiv!“ heiße doch nur, dass man sich wünsche, der Diskussionspartner denke endlich so wie man selbst. Gleichzeitig grenzte er seinen für die Gegenwartsphilosophie so einflussreichen konstruktivistischen Ansatz vom Solipsismus deutlich ab. Vor allem im Zusammenhang mit dem diesjährig von der Ars Electronica ins Rampenlicht gestellten Kernforschungszentrum CERN und dessen experimentellen subnuklearen Forschungsreaktor LHC handelt es sich um höchst wichtige Reflexionen, was das versammelte CERN-Prominenz teils unangenehm erstaunt, teils mit Unverständnis zur Kenntnis nehmen musste.
Ob es denn nicht problematisch sei, dass CERN sich selbst kontrolliere und ob zur Klärung der LHC-Sicherheitsfrage, die immerhin verschiedene - sogar von einem Physik-Nobelpreisträger artikulierte - existentielle Risiken beinhalte, nicht zumindest die Hinzuziehung einer weiteren Wissenschaft außer der Physik, wie bspw. der Risikoforschung notwendig sei, wurde Maturana gefragt und er antwortete (im Video ab ca. 1:17): „Wir als Menschen können immer darüber reflektieren was wir tun, wir können immer entscheiden es zu tun oder nicht zu tun. Die Frage stellt sich daher: Wie reflektieren wir als Wissenschaftler über das was wir tun? Nehmen wir unsere Verantwortung ernst, unsere Verantwortung dafür, was wir tun? […] Wir sind immer in der Gefahr zu denken: ‚Ich habe die Wahrheit gefunden‘. Und in einer Kultur der Wahrheit, in einer Kultur der Gewissheit besteht diese Gefahr, weil Wahrheit und Gewissheit sind nicht wie wir denken, Gewissheit ist eine Emotion. Ich bin sicher heißt: Ich weiß nicht. [Ich kann mich sicher fühlen über etwas das unbekannt ist…] Wir können nicht vorgeben, anderen etwas aufzudrängen, wir müssen Domänen der Interrogativität schaffen.“
Sergio Bertolucci (CERN) ging in seiner Wortmeldung erst gar nicht darauf ein und entgegnete mit dem System des Peer-Review und dem „Höhenstrahlen-Argument“, wonach viel energetischere Teilchenkollisionen in der Erdatmosphäre natürlicherweise stattfänden und da sei auch noch nichts passiert. (Dieses Sicherheitsargument kann allerdings auch im engeren physikalischen Sinne angezweifelt werden, bspw. da solche Kollisionen erst indirekt gemessen werden konnten und die Kollisionsfrequenz am LHC um einen astronomischen Wert höher ist.)
CERN-Direktor Rolf Heuer und der neu bestellte Leiter des MIT Media Lab, Joichi Ito, hielten daraufhin einen kurzen gefälligen Talk über „Managing Science and Innovation“. Den zweiten Vortrag des „Origin“ Symposion III eröffnete der Astronom und „Leonardo“-Herausgeber (MIT Press) Roger Malina mit einer aufrüttelnden Feststellung: „95% des Universums ist von unbekannter Natur: ‚Dunkle Materie‘ und ‚Dunkle Energie‘. Wir wissen ein wenig wie es sich verhält aber wir haben keinen Clue was es sein könnte. Es emittiert kein Licht, es reflektiert kein Licht. […] Ein wirklich demütigender Gedanke. […] Wir sind die Dekoration im Universum.“
Jedoch: „Neugier ist nicht neutral.“ Und wo die Astrophysik nicht weiter komme, dort könne nach Roger Malina eine Kooperation von Wissenschaft und Kunst aus verschiedenen Gründen vielleicht fruchtbar sein und letztendlich zu einer besseren Wissenschaft führen. Allerdings war nicht ganz verständlich, warum das Verhältnis von Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften hierbei nicht extra ausdifferenziert wurde.
Die beste (natur-)wissenschaftliche Ethik (intellektuelle Ehrlichkeit, Unabhängigkeit etc.) habe einen fundamentalen Fehler („flaw“). Denn: Neugier ist inkorporiert („embodied“). „Man kann sie nicht in ein neutrales Ideal wissenschaftlicher Neugier verwandeln“, erklärte Malina und bezog sich dabei auf den Vortrag von Maturana, um dessen Kollegen Varela zu zitieren: „Jedes Wissen hängt von der Struktur des Wissenden ab.“
An einer besseren Kooperation verschiedener Kompetenzen führe auch gar kein Weg vorbei, denn: „Es gibt gesellschaftliche Probleme, die so erheblich sind, dass wir unsere Kultur ändern müssen, um sie zu lösen. […] Um das nächste Jahrhundert zu überleben, können wir unsere wissenschaftliche Aktivität nicht im Elfenbeinturm vollziehen. Ich glaube wirklich, dass wir mit diesem Modell brechen müssen.“ Daraufhin direkt auf die LHC-Risikodiskussion zurückkommend äußerte der Astronom Malina offenen Widerspruch: Er hätte sich von CERN generell einen viel offeneren Umgang erhofft, anstatt dies nur im engeren Feld der Teilchenwissenschaft abzuhandeln, konkret: “Ich würde mir wünschen, als CERN die Risiken besprochen hatte, dass dies in einem offenen Kontext und nicht nur im geschlossenen Rahmen von CERN geschehen wäre.”
Videoaufzeichnungen des „Origin III“ Symposium der Ars Electronica am 3. September 2011:
Humberto Maturana (deutsche Simultanübersetzung):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HShlls08AX4
Roger Malina (deutsche Simultanübersetzung):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeIh3HICzms
„Origin“ Symposia:
http://www.aec.at/origin/category/conferences/
Weitere Infos, Links und Transkriptionen der Vorträge bei „LHC-Kritik – Netzwerk für Sicherheit an experimentellen subnuklearen Reaktoren“:
Comments
Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time September 10, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Im Jahr 2013 sollen Konstruktionsmängel des LHC mit bis zu CHF 1 Mrd. behoben werden, um die “Urknallmaschine” mit doppelt so hohen Energien wie bislang zu betreiben. Nach wie vor ist eine neutrale und multidisziplinäre Risikoprüfung ausständig.
[Reply]
Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time September 9, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Revised English version of the article above:
————————————————-
Abstract and concrete critique of CERN by H. Maturana and R. Malina at Ars Electronica
Famous Chilean philosopher Humberto Maturana describes “certainty” in science as subjective emotional opinion and astonishes the physicists’ prominence. French astronomer and “Leonardo” publisher Roger Malina hopes that the LHC safety issue would be discussed in a broader social context and not only in the closer scientific framework of CERN.
This year the renowned art and technology festival in Linz (Austria) was dedicated in part to an uncritical worship of the gigantic particle accelerator LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at the European Nuclear Research Center CERN located at the Franco-Swiss border. CERN in turn promoted an art prize with the idea to “cooperate closely” with the arts. The objections were mainly of a philosophical nature – but not only - and they had what it takes.
In a thought provoking presentation Maturana addressed the limits of our knowledge and the intersubjective foundations of what we call “objective” and “reality.” His talk was spiked with excellent remarks and witty asides that contributed much to the accessibility of these fundamental philosophical problems: “Be realistic, be objective!” Maturana pointed out, simply means that we want others to adopt our point of view. The great constructivist and founder of the concept of autopoiesis clearly distinguished his approach from a solipsistic position.
Given Ars Electronica’s spotlight on CERN and its experimental sub-nuclear research reactor, Maturana’s explanations were especially important, which to the assembled CERN celebrities may have come in a mixture of an unpleasant surprise and a lack of relation to them.
During the question-and-answer period, Markus Goritschnig asked Maturana whether it wasn’t problematic that CERN is basically controlling itself and discarding a number of existential risks discussed related to the LHC - including hypothetical but mathematically demonstrable risks also raised [and later downplayed] by physicists like [Nobel Prize winner] Frank Wilczek - and whether he thought it necessary to integrate in the LHC safety assessment process other sciences aside from physics such as risk search. In response Maturana replied (in the video from about 1:17): “We human beings can always reflect on what we are doing and choose. And choose to do it or not to do it. And so the question is, how are we scientists reflecting upon what we do? Are we taking seriously our responsibility of what we do? […] We are always in the danger of thinking that, ‘Oh, I have the truth’, I mean - in a culture of truth, in a culture of certainty - because truth and certainty are not as we think - I mean certainty is an emotion. ‘I am certain that something is the case’ means: ‘I do not know’. […] We cannot pretend to impose anything on others; we have to create domains of interrogativity.”
Disregarding these reflections, Sergio Bertolucci (CERN) found the peer review system among the physicists’ community a sufficient scholarly control. He refuted all the disputed risks with the “cosmic ray argument,” arguing that much more energetic collisions are naturally taking place in the atmosphere without any adverse effect. (This safety argument on the LHC, however, can also be criticized in a more narrow physical way, for example, because such collisions could be measured only indirectly - and the collision frequency under artificial and extreme conditions at the LHC is astronomically higher.)
Maturana’s presentation was followed by a short open talk between CERN Director Rolf Heuer and the newly appointed director of the MIT Media Lab, Joichi Ito on “Managing Science and Innovation.” The second presentation of the “Origin” Symposium III was held by Roger Malina, an astrophysicist and the editor of “Leonardo” (MIT Press), a leading academic journal for the arts, sciences and technology.
Malina opened with a disturbing fact: “95% of the universe is of an unknown nature, dark matter and dark energy. We sort of know how it behaves. But we don’t have a clue of what it is. It does not emit light, it does not reflect light. As an astronomer this is a little bit humbling. We have been looking at the sky for millions of years trying to explain what is going on. And after all of that and all those instruments, we understand only 3% of it. A really humbling thought. […] We are the decoration in the universe. […] And so the conclusion that I’d like to draw is that: We are really badly designed to understand the universe.”
The main problem in research is: “curiosity is not neutral.” When astrophysics reaches its limits, cooperation between arts and science may indeed be fruitful for various reasons and could perhaps lead to better science in the end. It probably would have led too far for the speaker to additionally differentiate the relationship between natural and social science in this concern.
However, the astronomer emphasized that an “art-science collaboration can lead to better science in some cases. It also leads to different science, because by embedding science in the larger society, I think the answer was wrong this morning about scientists peer-reviewing themselves. I think society needs to peer-review itself and to do that you need to embed science differently in society at large, and that means cultural embedding and appropriation. Helga Nowotny at the European Research Council calls this ‘socially robust science’. The fact that CERN did not lead to a black hole that ended the world was not due to peer-review by scientists. It was not due to that process.”
One of Malina’s main arguments focused on differences in “the ethics of curiosity”. The best ethics in (natural) science include notions like: intellectual honesty, integrity, organized scepticism, dis-interestedness, impersonality, universality. “Those are the believe systems of most scientists. And there is a fundamental flaw to that. And Humberto this morning really expanded on some of that. The problem is: Curiosity is embodied. You cannot make it into a neutral ideal of scientific curiosity. And here I got a quote of Humberto’s colleague Varela: “All knowledge is conditioned by the structure of the knower.”
In conclusion, a better co-operation of various sciences and skills is urgently necessary, because: “[Artists] asks questions that scientists would not normally ask. Finally, why we want more art-science interaction is because we don’t have a choice. There are certain problems in our society today that are so tough we need to change our culture to resolve them. Climate change: we’ve got to couple the science and technology to the way we live. That’s a cultural problem, and we need artists working on that with the scientists every day of the next decade, the next century, if we survive it.
Then Roger Malina directly turned to the LHC safety discussion and articulated an open contradiction to the safety assurance pointed out before: He would generally hope for a much more open process concerning the LHC safety debate, rather than discussing this only in a narrow field of particle physics, concrete: “There are certain problems where we cannot cloister the scientific activity in the scientific world, and I think we really need to break the model. I wish CERN, when they had been discussing the risks, had done that in an open societal context, and not just within the CERN context.”
Remark: In 2013 CERN plans to adapt the LHC due to construction failures for up to CHF 1 Billion to run the “Big Bang Machine” at double the present energies. A neutral and multi-disciplinary risk assessment is still lacking, while the Australian ethicist and risk researcher Mark Leggett insists that CERN’s LSAG safety report on the LHC meets less than a fifth of the criteria of a modern risk assessment.
———————–
Published German version of this article:
http://www.oekonews.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1062436
Video recordings of the “Origin III” symposium at Ars Electronica on 3 September 2011:
Presentation Humberto Maturana, English:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twne4EqYl5w
German translation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HShlls08AX4
Presentation Roger Malina, English:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOZS2qJrVkU
German translation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeIh3HICzms
“Origin” Symposia at Ars Electronica:
http://www.aec.at/origin/category/conferences/
More info, links and transcripts of lectures at “LHC-Critique - Network for Safety at experimental subnuclear Reactors”:
www.LHC-concern.info
[Reply]
Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time September 8, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Origin Symposium III - Humberto Maturana
Ars Electronica Festival, 3 September 2011, Linz, Austria
English:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twne4EqYl5w
Deutsche Simultanübersetzung:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HShlls08AX4
[Edited Transcript]
1:14:48
Derrick de Kerckhove - Questions? Yes. In the back, there.
Markus Goritschnig - Mr. Maturana, thank you very much for this lecture. I think that these reflections are actually - in the current science of physics - not very much discussed and reflected. Basically we are in a field of very speculative physics, so I think this input was very important. And to make the connection to the theme and to the Large Hadron Collider - I mean, it would be too complicated now to speak about Kant and that he already said that we are not able to reach the thing on itself - so I would leave that out a little bit. To put my idea in very easy words, I want to ask you: Isn’t this a problem if ideas occur concerning the Large Hadron Collider, even from the core of physics, like [noble price winner] Frank Wilczek, he said that there might be - eventually - a possibility that this experience could be very dangerous, that there might be an “ICE-9″ reaction that was even… could endanger the whole planet - which is hypothetically, but at least possible - and theoretically explainable. Isn’t it a problem that physicists are now only controlling theirselves? Like the safety group at CERN is basically done at CERN itself. Isn’t it necessary - at least - to bring in a certain self-reflection of the system by, for example, another sort of science, like risk research. This was not done yet. Isn’t this the first step to evaluate something that… the risks concerned in these high energy experiments?
Humberto Maturana - I do not know if I understood or heard properly your question, but what I would say is that whatever we do is always our responsibility. Because depends on what we want to conserve. If we expect that certain experiments will produce certain results, we better are aware that we are expecting that, and that those result will take place - telling us something about the coherences of what… of what we are doing. But it is us who choose what to do. And we live in a moment, in which, well is not now, but one of peculiar things of human beings is that we can say I don’t like it, or I do like it. So, we human beings can always reflect on what we are doing and choose. And choose to do it or not to do it. And so the question is, how are we scientists reflecting upon what we do? Are we taking seriously our responsibility of what we do?
Ah, but this is a question that every one of us has to answer because we are always in the danger of thinking that, “Oh, I have the truth”, I mean, if - in a culture of truth, in a culture of certainty - because truth and certainty are not as - what we think. I mean certainty is an emotion. “I am certain that something is the case” means: “I do not know”.
Derrick de Kerckhove - [Smiles and chuckles]
Humberto Maturana - Exactly, this is what it means: “I am certain” is: “I do not know”. So it is… The interesting thing is that if we take this seriously, that we human beings are the origin of everything, and that not everything is desirable, at the same time not all fantasies (are fulfillable, because) can be fulfilled, because there are no operational coherences for the fantasy, because we have invented it, a different domain. We cannot pretend to impose anything on others, we have to create domains of interrogativity.
Derrick de Kerckhove - So, we have…
Humberto Maturana - [Inhales]
Derrick de Kerckhove - Sorry. No, we are cutting into the break time and we have two more questions. You…
Humberto Maturana - Oh, fine, fine [starts to walk away]
Derrick de Kerckhove - maybe we could go on… No, stay there, stay there. So we have one question there and one there. We’ll start with that one and, we have to make it a really — unless you don’t want to have a break — we should make it really fast, so go ahead. Dr. Bertolucci.
Sergio Bertolucci (CERN) – That was not a question, was a comment on what was said before. I wanted just to say that, what this thing about physics being dangerous is, I think that, is a bit part of a past versions which was probably, somehow, cut away by Middle Age evolution. Physicists are not suicidal, are human beings, and they are reflecting very well on what they are doing, by an open process which is called peer reviewing and which is observation. Physicists, scientists in general, look at Nature, interpret the Nature, they don’t modify the Nature.
One good reason why LHC will never be dangerous, from this point of view, is that, despite our ingenuity, Nature is doing much better than LHC in high-energy physics since 13.7 billion years, and if dangerous thing would have been happened by accelerating particles, since every moment we are crossed by accelerated particle of energy much higher than any human energy, the world would not be here, would not be reflecting on that, so please stay tranquil that nothing is going to happen, except new discoveries.
Derrick de Kerckhove - Thank you for that reassuring precision! [Chuckles]
[Partly applause]
1:21:55
Derrick de Kerckhove - Last question! Right. Right there. Here. Here. You’ve got it. No. There.
Audience Member - Thank you. I should like to ask just in a short way, what would be, what would you consider as the limit of the explanations. Could there be wrong explanations in steering our behaviour, especially if you think of the financial crisis, anything of that sort. But the point is, when you talk about reality being an explanatory proposition and exp… and then you can talk about constructive explanations, where would be the limits, and, well, to cut it short. Could you condense the whole thing down to saying something like, “We use fiction to talk about reality.”
Humberto Maturana - Well, the limits will be what you are willing to accept as an explanation of whatnot. When I say, “Reality is an explanatory proposition”, I… using the expression “reality” in the way we usually speak about “reality”. When we say, “This is real”, as if we were speaking about something that is independent of what we do, and this is not the case. And so, we pose something as if were independent of what we do, which we call “real”, or “Nature”, to validate or to sustain our claim that this is valid in front of others.
If one were to say, “Ladies and Gentlemen, be objective”, what will you feel? Or, “Be realistic”, what does we feel? If you are in a community and somebody says, “Be objective”, you immediately know that this person wants you to think as he or she thinks.
Derrick de Kerckhove - [Chuckles]
Humberto Maturana - No, that’s…
Derrick de Kerckhove - That’s true.
Humberto Maturana - The same it is said, “Be realistic”. So, it is g…
Derrick de Kerckhove - Yah.
Humberto Maturana - …it is good to have this as a point of reflection. In a way we could say that everything that we do is “real”, but is not universal because depends on what the criterion we are claiming to claim that we… what we’re doing is to be acceptable, or desirable, or why I want to do it, but if I believe in angels, I will move around with angels, and I will see them whenever something moves. And if I believe in protons, I will have no problem with physics and protons, and looking into what happens when protons collide. And this is what we do. The interesting thing is that the realizing this is that we can become serious about our responsibility. That’s all.
Derrick de Kerckhove - Well, thank you very much Humberto Maturana. We are very grateful and… for the privilege of listening to your presentation and to the clear exposition that you have made of a philosophical situa… exposition today. It is very important for us, and a good reminder. We are now going to go into a break, which will last 15 minutes. Please do come back because we have another fascinating moment, which will be sharing the experience of Rolf Heuer, who is the General Director of the CERN and Joichi Ito, who’s just been made Director of the Media Lab at MIT, so we’re looking forward to hear them as well. Have a nice break.
[Applause]
1:25:40
[Reply]
Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time September 8, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Origin Symposium III - Roger Malina - EN
Ars Electronica, Linz (Austria), 3 September 2011 - 12:20 - 12:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOZS2qJrVkU
[Edited Transcript]
Minute 5:
Roger Malina: Unfortunately, as Rolf [Heuer] just mentioned: Most of the universe is dark. For that model to work: 95% of the universe is of an unknown nature, dark matter and dark energy. We sort of know how it behaves. But we don’t have a clue of what it is. It does not emit light, it does not reflect light. As an astronomer this is a little bit humbling. We have been looking at the sky for millions of years trying to explain what is going on. And after all of that work and all those instruments, we understand only 3% of it. Really humbling thought.
[Dark matter simulations…]
Those filaments of black matter, where they meet we believe black holes to form and galaxies. And indeed our galaxy is probably one of those knots of that network of dark matter.
[…]
We don’t know what it is but it seems to determine the fate and evolution of the universe. And it dominates the matter. We are the decoration in the universe – the matter that we are made of.
And so, as an astronomer I am incredibly proud on the achievements of my discipline, but in the same time incredibly humble that we know almost nothing about the most important things in the world that we live in. And so the conclusion that I’d like to draw is that: We are really badly designed to understand the universe.
[…]
One of the reasons we have so much trouble with quantum mechanics is: We are at the wrong scale. If you want to understand galaxies, we are really built at the wrong scale, because there are different forces in play.
[…]
We are really badly designed to make sense of the universe. […] But we are damn good meaning makers.
11:31
So I think art-science collaboration can lead to better science in some cases.
It also leads to different science, because by embedding science in the larger society, I think the answer was wrong this morning about scientists peer-reviewing themselves. I think society needs to peer-review itself and to do that you need to embed science differently in society at large, and that means cultural embedding and appropriation. Helga Nowotny at the European Research Council calls this “socially robust science”. The fact that CERN did not lead to a black hole that ended the world was not due to peer-review by scientists. It was not due to that process.
Finally, the different science I think comes because of the ethics of curiosity - and I want to expand on that a little bit. Because curiosity is not neutral.
As a scientist I went to MIT in Berkeley and here is what I was thought on the ethics of scientific curiosity:
Intellectual honesty - don’t make up data. Integrity - don’t cheat. Epistemic communism - share your data and your ideas. Organized skepticism - don’t believe what people tell you until it’s checked by others. Dis-interestedness - don’t let the company that funded your research determine the outcome of your research. Impersonality - no cult of the nobel prize winner. Universality - what you discover in one region is valid in others.
Those are the believe systems of most scientists. And there is a fundamental flaw to that. And Humberto this morning really expanded on some of that. The problem is: Curiosity is embodied. You cannot make it into a neutral ideal of scientific curiosity.
And here I got a quote of Humberto’s colleague Varela: “All knowledge is conditioned by the structure of the knower.” I do believe like he did this morning that there is an intimate relationship between what we can know and do know and the way we are organized.
To know something really new you have to change yourself.
Building CERN and the LHC is an act of self-construction.
And so indeed, curiosity drives us to change ourselves in the way we mobilize ourselves in the world.
15 min:
Towards an ethics of curiosity (Sundar Surukkai: Science and the Ethics of Curiosity, 2009)
What a lot of cultural theorists have emphasized:
Curiosity is embodied,
is enacted
at’s cultural
it’s social
it’s collective.
Artistic and scientific curiosity have over-lapping but different but not identical areas of expertise. They drive research in different directions. And they have different value systems. And I think that’s one of the things that makes it interesting to make art and science work together is to exploit those differences.
[…]
16 min:
To understand the world we have to move outside of that black circle.
[…]
We have only just begun to understand the grammar of space.
[…]
Art and science are different cultures as different as Japan and Austria. We don’t want to merge these cultures we want to find ways for them to act together.
22 min:
[Art] asks question that scientists would not normally ask.
Finally, why we want more art-science interaction is because we don’t have a choice. There are certain problems in our society today that are so tough we need to change our culture to resolve them. Climate change: we’ve got to couple the science and technology to the way we live. That’s a cultural problem, and we need artists working on that with the scientists every day of the next decade, the next century, if we survive it.
There are certain problems where we cannot cloister the scientific activity in the scientific world, and I think we really need to break the model. I wish CERN, when they had been discussing the risks, had done that in an open societal context, and not just within the CERN context.
[Reply]
Comment from Tom Kerwick
Time September 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm
As noted by Maturana, how do we as scientists (and engineers) reflect on what we do and make responsibile decisions? He states we are always in danger of thinking ‘I have found the truth’ - and in a culture of truth we do not think certainty is an emotion. It is true that certainty without proof is an emotion, and scientists should not unilaterally impose an emotion. In this essense, if the safety argument is ‘I am certain’ rather than offering proof, then the scientific assessment has failed. I believe it is a good point by Roger Malina about a parntership between art and science, as in safety review of uncharted science, we rely on extrapolations of reality to understand the risks and this is the territory at which artistic representation is better suited than mathematics to express the emotion of the risks and consequences - and the ethics of unchecked scientific curiosities.
[Reply]
Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time September 8, 2011 at 8:10 am
Ausführlichere und sorgfältige Transkribtionen wesentlicher Teile der Vorträge sowie weitere Artikel siehe im Kommentarteil unseres News-Blogs (hier etwas runterscrollen):
http://lhc-concern.info/?page_id=91
[Reply]
Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time September 10, 2011 at 9:58 pm
“Encounter at Linz for the ARS Electronica festival”
http://matriztica.cl/eng/2011/09/09/encounter-at-linz-for-the-ars-electronica-festival/
[Reply]