From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: John Campbell (was lots of stuff)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:13:02 GMT

This is in .written for obvious reasons, in .science because it discusses
scientific claims, and in .misc because it discusses actions of an editor,
not a writer....

Disclaimer: I have about 2/3 of all the Analogs between 1960 and 1972, but this
is still far from having read all John Campbell's editorials....

In article <1992Apr10.015548.27688@csusac.csus.edu> potter@csusac.ecs.csus.edu (Carl Kolchak) writes:
>>   "Magic is really psi."
>
>    There's something wrong with this?   *IF* psi exists, usage would 
>    constitute an explorable technology subject to analysis and training;
>    *provided* we can discover the rules.

This isn't itself bad.  But from reading editorials and looking at stories, I
get the impression John Campbell emphasized psi and stories about psi because
he believed that psi existed in the real world.  In fact, he believed
scientists were acting incompetently in rejecting the "evidence" for psi.
The presence of lots of psi/magic stories was just a symptom.

>>   The Hieronymus Machine.
>    *Shrug*   It got a patent, didn't it?   Remember, Campbell also published
>    all of those "Leonard Lockhard" stories (Ted Thomas's pseudonym) about 
>    how ridiculous U.S. Patent Law is.   This comes more under the heading of
>    "It looks like there may be something there.  Let's poke it with a stick
>     for a while and see if it's real."

There are an infinite number of places where one _could_ look to see if
something's there.  A choice to select a particular place to look in indicates
that the chooser believes there is some merit there--and John Campbell did
not know what he was doing when he chose the Hieronymus Machine and Dean Drive
as places which "need further examining" and which scientists are being
"closed-minded" about if they think otherwise.

>>   "Slaves are better off than free men."
>     free man.   It took JWC about ten 
>     minutes, using Socratic questions, to walk Stemple back into a corner
>     and get him to admit he'd sold himself into slavery when he took his
>     officer's oath..... Stemple laughed, but admitted JWC had a point.

Socratic questions can elicit hidden viewpoints.  But they can also be used as
means for getting someone to accept a subtly absurd or subtly inappropriate
premise without them realizing what they are doing until 10 questions later
when the questioner derives a silly conclusion.

>     Dr. William O. Davis wrote an article called "THE FOURTH LAW OF MOTION,"
>     which sought to show that the second derivative of motion, the rate of
>     change of the rate of change, was ignored in Newtonian physics.   

The problem is John Campbell was incapable of recognizing bad science.  One
argument often used (even post-Campbell) is that certain types of arguments
are useful because they "make the readers think".  I suggest that in cases
where truly bad science (or incorrect facts) are involved, this is used more
as a cover-up for the promoter's inability to recognize the argument as bad
in the first place, than sincerely.

>     A lot of these suckers got built, and not a one of them passed the 
>     "zero-substrate" test.  (Hanging from a string, with the axis of 
>     acceleration horizontal, does it move to the side?   Answer: NO.)
>     But in the process, the readers of ASTOUNDING/ANALOG were forced 
>     to re-examine basic tenets of one of their major religions, Physics,
>     and come up with tests to validate (or invalidate) their opinions. 

The science was bad in the first place.  Physics was correct all along.

It is misdirection to attempt to argue against physics, and then when one's
arguments all fail and one's tests all show physics is right, to say one did
not _really_ mean to contradict physics, just to "make people re-evaluate
their opinions".

>>   "Northern Europeans are smarter than anyone on Earth,
>>   and by expansion, Earthmen are smarter than anybody in the Galaxy."
>     Haw.  Remember the editorial on Campbell's belief that there might be
>     different racial *aptitudes?*
>     One of the things he pointed out was that, given high metallurgical 
>     technology, calculus, and lots of raw materials, the best musical 
>     instrument invention his ancestors had been able to come up with 
>     was adding a third drone to the bagpipes imported by the Romans 
>     two thousand years ago.   He then discussed the absolute glory of 
>     hearing Beethoven performed by a Trinidad steel-drum band, using 
>     instruments made out of scrap drums washed up on a beach......
>     He never said "Europeans are smarter."   He said, "Maybe there are 
>     differences, and we ought to try to design experiments to find out."
>     He said the same things with reference to sexual differences...

The above examples aren't proof.  But wait, he wasn't trying to prove anything!
He was just calling for someone _else_ to prove or disprove them.

That sounds good, anyway.  But then why did he bother giving the examples?
He gave the examples because he thought they were suggestive evidence, though
not actually proof.  In which case exactly how they fail as proofs is
important; if they fail strongly enough, they might not even be good as
partial evidence.  I hope everyone sees why these examples fail to this extent.

So take out the examples.  John Campbell is saying, for no particular reason,
"let's check to see how races differ mentally."  His stated example is not
enough to motivate it.  What _is_ his motivation?

Furthermore, if he was sincere in really having no opinion on whether
differences exist, he would have allowed stories both with superior Earthmen
and inferior Earthmen.  But he didn't.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written