From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS feasibility and other space development
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:47:08 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu>
wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

[...]
> Risk takers are an endangered species in America in large part because too
> many "experts" are on the sidelines asking questions to infinity and not 
> enough engineers have the testicles to tell them to shove off.

This statement is as unprofessional as it is irrelevant. I'M an
experimental scientist: uncritical, unquestioning acceptance of ideas,
no matter how appealing, is as bad for experiment as it is for
theory. The funding will be wasted on doing inappropriate experiments;
the experiments will not be designed or run properly; and if someone
else does do a good experiment, biased interpretation of the data will
make them useless. It really helps to know what you're doing, and
nationality has nothing to do with it. (By the way, never lecture an
American astronomer about risk-taking. Openings for permanent jobs are
almost non-existent these days, and many of the best are living off
their research grants, hoping they'll get renewed. If you don't believe
me, see the science section in the New York Times for Tuesday, August
18. Even Riccardo Giacconi, director of the Space Telescope Science
Institute, is emigrating.)

> >Uncritical acceptance of ideas, no matter how appealing they might
> >seem, is harmful to any field. Space is no exception. People will hold 
> >you to promises you make, and will hold it against you if you tell 
> >them things that aren't right. Undisciplined grand speculation isn't 
> >even good science fiction. At best, boosterism (good pun intended) is 
> >misleading; at worst, it makes you look kooky. Believe me, kooky is 
> >NOT an image you want to project when writing a research proposal, 
> >especially not when you get to the budget section!
> 
> Blind questioning of everything that anyone tries to do is more harmful
> than the other extreme that you posit.  

Sorry, but I'm going to keep asking questions: you can't stop me! Nor
could they stop Galileo, although they did stop him from doing it in
public. But they were wrong. And my questions are not "blind": I ask
questions, because I want to know the answers, and I have reasons why I
want to know the answers.

> It is far better to do something,
> make a mistake, and try again than to sit on your part that you are busy
> covering and continually ask questions. If you fear to make mistakes
> then you never will do anything of note.  The present American cover your
> ass and never do anything that might be percieved as a failure is the 
> primary cause of the decline of our once great nation.

By "not right", I had in mind public statements like "too cheap to
meter." (How would the power company make money?) Sorry, but there's an
enormous
difference between an error and a blunder, about the same difference as
between curiosity and dishonesty. Serendipity is wonderful and perhaps
the most *fun* aspect of science, but *alone* it cannot justify *any*
project - because it may happen in any project, any at all. It takes an
open, unbiased, prepared, and questioning mind even to recognize
serendipity: the happy error itself is not so important, it's the
realization "...but even so,..." Again, it really helps to know what
you're doing. Haphazard tinkering (as opposed to real experimentation
to test ideas or explore concepts or the Universe) is unproductive,
wasteful, and can even be dangerous. One should have at least some idea
of what's going to happen before mixing charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter
and lighting it with a match. (This is the old argument between
Galilean and Baconian scientific method.)
[...]
As far as scientific literature references go, the best are usually
from refereed journals, and the very best are often refereed invited
reviews. Conference proceedings will do in a pinch, although not if
serious doubts have been raised about an author's methods: proceedings
often aren't refereed, and so might still contain blunders. Not that
the refereeing process is completely infallible, either, but bypassing
it is always suspicious: look at the Cold Fusion flap, which began with
a media circus. Try not to use magazines or newspapers, except strictly
for news items; reporters rarely have the background for detailed
technical discussion.
[...]
Well, I've had more than enough of this, and I shall not post again on
it, no matter what the provocation. This discussion of scientific
method has too little to do with SPS anyway; but in a way, it has
everything to do with it. Whatever, I suggest everyone have a look at
Advice to a Young Scientist, by Peter Medawar. His scientific
achievements are unimpeachable, and his writing style is delightful. I
think you'll need to know this book, if you want to become an effective
PI on many projects. (The GAS Winchester disk experiment sounds like an
excellent concept, by the way: was it your idea?)

P.S. Much of this discussion applies equally well to engineering. The
emphasis is different - for example, in the development stage, the LAST
thing you want is serendipity - but an engineer must have the integrity
to tell whether or not the work matches the specifications, and to
admit it if it doesn't and get back to the old CAD board. 
Newsgroups: sci.space