From: potter@csusac.ecs.csus.edu (Carl Kolchak)
Subject: Arromdee reply (was: John Campbell (was lots of stuff) )
Followup-To: /dev/null
Summary:  'eold on, naow, a bi'....
Keywords:  tritium, beryllium, dowsing rods, psi machines....
Organization: INS, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 22:03:36 GMT

Ken Arromdee object to my comments, in three differen places, no less:

> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc
> From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
> Subject: John Campbell (was lots of stuff)
> Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
> References: <1992Apr10.015548.27688@csusac.csus.edu>
> 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....

  Three places is too many places.   One place with pointers would be better.

> 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....

  I have about a 45-year run of the magazine, myself, and most U.S. college
  libraries have the entire first half century on microfiche.

> In <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 
> >    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.
  
  No, the presence of magic/psi stories is simply not quite as great as you
  imply.   If you check my article in "MAELSTROM #33," from the Spring '72
  quarterly, you'll see the percentage curves and breakdowns on story types
  in ASTOUNDING/ANALOG, from 1938 to 1971.   There was no preponderance of
  magic/psi stories; Campbell printed *fewer* of them than other editors.
  It's just that the ones he printed were more apparently more memorable!
  
> > >   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.

  Possibly not.  But he certainly scored well in his choices in other areas.
  If you don't blue-sky it occasionally, you never find anything new!
  Who was it said that the greatest thrill in science is hearing the
  experimenter say, instead of "Eureka!" ...... "Gee, that's funny...."

> > >   "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.

   In this case, it was simply an exercise in demonstration of poor 
   definition; a joke designed to *show* that "slave" isn't necessarily 
   a bad thing, since the great majority of people *choose* to be slaves.

> >  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

     In what instance?    The only one I can think of is his missing the 
     logical concomitant of using the randomization-discharge to "wipe" 
     information stored in a pane of "slow glass."   ("LIGHT OF OTHER DAYS,"
     by Bob Shaw.)

> 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.

   Your prerogative to presume.   I saw far too many examples of Campbell 
   setting up a bear trap for readers to walk into, and thereby illuminating
   their existences more than somewhat.   
   
   PROBABLY THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THIS ATTITUDE:   A Raymond F. Jones story 
   from the early fifties, dealing with a secret government project.  A 
   scientist has perfected anti-gravity, and built a flying belt.  He 
   demonstrates it, on film, and it malfunctions, blowing him into a 
   zillion pieces while the camera is rolling.  Only part of his notes 
   are available, and the leftovers in his lab.   The best physicists and
   electronics people in the country are gotten together and commissioned
   to re-discover the man's lost invention.

   AFTER they "re-discover" anti-gravity, it turns out to have been a hoax.

   When Campbell discussed this at an SF convention in '58, he said 
   something like "I love that story.   And it's valid; as Dwight Wayne 
   Batteau has pointed out, the only thing you can't discover is something
   you already *think* you know.   So, fair warning; we'll do things like
   that to our readers any time we think we can pull it off!"

> >     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.

    Oh, give it a rest.  Physics is as variable, dynamic, and growing as 
    it was when Newton was writing the Principia.
    Physics is rarely "correct all along."   We don't know enough.  We
    have some great recipes, and some theories we think are valid.
    But Campbell was the one who pointed out that the field of sub-atomic
    physics MIGHT be using an approach as poorly matched to reality as the
    "epicycle" system was to astronomy, prior to Copernicus.

    One of my degrees is Electrical & Electronic Engineering, so I've had
    my share of Physics courses, and the one thing I've noted that seems 
    to be a uniform characteristic in Physic profs my age or older is that
    they all doted on Campbell, and read his magazine religiously every 
    month, if only to get a huge guffaw out of something he'd missed.
    But I also remember an entire Physics department going out to screw 
    around with long-delay echoes from the Lunar Trojan Points, after 
    Duncan Lunan published his "SPACE PROBE FROM EPSILON BOOTES?" 
    article.   The fallout from *that* project included several masters'
    theses involved with things like microwave stripline design and 
    statistical validity of short-run experimental evidence.  (No, they
    didn't find any space probes, but Ghreat Ghrotty Ghu, did we have a 
    good time horsing around with it!)

> 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".

    Incorrect.   Campbell often flew in the face of accepted orthodoxy, 
    and often elicited results that are now accepted parts of widely 
    disparate fields.   He often went face-down on his nose at Warp 9, 
    too.   The point is, if you *don't* make a habit of jerking things 
    around and trying insane stuff occasionally, you're shutting yourself
    off from any chance of stumbling over something new.

    I suggest you re-read his editorial on the evolutionary value of 
    panic.  It's in the collection Harry Harrison edited, and pretty 
    well shows why trying random things is not always a bad procedure.
    The concept extends to any form of explatory endeavor.

> > >   "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.

  No, he was inviting people to argue with his sloppy reasoning.

  Note that he had long since proposed a third form of logical analysis, 
  what he called "rope reasoning."   (A rope is composed of zillions of 
  fibers, each insufficient to support the conclusion on its own.)
  In law, this is called "circumstancial evidence."   C.E. doesn't *prove*
  a danged thing, but you can still get convicted if there's enough of it!

  He also mentioned once that it could be referred to as "rope reasoning"
  by reference to the people who'd been hung in the old west, on invalid
  charges.  The point is, you *can* make a rope, and hang a conclusion on 
  it; but you can also hang YOURSELF if you don't stay wary of conclusions
  reached in this fashion.

> 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.

   I notice that you have specifically elided my comments referring to the
   recent Berkeley project that provides physical evidence supporting the 
   assertion that women have greater language aptitude and hemispheric 
   integration.

> 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?

    Ever heard of sheer curiosity?   If you accept that people with dark
    skin might have superior resistance to heavy sunshine exposure...then
    you accept that there are racial physiological differences.  The 
    question is, what other differences are there?   We know that no 
    individual can be judged on the basis of  his/her  family tree, even
    if that tree is loaded with substandard products; a more scientific
    attitude would be needed in the general populace before such studies
    could be released, or purposeful misinterpretation would simply 
    provide "justification" for real racism.

    I can recall being (mis) diagnosed as someone with "Kleinfeldter's 
    Syndrome" about 35 years ago.   I immediately became suspect, and 
    was watched constantly for the anti-social and insane tendencies
    the teachers knew would erupt any second.
    Consequently, I have first-hand knowledge of the effects of mis-applied
    "scientific evaluation," and do NOT support such things.

    However, I do support the idea of beginning long-term, objective 
    research on sexual and racial differences, if only in the hopes 
    that one fallout from such a program might be an *accurate* 
    capacity-evaluation system that could be used as a *tool* in our 
    educational system.   The tests we have now are far too superficial
    and unreliable.
    Dr. William Shockley, long chastised for what are viewed "racist" 
    attitudes, has on many occasions sought long-term funding and objective
    overview for such a research program.   Of course, he's no more popular
    on the subject than Campbell was.  (I've heard it said that Shockley 
    says we Anglos are intellectually deficient compared to Asians, but 
    have no solid reference on this, so don't quote me.)
  
> 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.

    Oh, bushwah.  Look up "FIREWATER" by "William Tenn."  Campbell loved it 
    so much that he bought the cover painting and hung it in his home.
    (Plot:  Aliens so superior that humans go completely insane trying to
      communicate with them.)

    Campbell *preferred* stories where cagy Terrans came out on top, but 
    that didn't keep him from using the other kind!

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.books