Ramblemuse Touch Points

In climate science, there’s been a curious phenomenon of venerable physicists from other disciplines making pronouncements about climate change; curious in part because they seem to do this without familiarizing themselves with the particulars of climate science. This obvious lack of knowledge provokes immediate repudiations from climate scientists. Notable examples are William Happer and Freeman Dyson.

Physics encompasses a large enough set of disciplines that it is relatively easy to wander away from one’s specialization and experience yet stay within the bounds of physics. Having spent most of my career in atmospheric and computational physics, I would not be facile in quantum mechanics or shock waves in solids without substantial study. Yet some things are so basic to a physicist’s education that you expect them to be universally present. Among those are the concepts of blackbody radiation and conservation of energy. While others might start with an a priori assumption of no climate change until observed beyond a doubt, physicists should, contrarily, expect that changes have to occur if the earth absorbs more energy than it emits; a different Bayesian starting point. As the above examples show, such has not always occurred. That is the second curious part.

Last night, I was reading through the transcript of a 1987 interview of Edward Teller by William F. Buckley for Firing Line. I think Teller hit upon the personality trait that can lead otherwise respected scientists into such poor scientific behavior.

DR. TELLER: I believe the scientists are hard to reach. Scientists—and I include myself—have a terrible habit. They believe they are right. Now, you know, I know about quantum mechanics. I know about relativity, you don’t. And they are hard concepts and I know I am right, and indeed I am right And most people don’t even understand what I am talking about. So when next time I find myself in a discussion about whatever- abortion, defense, any of the popular issues–and a scientist has an opinion, he has gotten into the habit of being right. So he can no longer be convinced. Because in his specialty he was right, he is very hard to convince.

MR. BUCKLEY: That’s right.

None of this should discourage physicists from crossing discipline boundaries, as long as it is done with a modicum of humility and the realization that learning is required. There’s a great example in how cosmologist Paul Davies found himself probing the physics of cancer.

As best he can remember, says Paul Davies, the telephone call that changed his professional life came some time in November 2007, as he was sitting in the small suite of offices that comprise his Beyond Center at Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe.

Until then, the questions that animated Davies’ research and 19 popular-science books had grown out of his training in physics and cosmology: how did the Universe come to exist? Why are the laws of physics suited for life? What is time? And how did life begin? But this particular call was nothing to do with that. The caller — Anna Barker, then the deputy director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland — explained that she needed his help in the ‘War on cancer’. Forty years into the government’s multibillion-dollar fight, said Barker, cancer survival rates had barely budged. The hope now was that physicists could bring some radical new ideas to the table, and she wanted Davies to give a keynote address at an NCI workshop explaining how.

Ummm, sure, said Davies, who until that minute had been only vaguely aware that the NCI existed. “But I don’t know anything about cancer.”

“That’s okay,” Barker replied. “We’re after fresh insights.”

Knowing that we don’t know is a powerful tool. It is akin to the classic Zen story that a cup must be empty if new tea is to be poured into it. It allows bringing the tools and perspectives learned in one discipline appropriately across the boundary without arrogance. Some humility is required.