Mike Naughton: Let’s use the scientific method instead

Recently, nuclear physicist Andrea Pocar wrote of watching “Oppenheimer” and coming away hopeful that it might prompt productive public discussions about the scientific method and how it can best be used to solve societal problems [‘“Oppenheimer’ sets stage for deep debate on AI science,” Recorder, July 27].

Two days later, Jon Huer wrote of watching the same movie and coming away reflecting that his accomplishments were greater than Oppenheimer’s [“Oppenheimer and me: Tales of fame and shame,” Recorder, July 29]. His reasoning was that while Oppenheimer had built bombs that destroyed two cities, “I destroyed the entire nation of America in 1980.” He did it with his book, “The Dead End,” which explained why “America as a nation would not survive.” Despite being rejected by 150 publishers (his count), it “was my own 10,000 tons of TNT dropped on America.”

Not for the first time, I asked myself, “Is he serious?” (I sometimes wonder if his columns are just an elaborate put-on.) I was struck by the serendipity of the juxtaposition, though. On one hand was a thoughtful essay about how a movie about serious science might promote useful discussions about our current situation. On the other was yet another column from an author who has many topics but only one theme: namely, that America is on the wrong path, and we are doomed as a result. Wherever he looks, he sees the same thing, because he expects to see it. Facts are presented that fit his conclusion, not the other way around.

I fully agree that we are facing existential crises, but we need to approach them with a clear-eyed effort to understand what is really happening, not a head full of preconceived notions that we cherry pick facts to fit. The scientific method is the way to do that. It had a hand in getting us into this mess, but it’s likely our only way out. We should use it.

Mike Naughton

Millers Falls

]]>