Skeptics on Stephen Wolfram at Caltech
Jason Spaceman
speech and Q&A session held at Caltech with Stephen Wolfram, author of
'A New Kind of Science'. The evolution related stuff is further down
the page. I haven't read Wolfram's book, but apparently Wolfram
doesn't think evolution is that important to biology.
J. Spaceman
------[Begin article]----------------------------------------------------------
E-SKEPTIC FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2003
Copyright 2003 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine,
e-Skeptic
magazine (www.skeptic.com and skept...@aol.com). Permission to
print,
distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We
encourage
you to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. Newcomers can
subscribe to e-Skeptic for free by sending an e-mail to:
join-s...@lyris.net
------------------------
SKEPTICS ON STEPHEN WOLFRAM AT CALTECH
Last Saturday, February 1, 2003, Dr. Stephen Wolfram, author of the
controversial book A New Kind of Science, spoke at Caltech to a packed
audience of over a thousand people, who came to see and hear the
subject of
so much scientific press, as well as what three world-class scientists
had to
say about it.
In an upcoming issue of Skeptic computer scientist David Naiditch will
be
publishing a full review essay of Wolfram's book, but for now I post
his
summary of the Caltech event, along with aerospace engineer Michael
Gilmore's
impressions of the day.
-----------------------
A New Kind of Science?
David Naiditch
On February 1, physicist and computer scientist, Dr. Stephen Wolfram,
spoke
to a full house at Caltech's Beckman Auditorium about his grandiose
proposal
for a new and improved kind of science. After Wolfram spoke for about
an
hour, he answered questions from a panel of distinguished scientists,
and
then responded to questions from the audience.
Stephen Wolfram was a child prodigy. He received his doctoral degree
in
theoretical physics from Caltech when he was only 20, and was the
youngest
scientist to receive a MacArthur award for his work in physics and
computer
science. Wolfram made a fortune developing Mathematica--a powerful
software
program that has become a standard for technical computing. Then,
staring in
the early 1980s, he began working on cellular automata.
To understand cellular automata, imagine a grid of squares where each
square
can either be black or white. From an initial state of a few black
squares, a
simple rule is applied over and over again. This rule determines
whether or
not a square changes its color, and is based on the color of the
square's
nearest neighbors. For instance, a square might change from white to
black
only if its nearest left neighbor is black and its right neighbor is
white.
From such simple rules, intricate patterns can be generated, some of
which
are highly symmetric like snowflakes, others that appear random, and
others
that are self-similar fractals. Wolfram discovered that even the
simplest
programs yield patterns of astonishing complexity.
In May 2002, Wolfram published his book, A New Kind of Science, which
for the
first time revealed to the world the results of his research on cellar
automata and related fields. Wolfram's book was an immediate success
and
caused a great deal of controversy. According to his publicist, the
initial
print run of 50,000 copies sold out the first day, with over 200,000
copies
sold at the time of this writing. The book has been reviewed in most
major
media venues (New York Times Book Review, New York Review of Books,
Science,
Nature, etc.) and Wolfram has been featured in such national
publications as
Time and Newsweek.
Wolfram proposed a new way of doing science. For hundreds of years,
scientists have successfully used mathematical equations that show how
various entities are connected. For instance, Newton's equation, F=ma,
shows us how force (F) is related to mass (m) and acceleration (a).
The
problem with this approach is that equations fail to describe complex
phenomena we see all around us, such as the turbulence of boiling
water or
the changing weather. To describe such complex phenomena, Wolfram
proposes
that scientists employ the types of rules used in cellular automata
and
related areas of computing.
In Wolfram's theory the universe is a giant computer. This computer
produces
complexity through the repeated execution of simple rules. Instead of
using
equations to describe the results of nature's computer programs,
Wolfram
tells us to examine the programs themselves.
At the Caltech event Wolfram's ideas were challenged by a stellar
panel of
scientists: Steven Koonin, Chris Adami, John Preskill, and David
Stevenson.
Steven Koonin, the moderator, is a full professor of physics at
Caltech and
received the Caltech Associated Students Teaching Award, the Humboldt
Senior
Scientist Award, and the E.O. Lawrence Award in Physics from the
Department
of Energy. Chris Adami is faculty associate and director of the
Digital Life
Laboratory at Caltech, principle scientist in the Quantum Technologies
Group
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and author of the textbook
Introduction to
Artificial Life. John Preskill is the John D. MacArthur Professor of
Theoretical Physics at Caltech and the director of the Institute for
Quantum
Information. David Stevenson has been a physics professor at Caltech
since
1980 and is the recipient of a Fellowship of the Royal Society of
London and
the Feynman teaching prize.
Although it is clear that Wolfram is no crank, not someone skeptics
would
label a pseudoscientist, skeptics will notice that, despite his
flawless
credentials, staggering intelligence, and depth of knowledge, Wolfram
possesses many attributes of a pseudoscientist: (1) he makes grandiose
claims, (2) works in isolation, (3) did not go through the normal
peer-review
process, (4) published his own book, (5) does not adequately
acknowledge his
predecessors, and (6) rejects a well-established theory of at least
one
famous scientist.
First, throughout his lecture Wolfram made the grandiose claim that
his work
amounts to a "paradigm shift" of how we do science. Furthermore,
Wolfram
claims his work will shed light on a broad range of fundamental issues
that
have stymied scientists for ages, including the randomness found in
nature,
biological complexity, the nature of space-time, the possibility of a
"theory
of everything," and the scope and limitations of mathematics. Wolfram
even
claims his insights can be used to tackle the ancient paradoxes of
free will
and determinism, and the nature of intelligence.
Second, like so many pseudoscientists on the fringe, Wolfram did his
work in
isolation for 20 years. Although he was running a company that
required he
interact with employees and customers (many of whom are scientists),
his work
on cellular automata was kept largely to himself.
Third, Wolfram admitted that he had enough material during this time
for
hundreds of scientific papers, yet he did not bother to publish any of
the
material or present his ideas at any scientific conferences. Thus, any
critical feedback that might have improved his theory before it was
cemented
in inky stone was eschewed, making change at this point in the
development of
his theory much more unlikely.
Fourth, in May 2002 Wolfram revealed his work for the first time in
his
massive self-published tome, A New Kind of Science, coming in at 1,268
pages.
This is not because he could not get a publisher, or that no publisher
would
print such a large book. Readers may recall Stephen Jay Gould's magnum
opus,
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, was released about the same time
by
Harvard University Press, topping out at 1,433 pages. Between the two,
bookstores shelves were sagging under the weight of Big Science.
Wolfram
self-published because he wanted to maintain tight control over the
production and distribution of his life's work.
Fifth, not only did Wolfram work alone, during his Caltech lecture not
once
did he acknowledge the work of other scientists. In addition,
throughout the
850 pages of general text, and 350 pages of notes, there are no
traditional
references to be found in A New Kind of Science: no references to
scientific
papers, no citations of books related to the topic, and no
bibliography. In
fact, the notes section consists mostly of further commentary on his
own work
earlier in the book, with occasional reference to other scientists and
scholars without actually providing citations to their work. In actual
fact,
many of Wolfram's ideas are not new. They can be found, for instance,
in
James Gleick's popular book, Chaos: Making a New Science, and in
Robert
Wright's book, Three Scientists and Their Gods, which describes the
work of
Edward Fredkin. Fredkin, like Wolfram, believes that the universe is a
digital computer. What is new in A New Kind of Science is Wolfram's
claim
that cellular automata, instead of being peripheral to science, should
be
central to the way science is practiced.
Sixth, Wolfram raised the hackles of the scientific panel as well as
the
audience when he rejected a well-established theory of a famous
scientist:
none other than Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection.
Although
Wolfram does not claim natural selection is totally without merit, he
does
claim it is insufficient to fully explain the complexity found in the
biological world. For instance, he claims that natural selection can
explain
phenomena such the lengthening of bones, but not fundamental changes
to an
animal's morphology. Wolfram also claims that, contrary to popular
belief,
evolution is not very important to biologists.
Panel member Chris Adami, who researches how complexity arises from
natural
selection, took exception to these claims. Adami pointed out that
Darwinian
evolution in general, and natural selection in particular, is of
fundamental
importance to biologists; without it, biology does not make sense.
Adami also
argued that the kind of complexity biologists are most concerned with
is
different from the kind of complexity presented by Wolfram. Wolfram
tries to
explain complex patterns such as those found on seashells. According
to
Adami, such complexity is based on our perception and our inability to
perceive the simple rules that can generate such patterns. In
contrast,
biologists are concerned with functional complexity that arises as
organisms
adapt to various environments, thereby increasing their chance of
survival
and reproduction. Adami finds it inconceivable that the functional
complexity
of, say, a living cell, is due to a simple underlying rule. John
Preskill
also challenged Wolfram on this point, noting that cellular automata
are very
fragile. Any "mutation" to cellular automata is disastrous. Biological
systems, on the other hand, must be stable even when mutations and
other
errors are introduced.
In addition to these criticisms, other objections were raised to
Wolfram's
ideas. Steven Koonin pointed out that a paradigm shift cannot arise
simply by
asserting something is a paradigm shift. One must convince the
scientific
community that this description is warranted. To the contrary,
according to
David Stevenson, Wolfram fails to satisfy rules of what constitutes
good
science. Creating programs that generate images that look like things
found
in nature is not sufficient. One needs specific predictions. Wolfram
does not
offer any laboratory experiments or observations that could verify or
falsify
his grand claims.
Wolfram responded that the requirement of falsifiability does not
apply to
mathematics or computer science. He argued that his claims have the
character
of mathematics rather than physics, employing calculus as an analogy.
Newton=
showed how calculus provides a new way of doing science. Calculus
itself,
however, is not tested to determine whether it is true or false. Its
justification is that it works. The panel rebutted that if this
analogy is
true, then Wolfram is just proposing a new kind of computational
method, not
a new kind of science.
Objections were also raised that Wolfram's theory lacks explanatory
power.
Not everything that is useful is explanatory. For example, David
Stevenson
explained that Feynman diagrams are very useful and can provide
answers to
problems of quantum mechanics much faster than answers obtained by
computational methods. However, Feynman diagrams do not provide an
explanation or deeper understanding of quantum phenomena. Again,
it was emphasized that Wolfram seems to be offering a new kind of
computational tool, not a new kind of science.
According to Wolfram, by generating patterns on the computer screen
that
resemble, for instance, snowflakes, he has explained how snowflakes
acquire
their complex symmetric structures. Panelists countered that such
inferences
are unwarranted. The resemblance does not, by itself, mean nature uses
rules
to generate snowflake patterns. Wolfram needs to demonstrate how
nature
physically instantiates the rules of cellular automata. Evidence is
needed to
show that the shape of snowflakes was produced by a physical mechanism
whose
behavior resembles the rules used by a computer.
John Preskill observed that few of the ideas presented in Wolfram's
book are
concrete enough to be usable by research scientists. Wolfram's answer
that no
experts in his field yet exist, does not address the problem. For
example,
Wolfram's most original ideas--such as the attempt to incorporate
quantum
theory and gravity using random network models and path
independence--are too
speculative to be of use to scientists.
At the end of the Caltech program the moderator, Steven Koonin, asked
the
panelists to predict whether in 20 years Wolfram's A New Kind of
Science will
be viewed as a paradigm shift. The unanimous answer was "no." One
panelist
said, "it is not an approach that has much promise," while another
noted
that Wolfram's ideas are the "Emperors New Clothes." Wolfram tried to
get in
the last word by stating that this reaction from the panelists is just
what
one would expect from a paradigm shift. But Steven Koonin rejoined
that this
is also just what one would expect if Wolfram's ideas did not amount
to a
paradigm shift. Ultimately, time will tell who is right.
---------------------
Of Triangles and Bulldogs
Is Stephen Wolfram a Modern Pythagoras?
By Michael Gilmore
"I would rather understand one cause than be King of Persia."
--Democritus of Abdera
It was a warm day in Pasadena and a full house at Caltech's Beckman
auditorium Saturday, February 1.
In a swift and densely packed hour, Stephen Wolfram presented ideas
from his
1268 page best seller, A New Kind of Science, that deals with the
mathematical world of cellular automata It was a fine lecture, but was
it
science? Is this the beginning of a new paradigm shift, as Wolfram so
repeatedly and confidently claimed?
I first wondered if this Saturday could be like that hot Oxford day
when
Huxley, as Darwin's bulldog, debated Bishop Wilberforce about the new
Theory
of Natural Selection? Perhaps Wolfram was his own bulldog:
exceptionally
bright, eloquent, and confident, with a British accent to boot. But
this was
a lonely bulldog, and he had no defenders. It was four to one in this
debate,
with no soapy bishops among the Caltech panel of stellar scientists
who
questioned Wolfram. Of course, science isn't done by consensus, but
then
Wolfram was no Darwin. At least not yet. He had made no new
predictions about
nature that the scientists sitting quietly in the auditorium could
then go
forth and check by microscope, cyclotron, or telescope.
As Wolfram talked, I remembered a hot summer day on the island of
Samos. On
an Ionian trek, with my son Tyson, we had sailed to Samos to find the
muses
of science. Pythagoras was the name most in evidence on the island.
His
theorem regarded right triangles, you know. But, it was the legends of
Thales, Aristarchus, and Anaximander that was more to our taste. These
guys
were the ancient equivalent to modern scientists. They pursued
observation
and experiment. They got their hands dirty and used their brains.
But Pythagoras wasn't one of them. He professed that nature could be
understood by pure thought alone. Wolfram seemed to be pitching
something
rather close to that idea. He also had an apparent obsession with
triangles,
manifest throughout his magnum opus.
I think the ancient rift between the Ionian experimentalists and the
Pythagorian mystics gives some insight to the Wolfram question.
One modern manifestation of this ancient rift, is the traditional
separation
between experimentalist and theoretician. One extreme is the
stereotypical
well manicured, well dressed, elegant, and usually arrogant,
theoretician,
who never has grease under the nail or eye to the microscope, yet
knows all
the answers by thought alone.
Of course there is also the scientist who has gathered reams of
observations
in the outback, but has never had a philosophical thought in his or
her life.
Good science is, of course, neither of these stereotypes. Those who
make
useful observations and experiments are usually driven by some
variation of
what Michael Shermer calls "Darwin's dictum" where, as the sage of
Down
said, "all observation must be fore or against some view if it is to
be of
any service." Good theoreticians are informed by the latest
observations and
experimental results. It is no accident that Galileo, Newton, Halley,
Faraday, and Darwin were good with their hands and great
experimentalists.
Yes, we all know of the exceptions. A famous example being the
delightfully
arrogant theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli who allegedly could
destroy
whole laboratories at a distance, just by his presence in their
vicinity!
But, the most famous theoretical scientist of the 20th century,
Einstein,
remarked how much he enjoyed the laboratory experience and was bored
with the
lecture hall. Feynman's self constructed youthful laboratory was his
joy, and
Enrico Fermi's world class reputation was grounded in both his
theoretical
and laboratory talent.
We should keep these examples in mind when we sit at our computer
screens day
after day. We must remember to pick ourselves up, roll up our sleeves,
tinker
in the lab, explore the world, and observe nature.
The theorem of the sums of the squares of the sides of a right
triangle may
not have been original with Pythagoras. But the method of mathematical
deduction for a general proof was his. Today's mathematical argument,
and
scientific practice owes much to Pythagoras. However, there is no
short cut
to the secrets of nature by mind alone, as the Pythagorians believed.
At
least not yet.
Scientists today depend on Stephen Wolfram's Mathematica, which has
become a
legendary standard program for technical computing throughout the
world. This
software allowed Wolfram to explore deeply the mathematical world of
cellular
automata. Cellular automata has elements of a sort of perfect and
mystical
world. A world the Pythagorians really thought existed. It is a
beautiful
mathematical creation, but it is not nature.
There is a deja vu about Stephen Wolfram, perhaps others have noticed
it.
Like Wolfram, the American mathematician, Johnny von Neumann was a
great
pioneer in computer science as well as cellular automata. Like Wolfram
he was
incredibly bright, a child prodigy. (I checked some photos, they even
look
alike.). Von Neumann's good friend, the British mathematician and
polymath,
Jacob Bronowski, kindly found fault with him and stated Johnny von
Neumann
was in love with the aristocracy of the intellect." This was a sin
Bronowski
believed could destroy civilization. Like Galileo and Darwin, Wolfram
has
written a popular book. In doing so he isn't practicing the sin
Bronowski had
in mind regarding von Neumann. But, I can't help thinking of the
"aristocracy
of the intellect" when I consider the Pythagoreans and their mystical
short
cut to know the world. The
aristocracy of the intellect, the arrogance about not getting your
hands
dirty, and about having some sort of absolute knowledge with no test
in the
world, are all closely related. And they are a barrier to doing good
science.
--------[End article]----------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Knauer
wrote:
> This is from yesterday's E-Skeptic mailing. It is about a recent
> speech and Q&A session held at Caltech with Stephen Wolfram, author of
> 'A New Kind of Science'. The evolution related stuff is further down
> the page. I haven't read Wolfram's book, but apparently Wolfram
> doesn't think evolution is that important to biology.
[snip]
For some fun, read through the reviews on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1579550088/
Some of them, especially the titles, are pretty witty (i.e. "A New Kind
of Hot Air" ;) Here are two opposing examples to give you an idea:
---
[1 star] psycoanalytical pseudo-poseur, December 24, 2002
Reviewer: Michael Nova from La Jolla, California United States
Must be tough to supposedly be that smart...any never really come up with
anything new. This book and premise ain't it either....terrible nonsense.
---
[5 stars] THE PCE, January 1, 2003
Reviewer: A reader from USA
The Principle of Computational Equivalence is the most important
discovery in the history of the universe. It is no less than the hand of
God, and Stephen Wolfram has discovered it. Every other theory developed
by human intelligence is a mere engineering exercise by comparison.
Dispute the proof of the PCE, perhaps. But dispute the incredibly
profound implications that follow if the PCE turns out to be true and you
are not only hideously irrational but also laughably wrong.
There is really nothing more to say.
---
:)
CK
Dana Tweedy
"Jason Spaceman" <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.03020...@posting.google.com...
> This is from yesterday's E-Skeptic mailing. It is about a recent
> speech and Q&A session held at Caltech with Stephen Wolfram, author of
> 'A New Kind of Science'. The evolution related stuff is further down
> the page. I haven't read Wolfram's book, but apparently Wolfram
> doesn't think evolution is that important to biology.
>
He's not one of the senior partners of Wolfram and Hart, is he?
DJT
John Wilkins
Not at all. He's a perfect angel.
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
Dana Tweedy
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1fq5odd.7i08r5juwfcyN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> Dana Tweedy <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jason Spaceman" <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
> > news:b9401f8a.03020...@posting.google.com...
> > > This is from yesterday's E-Skeptic mailing. It is about a recent
> > > speech and Q&A session held at Caltech with Stephen Wolfram, author of
> > > 'A New Kind of Science'. The evolution related stuff is further down
> > > the page. I haven't read Wolfram's book, but apparently Wolfram
> > > doesn't think evolution is that important to biology.
> > >
> >
> > He's not one of the senior partners of Wolfram and Hart, is he?
> >
> Not at all. He's a perfect angel.
The Powers that Be told me he's be Gunn to become a little love Lorne
DJT
Susan S
<twe...@cvn.net>:
I have been wondering if the animal names embedded in the above
title have any particular meaning.
Susan Silberstein
Dana Tweedy
"Susan S" <ot...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:41ig4v4tvu90t21vh...@4ax.com...
I'm not sure. It's the name of the evil law firm (I know, that's a
redundancy) in the TV show "Angel".
DJT
Susan S
I know that, I was talking about how the firm name splits up into
"Wolf" "Ram" and "Hart". You know, animals. Not having ever been
an English lit major, I thought maybe there is literary,
mythological, or whatever significance there that might make
sense in the "Angel" world.
Susan Silberstein
KCdgw
>"Wolf" "Ram" and "Hart". You know, animals. Not having ever been
>an English lit major, I thought maybe there is literary,
>mythological, or whatever significance there that might make
>sense in the "Angel" world.
I'm more concerned with the meaning behind the firm name of Dewey, Cheatem, and
Howe.
Cheers,
KC
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it - Confucius.
David Jensen
<20030211064024...@mb-bk.aol.com>:
>>I know that, I was talking about how the firm name splits up into
>>"Wolf" "Ram" and "Hart". You know, animals. Not having ever been
>>an English lit major, I thought maybe there is literary,
>>mythological, or whatever significance there that might make
>>sense in the "Angel" world.
>
>I'm more concerned with the meaning behind the firm name of Dewey, Cheatem, and
>Howe.
Are their any other fake law firms that actually have their name on an
office window?
syvanen
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:17:37 +0000 (UTC) jspa...@linuxquestions.net
> wrote:
>
> > This is from yesterday's E-Skeptic mailing. It is about a recent
> > speech and Q&A session held at Caltech with Stephen Wolfram, author of
> > 'A New Kind of Science'. The evolution related stuff is further down
> > the page. I haven't read Wolfram's book, but apparently Wolfram
> > doesn't think evolution is that important to biology.
> [snip]
>
> For some fun, read through the reviews on Amazon:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1579550088/
>
> Some of them, especially the titles, are pretty witty (i.e. "A New Kind
> of Hot Air" ;) Here are two opposing examples to give you an idea:
>
> ---
> [1 star] psycoanalytical pseudo-poseur, December 24, 2002
> Reviewer: Michael Nova from La Jolla, California United States
>
> Must be tough to supposedly be that smart...any never really come up with
> anything new. This book and premise ain't it either....terrible nonsense.
It was apparent many years agoe that, though incredibly intelligent,
he lacked that creativity or originality that distinquishes great
thinkers. Kind of sad, someone as accomplised as him -- full
professor at Princeton at the age of 24 and successful entrepreneur --
is so desparate to establish his reputation as a genius that he is
now peddling this kind of nonsense and thereby holding himself up to
ridicule.
Mike Syvanen
Alturalan
>From: syv...@ucdavis.edu
>It was apparent many years agoe that, though incredibly intelligent,
>he lacked that creativity or originality that distinquishes great
>thinkers.
So, a glorified technician? All nuts and bolts between his ears, but nothing
else?
Computer whizzes and engineers seem especially prone to creationism, in
whatever form.
Alturalan
>From: Conrad Knauer
>I haven't read Wolfram's book, but apparently Wolfram
>> doesn't think evolution is that important to biology.
Typical of a glorified computer jockey, whose type seems unable to relate to
the living world.
>Every other theory developed
>by human intelligence is a mere engineering exercise by comparison.
Do I detect the right-wing Christian's contempt for man's ingenuity compared to
God's?