Debating Doomsday Scenarios
in Public:
Historical and Philosophical Issues
Robert P. Crease
Department of Philosophy
Stony Brook University
I.
Historical Issues:
Doomsday scenario
discussions relating to heavy
ion colliders
1974 (Bear Mountain, NY)
1977 (S. Coleman on the “False Vacuum”)
1978 (Bevalac, Berkeley, CA)
1979 (Michigan State University Cyclotron, MI)
1983 (RHIC, Brookhaven, NY)
1999-2000 (RHIC, Brookhaven, NY)
1999+ (LHC, Geneva, Switzerland)
Bear Mountain Conference (1974)
Bear Mountain Conference (1974)
These ideas may indicate “physical systems that have
not been observed,” including another energy density
valley.
-T. D. Lee and G. C. Wick, “Vacuum stability and vacuum excitation in
a spin-0 field theory,” Physical Review D 9 (1974): 2291.
“Some of the more timorous participants were
concerned that, once started, one of these abnormals
might not stop until it contained all matter. It was
pointed out, however, that the Lee-Wick theory
indicates that 108 or 109 of them have already been
produced on the moon, and that the moon is still
there, albeit with large holes.”
S. Coleman on the
“False Vacuum” (1977)
-S. Coleman, “Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical
theory,” Physical Review D 15 (1977), pp. 2929-2936
Vidal Principle
“Never commit irony in public.”
-Gore Vidal
Bevalac (Berkeley, 1978)
Participants of this discussion were not
permitted to take notes.
Bevalac (Berkeley, 1979)
Backdated notes of 1978 discussion:
“[The committee] unanimously agreed that super-dense,
super-stable neutral matter would not be formed in the
Bevalac …If such an event could occur in a laboratory, it
should also happen in the collision of cosmic rays on
bodies in space, such as the moon. The moon and other
bodies in space are continually bombarded by particles
at energies like those used in the Bevalac, yet, through
billions of years, noting of this kind has happened … no
need for special precautions to deal with the remote
possibility of formation of super-stable, neutral matter.”
Michigan State Cyclotron (1979)
Michigan State Cyclotron (1979)
“Ergo, New Cyclotron”
“What if … Dangers debated.” A group of
“pre-eminent nuclear scientists” had met in
1978 to discuss whether an accelerator of
the sort Michigan was building could
create “mini-black holes” that could
“snowball.”
-Lansing State Journal, June 3, 1979.
A. S. Goldhaber to H. Blosser, N. Glendenning, B.
Harvey, and A. Sessler, June 27, 1979.
“[Harvey] seems to favor quiet, confidential
discussions among experts. I favor public
discussion in the open technical literature.
This can be messier and less efficient, but
in the long run I think it is both more
reliable and more likely to inspire and
justify public confidence in science and
technology.”
RHIC (1983)
Talk by Piet Hut on possibility of black hole
production at first conference to discuss
RHIC proposal, long before approval.
-R. Crease, “Recombinant Science: The Birth of the Relativistic Heavy
Ion Collider (RHIC),” Hist. Stud. in Nat. Sci. 4:38 (2008): 535-568.
RHIC 1999
Media articles by
Scientific American,
Sunday Times of
London, others.
“White Paper”
response by BNL
-R.Crease, “Case of the Deadly
Strangelets,” Physics World,
July 2000, 19-20
LHC
II.
Philosophical Issues:
Stating the Problem
Deferring to authority of experts seems to collide with
democratic urge to accord equality to all opinions.
Deciding the role of expertise is "the pressing intellectual
problem of the age."
Two easy solutions: Let public decide, or assign the
matter to specialists. "The first choice risks technological
paralysis, the second invites popular opposition.“
-H. Collins & R. Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of
Expertise and Experience,” in E. Selinger and R. Crease, Eds, The
Philosophy of Expertise (Columbia 2006)
Compounding Factors
Media Behaviors
The “melodramatic structure” of risk coverage
-R. Crease, “Horror Stories That Grow Legs,” Physics World, February 2002, 15
Social Iagos: Spreading distrust and fear to
promote agendas
- R. Crease, “Dealing With Cassandras,” Physics World, June 2004, 16
Legal Defaults
Responsible Decision-Making
Obstacles to Responsible Decision-Making in Volatile Controversies involving ScientificTechnological Dimensions:
Power Asymmetries
Vulnerability
Historical Exploitation or Oppression
We sense those affected have certain rights:
That the decision be made soundly.
That technical detail is accurate
That it is explained accurately, without jargon or political cant.
-K. Whyte, “Integrating Ethics and Epistemology: A Normative Framework for the Inclusion of
Indigenous Communities in Technical Decision-Making.” PhD Dissertation, Stony Brook
University, 2009
Model for
How Doomsday Discussions go Wrong:
Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People
Developing the
‘Off-Stage Position’
Responsible discussion
Case histories of similar episodes
No secrecy
Role of Comedy (John Stewart’s Daily
Show on RHIC, LHC)