{"id":300,"date":"2002-08-29T19:20:20","date_gmt":"2002-08-29T19:20:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/?p=300"},"modified":"2010-07-07T07:52:57","modified_gmt":"2010-07-07T07:52:57","slug":"de-laatste-vraag","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/?p=300","title":{"rendered":"De Laatste Vraag"},"content":{"rendered":"

De Laatste Vraag<\/strong>
\nVPRO Noorderlicht \/ 24 min \/ 29-08-2002<\/em>
\nIn de deze slotaflevering van Noorderlicht staat de vraag naar de toekomst van de wetenschap centraal. Zijn er nog verrassingen te verwachten of staan de hoofdlijnen wel vast? Een gevisualiseerd debat tussen de auteurs John Horgan<\/a><\/strong> (The End of Science 1996) en Sir John Maddox<\/a><\/strong> (What remains to be Discovered, 1998).<\/p>\n

On-line op Youtube<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

VPRO NOORDERLICHT – TRANSCRIPT
\nAFL. DE LAATSTE VRAAG
\nUITZ. 29-08-2002
\nDOOR JOS WASSINK EN GER WIEBERDINK<\/p>\n

00:00 LEADER NOORDERLICHT 2001\/2002<\/p>\n

00:20 OPTOCHT PROFESSOREN
\nMUZIEK BACH OP ORGEL<\/p>\n

COMMENTAAR:
\nIn deze laatste aflevering van Noorderlicht: de vraag naar de toekomst van de wetenschap. Zijn er nog verrassende nieuwe inzichten te verwachten of staan de hoofdlijnen wel vast? Hoe is het eigenlijk gesteld met ons begrip van de werkelijkheid?<\/p>\n

00:54 TITEL OVER BEELD: DE LAATSTE VRAAG<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

DE LAATSTE VRAAG<\/p><\/div>\n

LANDING NEW YORK BIJ NACHT<\/p>\n

TEKST OVER BEELD:<\/p>\n

Wetenschap heeft zich in een omgekeerde richting ontwikkeld tot wat je zou verwachten.<\/p>\n

Wat het verst weg lag werd als eerste in wetten gevangen, en toen, geleidelijk aan, wat naderbij lag:<\/p>\n

Eerst de sterren, vervolgens de aarde, dierlijk en plantaardig leven, het menselijk lichaam,<\/p>\n

en tenslotte (tot nu toe erg provisorisch) de menselijke geest – BERTRAND RUSSELL<\/p>\n

01:48 BRIEVENBUSSEN, JOHN HORGAN PAKT KRANT,
\nLOOPT NAAR HUIS EN SCHENKT KOFFIE IN<\/p>\n

TITEL: GARISSON, NEW YORK<\/p>\n

COMMENTAAR:
\nVolgens de Amerikaanse wetenschapsjournalist John Horgan heeft wetenschap z\u2019n beste tijd wel gehad. Tot 1997 was Horgan redacteur bij Scientific American maar na de publicatie van zijn boek \u2018The End of Science\u2019 werd hij daar ontslagen.<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nI really started thinking about the limits of science in the late 1908\u2019s. And the inspiration was this notion in physics that it might be approaching some kind of final theory that would really explain and solve all the problems that they wanted solved.(…) And so when I started thinking about the implications of this, it occurred to me that biology might also have some final theory and I found that some biologists had actually claimed that biology already DOES have a final theory in the form of Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution. So these were really the seeds from which my book \u2018The End of Science\u2019 eventually grew.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/em><\/em>

MADDOX SCHENKT KOFFIE IN<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/em>03:18 PAN LONDON<\/p>\n

EXT. WOONHUIS
\nMADDOX SCHENKT KOFFIE IN<\/p>\n

COMMENTAAR:
\nHorgan\u2019s idee dat de wetenschap op z\u2019n eind zou lopen stuitte op veel weerstand. Zijn meest uitgesproken tegenstander is de Britse wetenschapsjournalist . Drieentwintig jaar lang leidde Maddox het gerenommeerde wetenschapsblad Nature. Na zijn pensionering schreef hij het boek \u2018What remains to be discovered\u2019 waarin hij richtingen aangaf voor toekomstig onderzoek.<\/p>\n

SIR JOHN MADDOX:
\nI started writing the book long before I knew of Horgan\u2019s book and indeed when Horgan\u2019s book came out, he and I had a debate about it in New York, we had a certain amount of difficult correspondence. Let me say, I think it\u2019s not an unintelligent a book as his title suggests. The End of History was a book that Fukuyama had just written and (\u2026) it\u2019s natural that somebody should have thought of writing a book called \u2018The End of Science\u2019.<\/p>\n

SHOT PAPEGAAIEN<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

SIR JOHN MADDOX<\/p><\/div>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nI think that is typical of certain scientists (\u2026) science is his religion.(…) And I think his love of knowledge, his love of science prevents him from facing the hard fact that in certain respects this quest, (\u2026) might be coming to and end.<\/p>\n

LOOPJE NAAR DE HUT<\/p>\n

JOHN MADDOX:
\nIt\u2019s my view that science is more nearly at it\u2019s beginning than at it\u2019s end and it\u2019s a matter of time before people come to realise that there\u2019s enough science left to be done to occupy generations to come. Science will still be discovering new problems five hundred and thousand years from now. And I think it\u2019s a continuing enterprise that\u2019s going to continue indefinitely.<\/p>\n

LEZEN OP BANK<\/p>\n

MUZIEK #1 ca. 0:10 – 02:00<\/p>\n

05:20 BIG BANG!!<\/p>\n

CITAAT:<\/p>\n

In de eerste plaats is er materie – en, opmerkelijk genoeg, alle materie is gelijk.<\/p>\n

We weten dat de bouwstenen van de sterren gelijk zijn aan die op aarde – RICHARD P. FEYNMAN<\/p>\n

STERRENSTELSELS (NL 318 EN NL 599)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

JOHN HORGAN:<\/p><\/div>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nCosmologists have come up with a theory, the Big Bang theory. (\u2026) It describes the origin of the cosmos an the evolution up to this point. It describes in rough terms how galaxies formed, how stars formed, how you got planets round certain stars as in our own solar system.
\nThe Big Bang provides a framework, a general description of the origin of the universe and its evolution since then that -I believe- is very secure. There are ways that we can tweak it, there are certain questions that it doesn\u2019t answer yet that might be answered in the future, but that general framework in is place and won\u2019t change.<\/p>\n

REIS DOOR STERREN – OMNIVERSUM
\nMUZIEK #8 0:00 – 01:30<\/p>\n

JOHN MADDOX:
\nOver the past twenty years, since nineteen eight, since the early nineteeneighties, there\u2019ve emerged serious difficulties with the simple Big Bang theory. For example, the Einstein\u2019s theory of relativity requires where there is mass, the space near it should be curved. Now we live in a part of the universe where there is lots of mass, our own galxy and nearby galaxies and so on, but as far as can be told the space in which we live is not curved.<\/p>\n

VERANDERING IN REIS
\nMUZIEK EVEN OP #8 02:20 – 02:55<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

JOHN MADDOX<\/p><\/div>\n

JOHN MADDOX:
\nSomething odd is going on and there are enough inconsistancies in the foundation of the Big Bang to make me think that what we are seeing is a good approximation to what the universe really is, but there\u2019re discoveries yet to be made that will tell us what the real universe is like and how it began.<\/p>\n

STERRENREIS: EINDE HEELAL
\nMUZIEK #8 03:40 – 04:08<\/p>\n

BOEKENWAND HORGAN<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nThis is where \u2019s faith comes in. assumes that if there are unanswered questions, that means that our theories are inadequate and that we have to have some holy theory. But that\u2019s like saying that because the theory of evolution can\u2019t give us a really satisfying answer as to why for example sex evolved, that we should discard the theory of evolution. I think you just have to accept that there are certain questions that our theories can\u2019t answer to our satisfaction; there are limits to what science can do. And at some point we\u2019re going to have to accept that.<\/p>\n

KAMER MADDOX<\/p>\n

JOHN MADDOX:
\nBut we live in a world in which we look for causes and expect to find causes for each and every phenomenon we see. It would be ridiculous to suppose that the most important event of the universe, that is:\u00a0it\u2019s beginning, had no cause. So, that\u2019s another argument why the Big Bang is not really sustainable in my opinion.<\/p>\n

ACHTERGROND CROSS NAAR COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION:
\nCOBE1 T\/M COBE3<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nWith our telescopes we can look back in space and time to the very early stages of the universe. There is something called the cosmic microwave background which is this radiation suffusing the entire universe and that\u2019s thought to be the remnant of the first instant of creation. You can learn a lot about the early universe by studying that. Scientists have allready seen tiny fluctuations of the radiation that give them clues as to how galaxies form. But at some point you try to look past that, there\u2019s nothing to observe. You can\u2019t see back before the Big Bang. Almost by definition, it\u2019s not part of our universe. So at some point cosmologists will have to accept that there is a mysterie that just can\u2019t be explained.<\/p>\n

SPIEGEL IN KAMER MADDOX<\/p>\n

JOHN MADDOX:
\nI don\u2019t agree with that at all. I think it\u2019s the goal of science to understand everything. I think there\u2019s no reason to believe that a phenomenon of such importance as the creation of the universe, the beginning of the universe, is not susceptible to analysis, theorising and ultimately understanding.<\/p>\n

10:39 MUZIEK #10 0:00 – 0:34
\nEMBRYO CELDELING NL 318<\/p>\n

Eindeloze vormen
\nbeeldschoon en wonderbaar
\nzijn ontstaan,
\nen ontstaan nog steeds,
\nuit zo\u2019n simpel begin.
\n– CHARLES DARWIN<\/p>\n

PLATEN UIT \u2018ORIGIN OF SPECIES, OOK PORTRET DARWIN (VA JPG\u2019S)<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nDarwins theory of evolution is arguably the most powerfull profound insight that any scientist has ever had. Because it gave us in a very simple theory a way of understanding not only the enormous diversity of life that we see around us now, but the origins of life and its evolution to this current state. (…)There are lots of problems left to be solved, there are lots of questions for example about how a single fertilised embryo turns into a butterfly or an elephant or a human being. What steps are involved in that process?<\/p>\n

RIJERS CELERA (AR22979 (19:02:40 – 19:03:20) EN\/0F
\nTD53193 (19:04:55 – 19:05:28))<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nThose gaps in our knowledge will be filled in within the framework of the knowledge that is already in place. That\u2019s going to be taking DNA-based genetics and (\u2026) understanding things in those terms. I don\u2019t think we\u2019re gonna have the huge revolutions in the future that we had in the past with the theory of evolution and the development of modern genetics.<\/p>\n

COMMENTAAR:
\nVolgens Horgan is de levende natuur het resultaat van Darwinisme alleen. Maddox denkt daar anders over. Hij vermoedt dat erfelijkheid niet de enige manier is waarop eigenschappen zijn overgedragen.<\/p>\n

INZOOM PORTRET MADDOX<\/p>\n

JOHN MADDOX:
\nAnd it\u2019s very likely that the huge amount of junk DNA in our genomes is a relic of a time where a lot of animals got their evolutionary information not from their parents but from viruses moving. Sometimes between different animals or plants in the same species, soemtimes between different species and this is a non-Darwinian process and I think that one of the challenges for the years ahead is to figure out when and how these viral infection mechanisms helped to evolve organisms more quickly then Darwinian evolution will allow. And I suspect we\u2019ll find that certainly where bacteria are concerned -and they occupied the first twothousand milllion years of life on the Earth- we\u2019ll find interesting things about how they got their genetic information. It wasn\u2019t just Darwinian evolution.<\/p>\n

13:36 MUZIEK #2 09:30 – 10:20
\nAANSTEKEN KAARS; MUZIEK<\/p>\n

Hoe iets opmerkelijks als bewustzijn ontstaat als gevolg van prikkeling van zenuwweefsel,
\nis net zo onverklaarbaar als de verschijning van de geest, toen Alladin over z\u2019n lamp wreef – ALDOUS HUXLEY<\/p>\n

BOEKENKAST HORGAN<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nIn a strange way, I think we have regeressed. It was possible at the turn of the last century, around 1900, for a genius like Sigmund Freud to propose a theory of mind and behaviour that was quite compelling. Compelling enough that there is still people nowadays who call themselves Freudian. In spite of the fact that Freud has been vilefied by others.<\/p>\n

TLT UP NAAR FREUD<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nFreudian theory of mind is an attempt to reduce all of human behaviour and mental activity to a single explanation, which is that sex is at the bottom of everything (\u2026) and that our mental lifes can be understood in terms of this sexual repression.<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nIn neuroscience and cognitive science in evolutionary psychology and all these other fields have been producing tremendous amounts of information about the brain and the mind and the link between the brain and mind. And it\u2019s almost impossible to imagine how somebody now could take this huge amount of information and create this sort of unified theory of human nature and of mind and behaviour that Freud created. So in that sense, science in stead of illuminating the mind and brain has made it more mysterious then ever.<\/p>\n

MUZIEK #2 10:27 – 10:55<\/p>\n

TLT UP: OPTOCHT PROFESSOREN (50% SPEED)<\/p>\n

Het is zeer wel mogelijk -overweldigend waarschijnlijk, lijkt mij- dat we over menselijk leven en persoonlijkheid..altijd meer leren uit romans dan uit wetenschappelijke studies – NOAM CHOMSKY<\/p>\n

COLOR F\/O; S.I. HORGAN<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nWe have on the one hand theories from neuroscience that attempt to explain our mental life with models involving neurons and synapses and neurotransmitters, physical things. On the other hand you have the subjective sensation of of a sentient being. You have emotions and memories and perceptions. So how do you get from physical stuff, neurons that realy are no different from rocks and other formsof matter, how do you get from that to this bizar mental life.<\/p>\n

MUZIEK #3 F.I. 04:50 – 05:50
\nEEG-REGISTRATIE GEDACHTEN IN HERSENEN
\nDOOR JEROEN VERBUNT<\/p>\n

JOHN MADDOX:
\nI know there are many people who say that questions like consciousness and so on are so far beyond our present understanding that there\u2019s no possibility of tackling them in the end. But I\u2019m much more empirical. I think we need first to understand where information -memory- is stored in the brain and how it is stored. That should be a practical question. When we understand that, it will be possible better to understand what happens when the brain thinks. But that by itself will not be an answer. Now as to consciousness you see, I think it\u2019s a very shadowy concept.
\nWe don\u2019t know the neural basis for consciousness and we shan\u2019t for a long time. We\u2019ll have to understand thinking first. But I\u2019m not depressed about this. The agenda is huge but it seems to me that people have in the past century demonstrated such cleverness in understanding neurons, the head and even what goes wrong when the head is injured that they have every prospect of working this agenda out.<\/p>\n

KAMER HORGAN<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nYou\u2019ll never have an explanation so satisfying that you go: Oh, I understand, that\u2019s how a brain makes a mind. There will always be some mystery there.<\/p>\n

TLT UP BOEDDHA IN BOEKENKAST<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN (CONT\u2019D)
\nScience has left us with an overwhelming sense of the mysteriousness of existence. The origin of the universe is a mystery, the origin of life is a mystery, our own emergence is a complete mystery, consciousness is a mystery.<\/p>\n

KAMER MADDOX<\/p>\n

MDX.24 NO MYSTERIES!
\n– Do you accept mysteries at all?
\nOh, no! I\u2019m ashamed to say not. I think that science has demonstrated remarkably in the last century that things that seemed mysterious are no longer mysterious. And I think we are at the point where we have a whole string of questions that can\u2019t yet be answered. But no reason at all to believe that any of them is beyond the scope of human intelligence and inquiry.<\/p>\n

19:36 MUZIEK #11 0:00 – 0:30
\nNACHTVLUCHT: KNIPPERENDE LAMP OP VLEUGEL<\/p>\n

In het toelaten van onwetendheid en onzekerheid ligt de hoop op een voortgaande beweging van de mensheid..in een richting die niet vastloopt of geblokkeerd raakt, zoals zo vaak eerder gebeurd is in de menselijke geschiedenis
\n– RICHARD P. FEYNMAN<\/p>\n

BG: KAMER HORGAN<\/p>\n

JOHN HORGAN:
\nThere are many many things that science can do besides delivering these tremendous revolutionary paradigmes. Science can look for better treatments for mental illness and cancer and malaria and AIDS and all sorts of other diseases. It can look for cleaner, cheaper sources of energy, it can help us understand how our activities, our indsutries affect the climate. Now these are immensely important problems that have a lot to do with the quality of our lifes and our childrens lifes. So science in that sense can never end, will never end. There will always be things for scientists to do. It\u2019s just that in terms of delivering these huge revelations and revolutions that we have had in the past, I think we have to come to terms with the fact that THAT\u00a0kind of science might be over.<\/p>\n

21:06 COMPILATIE WETENSCHAPSBEELDEN:
\nDUUR 1 MINUUT<\/p>\n

JOHN MADDOX:
\nI\u2019m optimistic about science. I\u2019m not optimistic about the world in general. But that\u2019s a different matter. I mean it seems to me it\u2019s going to be very difficult to live with the consequences of september 11th. It seems to me it\u2019s going to be very difficult to live with the prospect of our steadily increasing population on the surface of the Earth. It\u2019s certainly going to be difficult to live with global warming although that could be done if people were sensible; the trouble is that people are not sensible. And it seems to me that there are all kinds of difficulties, threats to the survival of the human race that come from infectious disease and the like on which we ought to spend much more attention then we are present. So I don\u2019t think the prospect for the human race is as bright as I\u2019d like it to be. On the other hand, the prospect if nothing goes seriously wrong that science understand… help us to understand all the questions we ask about the real world is undimmed.<\/p>\n

MUZIEK #11 02:00 – 02:46
\n23:21 OPTOCHT PROFESSOREN EN AFTITELING<\/p>\n

AFTITELING:<\/p>\n

SAMENSTELLING & REGIE
\nJos Wassink<\/p>\n

RESEARCH:
\nGer Wieberdink<\/p>\n

CAMERA
\nNiels van \u2018t Hoff<\/p>\n

GELUID
\nOtto Horsch<\/p>\n

MONTAGE
\nFloor Rodenburg<\/p>\n

MIX
\nJack Bol<\/p>\n

KLEURCORRECTIE
\nXandra ter Horst<\/p>\n

ANIMATIES
\nJeroen Verbunt, VU
\nRobin Sip, Mirage3D<\/p>\n

MMV
\nBerend Reinout, Omniversum
\nRobby Rampersat Omniversum<\/p>\n

COMMENTAAR
\nTessel Blok<\/p>\n

LEADER
\nLaurens Orij, Bob Stelamp; Merijn Verhagen<\/p>\n

REDACTIE
\nEugene Paashuis
\nSimon Rozendaal
\nKarin Schagen
\nMarie Lou Schoenmakers
\nAnnemieke Smit
\nGer Wieberding
\nRobert Wiering<\/p>\n

WEBREDACTIE
\nJacqueline de Vree
\nMarc Koenen
\nFrank Nuijens<\/p>\n

PRODUKTIE
\nKarin Spiegel
\nMadeleine Somer<\/p>\n

EINDREDACTIE
\nHansje van Etten<\/p>\n

COPYRIGHT (c) VPRO 2002
\n23:51 EINDE<\/p>\n

\n

English version<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

De Laatste Vraag VPRO Noorderlicht \/ 24 min \/ 29-08-2002 In de deze slotaflevering van Noorderlicht staat de vraag naar de toekomst van de wetenschap centraal. Zijn er nog verrassingen te verwachten of staan de hoofdlijnen wel vast? Een gevisualiseerd debat tussen de auteurs John Horgan (The End of Science 1996) en Sir John Maddox […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vpro-noorderlicht"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=300"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":311,"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300\/revisions\/311"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joswassink.nl\/inzicht\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}