The Fifth & Sixth Kirk Elbod Interviews:


P|       (It seemed like a long time before my next interview 
Y|  with Kirk Elbod. And something was starting to bother me. 
R|  Each time he seemed quite different. I could not 
I|  reconcile the different aspects of this man. But even so 
G|  I was again quite unprepared for what happened next.
H|       In late March, when I was able to contact him, we 
T|  agreed to meet about 1 P.M. It was a warm early spring 
||  day, with blue sky and puffy clouds. I arrived at the 
1|  address he had given me which turned out to be the back 
9|  parking lot of a large teaching hospital, where 
8|  considerable research was being conducted. He meet me at 
9|  the rear entrance. This time he wore a white smock and 
||  looked very professional, almost technical. Another 
B|  costume change, it seemed. He lead me down a long narrow 
Y|  hallway, then up a flight of stairs, into an elevator, up 
||  two stories, then along another narrow passageway. We 
R|  never went by a window the entire time. When we arrived 
I|  at a small room full of technicians and whirring video 
C|  tape machines, I was thoroughly confused. 
H|       Through a one-way mirror we could see young medical 
A|  students conducting mock interviews with patients. Kirk 
R|  seemed to be in charge, since the technicians looked up 
D|  and smiled at him. He explained to me that medical 
||  instructors would review these tapes and then give the 
d|  aspiring doctors feedback on their interviewing style, as 
e|  part of the medical curriculum at this hospital.
G|       He lead me into an adjoining room, closed the door, 
A|  and made me a cup of instant coffee with instant cream. 
R|  The room had no windows, only pale green walls, and 
I|  bright fluorescent lights. We could hear the murmur of 
S|  the machines and interviews from the next room.
||       He began.)
D|       ELBOD: Science has suffered from its own sense of 
O|  the heroic, not unlike what occurred in the arts. In 
B|  addition it is driven by notions, which are themselves 
L|  are unscientific. I have no objection to these notions, 
E|  but I want to put all the cards on the table. I believe 
||  they need to be examined out in the open. 
A|       TALBOT: (I was totally unprepared for this. Now 
L|  science was the subject. Could he really understand and 
L|  have an overview of science as well? As if to answer my 
||  thoughts he continued.)
R|       ELBOD: Now don't get me wrong I am not a scientist. 
I|  But I am a student of the history of science and I know 
G|  enough to realize that my view of the world is heavily 
H|  influenced by scientific thinking. And its unspoken, 
T|  underlying assumptions affect my world view.
S|       I am not an enemy of science. In fact I feel quite 
||  comfortable with its framework. I believe that solutions 
R|  to many of our problems will come from science and 
E|  technology. But science must be understood for what it 
S|  is.
E|       TALBOT: What did you mean it had suffered from a 
R|  sense of the heroic?
V|       ELBOD: Current scientific theories are spotlighted 
E|  like conquering heroes while previous theories are 
D|  degraded to footnotes. Science usually has a 
||  condescending attitude toward older beliefs, as though 
||  the ideas of today were intrinsically superior.
C|       Now mind you, science has been very successful in 
O|  the last four hundred years. But science is a process, 
P|  like most of human thought. And to forget how we arrived 
Y|  at current ideas is to miss much of the meaning of human 
R|  thinking, plus to pass over a rich storehouse of ideas 
I|  which may be useful in the future. In addition all modern 
G|  theories will probably be modified, or completely 
H|  changed, as we collect new and more accurate data. So it 
T|  is a good idea for us to have some humility about their 
||  ultimate truth.
1|       Let me give you a good example of what I mean.
9|       TALBOT: (as though he needed encouragement) Please 
8|  do. (I said with a soupcon of sarcasm.)
9|       ELBOD: (A tinge of his former glare crossed his 
||  face). The Ptolemaic universe has become a cliche for bad 
B|  astronomical ideas. It described the sun, moon, and 
Y|  planets moving around the Earth in perfect circles, and 
||  circles within circles called epicycles. This idea was 
R|  superseded by Copernicus who put the sun at the center of 
I|  the solar system. His idea was refined by Kepler who 
C|  described the planet's orbits as ellipses, not circles.
H|       So Ptolemy was discredited. When I studied astronomy 
A|  Ptolemy's ideas, when they were mentioned at all, were 
R|  described in disparaging terms, as foolish ideas that 
D|  finally got corrected by the modern world.
||       But first of all, it does look as though the sun and 
d|  the moon and the planets move around the Earth, so it was 
e|  not foolish of him to assume this. Secondly his system 
G|  was fairly accurate. It described the movements of the 
A|  heavenly bodies reasonably well and was useful for the 
R|  buildup of knowledge, the accurate observations, the 
I|  necessary data so essential to astronomy or any science. 
S|  The fact that his system was accurate gave astronomy a 
||  basis for Copernicus to work with. Now Copernicus's 
D|  system of putting the sun at the center also used perfect 
O|  circles, and epicycles, about as many as Ptolemy. So 
B|  Copernicus did not totally refute Ptolemy, in fact he 
L|  used a number of his ideas. Thus it really took a third 
E|  genius, Kepler, to make the final discovery, that the 
||  heavenly bodies moved in ellipses, not circles.
A|       But I have discovered through my own independent 
L|  research that there is more to this story. Ptolemy's 
L|  system was so precise, machines could be made which would 
||  accurately imitate the movement of the planets, sun, and 
R|  moon. Some people referred to these as astronomical 
I|  clocks. They were created based on Ptolemy's 
G|  understanding of epicycles. These machines became an 
H|  essential component for the creation of clocks. And 
T|  clocks became the "key machine of the modern industrial 
S|  age" according to the book "A History of the Machine" by 
||  Strandh.
R|       Twenty years before he discovered his theories, 
E|  Kepler was driven by the desire to prove that the solar 
S|  system ran like a clock, the very clock that might not 
E|  have existed without Ptolemy.
R|       So a discredited theory may have a lot more truth 
V|  and life to it than we have been led to believe. 
E|       Stephan Jay Gould in his book "Time's Arrow And 
D|  Time's Cycle" has pointed out that this attitude of 
||  denigrating and distorting past thinkers is also true in 
||  geology. I must assume that it is true in just about 
C|  every branch of science. And science does us and itself a 
O|  disservice by not regarding past theory in a better 
P|  light.
Y|       (Outside in the hall we could hear one set of people 
R|  leaving their mock interview session, and another set 
I|  arriving.)
G|       Me: Okay you have made your point but what do you 
H|  mean that science has been driven by notions which are in 
T|  itself unscientific.
||       ELBOD: I'll give you one example. Plato's story of 
1|  the cave describes people living in a cave who take 
9|  shadows to be reality. But outside the cave is the real 
8|  world. Plato uses this metaphor to encourage people to 
9|  see the underlying world, the real world of ideas, not 
||  the shadows we take to be reality.
B|       Science has been driven by this marvelous story as 
Y|  well as others, as it should be. It has searched for the 
||  hidden meaning under the everyday. And the story drives 
R|  us as much today as it did then.
I|       TALBOT: So why do you argue against it?
C|       ELBOD: For two reasons. First: that Plato's myth of 
H|  the cave is not scientific in itself. But it affects the 
A|  attitudes of scientists. They believe this idea, they 
R|  have faith in it, so they look for immutable, underlying 
D|  laws of nature. 
||       Second: I want to modify this idea. I do not believe 
d|  that we will ever and for all time discover the absolute 
e|  scientific truth. Science is a process of building, 
G|  refining, gathering data, increasing accuracy. And I 
A|  consider it very improbable that right now we have the 
R|  truth or that we will ever have the whole truth at any 
I|  point in the foreseeable future. The search for reality 
S|  may be a process of seeing things slightly more clearly 
||  step by step, but I doubt that we will ever be able to 
D|  step into the full light of day as Plato proposed and see 
O|  the world forever as one unchanging set of ideas.
B|       The greatest twentieth century scientist, Albert 
L|  Einstein, agreed. Campbell in the book "Grammatical Man" 
E|  said that Einstein "held firmly to the view that a formal 
||  theory does not describe the facts of experience, but is 
A|  freely invented by the mind." Einstein, in his later 
L|  years said "it is the theory which decides what we can 
L|  observe." 
||       In short, there are limits on what we can know. 
R|  Modern science confirms this. No one can say, for example 
I|  what things were like before the big bang, before the 
G|  universe began, because the laws of the universe did not 
H|  exist. 
T|       The new science of chaos can say with certainty that 
S|  some weather systems are too unstable to be predictable. 
||  I can foresee weather predictions which indicate how 
R|  reliable the forecast itself is. For example, a weather 
E|  report might go like this: there is an 80% chance that 
S|  our prediction of 30% chance of rain is accurate. (He 
E|  laughed.)
R|       The inclination is too feel that science has lost 
V|  power when It reaches a limit of understanding. But I, 
E|  instead, feel that it has gained power. We are better 
D|  off, for example, knowing that a weather prediction might 
||  be unreliable than believing that it is accurate. We are 
||  better off realizing that theories are constructs of the 
C|  mind which mesh with reality, but are not in themselves 
O|  the real world. My friend Monty reminded me that root 
P|  meaning of the word "theory" is "a seeing", in short the 
Y|  world seen from one point of view.
R|       But I have a further point to make. It is the 
I|  perspective we take that determines a lot of what we 
G|  believe.
H|       TALBOT: Are you trying to say that belief is 
T|  relative to perspective?
||       ELBOD: Yes, at least at times. 
1|       TALBOT: I think this time you've gone too far.
9|       ELBOD: For example, no one believes now that the 
8|  world is flat. But from my perspective on the ground it 
9|  appears flat and driving down the highway on the ground 
||  it had better be flat or I'm in big trouble.
B|       For people to believe the world was round they had 
Y|  to take a broader perspective. Copernicus relied on 
||  reports, from travelers who had gone to different parts 
R|  of the world, to support his claim that the Earth was 
I|  round, which was also part of his theory. He noted that 
C|  travelers saw the constellations lower and higher in the 
H|  sky, depending on where they had gone. From this wider 
A|  perspective, a composite point of view put together from 
R|  reports of long distance travel, it made logical sense to 
D|  deduce the world was round. 
||       Another example: Einstein is considered to be truer 
d|  than Newton. But you can still build almost any kind of 
e|  machine, such as the Space Shuttle, using Newton's 
G|  equations. Einstein's equations are too complicated for 
A|  everyday use. So we tend to think of the world in 
R|  Newtonian terms because it is easier for us from our 
I|  everyday perspective.
S|       Lewis Thomas mentioned in "Lives of a Cell" that 
||  most microbes are not interested in attacking humans. 
D|  Even if people knew this, most would not change their 
O|  attitudes, since it is the harmful microbes that can 
B|  cause havoc. From our perspective we're not about to pick 
L|  and choose. So again what we believe, depends on our 
E|  perspective. 
||       TALBOT: So what is your point about all of this?
A|       ELBOD: (Now somewhat angry at my incredulity.)
L|       We must never believe that we have the truth once 
L|  and for all. We need to respect past work that lead to 
||  current belief. We should realize that our own psychology 
R|  enters, as it must, into what we believe. And we ought to 
I|  take all these gifts of science with a grain of salt.
G|       (With that he lead me out the door and down the 
H|  hallway. He said, " I've got work to do - I'm sure you 
T|  can find you way back." Then he left quickly on an 
S|  elevator. It took me twenty minutes of wandering past 
||  labs, doctors, and patients before I found my way out. 
R|  Even then I was on the opposite side of this huge 
E|  hospital from where my car was parked. Another ten 
S|  minutes and I found it. I wondered if this, indeed, was 
E|  our last interview.)
O|       (After our last encounter, I was unsure whether I 
P|  would continue these discussions with Mr. Elbod. He 
Y|  seemed a bit touchy, or at least ready to take offense. 
R|  So I reacted with some surprise when he called and 
I|  invited me to continue our discussion. I went to meet him 
G|  at the building which I decided must be his home, the old 
H|  house on the wrong side of the tracks.
T|       On a beautiful day about 2 P.M. in early April, I 
||  drive over. The sun was warm; daffodils were in bloom; 
1|  even the sky was blue. I assumed that we would sit either 
9|  on his porch or in his backyard and enjoy the fine 
8|  afternoon, but as usual I was mistaken.
9|       Kirk meet me at the door and quickly, after pouring 
||  me a mug of tea, ushered me down a long dark hallway, 
B|  then down the stairs, into his basement where it was 
Y|  pitch black except for the faint glow of yellow lights 
||  around the room. 
R|       I realized I was in a photographic darkroom. And 
I|  Kirk was at work developing photographs. Because my eyes 
C|  were still used to the sunlight, I could hardly see a 
H|  thing, He guided me to a chair. I sat down and pondered 
A|  how much I knew about this man. Each time the situation 
R|  was different. Each time I was unprepared. And yet I had 
D|  to admit that he held my interest.
||       As my eyes became accustomed to the faint yellow 
d|  light, I could see that Kirk was printing photographs of 
e|  crystalline structures, or at least it seemed that way. 
G|  They looked like microscopic images of snowflakes or 
A|  aerial photographs of a mountainous terrain. I could not 
R|  tell the scale which was very unnerving.
I|       TALBOT: What size are these?
S|       ELBOD: Whatever size appeals to you (he said 
||  mysteriously, annoyingly)
D|       TALBOT: They must have been a certain size when you 
O|  took them. (I insisted, a bit peeved.)
B|       ELBOD: It really doesn't matter. Besides I want you 
L|  to look at them and wonder about the scale. That way you 
E|  will look more closely.
||       TALBOT: (very frustrated) Is this another one of 
A|  your tricks? Are you trying to intimidate me?
L|       ELBOD: (From a dark corner, where I could only hear 
L|  his voice, and see his shadow.) No, I have no tricks. I 
||  just want you to look at things in a new way. And one way 
R|  to do that is to put you in different situation where the 
I|  world is not as familiar. Perhaps in this way you can 
G|  begin to see things you have taken for granted.
H|       TALBOT: (surprised by the directness of his answer) 
T|  Okay, then tell me why you invited me here.
S|       ELBOD: These photographs of the real world you see 
||  here are fractal like. Fractal is a world invented by a 
R|  mathematician named Mandelbrot. It fractal describes an 
E|  object in which the structure is repeated so that the 
S|  large overview and the magnified close-up view are 
E|  similar. Broccoli is a good natural example because the 
R|  large branches and the tiny sprigs are roughly the same 
V|  structural shape. Clouds also have similarities on large 
E|  and small scales.
D|       Mandelbrot had an unusual way of looking at the 
||  world. He asked some intriguing questions and come up 
||  with unusual answers, which relate to our discussion of 
C|  last time when we talked about the possibility that 
O|  scientific truth was relative to perspective.
P|       Mandelbrot arrived at the same conclusion by asking 
Y|  very simple questions, such as how long is the coast line 
R|  of England?
I|       TALBOT: That seems easy enough, we could look it up 
G|  in a book.
H|       ELBOD: Perhaps. But what Mandelbrot asserted was 
T|  that the answer to that question was relative to the size 
||  of the measuring stick. The coastline was a fractal-like 
1|  structure and very irregular. You needed to measure from 
9|  jutting point to jutting point. But if the measuring 
8|  stick was ten yards long, you got a very different answer 
9|  than if the measuring device was one hundredth of an inch 
||  long. The bigger measuring stick went from large point to 
B|  large point. The smaller one went around every tiny 
Y|  pebble. So the total length was be different.
||       TALBOT: I must admit it seems true and almost 
R|  obvious when you think about it.
I|       ELBOD: Exactly. This is something that just about 
C|  anyone could have figured out by thinking about it. It 
H|  didn't take sophisticated equipment to arrive at the 
A|  answer.
R|       Mandelbrot is part of a new branch of science called 
D|  the Science of Chaos, which studies things like 
||  turbulence, and regular behavior such as a dripping water 
d|  faucet which can become very irregular when the flow of 
e|  water is increased.
G|       To me the intriguing thing is that these scientists 
A|  are looking at phenomena from the outside looking in. 
R|  Newtonian and Cartesian science, i.e. classical science, 
I|  has been analytical, meaning that things were understood 
S|  by breaking them down into their component parts and then 
||  understanding how each part operated.
D|       Chaos is looking at seemingly random behavior and 
O|  seeing large patterns. It is not trying to predict what 
B|  an individual particle will do. Surprisingly these 
L|  patterns that they have discovered seem to apply as much 
E|  to the stock market as to periodic outbreaks of disease, 
||  to weather patterns and to heart palpitations, as well as 
A|  a host of other seemingly unrelated areas.
L|       What I find exciting is that science, itself, seems 
L|  to be going through a major change, not unlike the change 
||  going on in the art world. (Kirk's voice seemed to be 
R|  coming out the the darkness, disembodied, all voice and 
I|  no person, echoing as though this room of soft yellow 
G|  light were itself speaking.)
H|       TALBOT: I assume the basic tenets of science will 
T|  always be the same.
S|       ELBOD: Perhaps. But it is a very different 
||  perspective to look at things as wholes and not as 
R|  pieces. Buckminster Fuller in 1969 pointed out that two 
E|  metals when put together in an alloy will create a much 
S|  stronger material than could be predicted by looking at 
E|  the two metals separately. He pleaded with the scientific 
R|  community to start looking at things from a whole systems 
V|  approach, rather than only from an analytical and 
E|  reductive approach.
D|       Now the newest science, the Science of Chaos, is 
||  getting away from some ideas that have been with us for a 
||  very long time. But let me back track to the beginnings 
C|  of science.
O|       TALBOT: Please do, nice of you to ask.
P|       ELBOD: (with a cross between a groan and a laugh) 
Y|  Francis Bacon, who created the empirical method in the 
R|  16th century, reacted against a powerful academic way of 
I|  thinking, a group called the Scholastics, who emphasized 
G|  discussion and rhetoric more than verifiable facts. He 
H|  thought that their methods of inquiry were leading 
T|  nowhere so he created a method which could be repeated 
||  and verified. Independent people could run the same 
1|  experiment and come up with the same results if an idea 
9|  was correct. 
8|       TALBOT: Sounds reasonable.
9|       ELBOD: But any study or discipline is always 
||  affected by the way it began. In order to come up with 
B|  "objective results" scientists had to limit themselves to 
Y|  phenomena which could be quantified, experimented on, 
||  mathematized, and laboratized. (Even in the dark I could 
R|  sense that he was saying this humorously.) Galileo's 
I|  passion was to mathematize the world a bit like 
C|  Pythagoras, the Greek, who thought that numbers had 
H|  magical qualities.
A|       So science, from the very beginning limited itself 
R|  in order to come up with results which could be proven 
D|  using the empirical method. Newton spoke of explaining 
||  "all corporeal things" i.e material things, but he did 
d|  not intend to explain everything. But five hundred years 
e|  later we seem to have forgotten this. So no wonder we are 
G|  materialistic, since this is what we hold to be true. 
A|       Now, as I've said before I am not a scientist - just 
R|  an interested layman. And scientists may be more humble 
I|  about their limitations than what filters down to the 
S|  layman. But in any case, to the layman it appears that 
||  science thinks it has the whole truth or at least the 
D|  lion's share. 
O|       For example, when I go to a doctor I expect the 
B|  doctor to tell me about myself. He is supposed to be 
L|  objective and understand my body better than I do. Most 
E|  doctors, in my experience, do not try to listen to their 
||  patients, to work with them and give them the information 
A|  they need to understand their own bodies. They will 
L|  merely give them some pills. This kind of thinking has 
L|  added to a sense of alienation. A feeling that we are not 
||  really in touch, even with our own flesh. But doctors 
R|  have the option to educate patients, to make them 
I|  participants in their own diagnosis and treatment. My 
G|  friend Greg, the best doctor I ever met, has a saying 
H|  that if "he listened to a patient carefully enough, the 
T|  patient would tell him what was wrong." This is a very 
S|  different attitude from most doctors that I have come in 
||  contact with.
R|       TALBOT: But medicine has been perhaps as successful 
E|  as any science in the last couple of hundred years. Life 
S|  expectancy used to be thirty years to forty years. 
E|  Diseases such as typhoid, smallpox, polio, cholera have 
R|  been virtually eliminated from modern society. Not to 
V|  mention the plagues. The creation of antibiotics has 
E|  meant, for example, that there is rarely a need to 
D|  amputate anymore due to infection. 
||       ELBOD: I agree and I want to emphasize that science 
||  works very well in the areas that it has set out to 
C|  study. But it is only studying a part of "reality" not 
O|  all of reality. In fact at the very beginning it had to 
P|  call the part of reality it could not study "subjective" 
Y|  in order to define what areas it would concern itself 
R|  with. But after hundreds of years, the term "subjective" 
I|  has come to mean something unverifiable and therefore, to 
G|  be discounted.
H|       But I want to make a further point: Scientists 
T|  themselves have been driven by very subjective factors 
||  which have resulted in some of the greatest discoveries.
1|       Kepler, as I mentioned last time, was driven by "the 
9|  desire to find universal laws which would show that the 
8|  universe operated like clockwork", to quote Burke from 
9|  "The Day the Universe Changed". In addition Kepler wanted 
||  to prove that the universe moved according to a musical 
B|  harmony, similar to the idea of Pythagoras in ancient 
Y|  Greece. This sense of harmony was crucial to his 
||  discoveries. Einstein, when he was a teenager, asked the 
R|  basic question: What would the world look like if I were 
I|  riding on a beam of light? He spent the rest of his life 
C|  working out the implications of this question.
H|       These men were driven, by visions which were not in 
A|  themselves scientific. 
R|       Galileo even said at one point that the world was 
D|  the way he described it, because he could not "imagine" 
||  it any other way. Imagination is a very subjective 
d|  quality. And in a sense we have been limited by Galileo's 
e|  imagination ever since.
G|       James Burke has gone so far to suggest that all 
A|  scientific knowledge is relative. He quotes the 
R|  philosopher Wittgenstein "You see what you want to see" . 
I|  To quote Burke "If you believe that the universe is made 
S|  of omelette, you design instruments to find traces of 
||  intergalactic egg."
D|       TALBOT: There is a lot of evidence that in the past 
O|  science has tried to find what it wanted to find, until 
B|  someone came along much later and pointed out 
L|  inconsistencies.
E|       ELBOD: Exactly. The science did, in fact, self-
||  correct over time. Which is the point that Burke misses. 
A|       Truth may be relative as I am suggesting, but it is 
L|  relative in certain ways and not in others. Einstein was 
L|  very specific about the ways that space-time was 
||  relative. He was not flaky about it.
R|       And here's another example: The Earth is basically a 
I|  sphere when looked at from above, as in NASA photographs, 
G|  not flat as a pancake. So from that perspective high 
H|  overhead, it would be hard to assert anything different. 
T|       The proof is in the pudding. I know that an engine 
S|  can be built using Newton's formulas. I doubt that it 
||  could be built if I thought the universe was made of 
R|  omelet.
E|       However, I also believe that truth is related to our 
S|  perspective, which does not discredit an idea, it merely 
E|  means that the perspective must be taken into account.
R|       The pragmatic philosopher Pierce said "Something is 
V|  true in so far as it furthers inquiry." I find this to be 
E|  a very useful way of looking at truth. Some ideas were 
D|  truer than others because they were more fruitful and 
||  because they led to the next set of major discoveries. 
||  But even the best scientific ideas will change, perhaps 
C|  radically, over time. 
O|       So in the study of the history of science, I think 
P|  it would be useful to look at why some ideas were more 
Y|  pregnant than others, even though our ideas may be quite 
R|  different now. Why were some theories more useful in 
I|  "furthering inquiry" than others, why were some truer 
G|  than others? This is one area that science should concern 
H|  itself with in the future.
T|       TALBOT: Where do you see science going from here?
||       ELBOD: According to what I read, we are going from a 
1|  science which has been materialistic, exclusive of other 
9|  ideas, "objective" while condemning the "subjective", to 
8|  a new view of science which is inclusive, that reconciles 
9|  many of the separations of mind and matter, 
||  objective/subjective, that existed in the old scientific 
B|  view, a science which can accept it's own limitations.
Y|       Einstein himself, as I suggested last time, thought 
||  that science was not discovering the ABSOLUTE TRUTH with 
R|  a capital "T" but rather discovering a human way of 
I|  understanding the world, truth with a small "t" as seen 
C|  from a human perspective. 
H|       But I think there is something else as well. As I 
A|  have said scientists have been driven by models such as 
R|  Kepler's clock, visions like Einstein's teenage vision, 
D|  and imagination such as that of Galileo. We need to 
||  understand the forces which lead us down certain paths 
d|  and not down other paths in science. We need to 
e|  understand the forces that drive science as well as 
G|  understand the specific science. Burke has said 
A|  "Knowledge would then properly include the study of the 
R|  structure [ of science ] itself." We need to question the 
I|  questions, not just the answers. This would be the 
S|  creation of a "meta-science", if you will, a science 
||  looked at from one step above.
D|       Some years ago the psychologist Maslow suggested 
O|  that psychologists keep all their notes and let others in 
B|  the scientific community see them so that scientists 
L|  could share their own individual creative and thinking 
E|  processes, unedited. I know that this would be 
||  frightening for many scientists, but it would be useful.
A|       To sum up what I have been saying: Science needs to 
L|  be put in perspective. It does not have a lock on the 
L|  truth. It has limits. But it has been remarkably 
||  successful in the areas where it has directed it's 
R|  attention. And we will definitely need its help in the 
I|  future.
G|       (With that he turned on the bright bare bulb in the 
H|  middle of the room. I was unprepared for this. My eyes 
T|  were now accustomed to the darkness. He said that he had 
S|  to go. He led me up the stairs and out the door into the 
||  sun lit day. I felt blinded. He shook my hand, which he 
R|  never had before. Then he left for another appointment. I 
E|  stood outside in the driveway, with bright spots before 
S|  my eyes. Then I sat in my automobile until my vision had 
E|  returned to normal.)

Return to Home Page

Return to Menu Page for Kirk Elbod Interviews

© Copyright 1997 by Richard deGaris Doble
All rights reserved.
If you would like to publish or reprint any part of this work, send me
an e-mail message
with particulars (make the subject Writings)