On Handling the Data, Page 2
M. I. Mayfield
most important man in my life--gave me aclue as to what kind of results to expect. _Only then._
Now this is the heart of the matter.... The obvious explanation is thelack of experience. But, and this is what haunts me ... _what if thoseso-called contradictory results are meaningful_? What if they wereexecuted with care--_and they were_--and are not the results ofsloppiness or inexperience? _What if a nerve can twitch?_
Very respectfully yours,
Jonathan Wells
* * * * *
May 3, 1958
Dr. Robert Von Engen,Editor, Journal of the National Academy of Sciences,Constitution Avenue,Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Von Engen:
I would like to thank you for your encouraging letter and advice. Iagree completely with your statement that science has a long way to gobefore we can explain the various inconsistencies that crop up inresearch. But I certainly can't see how the letter is far too"unsophisticated" for inclusion in the _Letters to the Editor_ portionof your journal. While your letter should have calmed me, I feel evenmore strongly now after a year of research about the matter than I didbefore. I have deliberately postponed answering your letter until I hadmore _facts_.
I now find that I have accumulated--as you suggested--three distinctlyconflicting groups of data on nucleic acid synthesis of frog livercells:
1. There is a conversion of ribonucleic acid to desoxyribonucleic acid.
2. There is a conversion of desoxyribonucleic acid to ribonucleic acid.
3. The synthesis of both types of nucleic acid are independent of eachother. (In addition, I have some data ... that I don't want to thinkabout too much ... that shows that there is absolutely no nucleic acidin the liver cell.) Thus, these data all accumulated by experimentalwork, support all three hypotheses. Moreover, the literature supports_all three hypotheses_. I intend to go to the Woods Hole, MassachusettsMarine Lab this summer with my sponsor and get some new ideas there,especially since Professor Gould M. Rice from the University of Londonwill be there presenting a seminar series on his work in nucleic acidsynthesis in _Oryzias_.
The point is not that there is a conflict in the data, but that the dataconflict because there is a conflict in my mind and in the literature._Don't you see it?_ As you said on page 20 of "Logical Control: Computervs. Brain": "the order-system--this means the problem to be solved, theinteraction of the user--is communicated to the machine by 'loading' itinto the memory."
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan
* * * * *
August 31, 1958
Dr. Robert Von Engen,Journal of the National Academy of Sciences,Constitution Avenue,Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Bob:
Again, many thanks for your letter--and encouragement. I especiallytreasure the inscribed copy of "Logical Control: Computer vs. Brain,"and the current reprint. I am sorry that I didn't get an opportunity toget down to Washington en route to Woods Hole and talk over the wholething over a bottle of beer, _dark beer_. From what I hear of thedemands on a first-rate mathematician's time these days, you should begrateful that I didn't get to see you, because I would have monopolized_all_ your time. I appreciate your generosity in extending theinvitation as a rain check to me.
Your mention of the Duke School of "psychology"--my quotes--leaves mecold. It's too obvious and puts the cart before the horse. The importantpoint that I was trying to make dealt not with the "possibleparapsychological" manipulation of equipment or the materials _a la_telekinesis to produce the desired results, _but that our Science maynot be studying natural phenomena and trying to interpret them at all_.The point, to get it down in black and white, is that our"Science"--yes, quotes--may be _inventing_ the reality that it issupposedly studying. _Inventing the atoms, molecules, cells, nuclei, etcetera ... and then describing them, and in the description giving themreality._
While I was at Woods Hole I had some really good bull sessions aboutthis very thing. I realize now that I may have been falling into thetrap of solipsism, "who watches the quad," et cetera, type of thing.Incidentally, my research is finally beginning to fall into shape. Mysponsor and I had some pretty good sessions about it, and some of thescrewy results I wrote you begin to make sense. I had the good luck totalk to an outstanding man in the field of nucleic acid synthesis and hewas quite enthusiastic about the caliber of our work. He feels quitestrongly--but has no real evidence--that the synthesis of both types ofnucleic acid are independent of each other and has pointed out somesignificant references that I did not know about. I'm anxious to buckledown and really lick this nucleic acid problem ... in time for a Junedegree.
Cordially,
Jonathan
P.S.
Please send me a reprint of your lecture on "MemoryBanks--Transistorized Neurones." The lecture was ingenious, but thereare some biological phenomena with which I don't agree. Remember, I'mthe biologist. Honestly, Doc, don't you think--_entre nous_--that youridea that a living organism, can be compared with automata in picking upinformational items and processing them simultaneously in parallel,rather than in series, is naif?
J.
* * * * *
October 28, 1958
Dr. R. Von Engen,Journal of the National Academy of Sciences,Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Von Engen:
I apologize for not answering your letter sooner. I assume you werepulling my leg when you suggested that I make a science-fiction storyout of "the confused ideas of a beginning graduate student." You mightgive _your_ idea of a "possible science-fiction story" to one of youracolytes that has some small experience in the field of writing--notscience. I am afraid that your other suggestions are not germane to theproblem of nucleic acid synthesis and metabolism, a problem that hasbeen occupying _all_ my time. In fact, I've been doing with three tofour hours of sleep these days. With the kind of concentration that Ican offer the problem, there is no question that the data are fallinginto line, and our research is going rather well. We will show, I hope,fairly conclusively that there is little or no interconversion betweenthe two types of nucleic acid synthesis in the cell.
Despite your ingenious mathematical approaches for stimulation criteria,in biological research--a very abstruse field--even your multiplexmachines with elaborate means of intercommunication are notsophisticated enough--or ever will be--to cope with the complexitiesinherent in the numerous interacting biosyntheses on the subcellularultratopographical level of protoplasm.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Wells
* * * * *
November 8, 1958
The Editor,Journal of the National Academy of Sciences,Washington, D. C.
My dear Professor Von Engen:
From the tenor of your last letter it is quite evident that there hasbeen a radical change in your originally sound and inspired ideas, andwhich clearly indicates to me that a discussion and exchange of basicconcept would be fruitless. I'm rather hurt that you question myintegrity with the statement about the "slick, calculating,career-minded cult of Ph. Deism." Moreover, I would appreciate, ifpossible, the return of my previous correspondence.
I don't feel that I am totally inept, for I have been awarded apredoctoral fellowship that will support me during the remainder ofgraduate school. In addition, I am being seriously considered for afaculty position at an outstanding Eastern University upon completion ofmy thesis. Should you be interested, we now have an article in press onthe Journal of Cellular Physiology entitled: "Nucleic acid synthesis inthe frog liver cell: A definitive study." We have found substantialevidence which demonstrates that there is no interconversion of the twotypes of nucleic acid.
I cannot help but comment about your recent paper in _Scientia_--I donot believe that it is at all possible to devise computers which canhandle the species of data which we obtain. Your data being lesscomplex, of course, may fit.
_Naturally_, I have your confidence in the entire matter. r />
Yours very truly,
J. Wellington Wells
+--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Transcriber's Note | | | | This e-text was produced from Astounding Science Fiction, | | September, 1959. Extensive research did not uncover any | | evidence that the U.S. copyright on this publication was | | renewed. | +--------------------------------------------------------------+
Thank you for reading books on Archive.BookFrom.Net
Share this book with friends
Now this is the heart of the matter.... The obvious explanation is thelack of experience. But, and this is what haunts me ... _what if thoseso-called contradictory results are meaningful_? What if they wereexecuted with care--_and they were_--and are not the results ofsloppiness or inexperience? _What if a nerve can twitch?_
Very respectfully yours,
Jonathan Wells
* * * * *
May 3, 1958
Dr. Robert Von Engen,Editor, Journal of the National Academy of Sciences,Constitution Avenue,Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Von Engen:
I would like to thank you for your encouraging letter and advice. Iagree completely with your statement that science has a long way to gobefore we can explain the various inconsistencies that crop up inresearch. But I certainly can't see how the letter is far too"unsophisticated" for inclusion in the _Letters to the Editor_ portionof your journal. While your letter should have calmed me, I feel evenmore strongly now after a year of research about the matter than I didbefore. I have deliberately postponed answering your letter until I hadmore _facts_.
I now find that I have accumulated--as you suggested--three distinctlyconflicting groups of data on nucleic acid synthesis of frog livercells:
1. There is a conversion of ribonucleic acid to desoxyribonucleic acid.
2. There is a conversion of desoxyribonucleic acid to ribonucleic acid.
3. The synthesis of both types of nucleic acid are independent of eachother. (In addition, I have some data ... that I don't want to thinkabout too much ... that shows that there is absolutely no nucleic acidin the liver cell.) Thus, these data all accumulated by experimentalwork, support all three hypotheses. Moreover, the literature supports_all three hypotheses_. I intend to go to the Woods Hole, MassachusettsMarine Lab this summer with my sponsor and get some new ideas there,especially since Professor Gould M. Rice from the University of Londonwill be there presenting a seminar series on his work in nucleic acidsynthesis in _Oryzias_.
The point is not that there is a conflict in the data, but that the dataconflict because there is a conflict in my mind and in the literature._Don't you see it?_ As you said on page 20 of "Logical Control: Computervs. Brain": "the order-system--this means the problem to be solved, theinteraction of the user--is communicated to the machine by 'loading' itinto the memory."
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan
* * * * *
August 31, 1958
Dr. Robert Von Engen,Journal of the National Academy of Sciences,Constitution Avenue,Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Bob:
Again, many thanks for your letter--and encouragement. I especiallytreasure the inscribed copy of "Logical Control: Computer vs. Brain,"and the current reprint. I am sorry that I didn't get an opportunity toget down to Washington en route to Woods Hole and talk over the wholething over a bottle of beer, _dark beer_. From what I hear of thedemands on a first-rate mathematician's time these days, you should begrateful that I didn't get to see you, because I would have monopolized_all_ your time. I appreciate your generosity in extending theinvitation as a rain check to me.
Your mention of the Duke School of "psychology"--my quotes--leaves mecold. It's too obvious and puts the cart before the horse. The importantpoint that I was trying to make dealt not with the "possibleparapsychological" manipulation of equipment or the materials _a la_telekinesis to produce the desired results, _but that our Science maynot be studying natural phenomena and trying to interpret them at all_.The point, to get it down in black and white, is that our"Science"--yes, quotes--may be _inventing_ the reality that it issupposedly studying. _Inventing the atoms, molecules, cells, nuclei, etcetera ... and then describing them, and in the description giving themreality._
While I was at Woods Hole I had some really good bull sessions aboutthis very thing. I realize now that I may have been falling into thetrap of solipsism, "who watches the quad," et cetera, type of thing.Incidentally, my research is finally beginning to fall into shape. Mysponsor and I had some pretty good sessions about it, and some of thescrewy results I wrote you begin to make sense. I had the good luck totalk to an outstanding man in the field of nucleic acid synthesis and hewas quite enthusiastic about the caliber of our work. He feels quitestrongly--but has no real evidence--that the synthesis of both types ofnucleic acid are independent of each other and has pointed out somesignificant references that I did not know about. I'm anxious to buckledown and really lick this nucleic acid problem ... in time for a Junedegree.
Cordially,
Jonathan
P.S.
Please send me a reprint of your lecture on "MemoryBanks--Transistorized Neurones." The lecture was ingenious, but thereare some biological phenomena with which I don't agree. Remember, I'mthe biologist. Honestly, Doc, don't you think--_entre nous_--that youridea that a living organism, can be compared with automata in picking upinformational items and processing them simultaneously in parallel,rather than in series, is naif?
J.
* * * * *
October 28, 1958
Dr. R. Von Engen,Journal of the National Academy of Sciences,Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Von Engen:
I apologize for not answering your letter sooner. I assume you werepulling my leg when you suggested that I make a science-fiction storyout of "the confused ideas of a beginning graduate student." You mightgive _your_ idea of a "possible science-fiction story" to one of youracolytes that has some small experience in the field of writing--notscience. I am afraid that your other suggestions are not germane to theproblem of nucleic acid synthesis and metabolism, a problem that hasbeen occupying _all_ my time. In fact, I've been doing with three tofour hours of sleep these days. With the kind of concentration that Ican offer the problem, there is no question that the data are fallinginto line, and our research is going rather well. We will show, I hope,fairly conclusively that there is little or no interconversion betweenthe two types of nucleic acid synthesis in the cell.
Despite your ingenious mathematical approaches for stimulation criteria,in biological research--a very abstruse field--even your multiplexmachines with elaborate means of intercommunication are notsophisticated enough--or ever will be--to cope with the complexitiesinherent in the numerous interacting biosyntheses on the subcellularultratopographical level of protoplasm.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Wells
* * * * *
November 8, 1958
The Editor,Journal of the National Academy of Sciences,Washington, D. C.
My dear Professor Von Engen:
From the tenor of your last letter it is quite evident that there hasbeen a radical change in your originally sound and inspired ideas, andwhich clearly indicates to me that a discussion and exchange of basicconcept would be fruitless. I'm rather hurt that you question myintegrity with the statement about the "slick, calculating,career-minded cult of Ph. Deism." Moreover, I would appreciate, ifpossible, the return of my previous correspondence.
I don't feel that I am totally inept, for I have been awarded apredoctoral fellowship that will support me during the remainder ofgraduate school. In addition, I am being seriously considered for afaculty position at an outstanding Eastern University upon completion ofmy thesis. Should you be interested, we now have an article in press onthe Journal of Cellular Physiology entitled: "Nucleic acid synthesis inthe frog liver cell: A definitive study." We have found substantialevidence which demonstrates that there is no interconversion of the twotypes of nucleic acid.
I cannot help but comment about your recent paper in _Scientia_--I donot believe that it is at all possible to devise computers which canhandle the species of data which we obtain. Your data being lesscomplex, of course, may fit.
_Naturally_, I have your confidence in the entire matter. r />
Yours very truly,
J. Wellington Wells
+--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Transcriber's Note | | | | This e-text was produced from Astounding Science Fiction, | | September, 1959. Extensive research did not uncover any | | evidence that the U.S. copyright on this publication was | | renewed. | +--------------------------------------------------------------+
Thank you for reading books on Archive.BookFrom.Net
Share this book with friends
