JOSEPH WEIZENBAUM
247
and suppressed nucleation, constitute the main defensive armamentarium of
the true adherent of magical systems of thought , and particularly of the
compulsive programmer.
Psychiatric literature informs us that this pathology deeply involves
fantasies ofomnipotence . The conviction that one is all-powerful is, however ,
one that cannot rest ; it must constantly be verified by tests. The test of power
is control. The test of absolute power is certain and absolute control. When
dealing with the compulsive programmer, we are therefore also dealing with
his need to control and his need for certainty .
The passion for certainty is, of course, also one of the great cornerstones
of science, philosophy, and religion. And the quest for control is inherent in
all technology . Indeed, the reason we are so interested in the compulsive
programmer is that we see no discontinuity between his pathological motives
and behavior and those of the modern scientist and technologist generally.
The compulsive programmer is merely the proverbial mad scientist who has
been given a theater, the computer, in which it is possible for him to , and in
which he does , play out his fantasies .
.
The gambler, as we have already said , is subjectively certain that he will
win. So is the compulsive programmer; only he, having created his own world
on a universal machine, has some foundation in reality for his certainty .
Scientists , with some exceptions , share the same faith. What science has not
done , it has not yet done. The questions science has not answered, it has not
yet answered. Second, the gambler has an unbounded faith in his cleverness.
Well?! Third, the gambler knows that life itself is nothing but a gamble. The
compulsive programmer is convinced that life is nothing but a program
running on an enormous computer and that therefore every aspect of life can
ultimately be explained in programming terms . Many scientists, again there
are notable exceptions, also believe that every aspect of life and nature can
finally be explained in exclusively scientific terms . Indeed , as Polanyi correctly
points out , the stability of scientific beliefs is defended by the same devices
that protect magical belief systems: " Any contradiction between a particular
scientific notion and the facts of experience will be explained by another
scientific notion ; there is a ready reserve of possible scientific hypotheses
available
to
explain any conceivable event . . . within science itself, the
stability of theories against experience is maintained by epicyclic reserves
which suppress alternative conceptions in the germ . "
Hence we can make out a continuum. At one of its extremes stand
scientists and technologists who much resemble the compulsive programmer.
At the other extreme are scientists, humanists, philosophers, artists , and
religionists who seek understanding as whole persons and from all possible
perspectives. The affairs of the world appear
to
be in the hands of technicians
