Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!violet!cpshelley From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) Subject: Re: Science (was Re: Consciousness) Message-ID: <1990Dec4.154454.3276@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes) Organization: University of Waterloo References: <1990Nov9.202525.11717@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3489@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <15724@venera.isi.edu> <1990Nov21.045833.11768@mentor.com> <1990Dec2.201517.10777@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 15:44:54 GMT Lines: 80 In article mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: > >to which cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes: > .... > A big difference between the two approaches however is that science > refers in reality to two criteria of explanatory suffiency: > 1) rigour/consistency and perhaps minimalness (formal adequecy), and > 2) elegance and intuitiveness (informal adequecy). .... > >Cameron -- I think that your description of science is wrong. It is my >understanding that science can be viewed as a body of knowledge which can >lead to RELIABLE predictions about the physical world. In other words, >science is REPEATABLE. I would not deny that people's concepts of science vary, but I don't know why all variation must be judged right or wrong -- my picture of science is not that rigid, although certainly not all-inclusive either. It is odd, in my view, to look on science as being some nebulous "body of knowledge" (having what meta-physical status?) the covers of which are pealed away by supposedly impersonal investigators. Perhaps I shouldn't say "odd" so much as idealistic. I was attempting to get closer to what actually seems to go on in the conducting of science. The RELIABLILITY and REPEATABILITY of predictions are functions of the mathematical nature of the models being used, aren't they? This is what (in essence) I was referring to with my first point. So perhaps we do not disagree as much as it seems. > >Thus, the relation between technology and science is clear -- technology >NEEDS science because science ensures that the results of the technology >will be predictable. E.g., no one would build a space shuttle before having >a reliable theory concerning the nature of space (such as vacuum, gravity, >radiation, etc.) > Very true, and I did admit that the relation between science and technology seems to be changing of late. But throughout most of history, the irrigation systems, roadways, ships, weapons, etc. (the technology) have been made with no reference to science (as we have it now) at all. Modern man and his technology have existed for roughly thirty thousand years now, how long has science had such a great influence? Also, I think the fact that we are all technophiles here has given us a somewhat distorted view of technology -- the things you mention are all examples of "high-technology", and it's not clear to me that this represents the majority of technology even today. >I believe that the characteristics you list are merely criteria that are >used by the scienctific community for evaluating scientific theories. In >modern science there is a strong tendency to reject theories that do no >hold up to the REPEATABILITY criteria even if they fulfill conditions (1) >and (2) you listed. (Note that the opposite is not always true -- it may >also reject a theory which is repeatable.) > Hmmm. I had envisaged repeatabilty as a formal constraint in line with my first condition, although I did not state it explicitly. I would also like to add at this point that I think the formal adequecy of science serves as its interface to high-technology and is the guarantee of the reliabiltiy you were looking for. The math used to describe physical theories, say, can then be used by engineers to produce more tangible results with reasonable expectations of success -- the interface I was referring to. Since, as I maintained, other approaches to 'explanation' (see the previous post) don't have such a level built into them, they have no effective way of transferring 'results' from one area to another. Thus, a new-improved hallucinogenic drug which brings you to nirvana more quickly and for longer cannot suggest a better way dealing with your cranky car when you come back down (at least not reliably). I'm being facetious of course, but I hope you get the picture. > Mike Bender Does this address your concerns at all? -- Cameron Shelley | "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu| in strict accordance with the limitations and Davis Centre Rm 2136 | incapacities of the human misunderstanding..." Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390 | Ambrose Bierce