Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mouton.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!mwg
From: mwg@mouton.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.philosophy
Subject: Mind and Brain and Ki
Message-ID: <107@mouton.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Jul-84 11:12:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: mouton.107
Posted: Mon Jul 23 11:12:19 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Jul-84 04:04:45 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 50

++
Well it seems that that Shirley MacLaine quote I posted has provoked
a bit of controversy.  I'll try to provide a little context (if you
really want to know, read the book (its not bad reading)):  It's
true that she doesn't know beans about physics.  She went on for a
while about the remarkably similar structure of the solar system and
that of the (now ancient Bohr model of the) atom.  She doesn't claim
to know physics and any physical explanations are from conversations
she had with other people.

I do think one of the sins of modern (all?) scientists is this snobbery
toward non-scientists when they don't use the terminology correctly.
Just because she doesn't have any formal training doesn't mean that
she hasn't had scientifically unexplained and possibly important
experiences.

The other assumption you (we) science-snobs make is that the only
things outside of modern science are slight refinements to the theory
which we will get to sooner or later.  In fact, there may be things
that scientific inquiry ignores systematically, and which will only be
discovered by a radical mind-opening in the scientific community.
This is starting to happen more these days, but it means taking the
risk of appearing ridiculous before a community which demands hard
proof.  Apparently logical positivism (which says the only 'meaningful'
statements are analytic or imperical) is still squirming.

Consider the complexity of human biology.  There are lots of things
that can't be scientifically demonstrated because they are difficult or
impossible to repeat.  But no one can deny these are important phenomena.
An example is ion concentration in the air.  A guy came to BCR last week
to give a talk on what we do by sealing ourselves into these buildings
without considering the total environment we evolved in.  We can adjust
temperature and humidity, but there is real *scientific* evidence that
an imbalence in positive/negative air ion count will affect a person's
mood, productivity, etc.  Then he related this to Aikido and the Japanese
'ki', the Chinese 'chi', and the Indian 'prana'.  Waitasecond, I thought,
this isn't science anymore.  But ions are real and measurable, and it
makes sense that they could affect the body.  And Aikido, and acupuncture
are real; they just havn't been investigated 'scientifically' (read:
"in the west").

Also, no one is saying that MacLaine is *proving* this stuff, so there
is no need to rant and rave that hearsay doesn't constitute science.
(You can tell some people are really insecure about their science :-} )

Face it, guys and gals, some things are not (easily or at all) scientifically
provable and its silly to discredit them.

- Mark
...allegra!mouton!mwg