Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull
From: jhull@spp2.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Re: article in net.general
Message-ID: <231@spp2.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 16:36:22 EST
Article-I.D.: spp2.231
Posted: Tue Nov  6 16:36:22 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 04:14:51 EST
References: <63@unc.UUCP> <> <1784@nsc.UUCP> <> <1806@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 49

> In article <15421@lanl.ARPA> jlg@lanl.ARPA writes:
> >> In article <188@mouton.UUCP> karn@mouton.UUCP writes:
> >> >It's obviously got to be a joke. I can't believe that anybody intelligent
> >> >enough to use a computer believes in ESP.
> >
> >Some have argued that these pseudo-sciences should be accepted as possible
> >and studied out of a sense of intellectual fairness.  This has two problems
> >with it.  First, it means that we have to study all new theories, even the
> >real 'off the wall' speculations of people with no scientific background.
> >Without any evidence of the plausibility of a theory 'a priori', it
> >would be silly to run around checking out all these bizarre theories.
> >

And we all know the earth is flat and the center of the universe.
Remember that these were "'off the wall' speculations" at one time.

> >Second, every time that such topic HAVE been addressed scientifically, the
> >results are ambiguous or negative.  However, the proponents of the pseudo-
> >science then proceed to either redefine the phenomenon (making the scientific
> >study irrelevant), or to denounce the scientific team for allegedly 'covering
> >up' the 'truth'.  Real sciences don't have this slippery effect.
> 

Really?  What about the searches for various sub-atomic particles,
e.g., quarks?  How do you describe the research of the Rhine
Institute?

Furthermore, "science" deals only with repeatable phenomena and
especially conditions for repeatability (see scientific method,
definition of).  Some phenomena are inherently unrepeatable, e.g., the
Big Bang, but should that stop us from studying them?  Other phenomena
are, apparrently, unique, i.e., unrepeatable, at least in practice if
not in theory.  An example of this class of phenomena is the birth of
a baby.  (Oh, yeah?  When did you see 2 babies with exactly the same
chromosomes & genes? The same fingerprints?)  Should we stop studying
such phenomena?  "Science" deals with this problem by classing
otherwise unique phenomena by some common characteristic.

My purpose in offering this is to prompt some re-evaluation of the
common view of what science is and its appropriate role in our
society.


-- 
					Blecsed Be,

jhull@spp2.UUCP				Jeff Hull
trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP		13817 Yukon Ave.
					Hawthorne, CA 90250