Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: RE:  Weird Science
Message-ID: <1605@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 19:29:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1605
Posted: Tue Aug 27 19:29:19 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 09:40:15 EDT
References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 177

> I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that at least part of the following tirade
> (which ducks more questions than it answers) is due to the article
> "Science and Fallibility".  The quoted material if from Rich Rosen. [GATES]

Very incorrectly.  No matter, continue...  (But what would drive you to
such an assumption...)

>>Science stinks!  Anyone who thinks science holds the answers is a fool.  What
>>about love, beauty, art, poetry?  What does science do to all the things we
>>hold near and dear?  It dissects them to the point where they no longer have
>>any resemblance to the way they were originally, thus destroying the notions
>>we believe in.  I say the hell with science!! No one has the right to dissect
>>my beliefs.  If I want to believe in lies that's my business.  Who are they to
>>shatter the foundations of my beliefs?

> I really don't see the purpose for this kind of retaliation,
> though.  Yes, what you write here sounds ridiculous, if it were true.

Retaliation?  Against what?  Indeed, it is very true:  this is typical
of the tone of more than a few articles on the topic of science.

> How 'bout you take a particular point and logically (and calmly)
> tear it apart?  If it's wrong, that should be easy enough.  If there's
> scientific proof for your assertions, I should be able to recognize that and
> be quiet.  However, all I've seen from you is a statement of your beliefs,
> followed by a statement of allegiance to science, followed by tirades if
> anyone dares to differ.

Tirades?  THAT was a "tirade"?  Hmmm.  Satire is but one of many tools
of persuasion.  Sometimes it is the only way to reach some people.  The
fact remains that the assertions made by others about science being to "blame"
for a long list of things harken right back to the list I offered.  Their
lists were no less funny.

> But to address what you've said above:  as I've already said, IF science were
> able to prove beyond doubt that certains things that I hold "near and dear"
> were false, I would accept that.  However, science is not (yet?) able to do
> that with things like love, beauty, art, etc.  Thus, the point I made earlier
> is still valid:  analysis at the current time is inconclusive using current
> scientific techniques.

But science is not "out" to prove such things "false" or "non-existent".
Clearly they exist as constructs of the human mind in categorizing such
things.  True objective inquiry could, given the right tools and the
opportunity, figure out what sorts of things trigger human responses
like "love" and "beauty", in general and in specific.  I hardly think that
would "destroy" such things, it would merely "take all the mystery out of
life".  However, other similar notions like free will appear to be
illusions of a self-monitoring mind that thinks "I am freely wanting to do
this".

> As usual, in your responses, you've by-passed logic and resorted to tirades
> of ridiculous exaggerations.  I never said "to hell with science".  I never
> said that it was "dissecting my beliefs" or "shattering the foundations of
> my beliefs".  I never said science was "destroying the notions I believe in".
> Thus, if there was any point to the above, it's lost in the muck of lies
> you've thrown in to totally distort my view of science (if it is indeed my
> view you are distorting).

YOUR view?  Who said this was in response to YOU, specifically or otherwise? 
It's very egomaniacal of you to assume that.  My article had a different
title from yours, it contained no back references to yours, and it was
disjoint from any other article in the discussion.  This is the third such
notice I've gotten this week from people insisting that I was "writing about
them" (two people even thought the same article was written about each of
them!).  I think that stands as a monument to the futility and uselessness
of subjectivity as a serious analytical tool.  (I think it may also stand as
a monument to people's perceptions of me as clouded by their own opinions.)

>>And what has science ever given this world anyway?  Weapons of war, the black
>>plague, hatred, venereal disease, electricity, natural disasters, religious
>>intolerance.  And don't go telling me it's not science or scientists who
>>gave us these things, that these things came from application of real
>>knowledge by misguided, greedy, or evil people.  You know that's not true
>>and no amount of "evidence" to the contrary will convince me otherwise.
>>I *know* the truth about science, and I'm not going to allow scientists to
>>change my beliefs about anything.

> Well, HAS science given us some bad things or not?  No?  You don't know
> history very well.  If you'll re-read my article, however, you'll find
> that I also acknowledged that science has given us many wonderful things
> as well.  More gross distortions, Rich.

Yes, indeed, on *your* part.  Science doesn't give us "good" or "bad" things.
Science gives us facts.  Do you have any idea why alchemy never gave us
"bad" things?  Because it didn't provide anything worth using for good OR
evil!!  (That's an oversimplification, we did get things like symbology
from alchemy, but the actual "chemical" learning of alchemy didn't work.)
Science is only able to provide things that are used for good or bad for
one reason only:  it provides facts about the real world.  If a "good"
person takes those facts and gets us something good, great.  If an "evil"
person takes those facts and uses them for evil, do we blame science?  Had
those facts not been uncovered, would the evil simply not have been done?
On the other hand, if the facts had not been uncovered, could AS MUCH good
(or evil) have been done?  The point (that you seem to keep missing in your
persistent insistence that it must be *me* who is closedminded) is that
there is no "good" or "evil" associated with facts about the universe.
Only in their application.  Where scientific technique is used for "evil",
do we blame the technique, or do we ask why these people are engaging in
evil in the first place?

> I'm probably as open-minded to scientific discovery as anyone.  It's you who
> are closed-minded, but to the opposite extreme of believing in science to the
> point of death, and not being able to accept that perhaps science cannot
> explain all things right now.

Is this another example of your personal subjective opinion in action?  May
I ask where you might substantiate this opinion, perhaps with quotes from
me in which I stated that I am not able to accept that science cannot explain
all things right now? (And in what way does that discredit the method of
inquiry?)  May I ask why you refer to me as closedminded simply because I
disagree with you?  Is that your definition of the word?

>>Why, scientists can't even prove that the notions I hold about free will,
>>souls, ESP, the Bermuda triangle, ghosts in my living room, or me being
>>the reincarnation of Isadora Duncan are false!!!  All they can say is
>>that my evidence isn't "verifiable", thus it can't be taken for granted
>>that it is the truth.  Whatever the hell "verifiable" means...

> Science disproves the existence of everything you don't believe in, Rich,
> but simply because you so desparately WANT science to disprove them.

Really, is that how science works?  I always thought it had something to
do with rational objective analysis and inquiry.  Silly me.  All I have
to do is WANT science to disprove things, and it will!!  WOW!!!!  This
is just like watching Peter Pan.  Or a discussion on free will...  :-)

> In fact, all you can really say, "scientifically", is that testing is
> inconclusive.  Again, I never mentioned ghosts, reincarnation, ESP, or any
> of the other meaningless dribble in the above.  Sheesh!

Yes, but who said this article was specifically in response to you?  (Oh,
yes, YOU did!)  I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful
experiences with experiments in the paranormal.  He noticed that when
scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is
was not, the number of successes jumped sharply.  Of course, there are
always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an
atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur.  If that's
not wishful thinking, I don't know what is.

>>"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
>> to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
>> being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings

> Oh, you poor, poor, shackled martyr, you!  Poor baby is fighting so hard
> against such overwhelming persecutions!  Give me a break, Rich.

"Poor shackled martyr"?  Where the fuck do you get off?  "Poor baby"?  I'd
venture a guess that you are the poor baby, with your need to ridicule even
my choice of signature quotes in an effort to support your position.  What
IS your point?  Do you have some problem with the quote?  I find it quite
relevant in everyday life.  If you don't like it, tough shit.  It has
nothing to do with the argument at hand, but I suppose you'll attack anything
to get what you want out of this argument.

> What really gets me, though, are your continued statements that anyone who
> "limits" science is really, deep-down, scared of having his "nears and
> dears" torn apart and shown to be false.  And yet you respond to my (?)
> last article with the tirade above?  WHO'S REALLY SCARED, RICH?  Aren't
> you just as doggedly defending your own side?

In an age in which thinking things through is out of fashion, where people
are being taught to use the "right side of the brain" without having
mastered the use of the left, and where religious autocrats would squelch
the teaching of scientific inquiry and logic as a means of thinking and
reaching conclusions, you bet I'm scared.  Scared that wishy-washy-ful
thinkers will shred human learning and bring us back to the dark ages of
willy nilly superstition.  But of the two of us, who is REALLY scared?
And who really needs to be?  You speak of recognizing science's limitations.
Does that mean you simply don't use the scientific method of analysis when
it comes to things you perceive to be beyond those limits, in order to
say "thus my ideas are true"?  That's what the wishful thinkers are doing.
What isn't this method suited for, and why?  In what cases do you simply
discard it, and in favor of what?  Do tell us.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr