Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Sc--nce Attack Message-ID: <491@spar.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 18:17:19 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.491 Posted: Thu Aug 29 18:17:19 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 21:42:48 EDT References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP> <1605@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 157 >>>[Rosen] >>[Gates] >[Rosen] >>>Science stinks! Anyone who thinks science holds... 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. Nobody here (including me) has ever said disparaging things about science. On the other hand, many, including myself, refuse to accept your repeated assertions (that Sc--nce can ultimately know All That Is). In other words, it is not science, but rather your blind dogmatic assertions of faith unsupported by evidence or reason, that provoke the distasteful "tone" you refer to. >> 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. "Tools of persuasion"? Why not try logic first? You have NEVER presented a single rigorous argument or hard evidence that the Sc--ntific Method is the ultimate determiner of truth in all areas of human interest (eg. music, love...). >> 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". Totally bogus -- mystery IS beauty (to some of us, anyway..) For me, beauty has both surprise/spontaneity and rhythm/predictability, in abundance, and even qualities that I do not like. As examples, prime numbers, punk rock, the sea, or frogs. If the mysteries of prime numbers were uncovered, I'd simply find more interesting numbers. If a machine could predict my taste, then I'd make a point of randomly liking against its predictions. If the sea were tamed, I'd look at the stars instead. And frogs -- they will always be totally beyond human understanding (a belief, I know). >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". But you still believe your definition of free will is the `real' definition (as if there were exactly one) -- regardless of the overwhelming rejection your definition has received. As a person who clearly has no free will, you might as well be a blind person telling us that vision is impossible... >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.) Alchemy also gave us Chemistry. You might try reading Feyerabend's _Against_Method_. He argues that we are all on the verge of becoming blind religious fanatics, (exactly like you, Rich!!) and have been so brainwashed by our institutionalized worship of the omnipotent Sc--ntific Method that we fail to perceive value in the diverse sources from which our real inspirations spring. >>>"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. Funny you should complain, Rich, considering how many times you've flamed at my SMASH CAUSALITY!!! signoff... >> 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? Rich, you might spend more time learning how to use any part of your mind whatsoever. You confuse understanding one's full human nature (not just rationality but also subjective intuitive things) with rigid authoritarian religion (which denies all mental functioning whatsoever). Funny that you seem to possess precisely those same unthinking illogical qualities you fear most while you lack those which you claim to uphold. Religion (including your inflexible Sc--ntism) without awareness is ready to send this planet a lot farther back than the middle ages -- like maybe the Paleozoic! I believe the real evil of religion occurs when mechanical and dogmatic assertions of faith become so compulsive that communication with those of different viewpoints becomes impossible. >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. Case in point: Turing's test for machine consciousness. How can we determine if an entity actually has conscious awareness? The only way to REALLY know is to ACTUALLY BE the entity in question. There is no such thing as `objective scientific evidence' for awareness. Consequently, if verifiable OBJECTIVE evidence is the only valid determiner for existence -- I (my conscious awareness) do not exist. -am I existent yet?