Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site hpfcms.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!bill
From: bill@hpfcla.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: RE:  Weird Science
Message-ID: <45200017@hpfcms.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 19:29:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcms.45200017
Posted: Tue Aug 27 19:29:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 05:00:33 EDT
References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP>
Organization: 27 Aug 85 17:29:00 MDT
Lines: 118

>> 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...)

Boy, is my face red!  Sorry about that.  Reminds me of Gilda Radner on
Saturday Night when she goes through a long talk only to find out it didn't
apply.  I just assumed, since it sounded like it could apply to something
I wrote, that it was perhaps written in response to it.  All my comments 
concerning "retaliation" and such are therefore invalid.  "Never mind."

>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".
>
>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?

You bring up a very good point here.  It's true that much of the evil done
in the world is a result of evil people applying neutral facts.  But my
question is:  CAN science exist in a pure form?  Aren't scientific facts
always going to be utilized by people?  And aren't there always good chances
that those people will use such facts in an evil application?  I agree with
your evaluation of science itself - it seeks only facts.  It's the application
of the facts (and, by the way, the attributing of "fact" to those things which
aren't) that causes either evil or good.

However, there have been times in the past when the entire scientific
community bought off on something that turned out harmful or wrong.  Yet
it was based on all scientific facts available at the time.  I've already
posted a list of some of these things.  It's things like these that make
me want to be a little cautious when approaching new discoveries.

>> 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...  :-)

Well, maybe science itself doesn't work this way, but the interpreters
of science sure do (or can)!

>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.

I agree.  But do you agree that there will always be two sides to every
scientific inquiry into things like paranormal experiments?  I mean,
those who really want to disprove paranormal experiences will fight like
heck to interpret scientific findings in their favor, just as those who
believe in paranormal experiences would interpret the findings differently,
as you showed in your example above.  And both sides would probably credit
themselves with a victory!  I guess I'm asking you, Rich - who or what do
we trust?  If we could easily get our hands on unadulterated facts, we can
probably trust those facts.   But usually we get these facts after they
have been interpreted for us.  Then, we either accept or reject the facts
based on the interpretation we've heard, rather than based on the facts
themselves.

>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.

Why is this age any different?  We've always had the "religious autocrats"
and wishy-washy-ful thinkers to contend with.  Yes, there are religions that
seek to downplay scientific discovery, but there always have been, and we
seem to be getting along pretty well.  Shoot, even within science itself
there are "religions" - the two sides of an issue each define a religion
of sorts.  Both sides will fight and try to ridicule, explain away, or
otherwise discount the other.  It's good to want to preserve human learning
and discovery, and to want to base even life itself on facts.  But we've
also got human nature to deal with, Rich, and we always will.  Human nature
cannot be divorced from learning or discovery, simply because we interpret
such things through our humanity and prejudices.  Like it or not, many
things are rejected or accepted based simply on this humanity of ours.  But
this isn't limited just to religion.  It's part of everyone's human makeup.

As an example, what if science suddenly announced it had concrete proof that
God exists?  How long would you ponder the evidence, and how hard would you
try to fight its implications for yourself?  Now compare your acceptance of
that with your acceptance of a scientific announcement which only serves to
solidify a belief you've had for years.  Be fair now - which is easier to
accept, and which would tend to make you downplay, ridicule, or explain
away "facts".  THIS is the wishful thinking you've been talking about, but
it's a part of all of us - even you, I bet!

Bill Gates