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: <1659@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 7-Sep-85 20:34:09 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1659 Posted: Sat Sep 7 20:34:09 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 01:30:48 EDT References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP> <45200017@hpfcms.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 132 >>>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...) [ROSEN] > Boy, is my face red! Sorry about that. Apology accepted. >>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!! 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. 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. Why limit your question to science? Some people would claim that religion gives them true answers. The quality of the methods (and the results) notwithstanding, substituting "religion" for "science" in the above paragraph would seem to offer the opinion that, if science has the potential of being "bad", so does religion! To paraphrase a commercial, facts is facts. No matter how they were obtained. Are you asking us to stop looking for facts because someone might use them for evil? Are you saying that the less we learn (as a race) the better our lives will be, because people will have less knowledge at their disposal to use for evil? > 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. Maybe they weren't being truly objective, using the scientific method to accomplish real learning. Maybe they were looking for specific conclusions. Example: phrenology, which "proved" the inferiority of different ethnic groups. Don't hold science responsible for the actions of those who didn't really use it in the first place, those who just took some known facts and adding in their prejudices (as Hitler did with Darwin). >>>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)! The misusers of facts. The people who claim to be scientists but who are not, owing to their failure to use the methods involved. The interpreters of ANY facts who use their own prejudices to "justify" things. So which do we throw out? The scientific method that gets us the facts? Or the prejudices and subjectivist thinking that leads to erroneous conclusions based on facts? >>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. My example above referred to a real life example of Stephen Hawking, a leader in modern physics. In his youth, he WANTED to believe in the paranormal, and had an interest. His acutely rational mind showed him what was really going on. Is it so impossible for others to be as rigorous and strict in such analysis? And, by the way, is the notion that "scientific rigor contributes to an atmosphere in which the phenomena cannot occur" ANYTHING but a vapid rationalization? >>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. I don't call this resurgence of "let's get rid of secular humanism because that sort of thinking interferes with our preconceived conclusions" getting along pretty well. It sounds to me like a return to the age of Galileo. That's why this age is "different". We had made a good deal of progress, only to find ourselves right back where we started. To the point where the squelching comes not only from the church but from "new age" thinkers whose wishywashyness is no better. > 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! But the bottom line comes when the explanation hits the fan. Does it hold up? Is it based on MORE (or "the same old") presumptions? -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr