Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site hpfcms.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!bill
From: bill@hpfcla.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: RE:  Weird Science (response)
Message-ID: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 15:56:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcms.45200019
Posted: Fri Sep 13 15:56:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:32:20 EDT
Organization: 13 Sep 85 13:56:00 MDT
Lines: 177


[edible line]

This is posted as a base note to avoid an orphaned response.  It is in
connection with the "Weird Science" notes string.  Odd number of >'s = Rich
Rosen, even number = me.

>>>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.

Quite true, and I have no objections.  The subject was science, so that's
what I'm confining my comments to.

>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?

Heavens no (where'd I say that?).  My point is, the same set of facts can
"prove" several different things, depending on who's interpreting them.
Thus, BE CAUTIOUS!  That's all.  Because science has the general reputation
of "being true", a mistake made by the scientific community will be bought
by all of us who don't exercise caution, or think things through.  The point
is, because science says it's so doesn't necessarily mean that it is.  It
DOES mean that it's a possibility, but just like all possibilities, it must
be further scrutinized, time-tested, etc.

>> 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).

OK, "science" isn't responsible.  But, isn't "science" in this context an
abstract notion?  I mean, does pure "science", the thing that just gathers
unbiased, untainted facts and presents them, really exist?  Or, because
science is actually a discipline practiced by people like you and me, is
it something less pure, less unbiased, than this?  Your "maybes" in the
previous quote may very well be true, but how do we know?  I guess I'm
saying something similar to, "If there weren't people, there wouldn't be
science".  Whaddaya think?

>>>>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 dare you to separate the two, Rich.  How many truly unbiased scientists do
we have today?  A monumental task, I think.

>>>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?

Maybe not impossible, but very difficult.  I admire Hawking for going against
the norm, but I fear that his type is very rare.  It is extremely difficult
for human beings to throw out ALL preconceived notions and the like, and
evaluate facts based on just those facts.  In fact, since we are raised to
believe certain things, denying those things for the purpose of unbiased
analysis would be much akin to denying our very selves.  Very, very few of
us are able to do that.

>>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?

Depends on who's performing the rigor, doesn't it?!

>>>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.

To address your particular example, a religious source would say "get rid
of secular humanism because it interferes with my preconceived notion that
there is a god".  You, however (I use you because of your tone in the
preceding quote), would say "let's squelch religion because this sort of
thinking interferes with my preconceived conclusion that there is no god".
Who's more guilty?  Sure, there are lots of loudly-voiced issues in today's
world, but technological advances are mainly responsible for them seeming
any bigger than they were before.  These same arguments were going on in
the past.  Yes, there is a big campaign against secular humanism, but if
you'll look on the other side of the coin, there is an equal (or bigger)
campaign in favor of it!

>> 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?

When the explanation hits WHOSE fan, Rich?  Who decides?  This fictitious
thing called "science" which seeks only truth?  I can't believe it really
exists, because SOMEBODY has to run the fan.  Facts don't decide anything
until they're interpreted.  BAM!!  We've run into those interpreters
again!

Bill Gates
{ihnp4, ucbvax!hplabs}!hpfcla!bill-g


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com