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 (response)
Message-ID: <1724@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 16:52:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1724
Posted: Tue Sep 17 16:52:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 04:24:04 EDT
References: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 211

>>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.

But you chose to make a special example/case out of science when that is not
the case at all.  Thus your points are erroneous in describing the apparent
"evils" of science.

>>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?).

By implication.  If you would tar science as the "root of all evil" (and not
the morals of those who use the facts obtained by science for "evil"), then
you are saying the above by implication.

> 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. 

Only different base assumptions (like those Hitler made about his racial
superiority owing to Darwinism) will result in different conclusions.  Thus,
the goal is to rid ourselves of those assumptions when attempting to reach
such conclusions.  Which is exactly what science is all about.

> 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.

Gee, what belief system actually encourages people not to think things
through, to "act on faith"?

>>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?

So, what you're saying is that the goal is to strive for being more pure,
more unbiased, in analysis, right?

> Your "maybes" in the previous quote may very well be true, but how do we know?

I think it very apparent that they are quite obviously true.  That is the only
resaonable explanation for reaching false conclusions:  using either faulty
logic or faulty assumptions.

> I guess I'm saying something similar to, "If there weren't people, there
> wouldn't be science".  Whaddaya think?

Fine.  So?  If there weren't people, there wouldn't be a society.  It's that
notion that leads me to the conclusion that people are more important than
the society itself as an entity.  But remember that all science does (when
done right) is to gather facts.

>>>>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.

A bogus question and a straw man, I would think.  I separate the two on a
daily basis.  Why can't you?  Surely I'm far from the only one who does so,
and far from the best at doing so.  (You "dare" me?)

>>>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.

Only because we are encouraged to behave in exactly the opposite manner.
It would be a lot less rare if religions and other pressures didn't promote
such shoddy thinking in their own interests.  (Don't think about these
things, you'll lose faith in god.)

> 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.

That's an unfounded myth if ever I heard one.  Lots of things in life are
difficult, but they get done nonetheless.  I find the notion that denying
bogus beliefs is to deny our "very selves" to be horrifying.  Sounds like
another notion promulgated by religion in a spate of self-interest.

> Very, very few of us are able to do that.

Wrong.  We are all able to do that.  We have been taught to do just the
opposite, unfortunately.

>>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?!

No.  Rigorousness implies documentable evidence and reproducible experiments.
I reiterate:  saying that "such rigor produces 'bad vibes' (ecch!) which
interfere with the success of the phenomena" to be a shoddy ridiculous
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.

> 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".

Where have I said anything about squelching religion?  On the contrary, I
seek to encourage real open discussion about the problems with the preconceived
notions of religious belief, in which I feel confident that religion will (as
it always has) come up short.  But that can only be determined by the course
of things.  Is seeking to prevent such a resurgence of oppression as I
described the same thing as "squelching religion"?  (Some would say "yes",
because they feel such oppression is the birthright of their religion.)

> 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!

Where?  In the minds of presumptive religionists?  I fail to see a difference
between what THEY are calling secular humanism and the skills of objective
reasoning, which you yourself have been quick to say "no one can achieve".
They certainly can achieve them, and draw whatever conclusions they like
thereafter about things (like religion).  Is it THIS that the religionists
fear?

>>>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?

Fictitious to whom?  Science represents a set of goals to be achieved in
analyzing things to acquire truth.  What is fictitious about that?

> 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!

And if those interpreters don't engage in bogus assumptions, then you have
no problem.  It seems you don't WANT "no problem".  Why?
-- 
Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in
Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr	


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com