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: <1753@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 17:30:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1753
Posted: Sat Sep 21 17:30:38 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 06:45:14 EDT
References: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> <1724@pyuxd.UUCP> <460@ecsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 66

> Rich, I find your rhetoric about science disturbing, if not dangerous.
> There is nothing more dangerous than a human's claim to knowing the
> "objective truth."  When you say that science is the objective and
> methodical search for facts, you are sadly ignoring the scientific
> method's limitations.  And I would argue that science is only useful
> when its limitations are kept firmly in mind.  [GARY SMITH]

The rhetoric I find disturbing AND dangerous is that of people like Michael
Ellis, who would shirk scientific study in favor of wishywashy mystical
wishful thinking to "get" a world model to his personal satisfaction
(i.e., "giving" him free will, ...)  The fact remains that the repeated
failure of people who criticize "science" to delineate what they find
wrong with science tells me that they are willing to discuss what "science"
is all about, that they have no desire to explain what they feel
the limitations of the method are, or (worse) they boldly proclaim their
own pet demarcation points as the point of limitation for the scientific
method, beyond which science CANNOT go.  (They'll post guards if necessary. :-)
You may not like science (or you may, it's hard to tell), but to suggest
substituting for it a set of methods that have repeatedly given us lies,
bogus assumptions, and frauds, seems unconscionable.

> I believe it was Charley who tried to convince you of the subjectivity
> of science.  Let me try my hand at it.  Put simply, the work of a
> scientist, no matter how honest and noble a scientist he is, in large
> part always reflects his preconceived notions and assumptions.  Why?
> The reason is that the questions a scientist asks govern the results
> of his work.  Asking questions is a very subjective activity; it
> always reflects what concerns the asker.  To the degree that some
> questions are asked and others are NOT asked, science is therefore
> subjective.  Add to that Heisenberg's insights, and science is no
> longer the objective and value-free endeavor that you want it to be.
> It seems highly dishonest to ever claim objectivity.  It is an
> impossibility.

Before QM became a popularized method of "debunking" science, determinism,
or whatever pet peeve one might have, the use of a word like "impossibility"
was condemned by the mysticalists and wishful thinkers:  "How dare you
claim that that is impossible?"  Nowadays, now that a bastardization of
Heisenberg is so popular among mysticalists and wishful thinkers as a means
of proving themselves right, it seems to be "O.K." to use the word.
When science is deemed to support them, it proves something they don't like
as "impossible".  But if science shows the flaws in a system of thinking
that makes the consequences of that system "impossible", the word is being
misused.  Let's get serious:  do you throw out a system that offers us
facts about the universe because you feel it can never be "objective" in
favor of a system that introduces so much more subjectivity and presumption
into the mix as to destroy any hope of acquiring knowledge from such a
system?  To do this is to bring us back to an age of know nothing wishywashy
mysticism.

> The horrors committed in the name of science always are founded on
> just such an assertion: "These are the facts--science proved them.
> This is the objective truth.  You cannot argue with us, for we have
> the Truth as Science has given it to us."

I'm getting sick of this obnoxious, manipulative lie.  "Horrors committed
in the name of science"?  On the contrary, my friend, these horrors all
came from adding in their own bogus presumptions together with the facts.
"Hmmm, Darwinism talks about survival of the fittest.  Obviously my Aryan
race is superior and more fit than those Jews, who cause all our problems.
(An example of a proven scientific fact that introduced a "horror of science"?)
The obvious thing to do is to purify the Aryan race and get rid of the Jews!"
Let's get serious, really.  
-- 
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com