Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: RE:  Weird Science (response)
Message-ID: <27500124@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 03:24:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.27500124
Posted: Thu Sep 19 03:24:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 15:57:06 EDT
References: <2250346@hpfcms.UUCP>
Lines: 41
Nf-ID: #R:hpfcms:-225034604:ISM780B:27500124:000:2530
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Sep 19 03:24:00 1985


>>> 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, you are not alone in thinking that science (the application of the
scientific method) is fictitious, even among technical folk.  But the
scientific method is very deep; it has the peculiar property of *being able
to predict things which actually happen*.  It produces useful results, unlike
religion, astrology, or Von Daniken.  The evidence is all around you.  There
is a satirical publication called "The Journal of Irreproducible Results".
It is such a joke because the whole basis of the scientific method is the
reproducibility of results.  Those things which are accepted scientifically
are those for which there is little or no controversy among those who apply
logic and analysis.  "WHOSE fan" is *anyone's* fan.  If you can demonstrate a
flaw in a scientific claim in a way that others can reproduce, your
demonstration will be accepted.  The secret of the scientific method is its
"democracy".  You cannot just *proclaim* things; they must be able to stand
the test.  Scientists reject the parapsychological claims of
pseudo-scientists like Thelma Moss because the results are not reproducible
under controlled conditions by unbiased observers.  If the current human
scientific community is so politically warped as to reject objectivity
en masse, as with phrenology or Lysenkoism, it still must stand to the
criticism of future generations.  Scientific discovery and advance is nearly
monotonic; no such claim can be made for any religion.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com