Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!garys
From: garys@ecsvax.UUCP (Gary J. Smith MD)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: RE:  Weird Science (response)
Message-ID: <470@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 22:13:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.470
Posted: Sun Sep 22 22:13:50 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Sep-85 03:16:44 EDT
References: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> <1724@pyuxd.UUCP> <460@ecsvax.UUCP> <1753@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 112

>> = me, and > = Rich Rosen.  In preface to this exchange, I think it
wise to point out that although our perspectives may differ, Rich and
I are groping after the same thing--truth.  I just think it is harder
to come by than does he.

> > 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.

If you are accusing me of mysticism, then you'd best reread my
statement.  If you are accusing of me wishful thinking, then you
are indeed the master twister of words: I am trying to see science
for what it is--a tool, not a panacea offering us Objective Truth,
as you seem to believe.  You see, I think to enshrine and deify
science in the manner that you do is to lie and be involved in
fraud.  To recognize the subjectivity of science is not to toss
it out.  Quite the opposite--to recognize science's limitations makes
its use as a tool that much more meaningful, inasmuch as you don't
use a screwdriver to hammer nails, don't claim for science more
it is meant to do.  To do otherwise it to involve yourself in the
very wishful thinking you condemn in others.
  
> > 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.

Yes, Rich, let's DO get serious.  As I said above, I do not intend
to throw out science, nor do I intend to claim that it is the only
way to find out truth about the universe.  It is a very good way to
find truth about a good many things in the universe, but it is utterly
useless in many situations.  For example, questions of morality or
aesthetics generally cannot be solved by scientific method.  In the
19th century, theologians claimed their task to be that of science.
It turned out out to be a farce; one doesn't study God by the
scientific method.  Nor does it mean that God does not exist because
he cannot be "proven" by the scientific method.  A belief in God
has to stand or fall on different grounds.  All of this is to say
that to exaggerate the objectivity of science and to overclaim its
product is simple and outrageous wishful thinking.
  
> > 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.  

I said horrors committed IN THE NAME OF science can occur only
when just such a view of science as yours is in operation.  You
see, I don't think science creates horrors any more than you
do--I think that well-meaning people who bring their assumptions
and expectations with them to the laboratory can easily claim
outrageous things in the name of science UNLESS they make it a
point to admit and recognize that any work they do is colored by
their subjectivity.  In simple terms, I am talking about a simple
modesty.  I believe it was Bronowski in the Ascent of Man who
said, "Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error,
and is personal.  Science is a tribute to what we can know
although we are fallible.  In the end the words were said by
Oliver Cromwell: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think
it possible you may be mistaken.'"

Gary Smith, M.D.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com