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: <1774@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 13:31:21 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1774 Posted: Tue Sep 24 13:31:21 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 26-Sep-85 06:43:39 EDT References: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> <1724@pyuxd.UUCP> <460@ecsvax.UUCP> <1753@pyuxd.UUCP> <470@ecsvax.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 137 >>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: [GARY SMITH] A good look at what I said would show that I wasn't accusing *you* of anything. Perhaps NOW I might be justified in accusing you of wishful thinking in that you "wished" I was accusing you of things, but I don't think that's important. > I am trying to see science for what it is--a tool, not a panacea offering us > Objective Truth, as you seem to believe. Hmm, you WERE just referring to ME as the "master twister of words", weren't you? You're absolutely right, scientific reason is a tool for acquiring knowledge, just as subjective opinion and working backwards from conclusions might be thought of as tools. I feel that, while science is an appropriate tool for such an activity (as a screwdriver might be for inserting/removing screws), the other methods are not (much as a jello mold would not be useful for screw manipulation). I have gone into the reasons why I believe this is so (the way in which scientific method attempts to verify and rigorously ensure realiability of data as contrasted with simple utterance of opinions, altering axioms to make that opinion a viable conclusion, and saying "that's that"), but in doing so I am met with attacks that claim I am "deifying science" or "being closedminded". > You see, I think to enshrine and deify science in the manner that you do is > to lie and be involved in fraud. ^ e.g., --------| > 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 am interested in hearing what things you feel science is not "meant to do" and why. I think you are speculating on the limits and defining them without having encountered them. >>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. That sounds an awful lot like an assumption without backing to me. Can you explicitly elaborate on why that might be? I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I've just never heard a satisfactory explanation of the reasons behind this other than "it's obvious". > 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. I find this set of statements to be erroneous. Because to claim exemption from verifiability for a particular set of beliefs about the real world (not personal tastes and such which are internalized---"I like this and not this") strikes me as the very thing you claim not to be doing: throwing out science. You (hypothetical you) may not like particular conclusions, and you may prefer certain other ones. Because of this, do you thus go back and alter the axioms to make the conclusion fit? Accept poorly documented evidence as fact because it helps to reach the conclusion? Or (worst of all?) just claim that this method "isn't applicable" in this case because you say so? Because you NEED it not to be "applicable" for this case in order to preserve a conclusion that you like? >>> 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. >>(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!" > 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. Then that's not science. So what are you arguing about? ***************** >>> 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. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com