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: <507@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 22:16:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.507
Posted: Sun Sep 29 22:16:46 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 03:32:32 EDT
References: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> <1724@pyuxd.UUCP> <460@ecsvax.UUCP> <1753@pyuxd.UUCP> <470@ecsvax.UUCP> <1774@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 103




>> I am trying to see science for what it is--a tool, not a panacea offering us
>> Objective Truth, as you seem to believe. [me]

>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". [Rich Rosen]

The only reason I would accuse you of deifying science (perhaps
'worshiping' science would be more accurate), is that your position
assumes there is some sort of pure science that obtains pure facts on
which pure knowledge can be founded.  This seems to ignore everything
we know about the relativity and personal character of knowledge.  We
are both beginning to repeat ourselves now, but again--our personal
assumptions and prior experience always color our knowledge and our
observations.  Our activities don't take place in an objective vacuum;
they take place within history.  Science is done within the same
history and relativistic world, and its method cannot transcend
relativism in order to reach some objective truth.

>> 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.

OK, sure.  Can science definitively tell me why J.S. Bach's keyboard
music is more advanced and important than Buxtehude's keyboard music?
(I can think of no musicologist that wouldn't accept that assessment)
Can science do anything to help me understand the meaning and
inspiration of a Picasso sculpture?  Is science useful in the
interpretation of a novel by William Faulkner?  There are realms of
knowledge that can't really be adequately assessed by the scientific
method, which, when you get down to brass tacks, is simply interested
in finding repeatable results of designed experimentations.  As you
see below, I think theology is another worthwhile academic endeavor where
science is not particularly useful.  But I understand a good number of
people deny the existence of God, so my argument in that area would be
less than convincing.  If you don't believe in God, then my argument
that theology is outside the realm of science hardly matters, does it?

>> 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?

Whether I need it to be applicable or not is not really the question,
is it?  I wouldn't use a jello mold to hammer nails into a board--I
would use a hammer.  If I want to determine the chemical makeup of an
unknown substance, I would no doubt use the scientific method.  If I
want to understand some complex emotional or intellectual idea, I might
study poetry.  If I want to express my understanding of God, I would no
doubt appeal to some kind of personal experience.  There are countless
kinds of knowledge that are meaningful and real that do not fit easily
into the scientific method of demonstrating repeatable results.  To
say that knowledge is only valid when it stands the test of the
scientific method is to severely limit your universe--indeed it would
erase much of what is beautiful and good in the world.

>> 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?

This is the whole crux of our disagreement, Rich -- it IS science, and
its usefulness as a tool in understanding the universe hinges on our
accepting its fallability and its limitations. 


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com