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: <1799@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 11:07:42 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1799 Posted: Sat Sep 28 11:07:42 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:04:42 EDT References: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> <1724@pyuxd.UUCP> <460@ecsvax.UUCP> <1753@pyuxd.UUCP> <540@spar.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 190 > As a strict determinist in my early days, I only came to my present > conclusions AFTER the study of evidence that you clearly must ignore > in order to uphold your wishful opinion. It seems more likely from the way you speak that you came to certain conclusions first and then scarfed up any random data that seemed to support your conclusions to use as "axioms" to "prove" your conclusion. > However, your future submissions are warmly encouraged, as you > invariably underscore my points by your personal example. I think it works out quite the opposite to what you "wishthink" (now an accpeted form of thinking in the brave new world of Ellisist "science"): I think, for example, that the extracts from the works of various philosophers showed that indeed I have been right on the money regarding the definition of free will, and that your philosopher friends attested to that, by either agreeing that that notion represents free will, or by doing what some here are guilty of, building new systems of axioms at random in order to still keep that very same notion of free will "valid". In fact, you have thoroughly discouraged me (coldly) from writing on this topic henceforth, since it is clear you are out to "get" your conclusion at all costs, even if it means defaming me, labelling me in assorted fashions for purposes unknown. >>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?" > Then how can we avoid the intrinsic problem that humans interpret > empirical evidence? If we deny this subjective bottleneck, we will > forever be vulnerable to the hubris that derives from our essential > human nature. Simply by being as objective as possible, by verifying as much as possible independently. Furthermore, you purposely seem to avoid answering the question at hand: why was it "wrong" to say "it's impossible" to debunk mysticalist events, BUT (now that you think Qm is "on your side"), use of the word "impossible" is OK? > Anyway, I have only offered arguments from QM to support the notions > below: > > (1) Deterministic arguments can no longer be used as a convincing > scientific argument against spontaneous behavior (what you > call `free will'). What *I* call "free will"? On the contrary, Ellis, my argument has persistently been that "spontaneity" (as [apparently] caused by quantum phenomena) is certainly NOT free will. You see, free will involves choice, the making of a decision. And "choose" means "to select freely and after consideration". Claiming that quantum events represent choice is equivalent to claiming that a banana peel on the floor induces you to "choose" to fall down. > (2) QM supports the contention that empirical evidence implies > limits to scientific knowledge (should future advances > change this, I will gladly accept change my mind). Seems unlikely, given your intransigence, and they way you work backwards from a desired conclusion. > If anyone here is discrediting science, it is fools like you... It's a good thing this has been a discussion involving solid criticism of opinions, methods, and points of view on a rational basis rather than a flurry of namecalling directed at anyone who would tear down a holy conclusion. > ... pretend to be supporters of science. The truth is you are as > compulsively anti-science as any anti-evolutionist. Anti-Ellisist = anti-science???? >>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. > Apparently, to you a `mysticalist' is anyone who does not accept > your astoundingly small minded concepts about philosophy and science. No, a mysticalist is one who has desired conclusions about the world based on sets of wishful beliefs (no evidence, of course), who works backwards from those conclusions, scarfing up random data that "supports" the conclusion, ignoring other data, interpreting "accepted" data in such a way as to make the conclusion "obvious". Of course, if it enhances your position with other mysticalists to claim that the above definition is the one I use, go ahead. It's apparent that factuality long ago became irrelevant to your arguments. > Furthermore Heisenberg seems to represent the limits of your knowledge > of QM. What about Bohr, Von Neumann, Bohm, Bell, etc? You don't seem to have said too much more about it yourself. If you're so knowledgeable, why not explain in detail (rather than saying "Dr. Frammis said this, therefore...") what major points are being missed here? I wonder if you are able to, given the wat your data-scarfing process seems to work. >>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. > Only someone who is ignorant of the scientific facts would say such a > thing. This statement "proves" that I am ignorant. Thank you. I'll now defer in silence to the all-knowing Ellis who has so eloquently (time and again) "proven" me ignorant. > In what way have your opponents `thrown out' science? At worst, > you are fighting against efforts to understand and unify the wisdom > acquired by generations of human experience. It is only YOU who wish to > discredit the philosophical heritage of this planet, except for that > which agrees with obsolete 19th century determinism. Given some of what you've shown of this "heritage" (i.e., that which of course supports your random point of view at the time), it sounds like a good deal of it should be thrown out. Of course, you would keep anything that supports a conclusion you like, as that is an important part of the new Ellisist scientific method. > The modern indeterminism you abhor does not simply say "we cannot > know, so we'll let the mystics decide". Yet that is what you are doing. That is what is being offered. "We don't know, therefore those mysticalists/religionists must be right! Let's write a book called "The Yin/Yang of Quark/Quantum", and "prove" the connection by using the new Ellisist scientific method. (I guess we can't pin your name on it: others used it long before you.) > Your error is that you assume that science must, at all costs, destroy > the ancient nonscientific systems, and therefore you refuse to > accept advances in science that do not clearly serve your dogmatic and > destructive aims. No, I "assume" that interpretations of science that work backwards from conclusions like those you describe as "ancient" in order to "get" to them in a backassed way. > You would rather reject powerful theories if they do not serve your > hateful partisan purposes. Is that search for truth? I hardly think the words "search for truth" applies to the Ellisist method, because of the reasons I give above and because you feel the need to engage in name-calling repeatedly ("hateful", "fool", the list goes on...). > Are we to admit that we live in an illusion, that the truth is > hidden and that it must be discovered by special means? Or should > we not rather assert the reality of our common views over the > reality of some specialist conceptions? Must we adapt our lives to > the ideas and rules devised by small groups of intellectuals > (physicians, medical researchers, socio-biologists, `rationalists' > of all sorts) or should we not rather demand that intellectuals > be mindful of circumstances that matter to fellow human beings? > > Can we regard our lives on this earth and the ideas we have > developed to cope with the accidents we encounter as measures of > reality, or are they of only secondary importance when compared to > with the conditions of the soul as described in religious beliefs? > These are the questions that arise when we compare commonsense > with religious notions or with abstract ideas that intellectuals > have tried to put over on us ever since the so-called rise of > rationalism in the West... We decide to regard those things as real > which play an important part in the kind of life we prefer. > > - Paul Feyerabend, "Realism, Rationalism & Scientific Method" Strikes me as one of the most (typically) contorted statements I've heard in a while. "Who cares what people who seriously examine things say? We 'common people' believe in certain things, and that's what counts. So what if the evidence contradicts this? How dare they do that? Let's 'make' them describe the world in ways that are meaningful to us, regardless of how flimsy our beliefs may be!" I am sure this will cause you to writhe in anger that I have once again disagreed with one of your beliefs. Fine. Then don't bother responding. It's obvious you choose this position, and will let nothing stand in the way of your continuing to believe it. It is too important to you. The conclusions come first. Since this is an axiom of yours, there is no point in debating further. "Guilty! Read the charges!" This applies (apparently) not only to your beliefs, but to your criticisms of me. I'm not willing to be a "defendant" in your kangaroo court any longer. "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first--verdict afterwards." -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com