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: Jim Balter's article on scientific method (recommended)
Message-ID: <1810@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 02:22:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1810
Posted: Sun Sep 29 02:22:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:16:15 EDT
References: <2250346@hpfcms.UUCP> <27500128@ISM780B.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 59

Below I have excerpted what I feel are some of the highlights of an
excellent article by Jim Balter (the complete article may be reached via
the parent article command if your newsreader program has one----it is
<27500128@ISM780B.UUCP>.)   It sheds more light than anything I have read
in this forum over the last six months.

> The questions asked govern which results are obtained, but not the validity of
> the results themselves.  Scientists of course only obtain a subset of the
> truth, and which subset is determined is largely a matter of current politics.
> But scientific method properly applied should lead to assertions with high
> likelihood of truth.  Unfortunately, outside of the physical sciences, and
> especially outside the physical and biological sciences, the situations are
> incredibly complex, making the isolation of variables and the unambiguous
> reproducibility of results very difficult.  And, the ability to demonstrate
> that the predictions of a model are verified in reality, which lies at the
> very heart of the validity of science, is difficult to come by, and the
> recognition of its necessity is very weak.  Thus, e.g., psychological,
> sociological, and economic theories live based more on popularity and their
> appeal to "common sense" than on their verifiability.  Thus, there is a lot of
> stuff called science that is bad science, but that fact should not be used to
> undermine the power of the scientific method itself.

> This reflects a very common misconception of
> "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"; it probably wouldn't be such a problem
> if it were more correctly referred to as "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Rule",
> for it is a specific statement about the interrelation of specific physical
> attributes, not some sort of general principle about the subjectiveness
> of the universe.

> But this new-wave mystic interpretation of science comes from deep naivety
> of the physics it is based on; folks like Frijof Capra are not helping us
> along the road to understanding.

> The important thing to remember is that facts come from science,
> not scientists.  That someone is seeking facts about the universe via science
> does not affect the validity of any judgement or use of those facts by that
> person.  At the same time, vileness comes from people, not facts.  The reality
> of a statement is not determined by the uses to which it is put.

> Historically, I believe, the restriction of knowledge and fact,
> the intentional maintenance of ignorance in others, has been the most potent
> tool of destructiveness to humans and the human spirit.  One form such
> manipulation of ignorance is taking today is the channeling of all educational
> funds into the "hard" sciences (but omitting discussion of evolution);
> important areas being ignored are rhetoric, history, and comparative politics,
> since these lead one to think critically and to challenge the authority of the
> maintainers of the status quo.  Those who uncritically push the notion of more
> "scientific" education should carefully consider the wisdom of providing
> intellectual tools that can be used to build the mechanisms of war without at
> the same time providing the tools required for understanding and changing
> human social institutions.
> 
> -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
-- 
"I was walking down the street.  A man came up to me and asked me what was the
 capital of Bolivia.  I hesitated.  Three sailors jumped me.  The next thing I
 knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute.  Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
 La Paz."				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com