Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Weird Science (Attack) Message-ID: <558@spar.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 14:39:06 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.558 Posted: Tue Oct 1 14:39:06 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:35:20 EDT References: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> <1724@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 225 Keywords: nuke, world, boom >> Quite true, and I have no objections. The subject was science, so that's >> what I'm confining my comments to. >But you chose to make a special example/case out of science when that is not >the case at all. Thus your points are erroneous in describing the apparent >"evils" of science. The argument is simple. If there were no religion, we could still blow up the world. If there were no politics, we could still blow up the world. If there were no prejudice, we could still blow up the world. ... But if there were no devastating technology (which exponentially increases the potential for destruction of each and every person or hate-group on this planet), we could never blow up anything at all! Besides, my fear is less for ourselves (who gives a damn?); rather, we will probably take many, and, given enough development, all forms of life with us. Only humans care who or what is to blame, and that is totally irrelevant to the innocent bystanders on this planet, our cousins -- the plants and animals. >>>Are you asking us to stop looking for facts because someone might use >>> them for evil? >> Heavens no (where'd I say that?). >By implication. If you would tar science as the "root of all evil" (and not >the morals of those who use the facts obtained by science for "evil"), then >you are saying the above by implication. Objectively speaking, the `moral purpose' is a meaningless subjective illusion. The only real causes are the material and efficient ones, the physical mechanisms which cause an action -- the technology of destruction. Now if we could produce economical weapons that efficiently destroyed only humans, we might minimize the evil... >> My point is, the same set of facts can "prove" several different things, >> depending on who's interpreting them. Thus, BE CAUTIOUS! That's all. >Only different base assumptions (like those Hitler made about his racial >superiority owing to Darwinism) will result in different conclusions. Thus, >the goal is to rid ourselves of those assumptions when attempting to reach >such conclusions. Which is exactly what science is all about. The explosive proliferation of contradictory scientific theories about reality shows no sign of diminishing. Consequently, differing conclusions are symptoms of science's health. Recall the unhealthy intolerance of medieval scholasticism to `heresy'. >> Because science has the general reputation of "being true", a mistake made >> by the scientific community will be bought by all of us who don't exercise >> caution, or think things through. > >Gee, what belief system actually encourages people not to think things >through, to "act on faith"? Gee whiz, why should I believe in empirical induction? Empirical induction worked on occasion A. Empirical induction worked on occasion B. Empirical induction worked on occasion C. ... Consequently, empirical induction is empirically verified? Oh yes, I see. The proof is internal to the system.... >> I mean, does pure "science", the thing that just gathers >> unbiased, untainted facts and presents them, really exist? Or, because >> science is actually a discipline practiced by people like you and me, is >> it something less pure, less unbiased, than this? >So, what you're saying is that the goal is to strive for being more pure, >more unbiased, in analysis, right? Science WOULD be more unbiased if its advocates stopped attacking those systems that do not really conflict. >> I guess I'm saying something similar to, "If there weren't people, there >> wouldn't be science". Whaddaya think? >Fine. So? If there weren't people, there wouldn't be a society. It's that >notion that leads me to the conclusion that people are more important than >the society itself as an entity. But remember that all science does (when >done right) is to gather facts. Correction -- only the `facts' about physical phenomena, distorted by experimental error of technology, interpreted according to the faulty descriptions in existence at the time. No intelligent person is disputing science's authority to that extent. The problem is that the reality of humans is by necessity self-created. Is it wrong to kill animals? What do `harm' and `freedom from interference' mean? Do `God' and `mind' exist? Should developing nations discard all customs and heritage, even those that lack scientific justification but do not otherwise conflict with science? To the extent that people's preconceived notions flatly contradict science, such mores will probably yield to pragmatic considerations. All other preconceptions are true in proportion to people's life within them and false to the extent that they conflict with other human created realities. Like a non-interference principle of truth, I suppose. >>>The interpreters of ANY facts who use their own prejudices to "justify" >>>things. So which do we throw out? The scientific method that gets us >>>the facts? Or the prejudices and subjectivist thinking that leads to >>>erroneous conclusions based on facts? >> I dare you to separate the two, Rich. How many truly unbiased scientists >> do we have today? A monumental task, I think. >A bogus question and a straw man, I would think. I separate the two on a >daily basis. Why can't you? Surely I'm far from the only one who does so, >and far from the best at doing so. (You "dare" me?) Note too that your conclusions often differ substantially from those of the scientific community. One's opinions ARE largely shaped by one's exposure to ideas -- and powerful new theories are appearing faster than anyone can reasonably hope to understand, thus subjectivity is enforced by an ignorance due to science's astonishing fertility. >It would be a lot less rare if religions and other pressures didn't promote >such shoddy thinking in their own interests. (Don't think about these >things, you'll lose faith in god.) It is the nature of all institutions, science included, to `pressure' nonbelievers to its cause. >>It is extremely difficult for human beings to throw out ALL preconceived >>notions and the like, and evaluate facts based on just those facts. In fact, >>since we are raised to believe certain things, denying those things for the >>purpose of unbiased analysis would be much akin to denying our very selves. >That's an unfounded myth if ever I heard one. Lots of things in life are >difficult, but they get done nonetheless. I find the notion that denying >bogus beliefs is to deny our "very selves" to be horrifying. Sounds like >another notion promulgated by religion in a spate of self-interest. Unfounded myth? Interpreting evidence the central problem in philosophy of science. I urge you to read any modern thought in this area -- Lakatos, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend. Not to mention classics like Hume, who first held that science cannot justified by pure reason. Science does not start with stark observation. Its evidence is by necessity seen under the subjective light of some established theory. And who said anything about `bogus beliefs'? Even BF Skinner insists that we ARE shaped by the values, beliefs, etc.. that to make us into what we are. Unfortunately for Skinnerism, there is no rational justification for science either -- it produces `scientific' results no better than religion produces `religious' ones. Clearly we should be free of institutional brainwashing that might impose ideologically petrified beliefs (scientific or otherwise) on us. The point is that all non-contradictory systems that complement each other and encourage fertile cultural plurality should be tolerated -- even cherished.. >> Very, very few of us are able to do that. >Wrong. We are all able to do that. We have been taught to do just the >opposite, unfortunately. Yes, society does shove the methodological constraints of favored forms of knowledge into our so-called `minds'. >> Who's more guilty? Sure, there are lots of loudly-voiced issues in today's >> world, but technological advances are mainly responsible for them seeming >> any bigger than they were before. These same arguments were going on in >> the past. Yes, there is a big campaign against secular humanism, but if >> you'll look on the other side of the coin, there is an equal (or bigger) >> campaign in favor of it! >Where? In the minds of presumptive religionists? I fail to see a difference >between what THEY are calling secular humanism and the skills of objective >reasoning, which you yourself have been quick to say "no one can achieve". >They certainly can achieve them, and draw whatever conclusions they like >thereafter about things (like religion). Is it THIS that the religionists >fear? I cannot speak for the secular humanists -- though I do find myself in strong agreement with most flavors of `humanism' I have encountered to date -- Chinese humanism (`jen') in particular. And who is being presumptive here -- religion or science? Enlightened religions do not tell science what to do with its precious material world. Note that the wisest mystics invariably speak on non-material concerns. Admittedly, those religions that have not successfully extricated themselves from physical controversy have much to fear from science. >> When the explanation hits WHOSE fan, Rich? Who decides? This fictitious >> thing called "science" which seeks only truth? >Fictitious to whom? Science represents a set of goals to be achieved in >analyzing things to acquire truth. What is fictitious about that? Even if rigidly logical machines performed all scientific analysis, the results would still be subjective. There is no absolute determiner of reality. If neither humans nor machines can decide what is real, why should we see the world we must live in thru the mechanical eyes? >> I can't believe it really exists, because SOMEBODY has to run the fan. >> Facts don't decide anything until they're interpreted. BAM!! We've >> run into those interpreters again! > >And if those interpreters don't engage in bogus assumptions, then you have >no problem. It seems you don't WANT "no problem". Why? All empirical assumptions are subjective bogosities. "Free society from the strangling hold of an ideologically petrified science, just as our ancestors freed us from the strangling hold of the One True Religion!" -- Paul Feyerabend -michael Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com