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: Weird Science (Attack?) Message-ID: <1837@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 20:08:39 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1837 Posted: Wed Oct 2 20:08:39 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 07:08:37 EDT References: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> <1724@pyuxd.UUCP> <558@spar.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 215 Keywords: nuke, world, boom >>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! [ELLIS] But if there were none of the "evil" things you mention that lead to discord and violence, WOULD we blow up the world? Your cart is before your horse again. It's like saying if you never eat you'll never get fat, so you shouldn't eat. The argument is simple, yes. Simple in the sense that it ignores the facts of the matter, and thus is simple-minded. Science describes facts, they are made use of in an evil (or good) way based on the presence of the types of things you mentioned. >>>>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. You have warped cause and effect massively here. Does being an "acausalist" prevent you from thinking about how and why those physical mechanisms of destruction come to be? You propose a strange cure: get rid of science and technological knowledge because they provide the means for evil people to engage in evil on a more massive scale, rather than getting rid of the sources of the evil, the presumptive holierthanthou selfrighteousness of religious and political movements which base their "tenets" on presumptions. Doing, in fact, what you do when you describe your models of the universe. Do you now understand why that is a dangerous notion? >>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'. And those differences come from differing presumptions. >>> 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? Because it models the world in a valid fashion, because it produces valid results, consistently. > Empirical induction worked on occasion A. > Empirical induction worked on occasion B. > Empirical induction worked on occasion C. > ... > Consequently, empirical induction is empirically verified? Induction is based on minimal self-evident axioms. > Oh yes, I see. The proof is internal to the system.... Which is a representation of reality, that has continually been shown to be accurate. >>> 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. You mean like Nazism? Sure, science doesn't conflict with Nazism in any way, Hitler and his cronies just make some additional assumptions about the subhuman nature of some people and the superiority of themselves, based on nothing but wishful thinking. So we have no grounds, by your reasoning, to quarrel with Nazism, I mean, the Nazis work backwards from conclusions just like you, their system of beliefs MUST be equally valid. > Correction -- only the `facts' about physical phenomena, distorted by > experimental error of technology, interpreted according to the faulty > descriptions in existence at the time. Gradually asymptotically approaching a most accurate model with each advance, as opposed to the "wishful" methods of reasoning. > 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? Why developing nations only? Isn't that ethnocentric? What about your own? > 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. What are these "human-created realities"? Are they just words and terms and customs we apply to existing situations, or do we really go out and alter the physical reality that's out there? > 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. And by diffusing assumptions behind such perspectives, you reach the answer. >>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. Funny, I've never heard of the Scientific Inquisition? (NOOOOOOOOObody expects...) The fact remains that the institutions that cannot sway by hard proof of what they say must build idea and belief systems that perpetuate themselves. (e.g., Christianity's tenet of the importance of spreading the word) Science needs no suasive technique other than its veracity and accuracy. >>>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. It is an unfounded myth, perpetuated by belief systems that require that you keep certain preconceptions around without justification. You can rid yourself of such presumptions despite this propaganda to the contrary. > 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. You just gave a very good reason why bogus beliefs and values that have no solid substantiation should be eliminated by life influences: they make us what we are, as you are, and the more bogus and presumptive, the more prejudiced and blinded we become. > 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.. Like Nazism? What's the basis for throwing out something like Nazism? Non-contradictory to WHAT? To the facts, Michael, to the facts. If you can accept one "non-contradictory" (but non-substantive) system, why not Nazism? >>> 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'. On the contrary, unfortunately, people are NOT taught in schools how to think things through. This is what I described in detail before as "encouraging thinking with the right side of the brain before the use of the left has been taught, often leaving that side behind". If I didn't know better, and if I was into oddball conspiracy theory, I might be tempted to consider the effort to emphasize so-called "right brain" thinking to the exclusion of logical thought to be a Communist plot to make our children mentally helpless. It almost seems plausible. > 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. Fear? You make it sound (very manipulatively) like science is out to "get" them? The only thing they need fear is that serious investigation might show holes in the beliefs. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com