Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science: from specialization to incompetence
Message-ID: <1823@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 08:15:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1823
Posted: Sat Oct 12 08:15:38 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 04:43:32 EDT
References: <583@spar.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 65

In article <583@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes:

>>Furthermore, when you ask about whether you or George Washington or Genghis
>>Khan sneezed on a certain date, you are suggesting the possibility of an
>>extremely probable known quantity: human beings do sneeze.  

>    Scientifically, however, nothing exists without evidence. 

Taking this statement as it stands leads to a lot of silly statements.  If
"nothing exists without evidence", then the fact that there is no evidence
for GW sneezing on a particular date leads us inexorably to the conclusion
that he did NOT sneeze on that date.  THis of course is equally unjustified.
There is also the strong suggestion that the sun did not start to fuse
hydrogen  until Einstein invented G. Relativity.  So it's more correct to
say:

    Scientifically, no claim can be made without evidence.


However, I generally agree with the following passage:

>   Today we see a proliferation of methodologies, all in terms of what was
>   known before, and many producing conflicting theories about "What Is".
>   The newer methods sometimes incorporate subjective notions {perception,
>   cognition, intentionality}. Scientific pluralism is hardly a `bad'
>   thing, of course, unless one wishes that there be one single truth, one
>   firm answer to every question. 

>   Now, what are we to assume when a scientist insists that X does not exist?
>
>   (1) X is a useless concept within that scientist's discipline?
>   (2) X really and truly DOES NOT EXIST?
>
>   Certain behaviorist scientists have attained such levels of incompetence
>   that they are unable to avoid misunderstandings due to (2) above.
>
>   It is one thing to make a daring assumption (the nonexistence of `mind'
>   or `free will') as a methodological constraint. It is quite another
>   to forget ever having made the assumption in the first place. 
>   
>   I recently encountered the height of unscientific arrogance in the
>   quotes below from B.F. Skinner:
>
>       It may seem inconsistent to ask the reader to "keep a point in
>	mind" when he has been told that the mind is an explanatory
>	fiction, or to "consider the idea of freedom" if an idea is
>	simply an explanatory fiction...
>
>       Decisions about the uses of science seem to demand a kind of wisdom
>	which, for some curious reason, scientists are denied. If they are
>	to make value judgements at all, it is only with the wisdom they
>	share with people in general. It would be a mistake for the
>	behavioral scientist to agree... 
>	
>	Who is to decide what is good for man? How will a more effective
>	technology be used? By whom and for what end? These are really
>	questions about reinforcers.
>
>   `Mind' does not exist. Value judgements are REALLY questions
>   about reinforcers. It's the world, not the specialists, who are 
>   mistaken. The specialists will set everything right! 

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

"I say this because I want to be prime minister of Canada someday." - M. Fox