Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <331@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 21:54:36 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.331
Posted: Sat Mar 29 21:54:36 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 01:00:13 EST
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4835 net.sci:683


>Barry, you seem to have a poor understanding of the scientific world view.
>It has nothing to say about ethics or religion or humanism in general, but
>it can help clarify what ethics etc. talk about, and prevent such from
>making egregrious claims.  The fact that some scientists have the same
>poor understanding you do is no reason to foist it on all scientists.
>
>ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

Except when it does...(psychology, psychiatry, sociology, when science
becomes a religion [I believe it qualifies as a religion, perhaps one
of the few useful ones, but a religion just the same], when it decides
*what* is worth researching and hence funding, what is worth publishing
etc etc.)

I think the distinction here is that you speak of how you -wish-
science would behave, while perhaps I am speaking about how it -does-
behave.  This often causes these sharp disagreements. (also, don't you
think you worded this a tad contentiously? Perhaps contempt prior to
investigation? :-)

	-Barry Shein, Boston University