Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <12817@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 31-Mar-86 16:36:43 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12817
Posted: Mon Mar 31 16:36:43 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 08:04:23 EST
References: <331@bu-cs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 36
Xref: linus net.philosophy:4493 net.sci:397

In article <331@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes:
>>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.
>
>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.)

Ah!  Now we're getting to where we disagree.  The examples you list are
not really sciences yet in my book.  They do good work and bad work, just
like the hard sciences, but some of their bad work has a tendency to get
political backing at the wrong time.

Considering the earlier discussion had been mostly about the contempt hard
science offers against the claims offered for the paranormal, I think my
misunderstanding of your views was natural.  But now I no longer know what
your views are.

>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.

Regarding the hard sciences, I think I'm speaking for how they do behave.

>                                                      (also, don't you
>think you worded this a tad contentiously? Perhaps contempt prior to
>investigation? :-)

Yes, I was definitely contentious.  Contempt?  Perhaps.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720