Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!udel!princeton!notecnirp!fmm
From: fmm@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (F. Miller Maley)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: Science IS a religion.
Message-ID: <9298@princeton.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 14 Mar 88 21:07:55 GMT
References: <73600008@uiucdcsp> <73600010@uiucdcsp>
Sender: news@princeton.Princeton.EDU
Reply-To: fmm@notecnirp.UUCP (F. Miller Maley)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University
Lines: 63

In article <73600010@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>Some further thoughts on science couched as a reply to lindsay.
>...
>I think if more people
>had a better understanding of the scientific method then those ridiculous
>claims about what happened during the first millisecond of the universe's
>existence would receive the derision they deserve.  Surely such speculation
>is on as shaky a footing as Velikovsky's....

Not at all.  Velikovsky's "speculations" conflict with some of our most
basic scientific knowledge in a variety of disciplines.  See the appendix
of _Broca's Brain_ by Carl Sagan for a detailed, dispassionate analysis
of Velikovsky's ideas.  Cosmology, and in particular theories of the
early universe, proceed from a basis of well-tested science.  We *do*
have evidence with which to check these theories: the 3K background
radiation, isotope ratios, the distribution of matter in the universe,
etc.  Observational capabilities in these areas are improving steadily.

>Once we had Lowell claiming there were canals on Mars.  More recently
>I understand that the supernova has shot holes in theories of supernovas...

If you already know the answers, you're asking the wrong questions.

>But I object to more than just astrophysics.  For example,
>It is full speed ahead on the supercollider even though we are at a 
>point in time when superconducting magnet technology is likely to
>change rapidly.  

There are actually several good reasons.
1.  Strong electromagnets must withstand the enormous bursting forces
induced in their coils.  The new superconductors, being ceramics, are
brittle, and therefore ill-equipped to withstand these forces.
2.  The new high-temperature superconductors have a critical current
density that is still about 100 times too low for this application.
3.  A low temperature (liquid helium range) is highly desirable in
particle accelerators because it minimizes collisions between the
accelerated particles and stray gas molecules.  (The residual gas
in the beam path freezes out.)
4.  Magnets and cooling amount to only about 5% of the projected cost
of the SSC.

>The major problems of the last century are artificial ones; the proof
>is that our life expectancy is about the same as in primitive societies.

What?  It may be that the life expectancy of a healthy adult has not
increased much.  But because of the dramatic decline in infant and child
mortality, the life expectancy of a newborn is much greater in a modern
society than in a primitive one.

In any case, mortality is not the sole measure of health!  You might
also consider what modern medicine has done to alleviate physical
suffering.

>And if you think we have a quality of life up-side to all of this,
>then witness the suicide rate.

Ay, there's the rub.  It seems that human happiness is keyed as much
to expectations as to "standard of living".

Still, if you wish to return to a pre-scientific way of life,
I say go right ahead.
Miller Maley  609-987-2808 | ...!princeton!fmm | 3x10^5 km/sec. It's not just
Princeton Computer Science | fmm@princeton.edu | a good idea. It's the law.