Xref: utzoo sci.misc:957 talk.philosophy.misc:910
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pacbell!att-ih!ihnp4!ihlpe!res
From: res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Where do you find the future? (was Re: Omni-Americans)
Message-ID: <2762@ihlpe.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Mar 88 23:58:07 GMT
References: <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM> <2724@ihlpe.ATT.COM> <2885@sfsup.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 97
Summary: Pseudoscience vs. Continuing Scientific Investigation

In article <2885@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes:
(in a very well stated posting)
| In article <2724@ihlpe.ATT.COM> res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes:
| |As to the futurism aspect, I feel that the future will NOT be based on the
| |wishful thinking embodied in the pseudosciences (telepathic communications,
| |the world saved by noble UFO pilots, ones future foretold by ones birthdate,
| |etc.).  Rather, the future depends on applying our knowledge to the problems
| |at hand with undiluted vigor.
| 
| While I agree that the future will not be based on wishfull thinking, I
| would be careful about automatically labelling everything that does not
| fit into the conventional model pseudoscience.

I agree.  There are various levels of acceptance of scientific
theories.  The case of the plate tectonics theory leaps to mind as a
non-conventional theory at the time it was devised which later became
part of the conventional view.

| Just like last time, the "clasical" theory is very powerful and compelling
| but there are a couple of pieces of evidence that could unravel the whole
| thing, start a whole new ball game.  Einstien disliked the uncertainty
| priciple so much that he kept trying to push it to the limits of absurdity.
| The amazing thing is that the results just kept getting more absurd,
| rather than finding anything inconsistent with quantum mechanics.
| 
| I'm not a physicist, so I can't adaquatly bring these arguments to their
| conclusion but consider:
| 
| The ERP paradox (Einstien, etc. I don't remember the other names, but
| 	it is the one about two particles originating from the same
| 	original particle, so they are constrained to have opposite
| 	spins, and therefore measuring one means the other must
| 	instantaniously have the correct spin.)
| 
| Bell's inequality, which implies:
| 	Quantum mechanics fails
| and/or	Objectivity fails
| and/or	Locality fails
| 
| Any one of these failing may mean the world is a lot stranger than
| originally thought.  There are holes that can cover almost any of
| the popular pseudosciences.  This is not proof, but it opens the
| door, and real experiments will eventually tell us something about
| what is going on.

I agree with you that, as we learn more of the makeup of the universe,
we learn how strange it really is.  This is the normal pursuit of
science, seeking explanations for the as-yet-unexplained.

| What is my point?  Only that a lot of what gets passed off as science
| is nothing but conventional dogma.  

No.  What is passed off as science is the "currently accepted" view of
the universe, as derived from theory and experiment, and filtered
through human frailty.  It is very hard for me to accept the word
"dogma" applied to science.  To me dogma implies belief despite
contrary evidence.  While an individual scientist may be dogmatic in
believing his/her own pet theory, Science as a whole tends to move in
the directions indicated by evidence.  This is NOT to say that the
movement is rapid, or that Truth is accepted as self evident.  Rather,
it just says that the weight of evidence will eventually overwhelm
resistance.

| When Timothy Leary was experimenting ...

I am not very knowledgeable about Leary's work, so I cannot comment on
it in clear conscience, but I can, perhaps, present a different view of
some of the conclusions you reach.

| ... According to the standard model, his experiments should have
| been repeated and either verified, or refuted.

Agreed.  I do not know if anyone did try to do so.

| Instead conventional
| wisdom says these drugs are dangerous, and cannot be used by anyone,
| not even a scientific investigator,

I am not sure that that is true.  I have seen a number of articles
dealing with legitimate research into very potent drugs (hallucinogens,
barbiturates, etc.) for the treatment of a number of disorders.  It IS
recognized by the researchers that the drugs are dangerous and must be
handled carefully.  It IS NOT the view that NO-ONE can work with them.

| and everyone thinks Leary is nothing
| but a drugged out crackpot.

Certainly "everyone" loses respect for someone who becomes addicted to
the drugs he is researching, especially when "everyone" knows how
dangerous they are to the well-being and sanity of the drug user.  If
the researcher becomes this intimately involved with his work, then the
rest of the world is justified in viewing the results of that work with
some skepticism.  Is Leary a "drugged out crackpot?"  I do not know,
but I do view his pronouncements much more skeptically than I would if
he did not partake of his own medicine.

				Rich Strebendt
				...!ihnp4![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res