Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!udel!princeton!notecnirp!fmm From: fmm@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (F. Miller Maley) Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re: science is STILL religion Message-ID: <9363@princeton.Princeton.EDU> Date: 16 Mar 88 23:20:49 GMT References: <73600013@uiucdcsp> Sender: news@princeton.Princeton.EDU Reply-To: fmm@notecnirp.UUCP (F. Miller Maley) Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University Lines: 128 Looking for some common ground in this discussion.... In article <73600013@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >And lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writing about science and modern medicine said : >> ... But they beat the hell out of the way it used to be. ... > >I used to think that.... But now, older and wiser,...I have grave doubts. O.K. Presumably life in the Middle Ages was better in some respects than life in modern developed nations, and worse in other respects. I suspect that the ways in which it was better are few. What do you have in mind? >... >The point I am making is that the widely published >and popularized discussions of what happened during the first instants >of the universe (if you can believe that there ever was such a thing) >are not science in the sense generating hypotheses that can be tested >by experiment but are very much science in the sense of religion. >And my argument to support both assertions is that discussions >about this primordial instant can only be so much nonsense. Why? >because we don't even know about the world around us... I think you are overstating your case here. Extrapolation is a commonplace in science, and often it works very well. (And when it doesn't, there is usually some interesting science to be done.) If you are saying that scientific theories are nonsense when they concern things we cannot directly experiment with, then you must reject most of astronomy and physics (and perhaps mathematics?) as well as cosmology. After all, we can't directly test theories of gravity or electromagnetism with objects much bigger than a laboratory; we have to observe things we can't influence. Yet our theories of gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena work as well in the large as they do in the small, as far as we can observe. The newly discovered effects such as high-temperature superconductivity and the disputed "fifth force" are very minor in terms of their effects on the universe as a whole. That's not to say that we might not someday discover a phenomenon that invalidates our theories about, say, the early universe. If so, then (one hopes) there will eventually be a paradigm shift, and (one hopes) our theories will approximate reality more closely than before. That's part of science; it's no reason to STOP doing science! By the way, it's possible to simulate the conditions of the early universe at least locally -- in collisions of high-energy particles. >From fmm@princeton.edu : >> Velikovsky's "speculations" conflict with some of our most >> basic scientific knowledge in a variety of disciplines. > >Of course. The controversy with Velikovsky was over pre-publication >censorship and his "unscientific" but reasonable methodology which >was based on finding similarities in the mythologies of widely dispersed >cultures. His claims are no worse than those about the great >primordial instant--both are bunk, but Velikovsky was a lot more >original about it. There's a basic difference, and it's not originality. Velikovsky's speculations conflict with things we *know* about as well as anything one might claim to know. (That's not a valid reason for censoring his views, of course.) Modern cosmological theories are reasonable extrapolations from things we know; while they are definitely uncertain, they suffer from no such conflict. >fmm@princeton also explained how the supercollider can not benifit >from the recent discoveries in high Tc superconductivity, >and while I am skeptical I must admit he may be right. >Nevertheles he was silent on the issue >of why we have to do this research now and can't wait >til a time when we can better afford it.... That's a good question, I agree. Personally I would love to see the SSC built, because I am interested in the things it might reveal. And as far as my own tax dollars go, I have no complaint about the cost. However, there are plenty of other good projects to be funded, and given a more-or-less fixed budget, I think the money would be better spent elsewhere. >fmm@princeton also says: >> ....In any case, mortality is not the sole measure of health! You >> might also consider what modern medicine has done to alleviate >> physical suffering. > >This is truly dubious! I don't mean to be insulting, but >you must have your eyes closed to be so remarkably naive. >Don't you know there is a debate raging right now in the medical community >over mercy killing? Doctors are getting to the point where they >can't take it any more and are rebelling against the pain they cause >to the terminally ill. This is a new phenomenon, people were never >tortured like this before. I presume you mean "tortured in this way before". >Another debate is raging over the so called cancer cures. People >go through hell to be 'cured' from cancer, but the survival rates >mostly have not gone up. Many people who have been 'cured' of >cancer say that if they get it again they will die instead. >And of course you can't get morphine over the counter anymore. >Physical suffering florishes today. These are good points, and I don't dispute the last one. However, they don't invalidate what I said. Let me clarify: modern medicine has made available many procedures and treatments that can alleviate suffering. (By "modern", I include things like anaesthesia, aspirin, and the germ theory of disease, not just the latest techniques of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, etc.) If one doesn't want the benefits and costs of modern medical treatments, one doesn't have to consent to treatment. >Finally fmm@princeton said I was welcome to go live the life of a >savage. More naivity, if fmm@princeton would think about it instead >of comming back with a knee-jerk jingoism he would realize himself >that no one has such an option. Indeed there are no savages left, at >all. Primitive societies have been destroyed; the subjugated remains >are at feeble caracatures. Let's not start a flame-contest here. What I said was, "return to a prescientific way of life." Granted, you can't forget all your scientific knowledge, nor can you find a culture that has not been altered by contact with industrialized societies. But you can certainly decline most of the fruits of science and technology, if you think it would help you lead a fuller life. -- 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.