ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/09/85)
>> There are many interpretations of just what QM represents. However, if >> QM is philosophically unsatisfactory if it describes what we will >> see when we look, rather than "what is there when we don't",is it not a >> virtue that sentences expressing unobservable states are incapable of >> formulation? Must science be bothered with the potential metaphysical >> truth of questions like "Did George Washington sneeze on August 13, >> 1773?". Would not Occam have approved of a theory that insists that >> "States which are not accessible do not exist"? > >This is a very different kettle of fish from assuming the existence of >particular states and assuming their particular effects so as to "get" you >to your conclusion. Yes, Occam would be spinning if you suggested that >that falls in line with the Razor. Sorry. In science, all unobservables are idle metaphysics. >Furthermore, when you ask about whether you or George Washington or Genghis >Khan sneezed on a certain date, you are suggesting the possibility of an >extremely probable known quantity: human beings do sneeze. Scientifically, however, nothing exists without evidence. >To assert that that is roughly equivalent to saying >that speculations about phenomena that you have no basis for drafting a >model of (solely because you have a particular conclusion in mind and build >your axioms and models from there) doesn't sound very reasonable to me. >It sounds mighty presumptive, which is why Occam would have discarded it. How about that. Unfortunately, that's all that any scientific methodology can do! How do you suppose modern science got started? Originally, science's `entities' were abstracted from certain physical objects and phenomena that more-or-less instinctively arose in people everywhere. Things like billiard balls and collisions for example, were the presumptions of Newtonian mechanics. Science developed as far as it could go with such presupposed models without gaining any understanding about `mind'. Is it any wonder? Today we see a proliferation of methodologies, all in terms of what was known before, and many producing conflicting theories about "What Is". The newer methods sometimes incorporate subjective notions {perception, cognition, intentionality}. Scientific pluralism is hardly a `bad' thing, of course, unless one wishes that there be one single truth, one firm answer to every question. Now, what are we to assume when a scientist insists that X does not exist? (1) X is a useless concept within that scientist's discipline? (2) X really and truly DOES NOT EXIST? Certain behaviorist scientists have attained such levels of incompetence that they are unable to avoid misunderstandings due to (2) above. It is one thing to make a daring assumption (the nonexistence of `mind' or `free will') as a methodological constraint. It is quite another to forget ever having made the assumption in the first place. I recently encountered the height of unscientific arrogance in the quotes below from B.F. Skinner: It may seem inconsistent to ask the reader to "keep a point in mind" when he has been told that the mind is an explanatory fiction, or to "consider the idea of freedom" if an idea is simply an explanatory fiction... Decisions about the uses of science seem to demand a kind of wisdom which, for some curious reason, scientists are denied. If they are to make value judgements at all, it is only with the wisdom they share with people in general. It would be a mistake for the behavioral scientist to agree... Who is to decide what is good for man? How will a more effective technology be used? By whom and for what end? These are really questions about reinforcers. `Mind' does not exist. Value judgements are REALLY questions about reinforcers. It's the world, not the specialists, who are mistaken. The specialists will set everything right! Speaking paradoxically, we may say that incompetence, having been standardized, has now become an essential part of of professional excellence. We no longer have incompetent professionals, we have professionalized incompetence - Paul Feyerabend -michael
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (10/10/85)
In article <583@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > I recently encountered the height of unscientific arrogance in the > quotes below from B.F. Skinner: [ etc. ] I hope it is not overlooked that the work of twisted minds such as Skinner's is not idle speculation confined safely to the laboratory, but rather a grand experiment in which we are all the subjects (victims). Naive parents read that so-called experts advocate certain practices and inflict same on their poor children ... (do we really want someone who claims we don't exist running our lives?) (I should qualify the above by saying that I have been biased against Skinner for many years.)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/12/85)
In article <583@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >>Furthermore, when you ask about whether you or George Washington or Genghis >>Khan sneezed on a certain date, you are suggesting the possibility of an >>extremely probable known quantity: human beings do sneeze. > Scientifically, however, nothing exists without evidence. Taking this statement as it stands leads to a lot of silly statements. If "nothing exists without evidence", then the fact that there is no evidence for GW sneezing on a particular date leads us inexorably to the conclusion that he did NOT sneeze on that date. THis of course is equally unjustified. There is also the strong suggestion that the sun did not start to fuse hydrogen until Einstein invented G. Relativity. So it's more correct to say: Scientifically, no claim can be made without evidence. However, I generally agree with the following passage: > Today we see a proliferation of methodologies, all in terms of what was > known before, and many producing conflicting theories about "What Is". > The newer methods sometimes incorporate subjective notions {perception, > cognition, intentionality}. Scientific pluralism is hardly a `bad' > thing, of course, unless one wishes that there be one single truth, one > firm answer to every question. > Now, what are we to assume when a scientist insists that X does not exist? > > (1) X is a useless concept within that scientist's discipline? > (2) X really and truly DOES NOT EXIST? > > Certain behaviorist scientists have attained such levels of incompetence > that they are unable to avoid misunderstandings due to (2) above. > > It is one thing to make a daring assumption (the nonexistence of `mind' > or `free will') as a methodological constraint. It is quite another > to forget ever having made the assumption in the first place. > > I recently encountered the height of unscientific arrogance in the > quotes below from B.F. Skinner: > > It may seem inconsistent to ask the reader to "keep a point in > mind" when he has been told that the mind is an explanatory > fiction, or to "consider the idea of freedom" if an idea is > simply an explanatory fiction... > > Decisions about the uses of science seem to demand a kind of wisdom > which, for some curious reason, scientists are denied. If they are > to make value judgements at all, it is only with the wisdom they > share with people in general. It would be a mistake for the > behavioral scientist to agree... > > Who is to decide what is good for man? How will a more effective > technology be used? By whom and for what end? These are really > questions about reinforcers. > > `Mind' does not exist. Value judgements are REALLY questions > about reinforcers. It's the world, not the specialists, who are > mistaken. The specialists will set everything right! Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "I say this because I want to be prime minister of Canada someday." - M. Fox
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/12/85)
>> I recently encountered the height of unscientific arrogance in the >> quotes below from B.F. Skinner: [ etc. ] [ELLIS] > I hope it is not overlooked that the work of twisted minds > such as Skinner's is not idle speculation confined safely to > the laboratory, but rather a grand experiment in which we > are all the subjects (victims). Naive parents read that > so-called experts advocate certain practices and > inflict same on their poor children ... (do we really > want someone who claims we don't exist running our lives?) > > (I should qualify the above by saying that I have been biased > against Skinner for many years.) [ucbvax!usenet ????] I hadn't noticed. With such a magnificent summarizing statement, it is obvious that you are a "scientist" and not one of those dreadful "Rosenists" (as described in the headings of 110% of the articles in this newsgroup) who "attack" all the things we happen to believe because of such biases. (Quotes most necessary.) -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/12/85)
>>To assert that that is roughly equivalent to saying >>that speculations about phenomena that you have no basis for drafting a >>model of (solely because you have a particular conclusion in mind and build >>your axioms and models from there) doesn't sound very reasonable to me. >>It sounds mighty presumptive, which is why Occam would have discarded it. > How about that. Unfortunately, that's all that any scientific methodology > can do! How do you suppose modern science got started? Certainly not by describing phenomena its proponents wanted to see and working backwards. > Originally, science's `entities' were abstracted from certain physical > objects and phenomena that more-or-less instinctively arose in people > everywhere. As YOU claim your beliefs instinctively arise in you? > Now, what are we to assume when a scientist insists that X does not exist? > > (1) X is a useless concept within that scientist's discipline? > (2) X really and truly DOES NOT EXIST? The "wishful thinking" ideal would have it that anything believed (of course) falls into the first category. > It is one thing to make a daring assumption (the nonexistence of `mind' > or `free will') as a methodological constraint. It is quite another > to forget ever having made the assumption in the first place. Oh, dear. Anyone who disagrees with Michael's holy position which is totally unfounded (why, was there evidence for free will out there?) is making a daring assumption! > Certain behaviorist scientists have attained such levels of incompetence > that they are unable to avoid misunderstandings due to (2) above. > I recently encountered the height of unscientific arrogance in the > quotes below from B.F. Skinner: It strikes me as VERY odd that when *I* find a flaw in the presumptions of Michael's choice philosophers, such a position is belittled for not respecting the history of philosophy. While it is OK for Michael to claim that someone who disagrees with him is engaging in "unscientific arrogance". Hmmm... > It may seem inconsistent to ask the reader to "keep a point in > mind" when he has been told that the mind is an explanatory > fiction, or to "consider the idea of freedom" if an idea is > simply an explanatory fiction... > > Decisions about the uses of science seem to demand a kind of wisdom > which, for some curious reason, scientists are denied. If they are > to make value judgements at all, it is only with the wisdom they > share with people in general. It would be a mistake for the > behavioral scientist to agree... > > Who is to decide what is good for man? How will a more effective > technology be used? By whom and for what end? These are really > questions about reinforcers. > > `Mind' does not exist. Value judgements are REALLY questions > about reinforcers. It's the world, not the specialists, who are > mistaken. The specialists will set everything right! I'm sure you won't let that happen, making sure that the heinous scientists never get the freedom Skinner speaks of. > Speaking paradoxically, we may say that incompetence, having been > standardized, has now become an essential part of of professional > excellence. We no longer have incompetent professionals, we have > professionalized incompetence - Paul Feyerabend Ye gads! The presumptive unscientific unfounded arrogance of this so-called "philosopher"!!!! (I assume that, since Michael uses this "style" that this is "OK" in this case, too.) -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
>>To assert that that is roughly equivalent to saying >>that speculations about phenomena that you have no basis for drafting a >>model of (solely because you have a particular conclusion in mind and build >>your axioms and models from there) doesn't sound very reasonable to me. >>It sounds mighty presumptive, which is why Occam would have discarded it. > How about that. Unfortunately, that's all that any scientific methodology > can do! How do you suppose modern science got started? Certainly not by describing phenomena its proponents wanted to see and working backwards. > Originally, science's `entities' were abstracted from certain physical > objects and phenomena that more-or-less instinctively arose in people > everywhere. As YOU claim your beliefs instinctively arise in you? > Now, what are we to assume when a scientist insists that X does not exist? > > (1) X is a useless concept within that scientist's discipline? > (2) X really and truly DOES NOT EXIST? The "wishful thinking" ideal would have it that anything believed (of course) falls into the first category. > It is one thing to make a daring assumption (the nonexistence of `mind' > or `free will') as a methodological constraint. It is quite another > to forget ever having made the assumption in the first place. Oh, dear. Anyone who disagrees with Michael's holy position which is totally unfounded (why, was there evidence for free will out there?) is making a daring assumption! > Certain behaviorist scientists have attained such levels of incompetence > that they are unable to avoid misunderstandings due to (2) above. > I recently encountered the height of unscientific arrogance in the > quotes below from B.F. Skinner: It strikes me as VERY odd that when *I* find a flaw in the presumptions of Michael's choice philosophers, such a position is belittled for not respecting the history of philosophy. While it is OK for Michael to claim that someone who disagrees with him is engaging in "unscientific arrogance". Hmmm... > It may seem inconsistent to ask the reader to "keep a point in > mind" when he has been told that the mind is an explanatory > fiction, or to "consider the idea of freedom" if an idea is > simply an explanatory fiction... > > Decisions about the uses of science seem to demand a kind of wisdom > which, for some curious reason, scientists are denied. If they are > to make value judgements at all, it is only with the wisdom they > share with people in general. It would be a mistake for the > behavioral scientist to agree... > > Who is to decide what is good for man? How will a more effective > technology be used? By whom and for what end? These are really > questions about reinforcers. > > `Mind' does not exist. Value judgements are REALLY questions > about reinforcers. It's the world, not the specialists, who are > mistaken. The specialists will set everything right! I'm sure you won't let that happen, making sure that the heinous scientists never get the freedom Skinner speaks of. > Speaking paradoxically, we may say that incompetence, having been > standardized, has now become an essential part of of professional > excellence. We no longer have incompetent professionals, we have > professionalized incompetence - Paul Feyerabend Ye gads! The presumptive unscientific unfounded arrogance of this so-called "philosopher"!!!! (I assume that, since Michael uses this "style" that this is "OK" in this case, too.) -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
>> I recently encountered the height of unscientific arrogance in the >> quotes below from B.F. Skinner: [ etc. ] [ELLIS] > I hope it is not overlooked that the work of twisted minds > such as Skinner's is not idle speculation confined safely to > the laboratory, but rather a grand experiment in which we > are all the subjects (victims). Naive parents read that > so-called experts advocate certain practices and > inflict same on their poor children ... (do we really > want someone who claims we don't exist running our lives?) > > (I should qualify the above by saying that I have been biased > against Skinner for many years.) [ucbvax!usenet ????] I hadn't noticed. With such a magnificent summarizing statement, it is obvious that you are a "scientist" and not one of those dreadful "Rosenists" (as described in the headings of 110% of the articles in this newsgroup) who "attack" all the things we happen to believe because of such biases. (Quotes most necessary.) -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr