ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (01/01/70)
>>>.. outrageous things in the name of science UNLESS they make it a >>> point to admit and recognize that any work they do is colored by >>> their subjectivity. >>Then that's not science. So what are you arguing about? > Hmm, then there is no such thing as science. I heve never yet >met a scientist, no matter how great, who did *not* bring personnal >preconceptions and prjudices into the lab. I do it, so do all the >scientist I met, and learned to respect, at school. That is why I >think claiming total objectivity for science is a sham. It attempts to >reach that goal, but human responses prevent its ever being achieved. > -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) Popper attempted to separate the subjectivity of science's practitioners by cleaving the universe into three parts: the physical universe subjective consciousness objective knowledge, evolving thru generations No doubt, empirical knowledge at any point is flawed, but since it is a body of literature in flux, subject to the test of experience and rational analysis, it evolves. Subjective consciousness fits into the theory as the vehicle whereby objective knowledge is created, abstracted and improved, thru obsevation of the physical universe. Science is clearly an objectively existing (and potentially self improving) entity when viewed this way. Though hardly Popper's intention, similar arguments justify religion, astrology, and organized crime as well. Evolution shows us that life forms can become stagnant, counter productive, and eventually extinct. Consequently, science cannot rely on purely evolutionary arguments to assert its superiority. -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)
Science stinks! Anyone who thinks science holds the answers is a fool. What about love, beauty, art, poetry? What does science do to all the things we hold near and dear? It dissects them to the point where they no longer have any resemblance to the way they were originally, thus destroying the notions we believe in. I say the hell with science!! No one has the right to dissect my beliefs. If I want to believe in lies that's my business. Who are they to shatter the foundations of my beliefs? And what has science ever given this world anyway? Weapons of war, the black plague, hatred, venereal disease, electricity, natural disasters, religious intolerance. And don't go telling me it's not science or scientists who gave us these things, that these things came from application of real knowledge by misguided, greedy, or evil people. You know that's not true and no amount of "evidence" to the contrary will convince me otherwise. I *know* the truth about science, and I'm not going to allow scientists to change my beliefs about anything. Why, scientists can't even prove that the notions I hold about free will, souls, ESP, the Bermuda triangle, ghosts in my living room, or me being the reincarnation of Isadora Duncan are false!!! All they can say is that my evidence isn't "verifiable", thus it can't be taken for granted that it is the truth. Whatever the hell "verifiable" means... Oh, I'm sorry, I don't know why I posted this. It must have been a result of causality being smashed. :-) -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bill@hpfcla.UUCP (08/21/85)
[] I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that at least part of the following tirade (which ducks more questions than it answers) is due to the article "Science and Fallibility". The quoted material if from Rich Rosen. >Science stinks! Anyone who thinks science holds the answers is a fool. What >about love, beauty, art, poetry? What does science do to all the things we >hold near and dear? It dissects them to the point where they no longer have >any resemblance to the way they were originally, thus destroying the notions >we believe in. I say the hell with science!! No one has the right to dissect >my beliefs. If I want to believe in lies that's my business. Who are they to >shatter the foundations of my beliefs? Looks like various postings here, my article included, have shattered YOUR beliefs, Rich! I really don't see the purpose for this kind of retaliation, though. Yes, what you write here sounds ridiculous, if it were true. But it isn't. How 'bout you take a particular point and logically (and calmly) tear it apart? If it's wrong, that should be easy enough. If there's scientific proof for your assertions, I should be able to recognize that and be quiet. However, all I've seen from you is a statement of your beliefs, followed by a statement of allegiance to science, followed by tirades if anyone dares to differ. But to address what you've said above: as I've already said, IF science were able to prove beyond doubt that certains things that I hold "near and dear" were false, I would accept that. However, science is not (yet?) able to do that with things like love, beauty, art, etc. Thus, the point I made earlier is still valid: analysis at the current time is inconclusive using current scientific techniques. As usual, in your responses, you've by-passed logic and resorted to tirades of ridiculous exaggerations. I never said "to hell with science". I never said that it was "dissecting my beliefs" or "shattering the foundations of my beliefs". I never said science was "destroying the notions I believe in". Thus, if there was any point to the above, it's lost in the muck of lies you've thrown in to totally distort my view of science (if it is indeed my view you are distorting). >And what has science ever given this world anyway? Weapons of war, the black >plague, hatred, venereal disease, electricity, natural disasters, religious >intolerance. And don't go telling me it's not science or scientists who >gave us these things, that these things came from application of real >knowledge by misguided, greedy, or evil people. You know that's not true >and no amount of "evidence" to the contrary will convince me otherwise. >I *know* the truth about science, and I'm not going to allow scientists to >change my beliefs about anything. Well, HAS science given us some bad things or not? No? You don't know history very well. If you'll re-read my article, however, you'll find that I also acknowledged that science has given us many wonderful things as well. More gross distortions, Rich. I'm probably as open-minded to scientific discovery as anyone. It's you who are closed-minded, but to the opposite extreme of believing in science to the point of death, and not being able to accept that perhaps science cannot explain all things right now. >Why, scientists can't even prove that the notions I hold about free will, >souls, ESP, the Bermuda triangle, ghosts in my living room, or me being >the reincarnation of Isadora Duncan are false!!! All they can say is >that my evidence isn't "verifiable", thus it can't be taken for granted >that it is the truth. Whatever the hell "verifiable" means... Science disproves the existence of everything you don't believe in, Rich, but simply because you so desparately WANT science to disprove them. In fact, all you can really say, "scientifically", is that testing is inconclusive. Again, I never mentioned ghosts, reincarnation, ESP, or any of the other meaningless dribble in the above. Sheesh! >Oh, I'm sorry, I don't know why I posted this. It must have been a result >of causality being smashed. :-) I don't know why either. It certainly contributes nothing to either side. >"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day > to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human > being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Oh, you poor, poor, shackled martyr, you! Poor baby is fighting so hard against such overwhelming persecutions! Give me a break, Rich. What really gets me, though, are your continued statements that anyone who "limits" science is really, deep-down, scared of having his "nears and dears" torn apart and shown to be false. And yet you respond to my (?) last article with the tirade above? WHO'S REALLY SCARED, RICH? Aren't you just as doggedly defending your own side? Why defend something to such ludicrous extremes unless you yourself are scared! Speaking for myself, science doesn't scare me, yet I recognize that it currently has limitations. It's methods are suited well for examining some things, and not so well for examining others. I don't see why this is so hard to see. When or if the day comes when science discovers how to examine the things it could not before, I will welcome what it has to say, even though I believe in the reality of many things like art, beauty, etc. You're scared, Rich, and you've succumbed to wishful thinking if you think science is able to substantiate your assertions at the present time. By the way, if you have any scientific proof that these things don't exist, please share them. But please, no more sarcastic tirades - they really don't contribute very much. Bill Gates
bill@hpfcla.UUCP (08/28/85)
>> I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that at least part of the following tirade >> (which ducks more questions than it answers) is due to the article >> "Science and Fallibility". The quoted material if from Rich Rosen. [GATES] >Very incorrectly. No matter, continue... (But what would drive you to >such an assumption...) Boy, is my face red! Sorry about that. Reminds me of Gilda Radner on Saturday Night when she goes through a long talk only to find out it didn't apply. I just assumed, since it sounded like it could apply to something I wrote, that it was perhaps written in response to it. All my comments concerning "retaliation" and such are therefore invalid. "Never mind." >But science is not "out" to prove such things "false" or "non-existent". >Clearly they exist as constructs of the human mind in categorizing such >things. True objective inquiry could, given the right tools and the >opportunity, figure out what sorts of things trigger human responses >like "love" and "beauty", in general and in specific. I hardly think that >would "destroy" such things, it would merely "take all the mystery out of >life". > >Science doesn't give us "good" or "bad" things. >Science gives us facts. Do you have any idea why alchemy never gave us >"bad" things? Because it didn't provide anything worth using for good OR >evil!! (That's an oversimplification, we did get things like symbology >from alchemy, but the actual "chemical" learning of alchemy didn't work.) >Science is only able to provide things that are used for good or bad for >one reason only: it provides facts about the real world. If a "good" >person takes those facts and gets us something good, great. If an "evil" >person takes those facts and uses them for evil, do we blame science? Had >those facts not been uncovered, would the evil simply not have been done? >On the other hand, if the facts had not been uncovered, could AS MUCH good >(or evil) have been done? The point (that you seem to keep missing in your >persistent insistence that it must be *me* who is closedminded) is that >there is no "good" or "evil" associated with facts about the universe. >Only in their application. Where scientific technique is used for "evil", >do we blame the technique, or do we ask why these people are engaging in >evil in the first place? You bring up a very good point here. It's true that much of the evil done in the world is a result of evil people applying neutral facts. But my question is: CAN science exist in a pure form? Aren't scientific facts always going to be utilized by people? And aren't there always good chances that those people will use such facts in an evil application? I agree with your evaluation of science itself - it seeks only facts. It's the application of the facts (and, by the way, the attributing of "fact" to those things which aren't) that causes either evil or good. However, there have been times in the past when the entire scientific community bought off on something that turned out harmful or wrong. Yet it was based on all scientific facts available at the time. I've already posted a list of some of these things. It's things like these that make me want to be a little cautious when approaching new discoveries. >> Science disproves the existence of everything you don't believe in, Rich, >> but simply because you so desparately WANT science to disprove them. > >Really, is that how science works? I always thought it had something to >do with rational objective analysis and inquiry. Silly me. All I have >to do is WANT science to disprove things, and it will!! WOW!!!! This >is just like watching Peter Pan. Or a discussion on free will... :-) Well, maybe science itself doesn't work this way, but the interpreters of science sure do (or can)! >I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. I agree. But do you agree that there will always be two sides to every scientific inquiry into things like paranormal experiments? I mean, those who really want to disprove paranormal experiences will fight like heck to interpret scientific findings in their favor, just as those who believe in paranormal experiences would interpret the findings differently, as you showed in your example above. And both sides would probably credit themselves with a victory! I guess I'm asking you, Rich - who or what do we trust? If we could easily get our hands on unadulterated facts, we can probably trust those facts. But usually we get these facts after they have been interpreted for us. Then, we either accept or reject the facts based on the interpretation we've heard, rather than based on the facts themselves. >In an age in which thinking things through is out of fashion, where people >are being taught to use the "right side of the brain" without having >mastered the use of the left, and where religious autocrats would squelch >the teaching of scientific inquiry and logic as a means of thinking and >reaching conclusions, you bet I'm scared. Scared that wishy-washy-ful >thinkers will shred human learning and bring us back to the dark ages of >willy nilly superstition. Why is this age any different? We've always had the "religious autocrats" and wishy-washy-ful thinkers to contend with. Yes, there are religions that seek to downplay scientific discovery, but there always have been, and we seem to be getting along pretty well. Shoot, even within science itself there are "religions" - the two sides of an issue each define a religion of sorts. Both sides will fight and try to ridicule, explain away, or otherwise discount the other. It's good to want to preserve human learning and discovery, and to want to base even life itself on facts. But we've also got human nature to deal with, Rich, and we always will. Human nature cannot be divorced from learning or discovery, simply because we interpret such things through our humanity and prejudices. Like it or not, many things are rejected or accepted based simply on this humanity of ours. But this isn't limited just to religion. It's part of everyone's human makeup. As an example, what if science suddenly announced it had concrete proof that God exists? How long would you ponder the evidence, and how hard would you try to fight its implications for yourself? Now compare your acceptance of that with your acceptance of a scientific announcement which only serves to solidify a belief you've had for years. Be fair now - which is easier to accept, and which would tend to make you downplay, ridicule, or explain away "facts". THIS is the wishful thinking you've been talking about, but it's a part of all of us - even you, I bet! Bill Gates
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/28/85)
> I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that at least part of the following tirade > (which ducks more questions than it answers) is due to the article > "Science and Fallibility". The quoted material if from Rich Rosen. [GATES] Very incorrectly. No matter, continue... (But what would drive you to such an assumption...) >>Science stinks! Anyone who thinks science holds the answers is a fool. What >>about love, beauty, art, poetry? What does science do to all the things we >>hold near and dear? It dissects them to the point where they no longer have >>any resemblance to the way they were originally, thus destroying the notions >>we believe in. I say the hell with science!! No one has the right to dissect >>my beliefs. If I want to believe in lies that's my business. Who are they to >>shatter the foundations of my beliefs? > I really don't see the purpose for this kind of retaliation, > though. Yes, what you write here sounds ridiculous, if it were true. Retaliation? Against what? Indeed, it is very true: this is typical of the tone of more than a few articles on the topic of science. > How 'bout you take a particular point and logically (and calmly) > tear it apart? If it's wrong, that should be easy enough. If there's > scientific proof for your assertions, I should be able to recognize that and > be quiet. However, all I've seen from you is a statement of your beliefs, > followed by a statement of allegiance to science, followed by tirades if > anyone dares to differ. Tirades? THAT was a "tirade"? Hmmm. Satire is but one of many tools of persuasion. Sometimes it is the only way to reach some people. The fact remains that the assertions made by others about science being to "blame" for a long list of things harken right back to the list I offered. Their lists were no less funny. > But to address what you've said above: as I've already said, IF science were > able to prove beyond doubt that certains things that I hold "near and dear" > were false, I would accept that. However, science is not (yet?) able to do > that with things like love, beauty, art, etc. Thus, the point I made earlier > is still valid: analysis at the current time is inconclusive using current > scientific techniques. But science is not "out" to prove such things "false" or "non-existent". Clearly they exist as constructs of the human mind in categorizing such things. True objective inquiry could, given the right tools and the opportunity, figure out what sorts of things trigger human responses like "love" and "beauty", in general and in specific. I hardly think that would "destroy" such things, it would merely "take all the mystery out of life". However, other similar notions like free will appear to be illusions of a self-monitoring mind that thinks "I am freely wanting to do this". > As usual, in your responses, you've by-passed logic and resorted to tirades > of ridiculous exaggerations. I never said "to hell with science". I never > said that it was "dissecting my beliefs" or "shattering the foundations of > my beliefs". I never said science was "destroying the notions I believe in". > Thus, if there was any point to the above, it's lost in the muck of lies > you've thrown in to totally distort my view of science (if it is indeed my > view you are distorting). YOUR view? Who said this was in response to YOU, specifically or otherwise? It's very egomaniacal of you to assume that. My article had a different title from yours, it contained no back references to yours, and it was disjoint from any other article in the discussion. This is the third such notice I've gotten this week from people insisting that I was "writing about them" (two people even thought the same article was written about each of them!). I think that stands as a monument to the futility and uselessness of subjectivity as a serious analytical tool. (I think it may also stand as a monument to people's perceptions of me as clouded by their own opinions.) >>And what has science ever given this world anyway? Weapons of war, the black >>plague, hatred, venereal disease, electricity, natural disasters, religious >>intolerance. And don't go telling me it's not science or scientists who >>gave us these things, that these things came from application of real >>knowledge by misguided, greedy, or evil people. You know that's not true >>and no amount of "evidence" to the contrary will convince me otherwise. >>I *know* the truth about science, and I'm not going to allow scientists to >>change my beliefs about anything. > Well, HAS science given us some bad things or not? No? You don't know > history very well. If you'll re-read my article, however, you'll find > that I also acknowledged that science has given us many wonderful things > as well. More gross distortions, Rich. Yes, indeed, on *your* part. Science doesn't give us "good" or "bad" things. Science gives us facts. Do you have any idea why alchemy never gave us "bad" things? Because it didn't provide anything worth using for good OR evil!! (That's an oversimplification, we did get things like symbology from alchemy, but the actual "chemical" learning of alchemy didn't work.) Science is only able to provide things that are used for good or bad for one reason only: it provides facts about the real world. If a "good" person takes those facts and gets us something good, great. If an "evil" person takes those facts and uses them for evil, do we blame science? Had those facts not been uncovered, would the evil simply not have been done? On the other hand, if the facts had not been uncovered, could AS MUCH good (or evil) have been done? The point (that you seem to keep missing in your persistent insistence that it must be *me* who is closedminded) is that there is no "good" or "evil" associated with facts about the universe. Only in their application. Where scientific technique is used for "evil", do we blame the technique, or do we ask why these people are engaging in evil in the first place? > I'm probably as open-minded to scientific discovery as anyone. It's you who > are closed-minded, but to the opposite extreme of believing in science to the > point of death, and not being able to accept that perhaps science cannot > explain all things right now. Is this another example of your personal subjective opinion in action? May I ask where you might substantiate this opinion, perhaps with quotes from me in which I stated that I am not able to accept that science cannot explain all things right now? (And in what way does that discredit the method of inquiry?) May I ask why you refer to me as closedminded simply because I disagree with you? Is that your definition of the word? >>Why, scientists can't even prove that the notions I hold about free will, >>souls, ESP, the Bermuda triangle, ghosts in my living room, or me being >>the reincarnation of Isadora Duncan are false!!! All they can say is >>that my evidence isn't "verifiable", thus it can't be taken for granted >>that it is the truth. Whatever the hell "verifiable" means... > Science disproves the existence of everything you don't believe in, Rich, > but simply because you so desparately WANT science to disprove them. Really, is that how science works? I always thought it had something to do with rational objective analysis and inquiry. Silly me. All I have to do is WANT science to disprove things, and it will!! WOW!!!! This is just like watching Peter Pan. Or a discussion on free will... :-) > In fact, all you can really say, "scientifically", is that testing is > inconclusive. Again, I never mentioned ghosts, reincarnation, ESP, or any > of the other meaningless dribble in the above. Sheesh! Yes, but who said this article was specifically in response to you? (Oh, yes, YOU did!) I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. >>"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day >> to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human >> being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings > Oh, you poor, poor, shackled martyr, you! Poor baby is fighting so hard > against such overwhelming persecutions! Give me a break, Rich. "Poor shackled martyr"? Where the fuck do you get off? "Poor baby"? I'd venture a guess that you are the poor baby, with your need to ridicule even my choice of signature quotes in an effort to support your position. What IS your point? Do you have some problem with the quote? I find it quite relevant in everyday life. If you don't like it, tough shit. It has nothing to do with the argument at hand, but I suppose you'll attack anything to get what you want out of this argument. > What really gets me, though, are your continued statements that anyone who > "limits" science is really, deep-down, scared of having his "nears and > dears" torn apart and shown to be false. And yet you respond to my (?) > last article with the tirade above? WHO'S REALLY SCARED, RICH? Aren't > you just as doggedly defending your own side? In an age in which thinking things through is out of fashion, where people are being taught to use the "right side of the brain" without having mastered the use of the left, and where religious autocrats would squelch the teaching of scientific inquiry and logic as a means of thinking and reaching conclusions, you bet I'm scared. Scared that wishy-washy-ful thinkers will shred human learning and bring us back to the dark ages of willy nilly superstition. But of the two of us, who is REALLY scared? And who really needs to be? You speak of recognizing science's limitations. Does that mean you simply don't use the scientific method of analysis when it comes to things you perceive to be beyond those limits, in order to say "thus my ideas are true"? That's what the wishful thinkers are doing. What isn't this method suited for, and why? In what cases do you simply discard it, and in favor of what? Do tell us. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/08/85)
>>>I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that at least part of the following tirade >>>(which ducks more questions than it answers) is due to the article >>>"Science and Fallibility". The quoted material if from Rich Rosen. [GATES] >>Very incorrectly. No matter, continue... (But what would drive you to >>such an assumption...) [ROSEN] > Boy, is my face red! Sorry about that. Apology accepted. >>Science doesn't give us "good" or "bad" things. >>Science gives us facts. Do you have any idea why alchemy never gave us >>"bad" things? Because it didn't provide anything worth using for good OR >>evil!! Science is only able to provide things that are used for good or bad >>for one reason only: it provides facts about the real world. The point >>(that you seem to keep missing in your persistent insistence that it must be >>*me* who is closedminded) is that there is no "good" or "evil" associated >>with facts about the universe. Only in their application. Where scientific >>technique is used for "evil", do we blame the technique, or do we ask why >>these people are engaging in evil in the first place? > You bring up a very good point here. It's true that much of the evil done > in the world is a result of evil people applying neutral facts. But my > question is: CAN science exist in a pure form? Aren't scientific facts > always going to be utilized by people? And aren't there always good chances > that those people will use such facts in an evil application? I agree with > your evaluation of science itself - it seeks only facts. It's the application > of the facts (and, by the way, the attributing of "fact" to those things which > aren't) that causes either evil or good. Why limit your question to science? Some people would claim that religion gives them true answers. The quality of the methods (and the results) notwithstanding, substituting "religion" for "science" in the above paragraph would seem to offer the opinion that, if science has the potential of being "bad", so does religion! To paraphrase a commercial, facts is facts. No matter how they were obtained. Are you asking us to stop looking for facts because someone might use them for evil? Are you saying that the less we learn (as a race) the better our lives will be, because people will have less knowledge at their disposal to use for evil? > However, there have been times in the past when the entire scientific > community bought off on something that turned out harmful or wrong. Yet > it was based on all scientific facts available at the time. I've already > posted a list of some of these things. It's things like these that make > me want to be a little cautious when approaching new discoveries. Maybe they weren't being truly objective, using the scientific method to accomplish real learning. Maybe they were looking for specific conclusions. Example: phrenology, which "proved" the inferiority of different ethnic groups. Don't hold science responsible for the actions of those who didn't really use it in the first place, those who just took some known facts and adding in their prejudices (as Hitler did with Darwin). >>>Science disproves the existence of everything you don't believe in, Rich, >>>but simply because you so desparately WANT science to disprove them. >>Really, is that how science works? I always thought it had something to >>do with rational objective analysis and inquiry. Silly me. All I have >>to do is WANT science to disprove things, and it will!! WOW!!!! This >>is just like watching Peter Pan. Or a discussion on free will... :-) > Well, maybe science itself doesn't work this way, but the interpreters > of science sure do (or can)! The misusers of facts. The people who claim to be scientists but who are not, owing to their failure to use the methods involved. The interpreters of ANY facts who use their own prejudices to "justify" things. So which do we throw out? The scientific method that gets us the facts? Or the prejudices and subjectivist thinking that leads to erroneous conclusions based on facts? >>I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >>experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >>scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >>was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >>always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >>atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >>not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. > I agree. But do you agree that there will always be two sides to every > scientific inquiry into things like paranormal experiments? I mean, > those who really want to disprove paranormal experiences will fight like > heck to interpret scientific findings in their favor, just as those who > believe in paranormal experiences would interpret the findings differently, > as you showed in your example above. My example above referred to a real life example of Stephen Hawking, a leader in modern physics. In his youth, he WANTED to believe in the paranormal, and had an interest. His acutely rational mind showed him what was really going on. Is it so impossible for others to be as rigorous and strict in such analysis? And, by the way, is the notion that "scientific rigor contributes to an atmosphere in which the phenomena cannot occur" ANYTHING but a vapid rationalization? >>In an age in which thinking things through is out of fashion, where people >>are being taught to use the "right side of the brain" without having >>mastered the use of the left, and where religious autocrats would squelch >>the teaching of scientific inquiry and logic as a means of thinking and >>reaching conclusions, you bet I'm scared. Scared that wishy-washy-ful >>thinkers will shred human learning and bring us back to the dark ages of >>willy nilly superstition. > Why is this age any different? We've always had the "religious autocrats" > and wishy-washy-ful thinkers to contend with. Yes, there are religions that > seek to downplay scientific discovery, but there always have been, and we > seem to be getting along pretty well. I don't call this resurgence of "let's get rid of secular humanism because that sort of thinking interferes with our preconceived conclusions" getting along pretty well. It sounds to me like a return to the age of Galileo. That's why this age is "different". We had made a good deal of progress, only to find ourselves right back where we started. To the point where the squelching comes not only from the church but from "new age" thinkers whose wishywashyness is no better. > As an example, what if science suddenly announced it had concrete proof that > God exists? How long would you ponder the evidence, and how hard would you > try to fight its implications for yourself? Now compare your acceptance of > that with your acceptance of a scientific announcement which only serves to > solidify a belief you've had for years. Be fair now - which is easier to > accept, and which would tend to make you downplay, ridicule, or explain > away "facts". THIS is the wishful thinking you've been talking about, but > it's a part of all of us - even you, I bet! But the bottom line comes when the explanation hits the fan. Does it hold up? Is it based on MORE (or "the same old") presumptions? -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
bill@hpfcla.UUCP (09/13/85)
[edible line] This is posted as a base note to avoid an orphaned response. It is in connection with the "Weird Science" notes string. Odd number of >'s = Rich Rosen, even number = me. >>>Science doesn't give us "good" or "bad" things. >>>Science gives us facts. Do you have any idea why alchemy never gave us >>>"bad" things? Because it didn't provide anything worth using for good OR >>>evil!! Science is only able to provide things that are used for good or bad >>>for one reason only: it provides facts about the real world. The point >>>(that you seem to keep missing in your persistent insistence that it must be >>>*me* who is closedminded) is that there is no "good" or "evil" associated >>>with facts about the universe. Only in their application. Where scientific >>>technique is used for "evil", do we blame the technique, or do we ask why >>>these people are engaging in evil in the first place? >> You bring up a very good point here. It's true that much of the evil done >> in the world is a result of evil people applying neutral facts. But my >> question is: CAN science exist in a pure form? Aren't scientific facts >> always going to be utilized by people? And aren't there always good chances >> that those people will use such facts in an evil application? I agree with >> your evaluation of science itself - it seeks only facts. It's the >> application of the facts (and, by the way, the attributing of "fact" to >> those things which aren't) that causes either evil or good. >Why limit your question to science? Some people would claim that religion >gives them true answers. The quality of the methods (and the results) >notwithstanding, substituting "religion" for "science" in the above paragraph >would seem to offer the opinion that, if science has the potential of being >"bad", so does religion! To paraphrase a commercial, facts is facts. No >matter how they were obtained. Quite true, and I have no objections. The subject was science, so that's what I'm confining my comments to. >Are you asking us to stop looking for facts >because someone might use them for evil? Are you saying that the less we >learn (as a race) the better our lives will be, because people will have >less knowledge at their disposal to use for evil? Heavens no (where'd I say that?). My point is, the same set of facts can "prove" several different things, depending on who's interpreting them. Thus, BE CAUTIOUS! That's all. Because science has the general reputation of "being true", a mistake made by the scientific community will be bought by all of us who don't exercise caution, or think things through. The point is, because science says it's so doesn't necessarily mean that it is. It DOES mean that it's a possibility, but just like all possibilities, it must be further scrutinized, time-tested, etc. >> However, there have been times in the past when the entire scientific >> community bought off on something that turned out harmful or wrong. Yet >> it was based on all scientific facts available at the time. I've already >> posted a list of some of these things. It's things like these that make >> me want to be a little cautious when approaching new discoveries. >Maybe they weren't being truly objective, using the scientific method to >accomplish real learning. Maybe they were looking for specific conclusions. >Example: phrenology, which "proved" the inferiority of different ethnic >groups. Don't hold science responsible for the actions of those who didn't >really use it in the first place, those who just took some known facts >and adding in their prejudices (as Hitler did with Darwin). OK, "science" isn't responsible. But, isn't "science" in this context an abstract notion? I mean, does pure "science", the thing that just gathers unbiased, untainted facts and presents them, really exist? Or, because science is actually a discipline practiced by people like you and me, is it something less pure, less unbiased, than this? Your "maybes" in the previous quote may very well be true, but how do we know? I guess I'm saying something similar to, "If there weren't people, there wouldn't be science". Whaddaya think? >>>>Science disproves the existence of everything you don't believe in, Rich, >>>>but simply because you so desparately WANT science to disprove them. >>>Really, is that how science works? I always thought it had something to >>>do with rational objective analysis and inquiry. Silly me. All I have >>>to do is WANT science to disprove things, and it will!! WOW!!!! This >>>is just like watching Peter Pan. Or a discussion on free will... :-) >> Well, maybe science itself doesn't work this way, but the interpreters >> of science sure do (or can)! >The misusers of facts. The people who claim to be scientists but who are not, >owing to their failure to use the methods involved. The interpreters of ANY >facts who use their own prejudices to "justify" things. So which do we >throw out? The scientific method that gets us the facts? Or the prejudices >and subjectivist thinking that leads to erroneous conclusions based on facts? I dare you to separate the two, Rich. How many truly unbiased scientists do we have today? A monumental task, I think. >>>I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >>>experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >>>scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >>>was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >>>always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >>>atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >>>not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. >> I agree. But do you agree that there will always be two sides to every >> scientific inquiry into things like paranormal experiments? I mean, >> those who really want to disprove paranormal experiences will fight like >> heck to interpret scientific findings in their favor, just as those who >> believe in paranormal experiences would interpret the findings differently, >> as you showed in your example above. >My example above referred to a real life example of Stephen Hawking, a leader >in modern physics. In his youth, he WANTED to believe in the paranormal, >and had an interest. His acutely rational mind showed him what was really >going on. Is it so impossible for others to be as rigorous and strict in >such analysis? Maybe not impossible, but very difficult. I admire Hawking for going against the norm, but I fear that his type is very rare. It is extremely difficult for human beings to throw out ALL preconceived notions and the like, and evaluate facts based on just those facts. In fact, since we are raised to believe certain things, denying those things for the purpose of unbiased analysis would be much akin to denying our very selves. Very, very few of us are able to do that. >>And, by the way, is the notion that "scientific rigor >>contributes to an atmosphere in which the phenomena cannot occur" ANYTHING >>but a vapid rationalization? Depends on who's performing the rigor, doesn't it?! >>>In an age in which thinking things through is out of fashion, where people >>>are being taught to use the "right side of the brain" without having >>>mastered the use of the left, and where religious autocrats would squelch >>>the teaching of scientific inquiry and logic as a means of thinking and >>>reaching conclusions, you bet I'm scared. Scared that wishy-washy-ful >>>thinkers will shred human learning and bring us back to the dark ages of >>>willy nilly superstition. >> Why is this age any different? We've always had the "religious autocrats" >> and wishy-washy-ful thinkers to contend with. Yes, there are religions that >> seek to downplay scientific discovery, but there always have been, and we >> seem to be getting along pretty well. >I don't call this resurgence of "let's get rid of secular humanism because >that sort of thinking interferes with our preconceived conclusions" getting >along pretty well. It sounds to me like a return to the age of Galileo. To address your particular example, a religious source would say "get rid of secular humanism because it interferes with my preconceived notion that there is a god". You, however (I use you because of your tone in the preceding quote), would say "let's squelch religion because this sort of thinking interferes with my preconceived conclusion that there is no god". Who's more guilty? Sure, there are lots of loudly-voiced issues in today's world, but technological advances are mainly responsible for them seeming any bigger than they were before. These same arguments were going on in the past. Yes, there is a big campaign against secular humanism, but if you'll look on the other side of the coin, there is an equal (or bigger) campaign in favor of it! >> As an example, what if science suddenly announced it had concrete proof that >> God exists? How long would you ponder the evidence, and how hard would you >> try to fight its implications for yourself? Now compare your acceptance of >> that with your acceptance of a scientific announcement which only serves to >> solidify a belief you've had for years. Be fair now - which is easier to >> accept, and which would tend to make you downplay, ridicule, or explain >> away "facts". THIS is the wishful thinking you've been talking about, but >> it's a part of all of us - even you, I bet! >But the bottom line comes when the explanation hits the fan. Does it hold >up? Is it based on MORE (or "the same old") presumptions? When the explanation hits WHOSE fan, Rich? Who decides? This fictitious thing called "science" which seeks only truth? I can't believe it really exists, because SOMEBODY has to run the fan. Facts don't decide anything until they're interpreted. BAM!! We've run into those interpreters again! Bill Gates {ihnp4, ucbvax!hplabs}!hpfcla!bill-g
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/17/85)
>>Why limit your question to science? Some people would claim that religion >>gives them true answers. The quality of the methods (and the results) >>notwithstanding, substituting "religion" for "science" in the above paragraph >>would seem to offer the opinion that, if science has the potential of being >>"bad", so does religion! To paraphrase a commercial, facts is facts. No >>matter how they were obtained. > Quite true, and I have no objections. The subject was science, so that's > what I'm confining my comments to. But you chose to make a special example/case out of science when that is not the case at all. Thus your points are erroneous in describing the apparent "evils" of science. >>Are you asking us to stop looking for facts >>because someone might use them for evil? Are you saying that the less we >>learn (as a race) the better our lives will be, because people will have >>less knowledge at their disposal to use for evil? > Heavens no (where'd I say that?). By implication. If you would tar science as the "root of all evil" (and not the morals of those who use the facts obtained by science for "evil"), then you are saying the above by implication. > My point is, the same set of facts can "prove" several different things, > depending on who's interpreting them. Thus, BE CAUTIOUS! That's all. Only different base assumptions (like those Hitler made about his racial superiority owing to Darwinism) will result in different conclusions. Thus, the goal is to rid ourselves of those assumptions when attempting to reach such conclusions. Which is exactly what science is all about. > Because science has the general reputation of "being true", a mistake made > by the scientific community will be bought by all of us who don't exercise > caution, or think things through. Gee, what belief system actually encourages people not to think things through, to "act on faith"? >>Maybe they weren't being truly objective, using the scientific method to >>accomplish real learning. Maybe they were looking for specific conclusions. >>Example: phrenology, which "proved" the inferiority of different ethnic >>groups. Don't hold science responsible for the actions of those who didn't >>really use it in the first place, those who just took some known facts >>and adding in their prejudices (as Hitler did with Darwin). > OK, "science" isn't responsible. But, isn't "science" in this context an > abstract notion? I mean, does pure "science", the thing that just gathers > unbiased, untainted facts and presents them, really exist? Or, because > science is actually a discipline practiced by people like you and me, is > it something less pure, less unbiased, than this? So, what you're saying is that the goal is to strive for being more pure, more unbiased, in analysis, right? > Your "maybes" in the previous quote may very well be true, but how do we know? I think it very apparent that they are quite obviously true. That is the only resaonable explanation for reaching false conclusions: using either faulty logic or faulty assumptions. > I guess I'm saying something similar to, "If there weren't people, there > wouldn't be science". Whaddaya think? Fine. So? If there weren't people, there wouldn't be a society. It's that notion that leads me to the conclusion that people are more important than the society itself as an entity. But remember that all science does (when done right) is to gather facts. >>>>Really, is that how science works? I always thought it had something to >>>>do with rational objective analysis and inquiry. Silly me. All I have >>>>to do is WANT science to disprove things, and it will!! WOW!!!! This >>>>is just like watching Peter Pan. Or a discussion on free will... :-) >>>Well, maybe science itself doesn't work this way, but the interpreters >>>of science sure do (or can)! >>The misusers of facts. The people who claim to be scientists but who are not, >>owing to their failure to use the methods involved. The interpreters of ANY >>facts who use their own prejudices to "justify" things. So which do we >>throw out? The scientific method that gets us the facts? Or the prejudices >>and subjectivist thinking that leads to erroneous conclusions based on facts? > I dare you to separate the two, Rich. How many truly unbiased scientists do > we have today? A monumental task, I think. A bogus question and a straw man, I would think. I separate the two on a daily basis. Why can't you? Surely I'm far from the only one who does so, and far from the best at doing so. (You "dare" me?) >>>I agree. But do you agree that there will always be two sides to every >>>scientific inquiry into things like paranormal experiments? I mean, >>>those who really want to disprove paranormal experiences will fight like >>>heck to interpret scientific findings in their favor, just as those who >>>believe in paranormal experiences would interpret the findings differently, >>>as you showed in your example above. >>My example above referred to a real life example of Stephen Hawking, a leader >>in modern physics. In his youth, he WANTED to believe in the paranormal, >>and had an interest. His acutely rational mind showed him what was really >>going on. Is it so impossible for others to be as rigorous and strict in >>such analysis? > Maybe not impossible, but very difficult. I admire Hawking for going against > the norm, but I fear that his type is very rare. Only because we are encouraged to behave in exactly the opposite manner. It would be a lot less rare if religions and other pressures didn't promote such shoddy thinking in their own interests. (Don't think about these things, you'll lose faith in god.) > It is extremely difficult for human beings to throw out ALL preconceived > notions and the like, and evaluate facts based on just those facts. In fact, > since we are raised to believe certain things, denying those things for the > purpose of unbiased analysis would be much akin to denying our very selves. That's an unfounded myth if ever I heard one. Lots of things in life are difficult, but they get done nonetheless. I find the notion that denying bogus beliefs is to deny our "very selves" to be horrifying. Sounds like another notion promulgated by religion in a spate of self-interest. > Very, very few of us are able to do that. Wrong. We are all able to do that. We have been taught to do just the opposite, unfortunately. >>And, by the way, is the notion that "scientific rigor contributes to an >>atmosphere in which the phenomena cannot occur" ANYTHING but a vapid >>rationalization? > Depends on who's performing the rigor, doesn't it?! No. Rigorousness implies documentable evidence and reproducible experiments. I reiterate: saying that "such rigor produces 'bad vibes' (ecch!) which interfere with the success of the phenomena" to be a shoddy ridiculous rationalization. >>>>In an age in which thinking things through is out of fashion, where people >>>>are being taught to use the "right side of the brain" without having >>>>mastered the use of the left, and where religious autocrats would squelch >>>>the teaching of scientific inquiry and logic as a means of thinking and >>>>reaching conclusions, you bet I'm scared. Scared that wishy-washy-ful >>>>thinkers will shred human learning and bring us back to the dark ages of >>>>willy nilly superstition. >>>Why is this age any different? We've always had the "religious autocrats" >>>and wishy-washy-ful thinkers to contend with. Yes, there are religions that >>>seek to downplay scientific discovery, but there always have been, and we >>>seem to be getting along pretty well. >>I don't call this resurgence of "let's get rid of secular humanism because >>that sort of thinking interferes with our preconceived conclusions" getting >>along pretty well. It sounds to me like a return to the age of Galileo. > To address your particular example, a religious source would say "get rid > of secular humanism because it interferes with my preconceived notion that > there is a god". You, however (I use you because of your tone in the > preceding quote), would say "let's squelch religion because this sort of > thinking interferes with my preconceived conclusion that there is no god". Where have I said anything about squelching religion? On the contrary, I seek to encourage real open discussion about the problems with the preconceived notions of religious belief, in which I feel confident that religion will (as it always has) come up short. But that can only be determined by the course of things. Is seeking to prevent such a resurgence of oppression as I described the same thing as "squelching religion"? (Some would say "yes", because they feel such oppression is the birthright of their religion.) > Who's more guilty? Sure, there are lots of loudly-voiced issues in today's > world, but technological advances are mainly responsible for them seeming > any bigger than they were before. These same arguments were going on in > the past. Yes, there is a big campaign against secular humanism, but if > you'll look on the other side of the coin, there is an equal (or bigger) > campaign in favor of it! Where? In the minds of presumptive religionists? I fail to see a difference between what THEY are calling secular humanism and the skills of objective reasoning, which you yourself have been quick to say "no one can achieve". They certainly can achieve them, and draw whatever conclusions they like thereafter about things (like religion). Is it THIS that the religionists fear? >>>As an example, what if science suddenly announced it had concrete proof that >>>God exists? How long would you ponder the evidence, and how hard would you >>>try to fight its implications for yourself? Now compare your acceptance of >>>that with your acceptance of a scientific announcement which only serves to >>>solidify a belief you've had for years. Be fair now - which is easier to >>>accept, and which would tend to make you downplay, ridicule, or explain >>>away "facts". THIS is the wishful thinking you've been talking about, but >>>it's a part of all of us - even you, I bet! >>But the bottom line comes when the explanation hits the fan. Does it hold >>up? Is it based on MORE (or "the same old") presumptions? > When the explanation hits WHOSE fan, Rich? Who decides? This fictitious > thing called "science" which seeks only truth? Fictitious to whom? Science represents a set of goals to be achieved in analyzing things to acquire truth. What is fictitious about that? > I can't believe it really exists, because SOMEBODY has to run the fan. > Facts don't decide anything until they're interpreted. BAM!! We've run into > those interpreters again! And if those interpreters don't engage in bogus assumptions, then you have no problem. It seems you don't WANT "no problem". Why? -- 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
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/18/85)
>>Are you asking us to stop looking for facts >>because someone might use them for evil? Are you saying that the less we >>learn (as a race) the better our lives will be, because people will have >>less knowledge at their disposal to use for evil? [RICH ROSEN] Don't you learn? Damn! We'd be living in Eden still if some idiot hadn't made an attempt to become enlightened with facts! For Heaven's sake (no pun intended), Rich, you're salvation depends on your ignorance! If G-d doesn't say it, DON'T LISTEN! -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "What? With her?" -Adam from _The_Book_of_Genesis_
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (09/19/85)
>>> As an example, what if science suddenly announced it had concrete proof that >>> God exists? How long would you ponder the evidence, and how hard would you >>> try to fight its implications for yourself? Now compare your acceptance of >>> that with your acceptance of a scientific announcement which only serves to >>> solidify a belief you've had for years. Be fair now - which is easier to >>> accept, and which would tend to make you downplay, ridicule, or explain >>> away "facts". THIS is the wishful thinking you've been talking about, but >>> it's a part of all of us - even you, I bet! > >>But the bottom line comes when the explanation hits the fan. Does it hold >>up? Is it based on MORE (or "the same old") presumptions? > >When the explanation hits WHOSE fan, Rich? Who decides? This fictitious >thing called "science" which seeks only truth? I can't believe it really >exists, because SOMEBODY has to run the fan. Facts don't decide anything >until they're interpreted. BAM!! We've run into those interpreters >again! Bill, you are not alone in thinking that science (the application of the scientific method) is fictitious, even among technical folk. But the scientific method is very deep; it has the peculiar property of *being able to predict things which actually happen*. It produces useful results, unlike religion, astrology, or Von Daniken. The evidence is all around you. There is a satirical publication called "The Journal of Irreproducible Results". It is such a joke because the whole basis of the scientific method is the reproducibility of results. Those things which are accepted scientifically are those for which there is little or no controversy among those who apply logic and analysis. "WHOSE fan" is *anyone's* fan. If you can demonstrate a flaw in a scientific claim in a way that others can reproduce, your demonstration will be accepted. The secret of the scientific method is its "democracy". You cannot just *proclaim* things; they must be able to stand the test. Scientists reject the parapsychological claims of pseudo-scientists like Thelma Moss because the results are not reproducible under controlled conditions by unbiased observers. If the current human scientific community is so politically warped as to reject objectivity en masse, as with phrenology or Lysenkoism, it still must stand to the criticism of future generations. Scientific discovery and advance is nearly monotonic; no such claim can be made for any religion. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
garys@ecsvax.UUCP (Gary J. Smith MD) (09/20/85)
Rich, I find your rhetoric about science disturbing, if not dangerous. There is nothing more dangerous than a human's claim to knowing the "objective truth." When you say that science is the objective and methodical search for facts, you are sadly ignoring the scientific method's limitations. And I would argue that science is only useful when its limitations are kept firmly in mind. I believe it was Charley who tried to convince you of the subjectivity of science. Let me try my hand at it. Put simply, the work of a scientist, no matter how honest and noble a scientist he is, in large part always reflects his preconceived notions and assumptions. Why? The reason is that the questions a scientist asks govern the results of his work. Asking questions is a very subjective activity; it always reflects what concerns the asker. To the degree that some questions are asked and others are NOT asked, science is therefore subjective. Add to that Heisenberg's insights, and science is no longer the objective and value-free endeavor that you want it to be. It seems highly dishonest to ever claim objectivity. It is an impossibility. The horrors committed in the name of science always are founded on just such an assertion: "These are the facts--science proved them. This is the objective truth. You cannot argue with us, for we have the Truth as Science has given it to us." - Gary Smith
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/20/85)
In article <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP writes: >>>>I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >>>>experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >>>>scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >>>>was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >>>>always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >>>>atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >>>>not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. > >Maybe not impossible, but very difficult. I admire Hawking for going against >the norm, but I fear that his type is very rare. It is extremely difficult >for human beings to throw out ALL preconceived notions and the like, and >evaluate facts based on just those facts. In fact, since we are raised to >believe certain things, denying those things for the purpose of unbiased >analysis would be much akin to denying our very selves. Very, very few of >us are able to do that. This is not directly to the point, but I don't think Hawking is all that unusual in this respect. Remember that Newton did experiments in magic. Lots of reputable and even famous scientists have investigated such things. There are people who actually believe this is an argument in support of their existence. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/22/85)
> Rich, I find your rhetoric about science disturbing, if not dangerous. > There is nothing more dangerous than a human's claim to knowing the > "objective truth." When you say that science is the objective and > methodical search for facts, you are sadly ignoring the scientific > method's limitations. And I would argue that science is only useful > when its limitations are kept firmly in mind. [GARY SMITH] The rhetoric I find disturbing AND dangerous is that of people like Michael Ellis, who would shirk scientific study in favor of wishywashy mystical wishful thinking to "get" a world model to his personal satisfaction (i.e., "giving" him free will, ...) The fact remains that the repeated failure of people who criticize "science" to delineate what they find wrong with science tells me that they are willing to discuss what "science" is all about, that they have no desire to explain what they feel the limitations of the method are, or (worse) they boldly proclaim their own pet demarcation points as the point of limitation for the scientific method, beyond which science CANNOT go. (They'll post guards if necessary. :-) You may not like science (or you may, it's hard to tell), but to suggest substituting for it a set of methods that have repeatedly given us lies, bogus assumptions, and frauds, seems unconscionable. > I believe it was Charley who tried to convince you of the subjectivity > of science. Let me try my hand at it. Put simply, the work of a > scientist, no matter how honest and noble a scientist he is, in large > part always reflects his preconceived notions and assumptions. Why? > The reason is that the questions a scientist asks govern the results > of his work. Asking questions is a very subjective activity; it > always reflects what concerns the asker. To the degree that some > questions are asked and others are NOT asked, science is therefore > subjective. Add to that Heisenberg's insights, and science is no > longer the objective and value-free endeavor that you want it to be. > It seems highly dishonest to ever claim objectivity. It is an > impossibility. Before QM became a popularized method of "debunking" science, determinism, or whatever pet peeve one might have, the use of a word like "impossibility" was condemned by the mysticalists and wishful thinkers: "How dare you claim that that is impossible?" Nowadays, now that a bastardization of Heisenberg is so popular among mysticalists and wishful thinkers as a means of proving themselves right, it seems to be "O.K." to use the word. When science is deemed to support them, it proves something they don't like as "impossible". But if science shows the flaws in a system of thinking that makes the consequences of that system "impossible", the word is being misused. Let's get serious: do you throw out a system that offers us facts about the universe because you feel it can never be "objective" in favor of a system that introduces so much more subjectivity and presumption into the mix as to destroy any hope of acquiring knowledge from such a system? To do this is to bring us back to an age of know nothing wishywashy mysticism. > The horrors committed in the name of science always are founded on > just such an assertion: "These are the facts--science proved them. > This is the objective truth. You cannot argue with us, for we have > the Truth as Science has given it to us." I'm getting sick of this obnoxious, manipulative lie. "Horrors committed in the name of science"? On the contrary, my friend, these horrors all came from adding in their own bogus presumptions together with the facts. "Hmmm, Darwinism talks about survival of the fittest. Obviously my Aryan race is superior and more fit than those Jews, who cause all our problems. (An example of a proven scientific fact that introduced a "horror of science"?) The obvious thing to do is to purify the Aryan race and get rid of the Jews!" Let's get serious, really. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
garys@ecsvax.UUCP (Gary J. Smith MD) (09/23/85)
>> = me, and > = Rich Rosen. In preface to this exchange, I think it wise to point out that although our perspectives may differ, Rich and I are groping after the same thing--truth. I just think it is harder to come by than does he. > > Rich, I find your rhetoric about science disturbing, if not dangerous. > > There is nothing more dangerous than a human's claim to knowing the > > "objective truth." When you say that science is the objective and > > methodical search for facts, you are sadly ignoring the scientific > > method's limitations. And I would argue that science is only useful > > when its limitations are kept firmly in mind. [GARY SMITH] > The rhetoric I find disturbing AND dangerous is that of people like Michael > Ellis, who would shirk scientific study in favor of wishywashy mystical > wishful thinking to "get" a world model to his personal satisfaction > (i.e., "giving" him free will, ...) The fact remains that the repeated > failure of people who criticize "science" to delineate what they find > wrong with science tells me that they are willing to discuss what "science" > is all about, that they have no desire to explain what they feel > the limitations of the method are, or (worse) they boldly proclaim their > own pet demarcation points as the point of limitation for the scientific > method, beyond which science CANNOT go. (They'll post guards if necessary. :-) > You may not like science (or you may, it's hard to tell), but to suggest > substituting for it a set of methods that have repeatedly given us lies, > bogus assumptions, and frauds, seems unconscionable. If you are accusing me of mysticism, then you'd best reread my statement. If you are accusing of me wishful thinking, then you are indeed the master twister of words: I am trying to see science for what it is--a tool, not a panacea offering us Objective Truth, as you seem to believe. You see, I think to enshrine and deify science in the manner that you do is to lie and be involved in fraud. To recognize the subjectivity of science is not to toss it out. Quite the opposite--to recognize science's limitations makes its use as a tool that much more meaningful, inasmuch as you don't use a screwdriver to hammer nails, don't claim for science more it is meant to do. To do otherwise it to involve yourself in the very wishful thinking you condemn in others. > > I believe it was Charley who tried to convince you of the subjectivity > > of science. Let me try my hand at it. Put simply, the work of a > > scientist, no matter how honest and noble a scientist he is, in large > > part always reflects his preconceived notions and assumptions. Why? > > The reason is that the questions a scientist asks govern the results > > of his work. Asking questions is a very subjective activity; it > > always reflects what concerns the asker. To the degree that some > > questions are asked and others are NOT asked, science is therefore > > subjective. Add to that Heisenberg's insights, and science is no > > longer the objective and value-free endeavor that you want it to be. > > It seems highly dishonest to ever claim objectivity. It is an > > impossibility. > Before QM became a popularized method of "debunking" science, determinism, > or whatever pet peeve one might have, the use of a word like "impossibility" > was condemned by the mysticalists and wishful thinkers: "How dare you > claim that that is impossible?" Nowadays, now that a bastardization of > Heisenberg is so popular among mysticalists and wishful thinkers as a means > of proving themselves right, it seems to be "O.K." to use the word. > When science is deemed to support them, it proves something they don't like > as "impossible". But if science shows the flaws in a system of thinking > that makes the consequences of that system "impossible", the word is being > misused. Let's get serious: do you throw out a system that offers us > facts about the universe because you feel it can never be "objective" in > favor of a system that introduces so much more subjectivity and presumption > into the mix as to destroy any hope of acquiring knowledge from such a > system? To do this is to bring us back to an age of know nothing wishywashy > mysticism. Yes, Rich, let's DO get serious. As I said above, I do not intend to throw out science, nor do I intend to claim that it is the only way to find out truth about the universe. It is a very good way to find truth about a good many things in the universe, but it is utterly useless in many situations. For example, questions of morality or aesthetics generally cannot be solved by scientific method. In the 19th century, theologians claimed their task to be that of science. It turned out out to be a farce; one doesn't study God by the scientific method. Nor does it mean that God does not exist because he cannot be "proven" by the scientific method. A belief in God has to stand or fall on different grounds. All of this is to say that to exaggerate the objectivity of science and to overclaim its product is simple and outrageous wishful thinking. > > The horrors committed in the name of science always are founded on > > just such an assertion: "These are the facts--science proved them. > > This is the objective truth. You cannot argue with us, for we have > > the Truth as Science has given it to us." > I'm getting sick of this obnoxious, manipulative lie. "Horrors committed > in the name of science"? On the contrary, my friend, these horrors all > came from adding in their own bogus presumptions together with the facts. > "Hmmm, Darwinism talks about survival of the fittest. Obviously my Aryan > race is superior and more fit than those Jews, who cause all our problems. > (An example of a proven scientific fact that introduced a "horror of science"?) > The obvious thing to do is to purify the Aryan race and get rid of the Jews!" > Let's get serious, really. I said horrors committed IN THE NAME OF science can occur only when just such a view of science as yours is in operation. You see, I don't think science creates horrors any more than you do--I think that well-meaning people who bring their assumptions and expectations with them to the laboratory can easily claim outrageous things in the name of science UNLESS they make it a point to admit and recognize that any work they do is colored by their subjectivity. In simple terms, I am talking about a simple modesty. I believe it was Bronowski in the Ascent of Man who said, "Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.'" Gary Smith, M.D.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/23/85)
In article <1753@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >You may not like science (or you may, it's hard to tell), but to suggest >substituting for it a set of methods that have repeatedly given us lies, >bogus assumptions, and frauds, seems unconscionable. Well, funny thing, science itself has given us "lies", has sometimes presented "frauds", and has generally contained lots of "bogus assumptions". We don't value science for its ability to give us truth; indeed, properly practiced, it spends a lot of time telling us what we don't know. Science is most important as a tool for investigation of natural order-- and that last phrase is quite important. A mehtodology which relies and repeatability and induction simply fails to work where these cannot be either guaranteed or assumed. >> I believe it was Charley who tried to convince you of the subjectivity >> of science. [Gary Smith] It wasn't me. My argument with Rich over science is that he invariably assumes knowledge of things for which their is no evidence of the proper type. >> Let me try my hand at it. Put simply, the work of a >> scientist, no matter how honest and noble a scientist he is, in large >> part always reflects his preconceived notions and assumptions. Why? >> The reason is that the questions a scientist asks govern the results >> of his work. Asking questions is a very subjective activity; it >> always reflects what concerns the asker. To the degree that some >> questions are asked and others are NOT asked, science is therefore >> subjective. Add to that Heisenberg's insights, and science is no >> longer the objective and value-free endeavor that you want it to be. >> It seems highly dishonest to ever claim objectivity. It is an >> impossibility. >Before QM became a popularized method of "debunking" science, determinism, >or whatever pet peeve one might have, the use of a word like "impossibility" >was condemned by the mysticalists and wishful thinkers: "How dare you >claim that that is impossible?" Oh really? Do you have some useful proof? Actually, the truth of the matter is that until Maxwell, Einstein and Planck came along, physicists were beginning to talk about knowing all there was to know about basic physics. Einstein was comepletely convinced that the randomness the Quantum types were asserting was flatly wrong. > Nowadays, now that a bastardization of >Heisenberg is so popular among mysticalists and wishful thinkers as a means >of proving themselves right, it seems to be "O.K." to use the word. >When science is deemed to support them, it proves something they don't like >as "impossible". But if science shows the flaws in a system of thinking >that makes the consequences of that system "impossible", the word is being >misused. Let's get serious: do you throw out a system that offers us >facts about the universe because you feel it can never be "objective" in >favor of a system that introduces so much more subjectivity and presumption >into the mix as to destroy any hope of acquiring knowledge from such a >system? To do this is to bring us back to an age of know nothing wishywashy >mysticism. As usual Rich is trying to assert a dichotomy where there are a lot of options in fact. The choice is not between science and mysticism; the choice is whether or not we want to challenge the ability of science to satifiactorily investigate some phenomena. Let's take mystics as a case in point. Now Rich is hardly in any position to claim that the claims of any particular mystic or group of mystics are false. He hasn't (apparently) had such an experience, he knows as little about the brain and the mind as the rest of us, and he hasn't been studying the physiology of these people. All he can do is speculate. >> The horrors committed in the name of science always are founded on >> just such an assertion: "These are the facts--science proved them. >> This is the objective truth. You cannot argue with us, for we have >> the Truth as Science has given it to us." >I'm getting sick of this obnoxious, manipulative lie. "Horrors committed >in the name of science"? On the contrary, my friend, these horrors all >came from adding in their own bogus presumptions together with the facts. >"Hmmm, Darwinism talks about survival of the fittest. Obviously my Aryan >race is superior and more fit than those Jews, who cause all our problems. >(An example of a proven scientific fact that introduced a "horror of >science"?) The obvious thing to do is to purify the Aryan race and get >rid of the Jews!" Let's get serious, really. Well, you for one are not so pure. Charley Wingate
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (09/24/85)
>Don't you learn? Damn! We'd be living in Eden still if some idiot hadn't >made an attempt to become enlightened with facts! For Heaven's sake (no >pun intended), Rich, you're salvation depends on your ignorance! If G-d >doesn't say it, DON'T LISTEN! Will you goddamn frigging anti-intellectual religious aholes please keep your putrid hubristic self-justifying wire-in-the-brain "ignorance is bliss" syllogistically circular crap out of net.philosophy? If there are any Christian idiots out there who are offended or upset by my words, just remember that *your* teachings tell you that it isn't yours to judge, and that it is yours to turn the other cheek. If you think your god is up to it, then I dare you to let *him* deal with me; he certainly shouldn't need the help of one of his puny creations. "How do you know that?" "It says so in the book." "How do you know the book is right?" "The book contains the truth." "How do you know that?" "It says so in the book." "Oh, of course." -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (09/24/85)
> I believe it was Charley who tried to convince you of the subjectivity > of science. Let me try my hand at it. Put simply, the work of a > scientist, no matter how honest and noble a scientist he is, in large > part always reflects his preconceived notions and assumptions. Why? > The reason is that the questions a scientist asks govern the results > of his work. Asking questions is a very subjective activity; it > always reflects what concerns the asker. To the degree that some > questions are asked and others are NOT asked, science is therefore > subjective. The questions asked govern which results are obtained, but not the validity of the results themselves. Scientists of course only obtain a subset of the truth, and which subset is determined is largely a matter of current politics. But scientific method properly applied should lead to assertions with high likelihood of truth. Unfortunately, outside of the physical sciences, and especially outside the physical and biological sciences, the situations are incredibly complex, making the isolation of variables and the unambiguous reproducibility of results very difficult. And, the ability to demonstrate that the predictions of a model are verified in reality, which lies at the very heart of the validity of science, is difficult to come by, and the recognition of its necessity is very weak. Thus, e.g., psychological, sociological, and economic theories live based more on popularity and their appeal to "common sense" than on their verifiability. Thus, there is a lot of stuff called science that is bad science, but that fact should not be used to undermine the power of the scientific method itself. > Add to that Heisenberg's insights, and science is no > longer the objective and value-free endeavor that you want it to be. > It seems highly dishonest to ever claim objectivity. It is an > impossibility. This reflects a very common misconception of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"; it probably wouldn't be such a problem if it were more correctly referred to as "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Rule", for it is a specific statement about the interrelation of specific physical attributes, not some sort of general principle about the subjectiveness of the universe: delta_x * delta_p >= h/(4*pi) where delta_x and delta_p are the root-mean-square deviations of the coordinate of a particle and the corresponding momentum from their mean values, and h is Planck's constant. *That* is the HUP; now what does that say about objectivity and values? What it does say is that what we call particles in fact are somewhat wave-like, and the less their momentum (and thus mass) the more wave-like they are. But it states it in a very explicit, *objective*, *value-free* way. Of course, scientists themselves are not objective or value-free; Heisenberg himself was a Nazi and applied science in heinous ways, which is why Einstein was driven to warn Roosevelt of the destructive potential of atomic energy in the first place (but this highly ethical atheist did not himself directly contribute to the development of weapons). But this new-wave mystic interpretation of science comes from deep naivety of the physics it is based on; folks like Frijof Capra are not helping us along the road to understanding. Of course, physicists aren't helping either when they use terminology subject to such misinterpretation, like "observer", which seems to imply consciousness, when they really mean "observation system", or Gell-Mann's whimsical "Eightfold Way" in regard to the attributes of quarks. There are interesting things to say philosophically about relativity in ethics, the illusory nature of the duality between the mind and the body or the mind and the set of experiences that formed it, and the indeterminacy of human behavior, but validation for such concepts cannot be found in physics, which talks about quite different entities. The important thing to remember is that facts come from science, not scientists. That someone is seeking facts about the universe via science does not affect the validity of any judgement or use of those facts by that person. At the same time, vileness comes from people, not facts. The reality of a statement is not determined by the uses to which it is put. Historically, I believe, the restriction of knowledge and fact, the intentional maintenance of ignorance in others, has been the most potent tool of destructiveness to humans and the human spirit. One form such manipulation of ignorance is taking today is the channeling of all educational funds into the "hard" sciences (but omitting discussion of evolution); important areas being ignored are rhetoric, history, and comparative politics, since these lead one to think critically and to challenge the authority of the maintainers of the status quo. Those who uncritically push the notion of more "scientific" education should carefully consider the wisdom of providing intellectual tools that can be used to build the mechanisms of war without at the same time providing the tools required for understanding and changing human social institutions. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/24/85)
>>The rhetoric I find disturbing AND dangerous is that of people like Michael >>Ellis, who would shirk scientific study in favor of wishywashy mystical >>wishful thinking to "get" a world model to his personal satisfaction >>(i.e., "giving" him free will, ...) The fact remains that the repeated >>failure of people who criticize "science" to delineate what they find >>wrong with science tells me that they are willing to discuss what "science" >>is all about, that they have no desire to explain what they feel the >>limitations of the method are, or (worse) they boldly proclaim their own pet >>demarcation points as the point of limitation for the scientific method, >>beyond which science CANNOT go. (They'll post guards if necessary. :-) >>You may not like science (or you may, it's hard to tell), but to suggest >>substituting for it a set of methods that have repeatedly given us lies, >>bogus assumptions, and frauds, seems unconscionable. > If you are accusing me of mysticism, then you'd best reread my > statement. If you are accusing of me wishful thinking, then you > are indeed the master twister of words: [GARY SMITH] A good look at what I said would show that I wasn't accusing *you* of anything. Perhaps NOW I might be justified in accusing you of wishful thinking in that you "wished" I was accusing you of things, but I don't think that's important. > I am trying to see science for what it is--a tool, not a panacea offering us > Objective Truth, as you seem to believe. Hmm, you WERE just referring to ME as the "master twister of words", weren't you? You're absolutely right, scientific reason is a tool for acquiring knowledge, just as subjective opinion and working backwards from conclusions might be thought of as tools. I feel that, while science is an appropriate tool for such an activity (as a screwdriver might be for inserting/removing screws), the other methods are not (much as a jello mold would not be useful for screw manipulation). I have gone into the reasons why I believe this is so (the way in which scientific method attempts to verify and rigorously ensure realiability of data as contrasted with simple utterance of opinions, altering axioms to make that opinion a viable conclusion, and saying "that's that"), but in doing so I am met with attacks that claim I am "deifying science" or "being closedminded". > You see, I think to enshrine and deify science in the manner that you do is > to lie and be involved in fraud. ^ e.g., --------| > To recognize the subjectivity of science is not to toss > it out. Quite the opposite--to recognize science's limitations makes > its use as a tool that much more meaningful, inasmuch as you don't > use a screwdriver to hammer nails, don't claim for science more > it is meant to do. To do otherwise it to involve yourself in the > very wishful thinking you condemn in others. I am interested in hearing what things you feel science is not "meant to do" and why. I think you are speculating on the limits and defining them without having encountered them. >>Let's get serious: do you throw out a system that offers us >>facts about the universe because you feel it can never be "objective" in >>favor of a system that introduces so much more subjectivity and presumption >>into the mix as to destroy any hope of acquiring knowledge from such a >>system? To do this is to bring us back to an age of know nothing wishywashy >>mysticism. > Yes, Rich, let's DO get serious. As I said above, I do not intend > to throw out science, nor do I intend to claim that it is the only > way to find out truth about the universe. It is a very good way to > find truth about a good many things in the universe, but it is utterly > useless in many situations. For example, questions of morality or > aesthetics generally cannot be solved by scientific method. That sounds an awful lot like an assumption without backing to me. Can you explicitly elaborate on why that might be? I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I've just never heard a satisfactory explanation of the reasons behind this other than "it's obvious". > In the 19th century, theologians claimed their task to be that of science. > It turned out out to be a farce; one doesn't study God by the > scientific method. Nor does it mean that God does not exist because > he cannot be "proven" by the scientific method. A belief in God > has to stand or fall on different grounds. All of this is to say > that to exaggerate the objectivity of science and to overclaim its > product is simple and outrageous wishful thinking. I find this set of statements to be erroneous. Because to claim exemption from verifiability for a particular set of beliefs about the real world (not personal tastes and such which are internalized---"I like this and not this") strikes me as the very thing you claim not to be doing: throwing out science. You (hypothetical you) may not like particular conclusions, and you may prefer certain other ones. Because of this, do you thus go back and alter the axioms to make the conclusion fit? Accept poorly documented evidence as fact because it helps to reach the conclusion? Or (worst of all?) just claim that this method "isn't applicable" in this case because you say so? Because you NEED it not to be "applicable" for this case in order to preserve a conclusion that you like? >>> The horrors committed in the name of science always are founded on >>> just such an assertion: "These are the facts--science proved them. >>> This is the objective truth. You cannot argue with us, for we have >>> the Truth as Science has given it to us." >>I'm getting sick of this obnoxious, manipulative lie. "Horrors committed >>in the name of science"? On the contrary, my friend, these horrors all >>came from adding in their own bogus presumptions together with the facts. >>"Hmmm, Darwinism talks about survival of the fittest. Obviously my Aryan >>race is superior and more fit than those Jews, who cause all our problems. >>(example of a proven scientific fact that introduced a "horror of science"?) >>The obvious thing to do is to purify the Aryan race and get rid of the Jews!" > I said horrors committed IN THE NAME OF science can occur only > when just such a view of science as yours is in operation. You > see, I don't think science creates horrors any more than you > do--I think that well-meaning people who bring their assumptions > and expectations with them to the laboratory can easily claim > outrageous things in the name of science UNLESS they make it a > point to admit and recognize that any work they do is colored by > their subjectivity. Then that's not science. So what are you arguing about? ***************** >>> To the degree that some >>> questions are asked and others are NOT asked, science is therefore >>> subjective. Add to that Heisenberg's insights, and science is no >>> longer the objective and value-free endeavor that you want it to be. >>> It seems highly dishonest to ever claim objectivity. It is an >>> impossibility. >>Before QM became a popularized method of "debunking" science, determinism, >>or whatever pet peeve one might have, the use of a word like "impossibility" >>was condemned by the mysticalists and wishful thinkers: "How dare you >>claim that that is impossible?" Nowadays, now that a bastardization of >>Heisenberg is so popular among mysticalists and wishful thinkers as a means >>of proving themselves right, it seems to be "O.K." to use the word. >>When science is deemed to support them, it proves something they don't like >>as "impossible". But if science shows the flaws in a system of thinking >>that makes the consequences of that system "impossible", the word is being >>misused. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (09/24/85)
>> Rich, I find your rhetoric about science disturbing, if not dangerous. >> There is nothing more dangerous than a human's claim to knowing the >> "objective truth." When you say that science is the objective and >> methodical search for facts, you are sadly ignoring the scientific >> method's limitations. And I would argue that science is only useful >> when its limitations are kept firmly in mind. [GARY SMITH] > >The rhetoric I find disturbing AND dangerous is that of people like Michael >Ellis, who would shirk scientific study in favor of wishywashy mystical >wishful thinking to "get" a world model to his personal satisfaction >(i.e., "giving" him free will, ...) Oh, I see -- ignoring the evidence of modern science is shirking scientific study! As a strict determinist in my early days, I only came to my present conclusions AFTER the study of evidence that you clearly must ignore in order to uphold your wishful opinion. >The fact remains that the repeated >failure of people who criticize "science" to delineate what they find >wrong with science tells me that they are willing to discuss what "science" >is all about, that they have no desire to explain what they feel >the limitations of the method are, or (worse) they boldly proclaim their >own pet demarcation points as the point of limitation for the scientific >method, beyond which science CANNOT go. (They'll post guards if necessary:-) >You may not like science (or you may, it's hard to tell), but to suggest >substituting for it a set of methods that have repeatedly given us lies, >bogus assumptions, and frauds, seems unconscionable. I hardly criticize science. Rather, I respect science so deeply I am appalled by its abuse. However, your future submissions are warmly encouraged, as you invariably underscore my points by your personal example. >> I believe it was Charley who tried to convince you of the subjectivity >> of science. Let me try my hand at it. Put simply, the work of a >> scientist, no matter how honest and noble a scientist he is, in large >> part always reflects his preconceived notions and assumptions. Why? >> The reason is that the questions a scientist asks govern the results >> of his work. Asking questions is a very subjective activity; it >> always reflects what concerns the asker. To the degree that some >> questions are asked and others are NOT asked, science is therefore >> subjective. Add to that Heisenberg's insights, and science is no >> longer the objective and value-free endeavor that you want it to be. >> It seems highly dishonest to ever claim objectivity. It is an >> impossibility. > >Before QM became a popularized method of "debunking" science, determinism, >or whatever pet peeve one might have, the use of a word like "impossibility" >was condemned by the mysticalists and wishful thinkers: "How dare you >claim that that is impossible?" Then how can we avoid the intrinsic problem that humans interpret empirical evidence? If we deny this subjective bottleneck, we will forever be vulnerable to the hubris that derives from our essential human nature. Anyway, I have only offered arguments from QM to support the notions below: (1) Deterministic arguments can no longer be used as a convincing scientific argument against spontaneous behavior (what you call `free will'). (2) Nonlocality provides conclusive proof that the events are not determined by temporally and spatially impinging causes. (2) QM supports the contention that empirical evidence implies limits to scientific knowledge (should future advances change this, I will gladly accept change my mind). If anyone here is discrediting science, it is fools like you who pretend to be supporters of science. The truth is you are as compulsively anti-science as any anti-evolutionist. I do not claim that determinism is impossible. But the arguments against classical causal determinism are RIGOROUS, and consist of far more than the empirical evidence for randomness. >Nowadays, now that a bastardization of >Heisenberg is so popular among mysticalists and wishful thinkers as a means >of proving themselves right, it seems to be "O.K." to use the word. Apparently, to you a `mysticalist' is anyone who does not accept your astoundingly small minded concepts about philosophy and science. Furthermore Heisenberg seems to represent the limits of your knowledge of QM. What about Bohr, Von Neumann, Bohm, Bell, etc? Correlations in the data have been rigorously demonstrated to be unexplainable by antecedent causes (ie - temporally and spatially propagated hidden-state information)? >When science is deemed to support them, it proves something they don't like >as "impossible". But if science shows the flaws in a system of thinking >that makes the consequences of that system "impossible", the word is being >misused. Let's get serious: do you throw out a system that offers us >facts about the universe because you feel it can never be "objective" in >favor of a system that introduces so much more subjectivity and presumption >into the mix as to destroy any hope of acquiring knowledge from such a >system? To do this is to bring us back to an age of know nothing wishywashy >mysticism. Only someone who is ignorant of the scientific facts would say such a thing. In what way have your opponents `thrown out' science? At worst, you are fighting against efforts to understand and unify the wisdom acquired by generations of human experience. It is only YOU who wish to discredit the philosophical heritage of this planet, except for that which agrees with obsolete 19th century determinism. The modern indeterminism you abhor does not simply say "we cannot know, so we'll let the mystics decide". Modern nondetermistic theories rather supply new and powerful models that describe reality in ways that, though in conflict with the classical modes of thinking, far outstrip the descriptive power of the older deterministic approach. Your error is that you assume that science must, at all costs, destroy the ancient nonscientific systems, and therefore you refuse to accept advances in science that do not clearly serve your dogmatic and destructive aims. You would rather reject powerful theories if they do not serve your hateful partisan purposes. Is that search for truth? In conclusion I offer a quote a favorite author of mine, who incidentally, neither accepts free will, nor believes that science has any limits. He does, however, view science as a threat to our freedom comparable only in magnitude to religion: Are we to admit that we live in an illusion, that the truth is hidden and that it must be discovered by special means? Or should we not rather assert the reality of our common views over the reality of some specialist conceptions? Must we adapt our lives to the ideas and rules devised by small groups of intellectuals (physicians, medical researchers, socio-biologists, `rationalists' of all sorts) or should we not rather demand that intellectuals be mindful of circumstances that matter to fellow human beings? Can we regard our lives on this earth and the ideas we have developed to cope with the accidents we encounter as measures of reality, or are they of only secondary importance when compared to with the conditions of the soul as described in religious beliefs? These are the questions that arise when we compare commonsense with religious notions or with abstract ideas that intellectuals have tried to put over on us ever since the so-called rise of rationalism in the West... We decide to regard those things as real which play an important part in the kind of life we prefer. - Paul Feyerabend, "Realism, Rationalism & Scientific Method" Carry data, chop logic! -michael
cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (09/25/85)
In article <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP writes: >I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. Can you say straw-man? I knew you could. I suppose there are people who would make the above claim. There are also many who would claim that Laetrile cures cancer, whatever the statistics say. This in no way reflects on legitimate cancer researchers. Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many (conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that the experiment were a parapsychology experiment. Without knowing more about the experiments and what "enforcing scientific rigor" means in this case, I could not speak with any authority on why Hawking got the results he did. The simplest explanation from a parapsychologist's point of view is the obvious one. Hawking failed to illicit psi phenomena at all, and was only observing artifacts, which disappeared upon application of rigorous methods. Parapsychology can best be described as an observational science. We set up conditions in the laboratory which will allow us to distinguish psi phenomena, if it occurs, from noise, statistical and physical. We are also starting to discover those conditions which are "psi conducive", i.e., which increase the likelihood that the phenomena will be there to be observed. It occurs more often than chance would predict. Failure to observe it under a particular set of conditions or on a particular occasion, modifies the meta-statistics from which we determine whether something real is going on but, by itself, does not disprove the hypothesis. Non-occurrence says exactly as much about psi as failure to observe a black hole on some particular night of viewing says about general relativity. Speaking of rigor, how rigorous was the experiment of "enforcing scientific rigor?" Were all other factor held constant or counter-balanced? Was condition order (rigorous vs. non-rigorous) counter-balanced? Was subject, supervising experimenter, tabulator and scorer (whether or not these were different people) all blind to which condition was in effect? If not, how much credence can be put in the result? Is sauce for the goose sauce for the gander? Or is rigor only required when you don't like the results? Topher Cooper USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/25/85)
>>You may not like science (or you may, it's hard to tell), but to suggest >>substituting for it a set of methods that have repeatedly given us lies, >>bogus assumptions, and frauds, seems unconscionable. [ROSEN] > Well, funny thing, science itself has given us "lies", has sometimes > presented "frauds", and has generally contained lots of "bogus assumptions". > [WINGATE] Care to elaborate on cases where science has given us lies. Science... > We don't value science for its ability to give us truth; indeed, properly > practiced, it spends a lot of time telling us what we don't know. Science > is most important as a tool for investigation of natural order-- and that > last phrase is quite important. A mehtodology which relies and > repeatability and induction simply fails to work where these cannot be > either guaranteed or assumed. Where the evidence has consistently shown us the viability of this methodology time and again. You are suggesting "well, there might be some circumstances in which this doesn't hold and thus my 'theory' might be right". >>>I believe it was Charley who tried to convince you of the subjectivity >>>of science. [Gary Smith] > It wasn't me. My argument with Rich over science is that he invariably > assumes knowledge of things for which their is no evidence of the proper > type. I.e., Charle's argument with me is that he claims I do the same thing he does with repeatable regularity. Right? >>Before QM became a popularized method of "debunking" science, determinism, >>or whatever pet peeve one might have, the use of a word like "impossibility" >>was condemned by the mysticalists and wishful thinkers: "How dare you >>claim that that is impossible?" > Oh really? Do you have some useful proof? Of WHAT? That people did this? They still do (those who haven't yet gotten into watered-down QM as a "proof" of their beliefs). > Actually, the truth of the > matter is that until Maxwell, Einstein and Planck came along, physicists > were beginning to talk about knowing all there was to know about basic > physics. Einstein was comepletely convinced that the randomness the Quantum > types were asserting was flatly wrong. It might be pointed out that the reason he believed this was that he felt "God doesn't play dice with the universe". Imagine that, one of the greatest scientific minds of all time falls prey to a religious assumption (that he regretted making later in life). Perhaps the next generation's great scientific mind (if it has one---the "elimination of secular humanism from schools" may prevent that) will make even fewer assumptions. >> Do you throw out a system that offers us >>facts about the universe because you feel it can never be "objective" in >>favor of a system that introduces so much more subjectivity and presumption >>into the mix as to destroy any hope of acquiring knowledge from such a >>system? To do this is to bring us back to an age of know nothing wishywashy >>mysticism. > As usual Rich is trying to assert a dichotomy where there are a lot of > options in fact. The choice is not between science and mysticism; the > choice is whether or not we want to challenge the ability of science to > satifiactorily investigate some phenomena. Why do you want to challenge it? Has it stopped "working"? Or, more likely, has it failed to reach conclusions that YOU like, thus "obviously" making it wrong (and worthy of being "challenged")? > Let's take mystics as a case in point. Now Rich is hardly in any position to > claim that the claims of any particular mystic or group of mystics are false. > He hasn't (apparently) had such an experience, he knows as little about the > brain and the mind as the rest of us, and he hasn't been studying t/devi10/rasti10/CW.8 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/CW.9 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EB.10 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EB.14 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EB.9 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EI.10 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EI.14 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EI.9 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HB.10 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/B.10 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/B.14 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/B.16 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HB.14 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/SV.9 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/RASTERLIST /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/B.12 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HB.9 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.10 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.12 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.14 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.16 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.18 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.6 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.8 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.9 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HK.10 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HK.12 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HK.14 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HK.16 /usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/H On the contrary, my friend, these horrors all >>came from adding in their own bogus presumptions together with the facts. >>"Hmmm, Darwinism talks about survival of the fittest. Obviously my Aryan >>race is superior and more fit than those Jews, who cause all our problems. >>(An example of a proven scientific fact that introduced a "horror of >>science"?) The obvious thing to do is to purify the Aryan race and get >>rid of the Jews!" Let's get serious, really. > Well, you for one are not so pure. It is because of foul crap like this that it is likely you will not see me respond to the obnoxious Wingate in the future. Doubtless he will call this a "victory". Good for him. Notice that his "victory" consisted of his not in any way responding to what I said in the previous paragraph. That the "horrors" that Gary Smith spoke of come not from science but from application of scientific facts by people who add in other bogus assumptions, such as the one I described. I take Charles' silence (outside of hrselves this week Lines: 110 Xref: bonnie net.politics:8217 net.religion:5051 >>>The main problem with most current programs >>>(and here I think I'm more concerned with sex education than last ditch >>>sorts of things) is that, in their zeal to avoid offending the extreme >>>liberals, ... [WINGATE] >>I.e., anyone who recognizes that proper education about sexuality is a >>necceary part of responsible adolescence and adulthood. [ROSEN] > No, it's those people who refuse to recogn
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/26/85)
In article <27500125@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >Will you goddamn frigging anti-intellectual religious aholes please keep your >putrid hubristic self-justifying wire-in-the-brain "ignorance is bliss" >syllogistically circular crap out of net.philosophy? > >"How do you know that?" >"It says so in the book." >"How do you know the book is right?" >"The book contains the truth." >"How do you know that?" >"It says so in the book." >"Oh, of course." Gosh Jim, maybe you should read what Jesus said about hypertension. A lot of people want to send anything that says "religion" to net.religion. The problem is that within net.religion, religion is always a valid point, in net.philosophy, you can say religion is *philosophically* unsound. Now, to the point: Any good scientist knows that a coordinate system MUST have an origin in order to mean anything. Thus, we can choose the Bible as our absolute reference. Therefore, we don't have to prove it's the truth, because we just defined it as such. There are some who argue that this is a bad idea, because the Bible is not valid. There are others who say that this is a bad idea because it is not consistent. There are, however, some people who say it is both consistent AND valid and therefore is a good "origin". These people are idiots. Here's why: THE GODELLAIN COMPLETENESS THEOREM: A system cannot be consistent and valid at the same time. This is why the Bible contains such clever devices as "DON'T LOOK AT ANY OTHER RELIGIONS" in it. (That's one of the Ten Biggies.) Contrast this with The Church of the Subgenius which claims to be universally inconsistent and therefore universally valid. This Church suggests that you explore other religions and claims that by doing so, you will realize that they are full of it. To quote another netter, Paul Zimmerman: "If you want proof of God's evil, look in the Bible." It's true. Jehovah really sucks big time, but Paul claims that that is absolute proof of His existence, because the known universe sucks too. Existentialism shows us that we can't know anything, we can only believe certain things. Other things can be inferred by cross-referencing your beliefs. Person A believes in the Big Bang, person B in Genesis. Both observe that the stars seem to be billions of years old. Both come to different conclusions. One of these conclusions is easier to believe. Lately, American society has been experiencing some sort of shift in values. People's beliefs are changing. Along with it is a scary resurgence of "Creationism." There are a lot more person B's around. (Anybody who's read net.origins can make their own decision on the consistency and validity of "scientific creationism.") Every time you espouse a philosophy, you drag your religion into it. Now go home and read the Bible! Praise the lord! -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "Ordinary F___ing people -- I hate 'em. Ordinary people spend their lives avoiding tense situations; repo man spends his life getting into tense situations."
moews_b@h-sc1.UUCP (david moews) (09/26/85)
> In article <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP writes: > >I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful > >experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when > >scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is > >was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are > >always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an > >atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's > >not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. > > Can you say straw-man? I knew you could. Where's the 'straw man'? > ... > > Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many > (conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists > would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that > the experiment were a parapsychology experiment. The point is that conditions which are rigorous for an experiment in the natural sciences are not rigorous enough for a parapsychology experiment. Electrons cannot attempt to cheat or violate the experimental conditions; people can, and they have been observed to do so in many previous parapsychology experiments. This means that the experimental conditions must be made much more rigorous than in other sciences (to completely rule out the possibility of cheating.) > Without knowing more about the experiments and what "enforcing scientific > rigor" means in this case, I could not speak with any authority on why Hawking > got the results he did. The simplest explanation from a parapsychologist's > point of view is the obvious one. Hawking failed to illicit psi phenomena > at all, and was only observing artifacts, which disappeared upon application > of rigorous methods. I certainly agree with this, but it is hard to see how Hawking's failure to observe "true" psi phenomena supports your claim that psi phenomena exist. Rather, it supports the claim that all observed psi phenomena are artifacts, since by Occam's Razor it is simpler to have only one mechanism for generating observed psi phenomena rather than two (an "artifactual" one and a "real" one). > ... > > Speaking of rigor, how rigorous was the experiment of "enforcing scientific > rigor?" Were all other factor held constant or counter-balanced? Was > condition order (rigorous vs. non-rigorous) counter-balanced? Was subject, > supervising experimenter, tabulator and scorer (whether or not these were > different people) all blind to which condition was in effect? If not, how > much credence can be put in the result? Is sauce for the goose sauce for the > gander? Or is rigor only required when you don't like the results? > Topher Cooper The point is that Steven Hawking's claim of a correlation of psi phenomena with lack of experimental rigor is of a different character than your claim of the existence of psi phenomena. Hawking presumably did not make a rigorous report on "The Correlation of Parapsychological Phenomena with Experimental Rigor in the Area"; rather, his correlation is mentioned in support of the claim that parapsychological phenomena have not yet been definitively observed. Even without completely rigorous experimental conditions in this proposed "meta-experiment", his correlation suffices to cast doubt on the reliability of parapsychological experiments. It seems to me that such conditions would be very difficult to enforce anyway. (How do you keep the experimenter from knowing when he's being rigorous or not? Use mental defectives? Keep the experimenter confused about what he is supposed to be doing?) David Moews ...decvax!harvard!h-sc4!moews moews%h-sc4@harvard.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/28/85)
> As a strict determinist in my early days, I only came to my present > conclusions AFTER the study of evidence that you clearly must ignore > in order to uphold your wishful opinion. It seems more likely from the way you speak that you came to certain conclusions first and then scarfed up any random data that seemed to support your conclusions to use as "axioms" to "prove" your conclusion. > However, your future submissions are warmly encouraged, as you > invariably underscore my points by your personal example. I think it works out quite the opposite to what you "wishthink" (now an accpeted form of thinking in the brave new world of Ellisist "science"): I think, for example, that the extracts from the works of various philosophers showed that indeed I have been right on the money regarding the definition of free will, and that your philosopher friends attested to that, by either agreeing that that notion represents free will, or by doing what some here are guilty of, building new systems of axioms at random in order to still keep that very same notion of free will "valid". In fact, you have thoroughly discouraged me (coldly) from writing on this topic henceforth, since it is clear you are out to "get" your conclusion at all costs, even if it means defaming me, labelling me in assorted fashions for purposes unknown. >>Before QM became a popularized method of "debunking" science, determinism, >>or whatever pet peeve one might have, the use of a word like "impossibility" >>was condemned by the mysticalists and wishful thinkers: "How dare you >>claim that that is impossible?" > Then how can we avoid the intrinsic problem that humans interpret > empirical evidence? If we deny this subjective bottleneck, we will > forever be vulnerable to the hubris that derives from our essential > human nature. Simply by being as objective as possible, by verifying as much as possible independently. Furthermore, you purposely seem to avoid answering the question at hand: why was it "wrong" to say "it's impossible" to debunk mysticalist events, BUT (now that you think Qm is "on your side"), use of the word "impossible" is OK? > Anyway, I have only offered arguments from QM to support the notions > below: > > (1) Deterministic arguments can no longer be used as a convincing > scientific argument against spontaneous behavior (what you > call `free will'). What *I* call "free will"? On the contrary, Ellis, my argument has persistently been that "spontaneity" (as [apparently] caused by quantum phenomena) is certainly NOT free will. You see, free will involves choice, the making of a decision. And "choose" means "to select freely and after consideration". Claiming that quantum events represent choice is equivalent to claiming that a banana peel on the floor induces you to "choose" to fall down. > (2) QM supports the contention that empirical evidence implies > limits to scientific knowledge (should future advances > change this, I will gladly accept change my mind). Seems unlikely, given your intransigence, and they way you work backwards from a desired conclusion. > If anyone here is discrediting science, it is fools like you... It's a good thing this has been a discussion involving solid criticism of opinions, methods, and points of view on a rational basis rather than a flurry of namecalling directed at anyone who would tear down a holy conclusion. > ... pretend to be supporters of science. The truth is you are as > compulsively anti-science as any anti-evolutionist. Anti-Ellisist = anti-science???? >>Nowadays, now that a bastardization of >>Heisenberg is so popular among mysticalists and wishful thinkers as a means >>of proving themselves right, it seems to be "O.K." to use the word. > Apparently, to you a `mysticalist' is anyone who does not accept > your astoundingly small minded concepts about philosophy and science. No, a mysticalist is one who has desired conclusions about the world based on sets of wishful beliefs (no evidence, of course), who works backwards from those conclusions, scarfing up random data that "supports" the conclusion, ignoring other data, interpreting "accepted" data in such a way as to make the conclusion "obvious". Of course, if it enhances your position with other mysticalists to claim that the above definition is the one I use, go ahead. It's apparent that factuality long ago became irrelevant to your arguments. > Furthermore Heisenberg seems to represent the limits of your knowledge > of QM. What about Bohr, Von Neumann, Bohm, Bell, etc? You don't seem to have said too much more about it yourself. If you're so knowledgeable, why not explain in detail (rather than saying "Dr. Frammis said this, therefore...") what major points are being missed here? I wonder if you are able to, given the wat your data-scarfing process seems to work. >>When science is deemed to support them, it proves something they don't like >>as "impossible". But if science shows the flaws in a system of thinking >>that makes the consequences of that system "impossible", the word is being >>misused. Let's get serious: do you throw out a system that offers us >>facts about the universe because you feel it can never be "objective" in >>favor of a system that introduces so much more subjectivity and presumption >>into the mix as to destroy any hope of acquiring knowledge from such a >>system? To do this is to bring us back to an age of know nothing wishywashy >>mysticism. > Only someone who is ignorant of the scientific facts would say such a > thing. This statement "proves" that I am ignorant. Thank you. I'll now defer in silence to the all-knowing Ellis who has so eloquently (time and again) "proven" me ignorant. > In what way have your opponents `thrown out' science? At worst, > you are fighting against efforts to understand and unify the wisdom > acquired by generations of human experience. It is only YOU who wish to > discredit the philosophical heritage of this planet, except for that > which agrees with obsolete 19th century determinism. Given some of what you've shown of this "heritage" (i.e., that which of course supports your random point of view at the time), it sounds like a good deal of it should be thrown out. Of course, you would keep anything that supports a conclusion you like, as that is an important part of the new Ellisist scientific method. > The modern indeterminism you abhor does not simply say "we cannot > know, so we'll let the mystics decide". Yet that is what you are doing. That is what is being offered. "We don't know, therefore those mysticalists/religionists must be right! Let's write a book called "The Yin/Yang of Quark/Quantum", and "prove" the connection by using the new Ellisist scientific method. (I guess we can't pin your name on it: others used it long before you.) > Your error is that you assume that science must, at all costs, destroy > the ancient nonscientific systems, and therefore you refuse to > accept advances in science that do not clearly serve your dogmatic and > destructive aims. No, I "assume" that interpretations of science that work backwards from conclusions like those you describe as "ancient" in order to "get" to them in a backassed way. > You would rather reject powerful theories if they do not serve your > hateful partisan purposes. Is that search for truth? I hardly think the words "search for truth" applies to the Ellisist method, because of the reasons I give above and because you feel the need to engage in name-calling repeatedly ("hateful", "fool", the list goes on...). > Are we to admit that we live in an illusion, that the truth is > hidden and that it must be discovered by special means? Or should > we not rather assert the reality of our common views over the > reality of some specialist conceptions? Must we adapt our lives to > the ideas and rules devised by small groups of intellectuals > (physicians, medical researchers, socio-biologists, `rationalists' > of all sorts) or should we not rather demand that intellectuals > be mindful of circumstances that matter to fellow human beings? > > Can we regard our lives on this earth and the ideas we have > developed to cope with the accidents we encounter as measures of > reality, or are they of only secondary importance when compared to > with the conditions of the soul as described in religious beliefs? > These are the questions that arise when we compare commonsense > with religious notions or with abstract ideas that intellectuals > have tried to put over on us ever since the so-called rise of > rationalism in the West... We decide to regard those things as real > which play an important part in the kind of life we prefer. > > - Paul Feyerabend, "Realism, Rationalism & Scientific Method" Strikes me as one of the most (typically) contorted statements I've heard in a while. "Who cares what people who seriously examine things say? We 'common people' believe in certain things, and that's what counts. So what if the evidence contradicts this? How dare they do that? Let's 'make' them describe the world in ways that are meaningful to us, regardless of how flimsy our beliefs may be!" I am sure this will cause you to writhe in anger that I have once again disagreed with one of your beliefs. Fine. Then don't bother responding. It's obvious you choose this position, and will let nothing stand in the way of your continuing to believe it. It is too important to you. The conclusions come first. Since this is an axiom of yours, there is no point in debating further. "Guilty! Read the charges!" This applies (apparently) not only to your beliefs, but to your criticisms of me. I'm not willing to be a "defendant" in your kangaroo court any longer. "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first--verdict afterwards." -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (09/29/85)
>/* Written 12:32 pm Sep 25, 1985 by cooper@decwrl in ISM780B:net.philosophy */ >In article <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP writes: >>I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >>experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >>scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >>was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >>always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >>atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >>not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. > >Can you say straw-man? I knew you could. > >I suppose there are people who would make the above claim. There are also >many who would claim that Laetrile cures cancer, whatever the statistics say. >This in no way reflects on legitimate cancer researchers. It is not a straw man when major psi types like Thelma Moss use this excuse. >Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many >(conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists >would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that >the experiment were a parapsychology experiment. If that is true, why do most scientists, and most non-parapsychological scientists who have investigated, reject it? Please document these claims. Parapsychology is not widely accepted in the scientific community precisely because it has *not* been demonstrated in the way you calim. >Without knowing more about the experiments and what "enforcing scientific >rigor" means in this case, I could not speak with any authority on why Hawking >got the results he did. The simplest explanation from a parapsychologist's >point of view is the obvious one. Hawking failed to illicit psi phenomena >at all, and was only observing artifacts, which disappeared upon application >of rigorous methods. How are "artifacts" distinguished from "psi phenomena", other than operationally by believing, vested-interest, parapsychologists? Unless you have good a priori definitions that can be reliably applied, you are not practicing science. >Parapsychology can best be described as an observational science. We set up >conditions in the laboratory which will allow us to distinguish psi phenomena, >if it occurs, from noise, statistical and physical. We are also starting to >discover those conditions which are "psi conducive", i.e., which increase the >likelihood that the phenomena will be there to be observed. It occurs more >often than chance would predict. It appears to me that most parapsychologists (not to mention regular psychologists and lots of others) don't understand statistics very well. Statistics *predicts* that random occurrence will *on occasion* give rise to phenomena beyond what chance predicts. That is the nature of the distribution curve. But, by only considering those situations when you get good results, and trying to fit them to a "psi conducive" mold, you are skewing the results. >Speaking of rigor, how rigorous was the experiment of "enforcing scientific >rigor?" Were all other factor held constant or counter-balanced? Was >condition order (rigorous vs. non-rigorous) counter-balanced? Was subject, >supervising experimenter, tabulator and scorer (whether or not these were >different people) all blind to which condition was in effect? If not, how >much credence can be put in the result? Is sauce for the goose sauce for the >gander? Or is rigor only required when you don't like the results? You seem to be requesting a proof that rigor provides more reliable results that lack of rigor. This sort of recursive obfuscation may be good for argument, but not for science. The fact is that there is good documentation of the illimination of "results" through the introduction of rigor, and the observation of lack of rigor and active skewing of results among parapsychologists through such simple methods as secret observation. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/29/85)
In article <1774@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >> I said horrors committed IN THE NAME OF science can occur only >> when just such a view of science as yours is in operation. You >> see, I don't think science creates horrors any more than you >> do--I think that well-meaning people who bring their assumptions >> and expectations with them to the laboratory can easily claim >> outrageous things in the name of science UNLESS they make it a >> point to admit and recognize that any work they do is colored by >> their subjectivity. > >Then that's not science. So what are you arguing about? Hmm, then there is no such thing as science. I heve never yet met a scientist, no matter how great, who did *not* bring personnal preconceptions and prjudices into the lab. I do it, so do all the scientist I met, and learned to respect, at school. That is why I think claiming total objectivity for science is a sham. It attempts to reach that goal, but human responses prevent its ever being achieved. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
garys@ecsvax.UUCP (Gary J. Smith MD) (09/30/85)
>> I am trying to see science for what it is--a tool, not a panacea offering us >> Objective Truth, as you seem to believe. [me] >You're absolutely right, scientific reason is a tool for acquiring >knowledge, just as subjective opinion and working backwards from conclusions >might be thought of as tools. I feel that, while science is an appropriate >tool for such an activity (as a screwdriver might be for inserting/removing >screws), the other methods are not (much as a jello mold would not be useful >for screw manipulation). I have gone into the reasons why I believe this is >so (the way in which scientific method attempts to verify and rigorously >ensure realiability of data as contrasted with simple utterance of opinions, >altering axioms to make that opinion a viable conclusion, and saying "that's >that"), but in doing so I am met with attacks that claim I am "deifying >science" or "being closedminded". [Rich Rosen] The only reason I would accuse you of deifying science (perhaps 'worshiping' science would be more accurate), is that your position assumes there is some sort of pure science that obtains pure facts on which pure knowledge can be founded. This seems to ignore everything we know about the relativity and personal character of knowledge. We are both beginning to repeat ourselves now, but again--our personal assumptions and prior experience always color our knowledge and our observations. Our activities don't take place in an objective vacuum; they take place within history. Science is done within the same history and relativistic world, and its method cannot transcend relativism in order to reach some objective truth. >> To recognize the subjectivity of science is not to toss >> it out. Quite the opposite--to recognize science's limitations makes >> its use as a tool that much more meaningful, inasmuch as you don't >> use a screwdriver to hammer nails, don't claim for science more >> it is meant to do. To do otherwise it to involve yourself in the >> very wishful thinking you condemn in others. >I am interested in hearing what things you feel science is not "meant to do" >and why. I think you are speculating on the limits and defining them without >having encountered them. OK, sure. Can science definitively tell me why J.S. Bach's keyboard music is more advanced and important than Buxtehude's keyboard music? (I can think of no musicologist that wouldn't accept that assessment) Can science do anything to help me understand the meaning and inspiration of a Picasso sculpture? Is science useful in the interpretation of a novel by William Faulkner? There are realms of knowledge that can't really be adequately assessed by the scientific method, which, when you get down to brass tacks, is simply interested in finding repeatable results of designed experimentations. As you see below, I think theology is another worthwhile academic endeavor where science is not particularly useful. But I understand a good number of people deny the existence of God, so my argument in that area would be less than convincing. If you don't believe in God, then my argument that theology is outside the realm of science hardly matters, does it? >> In the 19th century, theologians claimed their task to be that of science. >> It turned out out to be a farce; one doesn't study God by the >> scientific method. Nor does it mean that God does not exist because >> he cannot be "proven" by the scientific method. A belief in God >> has to stand or fall on different grounds. All of this is to say >> that to exaggerate the objectivity of science and to overclaim its >> product is simple and outrageous wishful thinking. >I find this set of statements to be erroneous. Because to claim exemption >from verifiability for a particular set of beliefs about the real world (not >personal tastes and such which are internalized---"I like this and not this") >strikes me as the very thing you claim not to be doing: throwing out science. >You (hypothetical you) may not like particular conclusions, and you may prefer >certain other ones. Because of this, do you thus go back and alter the axioms >to make the conclusion fit? Accept poorly documented evidence as fact because >it helps to reach the conclusion? Or (worst of all?) just claim that this >method "isn't applicable" in this case because you say so? Because you NEED >it not to be "applicable" for this case in order to preserve a conclusion that >you like? Whether I need it to be applicable or not is not really the question, is it? I wouldn't use a jello mold to hammer nails into a board--I would use a hammer. If I want to determine the chemical makeup of an unknown substance, I would no doubt use the scientific method. If I want to understand some complex emotional or intellectual idea, I might study poetry. If I want to express my understanding of God, I would no doubt appeal to some kind of personal experience. There are countless kinds of knowledge that are meaningful and real that do not fit easily into the scientific method of demonstrating repeatable results. To say that knowledge is only valid when it stands the test of the scientific method is to severely limit your universe--indeed it would erase much of what is beautiful and good in the world. >> I said horrors committed IN THE NAME OF science can occur only >> when just such a view of science as yours is in operation. You >> see, I don't think science creates horrors any more than you >> do--I think that well-meaning people who bring their assumptions >> and expectations with them to the laboratory can easily claim >> outrageous things in the name of science UNLESS they make it a >> point to admit and recognize that any work they do is colored by >> their subjectivity. >Then that's not science. So what are you arguing about? This is the whole crux of our disagreement, Rich -- it IS science, and its usefulness as a tool in understanding the universe hinges on our accepting its fallability and its limitations.
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (09/30/85)
>>Let's take mystics as a case in point. Now Rich is hardly in any position to >>claim that the claims of any particular mystic or group of mystics are false. >>He hasn't (apparently) had such an experience, he knows as little about the >>brain and the mind as the rest of us, and he hasn't been studying the >>physiology of these people. All he can do is speculate. [Charley Wingate] > > Have you ever seen the Journal of Irreproducible Results, or (better) the > Skeptical Inquirer? Have you ever acknowledged any serious research on > such phenomena? [Rich Rosen] If *you* had ever read the Journal of Irreproducable Results, Rich, I rather doubt that you would be citing it as a reference. It is a humor magazine, a parody of scientific work. Or can't you tell? Baba
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/01/85)
> A lot of people want to send anything that says "religion" to > net.religion. The problem is that within net.religion, religion is > always a valid point, in net.philosophy, you can say religion is > *philosophically* unsound. Hmmm... Maybe that's the problem. I'm in a newsgroup where any *philosophy* no matter how silly is always valid, rather than one where it's all right to show a philosophy/belief to be *logically* unsound... -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/01/85)
>> Quite true, and I have no objections. The subject was science, so that's >> what I'm confining my comments to. >But you chose to make a special example/case out of science when that is not >the case at all. Thus your points are erroneous in describing the apparent >"evils" of science. The argument is simple. If there were no religion, we could still blow up the world. If there were no politics, we could still blow up the world. If there were no prejudice, we could still blow up the world. ... But if there were no devastating technology (which exponentially increases the potential for destruction of each and every person or hate-group on this planet), we could never blow up anything at all! Besides, my fear is less for ourselves (who gives a damn?); rather, we will probably take many, and, given enough development, all forms of life with us. Only humans care who or what is to blame, and that is totally irrelevant to the innocent bystanders on this planet, our cousins -- the plants and animals. >>>Are you asking us to stop looking for facts because someone might use >>> them for evil? >> Heavens no (where'd I say that?). >By implication. If you would tar science as the "root of all evil" (and not >the morals of those who use the facts obtained by science for "evil"), then >you are saying the above by implication. Objectively speaking, the `moral purpose' is a meaningless subjective illusion. The only real causes are the material and efficient ones, the physical mechanisms which cause an action -- the technology of destruction. Now if we could produce economical weapons that efficiently destroyed only humans, we might minimize the evil... >> My point is, the same set of facts can "prove" several different things, >> depending on who's interpreting them. Thus, BE CAUTIOUS! That's all. >Only different base assumptions (like those Hitler made about his racial >superiority owing to Darwinism) will result in different conclusions. Thus, >the goal is to rid ourselves of those assumptions when attempting to reach >such conclusions. Which is exactly what science is all about. The explosive proliferation of contradictory scientific theories about reality shows no sign of diminishing. Consequently, differing conclusions are symptoms of science's health. Recall the unhealthy intolerance of medieval scholasticism to `heresy'. >> Because science has the general reputation of "being true", a mistake made >> by the scientific community will be bought by all of us who don't exercise >> caution, or think things through. > >Gee, what belief system actually encourages people not to think things >through, to "act on faith"? Gee whiz, why should I believe in empirical induction? Empirical induction worked on occasion A. Empirical induction worked on occasion B. Empirical induction worked on occasion C. ... Consequently, empirical induction is empirically verified? Oh yes, I see. The proof is internal to the system.... >> I mean, does pure "science", the thing that just gathers >> unbiased, untainted facts and presents them, really exist? Or, because >> science is actually a discipline practiced by people like you and me, is >> it something less pure, less unbiased, than this? >So, what you're saying is that the goal is to strive for being more pure, >more unbiased, in analysis, right? Science WOULD be more unbiased if its advocates stopped attacking those systems that do not really conflict. >> I guess I'm saying something similar to, "If there weren't people, there >> wouldn't be science". Whaddaya think? >Fine. So? If there weren't people, there wouldn't be a society. It's that >notion that leads me to the conclusion that people are more important than >the society itself as an entity. But remember that all science does (when >done right) is to gather facts. Correction -- only the `facts' about physical phenomena, distorted by experimental error of technology, interpreted according to the faulty descriptions in existence at the time. No intelligent person is disputing science's authority to that extent. The problem is that the reality of humans is by necessity self-created. Is it wrong to kill animals? What do `harm' and `freedom from interference' mean? Do `God' and `mind' exist? Should developing nations discard all customs and heritage, even those that lack scientific justification but do not otherwise conflict with science? To the extent that people's preconceived notions flatly contradict science, such mores will probably yield to pragmatic considerations. All other preconceptions are true in proportion to people's life within them and false to the extent that they conflict with other human created realities. Like a non-interference principle of truth, I suppose. >>>The interpreters of ANY facts who use their own prejudices to "justify" >>>things. So which do we throw out? The scientific method that gets us >>>the facts? Or the prejudices and subjectivist thinking that leads to >>>erroneous conclusions based on facts? >> I dare you to separate the two, Rich. How many truly unbiased scientists >> do we have today? A monumental task, I think. >A bogus question and a straw man, I would think. I separate the two on a >daily basis. Why can't you? Surely I'm far from the only one who does so, >and far from the best at doing so. (You "dare" me?) Note too that your conclusions often differ substantially from those of the scientific community. One's opinions ARE largely shaped by one's exposure to ideas -- and powerful new theories are appearing faster than anyone can reasonably hope to understand, thus subjectivity is enforced by an ignorance due to science's astonishing fertility. >It would be a lot less rare if religions and other pressures didn't promote >such shoddy thinking in their own interests. (Don't think about these >things, you'll lose faith in god.) It is the nature of all institutions, science included, to `pressure' nonbelievers to its cause. >>It is extremely difficult for human beings to throw out ALL preconceived >>notions and the like, and evaluate facts based on just those facts. In fact, >>since we are raised to believe certain things, denying those things for the >>purpose of unbiased analysis would be much akin to denying our very selves. >That's an unfounded myth if ever I heard one. Lots of things in life are >difficult, but they get done nonetheless. I find the notion that denying >bogus beliefs is to deny our "very selves" to be horrifying. Sounds like >another notion promulgated by religion in a spate of self-interest. Unfounded myth? Interpreting evidence the central problem in philosophy of science. I urge you to read any modern thought in this area -- Lakatos, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend. Not to mention classics like Hume, who first held that science cannot justified by pure reason. Science does not start with stark observation. Its evidence is by necessity seen under the subjective light of some established theory. And who said anything about `bogus beliefs'? Even BF Skinner insists that we ARE shaped by the values, beliefs, etc.. that to make us into what we are. Unfortunately for Skinnerism, there is no rational justification for science either -- it produces `scientific' results no better than religion produces `religious' ones. Clearly we should be free of institutional brainwashing that might impose ideologically petrified beliefs (scientific or otherwise) on us. The point is that all non-contradictory systems that complement each other and encourage fertile cultural plurality should be tolerated -- even cherished.. >> Very, very few of us are able to do that. >Wrong. We are all able to do that. We have been taught to do just the >opposite, unfortunately. Yes, society does shove the methodological constraints of favored forms of knowledge into our so-called `minds'. >> Who's more guilty? Sure, there are lots of loudly-voiced issues in today's >> world, but technological advances are mainly responsible for them seeming >> any bigger than they were before. These same arguments were going on in >> the past. Yes, there is a big campaign against secular humanism, but if >> you'll look on the other side of the coin, there is an equal (or bigger) >> campaign in favor of it! >Where? In the minds of presumptive religionists? I fail to see a difference >between what THEY are calling secular humanism and the skills of objective >reasoning, which you yourself have been quick to say "no one can achieve". >They certainly can achieve them, and draw whatever conclusions they like >thereafter about things (like religion). Is it THIS that the religionists >fear? I cannot speak for the secular humanists -- though I do find myself in strong agreement with most flavors of `humanism' I have encountered to date -- Chinese humanism (`jen') in particular. And who is being presumptive here -- religion or science? Enlightened religions do not tell science what to do with its precious material world. Note that the wisest mystics invariably speak on non-material concerns. Admittedly, those religions that have not successfully extricated themselves from physical controversy have much to fear from science. >> When the explanation hits WHOSE fan, Rich? Who decides? This fictitious >> thing called "science" which seeks only truth? >Fictitious to whom? Science represents a set of goals to be achieved in >analyzing things to acquire truth. What is fictitious about that? Even if rigidly logical machines performed all scientific analysis, the results would still be subjective. There is no absolute determiner of reality. If neither humans nor machines can decide what is real, why should we see the world we must live in thru the mechanical eyes? >> I can't believe it really exists, because SOMEBODY has to run the fan. >> Facts don't decide anything until they're interpreted. BAM!! We've >> run into those interpreters again! > >And if those interpreters don't engage in bogus assumptions, then you have >no problem. It seems you don't WANT "no problem". Why? All empirical assumptions are subjective bogosities. "Free society from the strangling hold of an ideologically petrified science, just as our ancestors freed us from the strangling hold of the One True Religion!" -- Paul Feyerabend -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/02/85)
>> Have you ever seen the Journal of Irreproducible Results, or (better) the >> Skeptical Inquirer? Have you ever acknowledged any serious research on >> such phenomena? [Rich Rosen] > If *you* had ever read the Journal of Irreproducable Results, Rich, I > rather doubt that you would be citing it as a reference. It is a humor > magazine, a parody of scientific work. Or can't you tell? > Baba That WAS the point. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/03/85)
>>But you chose to make a special example/case out of science when that is not >>the case at all. Thus your points are erroneous in describing the apparent >>"evils" of science. > The argument is simple. > If there were no religion, we could still blow up the world. > If there were no politics, we could still blow up the world. > If there were no prejudice, we could still blow up the world. > ... > But if there were no devastating technology (which exponentially > increases the potential for destruction of each and every person or hate- > group on this planet), we could never blow up anything at all! [ELLIS] But if there were none of the "evil" things you mention that lead to discord and violence, WOULD we blow up the world? Your cart is before your horse again. It's like saying if you never eat you'll never get fat, so you shouldn't eat. The argument is simple, yes. Simple in the sense that it ignores the facts of the matter, and thus is simple-minded. Science describes facts, they are made use of in an evil (or good) way based on the presence of the types of things you mentioned. >>>>Are you asking us to stop looking for facts because someone might use >>>> them for evil? >>> Heavens no (where'd I say that?). >>By implication. If you would tar science as the "root of all evil" (and not >>the morals of those who use the facts obtained by science for "evil"), then >>you are saying the above by implication. > Objectively speaking, the `moral purpose' is a meaningless subjective > illusion. The only real causes are the material and efficient ones, > the physical mechanisms which cause an action -- the technology > of destruction. You have warped cause and effect massively here. Does being an "acausalist" prevent you from thinking about how and why those physical mechanisms of destruction come to be? You propose a strange cure: get rid of science and technological knowledge because they provide the means for evil people to engage in evil on a more massive scale, rather than getting rid of the sources of the evil, the presumptive holierthanthou selfrighteousness of religious and political movements which base their "tenets" on presumptions. Doing, in fact, what you do when you describe your models of the universe. Do you now understand why that is a dangerous notion? >>Only different base assumptions (like those Hitler made about his racial >>superiority owing to Darwinism) will result in different conclusions. Thus, >>the goal is to rid ourselves of those assumptions when attempting to reach >>such conclusions. Which is exactly what science is all about. > The explosive proliferation of contradictory scientific theories about > reality shows no sign of diminishing. Consequently, differing conclusions > are symptoms of science's health. Recall the unhealthy intolerance of > medieval scholasticism to `heresy'. And those differences come from differing presumptions. >>> Because science has the general reputation of "being true", a mistake made >>> by the scientific community will be bought by all of us who don't exercise >>> caution, or think things through. >>Gee, what belief system actually encourages people not to think things >>through, to "act on faith"? > Gee whiz, why should I believe in empirical induction? Because it models the world in a valid fashion, because it produces valid results, consistently. > Empirical induction worked on occasion A. > Empirical induction worked on occasion B. > Empirical induction worked on occasion C. > ... > Consequently, empirical induction is empirically verified? Induction is based on minimal self-evident axioms. > Oh yes, I see. The proof is internal to the system.... Which is a representation of reality, that has continually been shown to be accurate. >>> I mean, does pure "science", the thing that just gathers >>> unbiased, untainted facts and presents them, really exist? Or, because >>> science is actually a discipline practiced by people like you and me, is >>> it something less pure, less unbiased, than this? >>So, what you're saying is that the goal is to strive for being more pure, >>more unbiased, in analysis, right? > Science WOULD be more unbiased if its advocates stopped attacking > those systems that do not really conflict. You mean like Nazism? Sure, science doesn't conflict with Nazism in any way, Hitler and his cronies just make some additional assumptions about the subhuman nature of some people and the superiority of themselves, based on nothing but wishful thinking. So we have no grounds, by your reasoning, to quarrel with Nazism, I mean, the Nazis work backwards from conclusions just like you, their system of beliefs MUST be equally valid. > Correction -- only the `facts' about physical phenomena, distorted by > experimental error of technology, interpreted according to the faulty > descriptions in existence at the time. Gradually asymptotically approaching a most accurate model with each advance, as opposed to the "wishful" methods of reasoning. > Is it wrong to kill animals? What do `harm' and `freedom from > interference' mean? Do `God' and `mind' exist? Should developing nations > discard all customs and heritage, even those that lack scientific > justification but do not otherwise conflict with science? Why developing nations only? Isn't that ethnocentric? What about your own? > All other preconceptions are true in proportion to people's life within > them and false to the extent that they conflict with other human created > realities. Like a non-interference principle of truth, I suppose. What are these "human-created realities"? Are they just words and terms and customs we apply to existing situations, or do we really go out and alter the physical reality that's out there? > Note too that your conclusions often differ substantially from those > of the scientific community. One's opinions ARE largely shaped by > one's exposure to ideas -- and powerful new theories are appearing > faster than anyone can reasonably hope to understand, thus subjectivity > is enforced by an ignorance due to science's astonishing fertility. And by diffusing assumptions behind such perspectives, you reach the answer. >>It would be a lot less rare if religions and other pressures didn't promote >>such shoddy thinking in their own interests. (Don't think about these >>things, you'll lose faith in god.) > It is the nature of all institutions, science included, to `pressure' > nonbelievers to its cause. Funny, I've never heard of the Scientific Inquisition? (NOOOOOOOOObody expects...) The fact remains that the institutions that cannot sway by hard proof of what they say must build idea and belief systems that perpetuate themselves. (e.g., Christianity's tenet of the importance of spreading the word) Science needs no suasive technique other than its veracity and accuracy. >>>It is extremely difficult for human beings to throw out ALL preconceived >>>notions and the like, and evaluate facts based on just those facts. In fact, >>>since we are raised to believe certain things, denying those things for the >>>purpose of unbiased analysis would be much akin to denying our very selves. >>That's an unfounded myth if ever I heard one. Lots of things in life are >>difficult, but they get done nonetheless. I find the notion that denying >>bogus beliefs is to deny our "very selves" to be horrifying. Sounds like >>another notion promulgated by religion in a spate of self-interest. > Unfounded myth? Interpreting evidence the central problem in philosophy > of science. I urge you to read any modern thought in this area -- > Lakatos, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend. Not to mention classics like Hume, > who first held that science cannot justified by pure reason. It is an unfounded myth, perpetuated by belief systems that require that you keep certain preconceptions around without justification. You can rid yourself of such presumptions despite this propaganda to the contrary. > And who said anything about `bogus beliefs'? Even BF Skinner insists > that we ARE shaped by the values, beliefs, etc.. that to make us into > what we are. Unfortunately for Skinnerism, there is no rational > justification for science either -- it produces `scientific' results no > better than religion produces `religious' ones. You just gave a very good reason why bogus beliefs and values that have no solid substantiation should be eliminated by life influences: they make us what we are, as you are, and the more bogus and presumptive, the more prejudiced and blinded we become. > Clearly we should be free of institutional brainwashing that might > impose ideologically petrified beliefs (scientific or otherwise) on us. > The point is that all non-contradictory systems that complement each > other and encourage fertile cultural plurality should be tolerated -- > even cherished.. Like Nazism? What's the basis for throwing out something like Nazism? Non-contradictory to WHAT? To the facts, Michael, to the facts. If you can accept one "non-contradictory" (but non-substantive) system, why not Nazism? >>> Very, very few of us are able to do that. >>Wrong. We are all able to do that. We have been taught to do just the >>opposite, unfortunately. > Yes, society does shove the methodological constraints of favored > forms of knowledge into our so-called `minds'. On the contrary, unfortunately, people are NOT taught in schools how to think things through. This is what I described in detail before as "encouraging thinking with the right side of the brain before the use of the left has been taught, often leaving that side behind". If I didn't know better, and if I was into oddball conspiracy theory, I might be tempted to consider the effort to emphasize so-called "right brain" thinking to the exclusion of logical thought to be a Communist plot to make our children mentally helpless. It almost seems plausible. > And who is being presumptive here -- religion or science? Enlightened > religions do not tell science what to do with its precious material world. > Note that the wisest mystics invariably speak on non-material concerns. > Admittedly, those religions that have not successfully extricated > themselves from physical controversy have much to fear from science. Fear? You make it sound (very manipulatively) like science is out to "get" them? The only thing they need fear is that serious investigation might show holes in the beliefs. -- 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