rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/29/85)
Below I have excerpted what I feel are some of the highlights of an excellent article by Jim Balter (the complete article may be reached via the parent article command if your newsreader program has one----it is <27500128@ISM780B.UUCP>.) It sheds more light than anything I have read in this forum over the last six months. > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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) -- "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