bill@hpfcla.UUCP (bill) (07/31/85)
An edible line goes here. I'd like to respond to a few Rosen-isms I've collected. These quotes only last a screen and a half, so please be patient. >I just love the way some people choose to divide the world arbitrarily >into these physical and non-physical categories based solely on their >limits of observation, and then seek to cage science (that awful thing!) >into examining only the "physical", claiming that their pet "nonphysical" >ideas should be free of the shackles of science, which really means "let's >not examine these things rigorously because such thinking might debunk >these notions the way they got rid of geocentrism hundreds of years ago". > >What is it that you have against rigorous objectified examination using >verifiable evidence? That's all the heinous science is after all. Why >should such examination have "limits"? > >Since other so-called evidence is rife with the flaws of preconception, >presumption, faulty patterning of the mind imposed on events, it ain't >worthwhile evidence. > >Unfortunately, my "wishful thinking" is backed up by evidence. > >Scientists, when making observations about the world, only call >them facts after severe and rigorous verification. [RICH ROSEN] These statements are taken out of their original settings, but I think their intended meanings are preserved when isolated. Geocentrism was itself a product of the scientific community for hundreds of years. In fact, when geocentrism was first opposed, the opposition was ridiculed, by the scientific community at large, almost to the point of snuffing it out. You, Rich, are an example of the same pompous, egocentric attitude that pervades "science" - that attitude that says, "Hey, if it's accepted by science, it can't be wrong!" - that attitude that opposes and ridicules any idea contrary to current scientific thought BEFORE the evidence is heard in full. That attitude that teaches our kids in school that science is noble and wise, and that science is the closest thing to infallibility on earth. Baloney! History is a reliable witness to the miserable failures of science: * blood-letting * laetrile * cyclamates, saccharin, and possibly aspartame * early flying machines * emissions from internal combustion engines, causing lung disorders, acid rain, various cancers, etc. * cancer-causing food additives, like sodium nitrate, red dye #2, etc. * nuclear fission plants that leak * atomic weapons whose after-effects cannot be decided upon by the almighty scientific community * aerosol propellants that erode the ozone layer * the earth is flat * killer bees (the result of a "useful" cross-breeding) * satellite-launching rockets that topple in pieces to the ground in a ball of flame ALL of these things (and there are many more) were either ideas that were BELIEVED IN at the time, or side-effects that were unforeseen. All these things from science, which is regarded as the final "yes" or "no" for any concept or item. I knock science only to add a touch of realism to the ideal you present in your postings, Rich. Science has A LOT of marvelous things to its credit, too. But what you forget, Rich, is that science, in its ideal form, DOES NOT EXIST. Much of science today is motivated by money and ego, and is therefore just as unreliable as the "unreal" or "non-physical" things you mention. Sure, science is an attempt to find answers to the questions we have through some methodology - that's great. But realize that, being a human organization in which humans of all persuasions and of differing motivations co-exist, science is prone to MAKE MISTAKES, as my examples above show. Aren't you aware, Rich, that one of science's main premises is that any scientific "fact", "truth", "theorem", or "postulate" is only true until proven false? That is, it only takes one failure for fact to become fiction, yet a million instances in which a "fact" holds true still do not, in a scientific sense, prove its truth. Thus, science is ALWAYS dealing in probabilities - sometimes good probabilities, and sometimes bad ones. To put your faith in science is fine, but you're putting your faith in probabilities, which is no better or worse than someone else upholding a subjective "truth". The fact that current scientific methods cannot be readily applied to subjective "truths" does not in any way serve to degrade their validity, since current scientific methods are themselves prone to error. And what about those subjective "truths" which you have labelled as "unreal"? I'll take as examples those particular subjective entities mentioned in other postings: beauty, awareness, and purpose. I have experienced, over and over again, these three things, and I therefore maintain that there is a 100% probability that they are true and exist. I also maintain that there isn't a human being alive today who hasn't experienced these things, although the term "beauty" can be applied to a wide variety of things, depending on the person. Therefore, I maintain that these things are 100% true and are real. How 'bout you, Rich? Did you ever see something you thought was beatiful? No? Baloney!! You're lying! There are multitudes of things that are beautiful to people at various times: water to a thirsty person, a mountain drive, a member of the opposite sex, etc. How 'bout awareness? Have you ever experienced that? Are you aware of this discussion? Are you formulating a response right now to this article? If so, you're aware of it. Do you agree or disagree with any of it? Then you're aware of it. How 'bout purpose? Do you go through life without any? Why post articles? Why get incensed at those who disagree with you? Is there any purpose to it? Like it or not, you've experienced these things, Rich. Because they are distinct, referencable experiences, they are 100% probabilities that they exist for you. And if you discount experience as viable proof, then all of science's tests and "rigorous verification" must be discounted too, because the results of those tests are experienced through the same senses that allow you to experience beauty, awareness, and purpose. You say that "verifiable evidence" is what proves or disproves the existence of something? Get 1000 people together in a room, and ask each of them if they've ever experienced beauty, purpose, and awareness. All 1000 will say yes. You can continue filling that room until earth's population has been polled in its entirety, and you'll not find one who hasn't experienced all three. Try getting that kind of concensus from the scientific community. Finally, let science analyze anything it darn well wants to - I could care less. Science currently has no appropriate tools to validate subjective truths, so what good would the analysis do? What validity would there be in its findings? It's not those of us who uphold the existence of subjective truths who are holding off scientific examination - science couldn't do a decent examination with the tools currently available. Thus, the only thing you can conclude on the basis of science about subjective matters is that "testing is inconclusive at the present time." NOT that subjective things aren't "real", but that TESTING OF SUBJECTIVE MATTERS BY CURRENT SCIENTIFIC METHODS IS INCONCLUSIVE!!!! Doing a little "wishful thinking" of your own, Rich? Sorry! Science really can't help you right now. Bill Gates
warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack ) (08/09/85)
[ouch] In article <45200015@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP (bill) writes: >I'd like to respond to a few Rosen-isms I've collected. These quotes >only last a screen and a half, so please be patient. [Rosen-isms concerning mostly science (in support of science as the savior of the world???)] [Examples of the failing of science] >ALL of these things (and there are many more) were either ideas that were >BELIEVED IN at the time, or side-effects that were unforeseen. All these >things from science, which is regarded as the final "yes" or "no" for any >concept or item. Rich, do you believe science has made any final "yes" or "no"'s? I didn't get that interpretation at all. >I knock science only to add a touch of realism to the ideal you present >in your postings, Rich. Science has A LOT of marvelous things to its >credit, too. But what you forget, Rich, is that science, in its ideal >form, DOES NOT EXIST. Much of science today is motivated by money and >ego, and is therefore just as unreliable as the "unreal" or "non-physical" >things you mention. How does science become unreliable because of its motivation? I can see that lies motivated by ego or money and under the guise of science might be unreliable ... [e.g. false data] But, this is usually debunked pretty quickly. >Sure, science is an attempt to find answers to the >questions we have through some methodology - that's great. But realize >that, being a human organization in which humans of all persuasions and >of differing motivations co-exist, science is prone to MAKE MISTAKES, >as my examples above show. That's right. >Aren't you aware, Rich, that one of science's main premises is that any >scientific "fact", "truth", "theorem", or "postulate" is only true until >proven false? [Restatement of fallability of science] >And what about those subjective "truths" which you have labelled as "unreal"? >I'll take as examples those particular subjective entities mentioned in other >postings: beauty, awareness, and purpose. I have experienced, over and >over again, these three things, and I therefore maintain that there is a 100% >probability that they are true and exist. I also maintain that there isn't >a human being alive today who hasn't experienced these things, although the >term "beauty" can be applied to a wide variety of things, depending on the >person. Therefore, I maintain that these things are 100% true and are real. >How 'bout you, Rich? Did you ever see something you thought was beatiful? ... >And if you discount experience as viable proof, then all of science's tests >and "rigorous verification" must be discounted too, because the results of >those tests are experienced through the same senses that allow you to >experience beauty, awareness, and purpose. I think in this situation you are both right and both wrong. The existence of these abstract things has not been proved; but then again, it has not been disproved either. [see later] Experience is not viable proof; but it can be. It must be established that there is no source of illusion first to invalidate the experience. >You say that "verifiable evidence" is what proves or disproves the existence >of something? Get 1000 people together in a room, and ask each of them if >they've ever experienced beauty, purpose, and awareness. All 1000 will say >yes. You can continue filling that room until earth's population has been >polled in its entirety, and you'll not find one who hasn't experienced all >three. Try getting that kind of concensus from the scientific community. Be careful about absolutes. Some cultures truly do not have any vestige of some of the abstract concepts. However, no matter what the consensus of belief, it isn't necessarily true. [I'll pull your own example: Fill a room with a 1000 people from 1200 AD and ask them if the World is flat.] >Finally, let science analyze anything it darn well wants to - I could care >less. Science currently has no appropriate tools to validate subjective >truths, so what good would the analysis do? What validity would there be in >its findings? It's not those of us who uphold the existence of subjective >truths who are holding off scientific examination - science couldn't do a >decent examination with the tools currently available. This may be true now but will it always be? >Thus, the only thing >you can conclude on the basis of science about subjective matters is that >"testing is inconclusive at the present time." NOT that subjective things >aren't "real", but that TESTING OF SUBJECTIVE MATTERS BY CURRENT SCIENTIFIC >METHODS IS INCONCLUSIVE!!!! This is absolutely correct, and I don't know that Rich would argue with you about it. But, just as they have not been disproven; they have not been proven; yet some people act as if they had. They are CERTAIN that something exists, yet cannot prove it. In general, these somethings are issues of faith. I think some of this started with some statement to the effect that he couldn't understand how someone could be so sure about the existence of something of this sort. Someday, they may be PROVEN right ... or wrong. >Doing a little "wishful thinking" of your own, Rich? Sorry! Science really >can't help you right now. >Bill Gates I think you started out trying to prove that abstract concepts exist. At least that was the feeling I got from the first few paragraphs following your long opener. In the end you tempered things a bit and I agree with that part. However, re-read some of Rich's postings, he is not QUITE as hard-nose as you would have him portrayed. For your consideration, -- _______ |/-----\| Chris Warack (213) 648-6617 ||hello|| || || warack@aerospace.ARPA |-------| warack@aero.UUCP |@ ___ | seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest! |_______| sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack || || \ Aerospace Corporation, M1-117, El Segundo, CA 90245 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=