mwg@mouton.UUCP (07/23/84)
++ Well it seems that that Shirley MacLaine quote I posted has provoked a bit of controversy. I'll try to provide a little context (if you really want to know, read the book (its not bad reading)): It's true that she doesn't know beans about physics. She went on for a while about the remarkably similar structure of the solar system and that of the (now ancient Bohr model of the) atom. She doesn't claim to know physics and any physical explanations are from conversations she had with other people. I do think one of the sins of modern (all?) scientists is this snobbery toward non-scientists when they don't use the terminology correctly. Just because she doesn't have any formal training doesn't mean that she hasn't had scientifically unexplained and possibly important experiences. The other assumption you (we) science-snobs make is that the only things outside of modern science are slight refinements to the theory which we will get to sooner or later. In fact, there may be things that scientific inquiry ignores systematically, and which will only be discovered by a radical mind-opening in the scientific community. This is starting to happen more these days, but it means taking the risk of appearing ridiculous before a community which demands hard proof. Apparently logical positivism (which says the only 'meaningful' statements are analytic or imperical) is still squirming. Consider the complexity of human biology. There are lots of things that can't be scientifically demonstrated because they are difficult or impossible to repeat. But no one can deny these are important phenomena. An example is ion concentration in the air. A guy came to BCR last week to give a talk on what we do by sealing ourselves into these buildings without considering the total environment we evolved in. We can adjust temperature and humidity, but there is real *scientific* evidence that an imbalence in positive/negative air ion count will affect a person's mood, productivity, etc. Then he related this to Aikido and the Japanese 'ki', the Chinese 'chi', and the Indian 'prana'. Waitasecond, I thought, this isn't science anymore. But ions are real and measurable, and it makes sense that they could affect the body. And Aikido, and acupuncture are real; they just havn't been investigated 'scientifically' (read: "in the west"). Also, no one is saying that MacLaine is *proving* this stuff, so there is no need to rant and rave that hearsay doesn't constitute science. (You can tell some people are really insecure about their science :-} ) Face it, guys and gals, some things are not (easily or at all) scientifically provable and its silly to discredit them. - Mark ...allegra!mouton!mwg
rcc@imsvax.UUCP (07/26/84)
>>Face it, guys and gals, some things are not (easily or at all) scientifically >>provable and its silly to discredit them. There is a BIG difference between not easily provable and not provable. Many things in physics are hard to prove. However, proof is possible. If someone tells me, "I think something is true and can happen under certain conditions, but I haven't identified all the conditions", then I'm perfectly willing to wait until he does before I make a decision. Likewise, if he says, "I can't prove it because I can't bring the conditions I need about", *and* he's got a reasonable reason as to why that condition is necessary, I'll wait and not say a thing. On the other hand, if he says, "This is true, but I can't prove it.", then I'll laugh in his face and tell him to move to net.religion :-). -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: {umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc
mwg@mouton.UUCP (08/03/84)
++ > On the other hand, if he says, "This is true, but I can't prove it.", > then I'll laugh in his face and tell him to move to net.religion :-). > Ray Chen I don't know how serious you were about that, Ray, but I think a lot of people take just that attitude, leaving a lot of possibly interesting phenomenae to be explored without the benifit of the famed scientific method. No one is saying that quasi-unnatural effects should be accepted without doubt (even after rigorous 'scientific' proof, there is room for doubt). A lot of people are saying "PSI does not exist," as if they're experts or something. What if I say electrons don't exist because I've never seen any evidence for them? Does any one know of any people who try to investigate this stuff properly (without getting laughed in the face by their would-be sponsers)? I suspect that if it were checked out, we would find quite natural (by as yet unknown) explanations for 95% of it. (And maybe expand our vision of 'science' a little for the other 5%.) When you people say PSI (and all that other mumbo-jumbo) doesn't exist, how do you explain (to yourself) the existence of acupuncture, all those wierd things the asians do with karate, aikido, ta-chien (no, wait, that's chicken...whatever), etc, and all the reports of ghosts, UFOs and so on. Do you just ignore it, or are you satisfied to say, "I don't know, I don't want to know." Doesn't sound very scientific to me! - Mark BCR
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/04/84)
> ++ > > On the other hand, if he says, "This is true, but I can't prove it.", > > then I'll laugh in his face and tell him to move to net.religion :-). > > Ray Chen > > I don't know how serious you were about that, Ray, but I think a lot > of people take just that attitude, leaving a lot of possibly interesting > phenomenae to be explored without the benifit of the famed scientific > method. No one is saying that quasi-unnatural effects should be > accepted without doubt (even after rigorous 'scientific' proof, there > is room for doubt). [MARK - mouton!mwg] > A lot of people are saying "PSI does not exist," as if they're experts > or something. A lot of people are saying exactly the opposite in much the same way. > Does any one know of any people who try to investigate > this stuff properly? I think that's the problem. > I suspect that if it were checked out, we would find quite > natural (but as yet unknown) explanations for 95% of it. (And maybe expand > our vision of 'science' a little for the other 5%.) Investigations that *have* gone on have found quite natural (but well-known) explanations for more than 95% of it. (including deception and trickery) > When you people say PSI (and all that other mumbo-jumbo) doesn't exist, > how do you explain (to yourself) the existence of acupuncture, all those > wierd things the asians do with karate, aikido, ta-chien (no, wait, that's > chicken...whatever), etc, and all the reports of ghosts, UFOs and so on. > Do you just ignore it, or are you satisfied to say, "I don't know, I don't > want to know." Doesn't sound very scientific to me! Those "weird Asian things" have to do with the results of intense concentration in much the same way that meditation (intense non-concentration?) has an effect on the brain. The reports of ghosts and UFO's are just like the reports of religious fanatics: where the brain sees something, remembers a small piece of it, and fills in the rest (marvelous patterning capabilities in our brains) the way the individual preconceives it to be. Sounds very scientific to me. (I do hope Ray Chen was kidding. Net.religion has more than its share... :-) -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (08/07/84)
>> On the other hand, if he says, "This is true, but I can't prove it.", >> then I'll laugh in his face and tell him to move to net.religion :-). >> Ray Chen >A lot of people are saying "PSI does not exist," as if they're experts >or something. What if I say electrons don't exist because I've never seen >any evidence for them?... > >When you people say PSI (and all that other mumbo-jumbo) doesn't exist, >how do you explain (to yourself) the existence of acupuncture, all those >wierd things the asians do with karate, aikido, ta-chien... Look carefully at what Ray was postulating: If someone says, "This is true but I can't prove it", you're safe to laugh in his face. If instead he says, "Something is happening here and I don't know what it is..." [do you, Mr. Jones--oops, sorry!:-], as is generally the case with, say, acupuncture, then you say, "gee, yeah, I hope that investigation turns up something soon." There's a big difference between saying "we don't know what's going on here" and "there's something going on that you can't explain." In truth, if I'm going to be careful I should say "I don't know of anything which is not explained by conventional science but which is explained by some unconventional Psi concepts" - but I've gotten so fed up with the interminable hedging, waffling, changes of position, and just plain lying of most of the Psi camp that I say "Psi doesn't exist" for the sake of simplicity. When I see any significant information coming from them, I may change the way I say it. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.
rcc@imsvax.UUCP (08/07/84)
>++ >> On the other hand, if he says, "This is true, but I can't prove it.", >> then I'll laugh in his face and tell him to move to net.religion :-). >> Ray Chen >I don't know how serious you were about that, Ray, but I think a lot >of people take just that attitude, leaving a lot of possibly interesting >phenomenae to be explored without the benifit of the famed scientific >method. No one is saying that quasi-unnatural effects should be >accepted without doubt (even after rigorous 'scientific' proof, there >is room for doubt). >- Mark > BCR Sigh. Serves me right for being imprecise, I guess. What I meant is that if someone gives me a model to explain a phenomena and then offers no reasons why his model is better or at least as good as the currently accepted model, then I'm going to throw his model/theory out the window until he does give me some reasons. >A lot of people are saying "PSI does not exist," as if they're experts >or something. What if I say electrons don't exist because I've never seen >any evidence for them? Does any one know of any people who try to investigate >this stuff properly (without getting laughed in the face by their would-be >sponsers)? I suspect that if it were checked out, we would find quite >natural (by as yet unknown) explanations for 95% of it. (And maybe expand >our vision of 'science' a little for the other 5%.) Two points: first, anybody who tries to say electrons don't exist is going to have some real problems. He's got to either find an inconsistency in the theory, which if resolved, would imply the non-existence of electrons (good luck) or he's got to find an effect that can not be explained by the current theory, and propose a theory that explains everything the current theory does *plus* the new effect -- without electrons. Second, as I've said before, I don't really think we can *prove* (in the philosophical sense, 100% certainty, etc.) that anything is really true, the best we can do is come up with models/theories/etc. that approximate truth. (The exceptions to this are in the fields such as mathematics in which theorems can be proved true within a fundamental system of axioms and operations. However, such theorems are true only within that system.) >When you people say PSI (and all that other mumbo-jumbo) doesn't exist, >how do you explain (to yourself) the existence of acupuncture, all those >wierd things the asians do with karate, aikido, ta-chien (no, wait, that's >chicken...whatever), etc, and all the reports of ghosts, UFOs and so on. >Do you just ignore it, or are you satisfied to say, "I don't know, I don't >want to know." Doesn't sound very scientific to me! > >- Mark > BCR I don't ignore them. I've got some models to explain some of the above (although they may not be too good...) and the jury is still out on the others. One last point, though: Saying "I don't know" is not the same as "I don't want to know". -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: {umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc
rcc@imsvax.UUCP (08/09/84)
[me] >>> On the other hand, if he says, "This is true, but I can't prove it.", >>> then I'll laugh in his face and tell him to move to net.religion :-). >>> Ray Chen [somebody else] >>A lot of people are saying "PSI does not exist," as if they're experts >>or something. What if I say electrons don't exist because I've never seen >>any evidence for them?... >>When you people say PSI (and all that other mumbo-jumbo) doesn't exist, >>how do you explain (to yourself) the existence of acupuncture, all those >>wierd things the asians do with karate, aikido, ta-chien... [Dick Dunn] >Look carefully at what Ray was postulating: If someone says, "This is true >but I can't prove it", you're safe to laugh in his face. If instead he >says, "Something is happening here and I don't know what it is..." [do >you, Mr. Jones--oops, sorry!:-], as is generally the case with, say, >acupuncture, then you say, "gee, yeah, I hope that investigation turns up >something soon." BRAVO !! Thank you, Dick, for the eloquent defense. That's *exactly* what I was trying to get across. (And that's all at the net. Back to you, Jim ...) -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: {umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc USnail: Integrated Microcomputer Systems, Inc. Suite 400 6100 Executive Blvd. Rockville, MD 20852