arndt@lymph.DEC (12/28/84)
Sir John Eccles is a Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology and a pioneer
in brain research. A neurobiologist, he has taught at universities in
Great Britain, Australia and the U.S.
"We need to discredit the belief held by many scientists that science will
ultimately deliever the final truth about everything. Science doesn't deliever
the truth; what it provides are hypotheses in an attempt to get nearer the
truth. But scientists must never claim to know more than that."
"Unfortunately, many scientists and interpreters of science don't understand
the limits of the discipline. They claim much more than they should. They
argue that someday science will explain values, beauty, love, friendship,
aesthetics and literary quality. They say: 'All of these will eventually be
explicable in terms of brain performance. We only have to know more about the
brain.' That view is nothing more than a superstitution that confuses both the
public and many scientists.
My task as a scientist is to try to eliminate superstitutions and to have us
experience science as the greatest human adventure. But to understand is not
to completely explain. Understanding leaves unresolved the great features and
values of our existence."
"I have spent my life working on the brain and know what a wonderful structure
it is, how it gives us an immense range of experiences. It is also a tremen-
dous storehouse of memories, which is what it's principally for. But examining
the brain in all possible scientific ways doesn't mean that I can know why,
when I open my eyes, I see a world of light and color. We live in a world of
experiences, not in a world of brain events. This is my world and much of it
is not explicable scientifically."
"Science also cannot explain the existence of each of us as a unique self,
nor can it answer such fundamental questions as: Who am I? Why am I here?
How did I come to be at a certain place and time? What happens after death?
These are all mysteries that are beyond science."
"Science has gone too far in breaking down man's belief in his spiritual
greatness and has given him the belief that he is merely an insignificant
animal who has arisen by chance and necessity on an insignificant planet
lost in the great cosmic immensity.
But that does not mean that religion and science are necessarily at odds.
Max Planck, the great physicst, was a practicing Catholic. Albert Einstein
believed in a God of the cosmos. Werner Heisenberg also held religious views,
though he was not a man who practiced religion. I, myself, am a practicing
Christian.
To hold views such as mine about the mystery of existence, you don't have to
be a religious person. The great philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper,
with whom I have written a book on this subject, holds similar beliefs -
and he describes himself as an agnostic. Both of us recognize the great
wonder of existence. We believe in both a material world and a
mental-spiritual world."
(Taken from U.S.News & World Report, recent issue.)
-----------------------------------------------
Gee, could there be somethin' to it????
See also Eccles's new book, THE WONDER OF BEING HUMAN: OUR BRAIN AND OUR MIND,
written with Daniel Robinson.
Love ya,
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndt rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/31/84)
Of course, he's tired. He's tired of having to answer my points about the flaws in his "logic" (quotes most necessary), thus he avoids doing so. > Sir John Eccles is a Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology and a pioneer > in brain research. A neurobiologist, he has taught at universities in > Great Britain, Australia and the U.S. (Should I bother to say "thus, he's right, of course", as Ken assumes, or is that "understood"? This man makes Lewis seem objective.) > "We need to discredit the belief held by many scientists that science will > ultimately deliever the final truth about everything. REASON: because believing that rational analysis and scientific method are THE means to acquire true truth (not truth based on standards and ethic, as Arndt would suppose) would INVALIDATE irrational superstitions and nonsensical belief systems, and we (whoever "we" is) can't afford that, can "we"? > "Unfortunately, many scientists and interpreters of science don't understand > the limits of the discipline. They claim much more than they should. They > argue that someday science will explain values, beauty, love, friendship, > aesthetics and literary quality. They say: 'All of these will eventually be > explicable in terms of brain performance. We only have to know more about the > brain.' That view is nothing more than a superstitution that confuses both > the public and many scientists. Loaded rhetoric of the shoddiest kind. I don't recall anyone among the body of learned scientists (to use terms acceptable to Ken) who has ever cared to make such a claim. Eccles, of course, manipulates the reader into thinking "What? Scientists say THAT? That's horrible! It interferes with my preconceived notions about values, truth, beauty, etc., thus it MUST be wrong! What a clever man this is. No wonder he won a Nobel Prize!" > "Science also cannot explain the existence of each of us as a unique self, > nor can it answer such fundamental questions as: Who am I? Why am I here? > How did I come to be at a certain place and time? What happens after death? > These are all mysteries that are beyond science." Thus, religion, which provides pre-fab ASSUMED answers to these questions that are PLEASING to the wishful thinking human mind who NEEDS/WANTS to have a pre-defined purpose (rather than defining his/her own), NEEDS/WANTS to "know" that there will be life after death, NEEDS/WANTS to have a "reason" for existing, for "being at a certain place and time (i.e., a reason determined by an overseeing deity and not one owing itself to simple physical processes), thus, RELIGION holds the key. The key to an imaginary door. > "Science has gone too far in breaking down man's belief in his spiritual > greatness and has given him the belief that he is merely an insignificant > animal who has arisen by chance and necessity on an insignificant planet > lost in the great cosmic immensity. TRANSLATION: Despite evidence that shows that man is "merely" an "insignificant" animal (remember, these are Eccles' words!!), this man, quite anthropocentrically, wants (needs?) to believe that he is "more". I don't find anything "mere" or "insignificant" in my existence, I don't find anything "mere" and "insignificant" about existence of any animals or life forms. This is not enough, however, for the anthropocentric religionist. He/she wants MORE!!! So he/she devises (or adheres to) a belief system (unsubstantiated, of course) that elevates him/her to a higher level---God is great, he created us to rule this planet, which is HIS shining star (??) in the universe, thus we are also great, more than those insignificant mere animals! > But that does not mean that religion and science are necessarily at odds. > Max Planck, the great physicst, was a practicing Catholic. Albert Einstein > believed in a God of the cosmos. Werner Heisenberg also held religious views, > though he was not a man who practiced religion. I, myself, am a practicing > Christian. And Hitler and Stalin, of course, didn't believe in God. Thus good people all believe in god, and evil ones don't. Therefore god MUST exist, and he must be good. That sums it all up. Can we go home now? > To hold views such as mine about the mystery of existence, you don't have to > be a religious person. The great philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, > with whom I have written a book on this subject, holds similar beliefs - > and he describes himself as an agnostic. Both of us recognize the great > wonder of existence. We believe in both a material world and a > mental-spiritual world." > (Taken from U.S.News & World Report, recent issue.) A scientific approach lends itself much more to the "wonders of existence" than a wishful thinking religious approach, which already has answers that its followers believe that they "know" to be true. The reason for this is because scientific approaches ensure that we find the real reasons behind the workings of the things we wonder about, the things we are awestruck by, rather than the wishful thinking hypotheses of those who would like the reasons to be of a certain form. > Gee, could there be somethin' to it???? Didn't I just show otherwise? That's why I love freedom of speech: it allows buffoons like Arndt who have nothing to say (else why would they have to quote other people's words rather than their own?) to say what they will, and in turn allows others to show how swiss-cheezy their thinking really is. By the way, Ken, if you posted or mailed any articles in response to my recent submissions (including the scholarly article I quoted), please remail to me. We haven't gotten news for two weeks owing to non-support. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/01/85)
In article <79@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: > > Sir John Eccles is a Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology and a pioneer > in brain research. A neurobiologist, he has taught at universities in > Great Britain, Australia and the U.S. Yup. He's a really neat guy. > "We need to discredit the belief held by many scientists that science will > ultimately deliever the final truth about everything. Science doesn't deliever > the truth; what it provides are hypotheses in an attempt to get nearer the > truth. But scientists must never claim to know more than that." Yup. No argument. If the final truth doesn't exist, scientists won't find it. > "Unfortunately, many scientists and interpreters of science don't understand > the limits of the discipline. They claim much more than they should. They > argue that someday science will explain values, beauty, love, friendship, > aesthetics and literary quality. They say: 'All of these will eventually be > explicable in terms of brain performance. We only have to know more about the > brain.' That view is nothing more than a superstitution that confuses both the > public and many scientists. Whoops. Here he goes off the deep end. While advancing his own superstition of unknowability, he accuses others of his own sin of superstition. Now, it may seem a bit a bit brash to argue with a Nobel Laureate, and with an agreeing Karl Popper thrown in too. However, there are three major points which encourage me to do so: 1) He nowhere supports his claim with anything more than "I feel so". 2) He (and Popper) are both speaking out of their fields of expertise. Morals, feelings and the like are part of the SOCIAL workings of our species, since they affect our behavior. An analogy would be a particle physicist claiming that it would be impossible for us to understand proteinaceous enzymes. I envision teamups between AI researchers, sociobiologists, and game theorists to deal with these questions. 3) Finally, according to people like Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), this sort of argument can be safely ignored as a probable example of opinions that are no longer at the cutting edge of scientific thought. There is always an old guard that protests changes in scientific thought. And other thought too... let's not forget Shockley. (sp?) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/01/85)
It seems like extended quotes from authorities such as Sir John Eccles concerning subjects about which they are not authorities serve little. If Sir John is on the net, and would like to enter his own arguments it would be interesting to hear them, but second hand quotes out of some journalist's interview can hardly be authoratative. Of course some scientists are religious, so what? A scientist is just a man like anyone else and is entitled to his beliefs. Unless he is making a claim that he has used his special skill in science to discover something about the nature of God, (and I don't see that in Sir John's words) why should his opinions carry any more weight than those of anyone else? Sir John is a well known opponent of the idea that man can create a truly intelligent machine. We probably will find out within the next century whether he is right or not.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/02/85)
> Now, it may seem a bit a bit brash to argue with a Nobel Laureate, and > with an agreeing Karl Popper thrown in too. [HUYBENSZ] No, Mike, it wasn't brash at all. Perhaps one of the biggest obstacles to reasoned thinking is the notion that "a Nobel laureate/scientist/priest/scholar/clergyman/authority figure said this, so one can't argue with it". (Ubizmo knows, it's been an obstacle for Mr. Arndt!) If they don't present any evidence to support their claim, one has the right to assume that the basis for the statement might very well be personal superstition, pre-conceived notions, wishful thinking, etc., in the absence of the aforementioned evidence. Unless, of course, one has a vested interest in pre-believing that the statement is a true one, in which case one would automatically believe it regardless of the absence of supporting evidence. As Ken Arndt said so well: > Blake, with great insight I believe, said: "Man must and will have religion" TRANSLATION: Blake said something I agree with, thus he must have had great insight. (Was this Robert Blake, the actor who played Baretta? Does it make a difference? Is the person's name and "rank" more important than the content of his/her words? Or the substance of those words?) -- "Those without forms must appear, however briefly, at the Bureau's Astral Offices on Nooker Street..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Randy Buckland) (01/03/85)
> Sir John is a well known opponent of the > idea that man can create a truly intelligent machine. We > probably will find out within the next century whether he > is right or not. We might find out if he is wrong (I hope so!). But we will never find out if he is right. You can't prove a negative hypothesis. Randy Buckland Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (01/03/85)
> > Ken Arndt > Rich Rosen From Sir John Eccles as quoted by Ken Arndt > > "We need to discredit the belief held by many scientists that science will > > ultimately deliever the final truth about everything." > > REASON: because believing that rational analysis and scientific method are > THE means to acquire true truth (not truth based on standards and ethic, > as Arndt would suppose) would INVALIDATE irrational superstitions and > nonsensical belief systems, and we (whoever "we" is) can't afford that, > can "we"? No, this is not really the reason as I see it. Instead, it is because as the universe of known knowledge in science is increased the universe of unknown knowledge increases. He's not saying, stop investigating; he's just saying remove the false hope that science gives that everything is explainable by observation. It is possible that some things will never be explained by observation, and in addition, some things may not be explained at all. Also, if a wrong turn is taken, much of the knowledge built up on that fact must be discredited, as we've seen happen so many times in the past. With the increase in the amount of knowledge, there is a greater probability for wrong conclusions to be drawn. This probably accounts for much of the contradictory results found in many published studies, especially in the area of the social sciences where testing cannot be controlled and all factors cannot be properly measured experimentally. It's actually time for people to become realistic in their hopes for science. Yet, we must continue to investigate and invent new methods of investigation for those things it reveals to us and the quality of life it tends to advance. > > "Science also cannot explain the existence of each of us as a unique self, > > nor can it answer such fundamental questions as: Who am I? Why am I here? > > How did I come to be at a certain place and time? What happens after death? > > These are all mysteries that are beyond science." > > Thus, religion, which provides pre-fab ASSUMED answers to these questions > that are PLEASING to the wishful thinking human mind who NEEDS/WANTS to > have a pre-defined purpose (rather than defining his/her own), NEEDS/WANTS > to "know" that there will be life after death, NEEDS/WANTS to have a > "reason" for existing, for "being at a certain place and time (i.e., a > reason determined by an overseeing deity and not one owing itself to simple > physical processes), thus, RELIGION holds the key. The key to an imaginary > door. Eccles is right, though. You don't need to be a particularly religious person at all to understand that there are limits to science. These limits arise with the limits of observation. Sure, the better our ability to observe things, the more we can understand, but other limitations come in with discernment and the separation of factors. Great strides can be made, granted. However, there may be factors that can never be truly "seen" by the methods that we can come up with. Also, we have to be practical about the fact that man is finite, at least here on earth. Assuming that everything is eventually observable, do we have the time to observe it all before we destroy ourselves? Is there an end to the observable things that stir our curiosity? How much can we narrow down the knowledge and physical stimulus that determines how people react, think, feel, live and die. Can we ever measure what happens to people after they're dead without being dead? And what does it all get us? Have the behavioral sciences and social sciences in general made us any better? or does it give better odds than religion does? Sometimes being able to explain away a persons reactions with behavioral reasons serves to condone that behavior. Can it fulfill us knowing how, why, when and where or does it take something more for fulfillment? > > Gee, could there be somethin' to it???? There definitely is something to it. It's not necessarily limited to what Eccles and Popper have said, either. A responsible position must be taken by all scientists because, in many ways, science has gained the confidence of the masses in the way that religion once had it. Any (and I mean ANY) group with that kind of influence must be monitored and must be held responsible for the possible results of their influence (discoveries and announcements). Julie Harazduk {ihnp4|allegra}!philabs!jah Prov.9:9 Give instruction to a wise man and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
shindman@utcs.UUCP (Paul Shindman) (01/08/85)
In article <205@philabs.UUCP> jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) writes: > >There definitely is something to it. It's not necessarily limited to what >Eccles and Popper have said, either. A responsible position must be taken by >all scientists because, in many ways, science has gained the confidence of >the masses in the way that religion once had it. Any (and I mean ANY) group >with that kind of influence must be monitored and must be held responsible >for the possible results of their influence (discoveries and announcements). Yikes!!! So whom do you propose will be encumbered with the responsibility of monitoring the scientists??? What will be the penalties if those "...results of their influence" are used for not-so-nice purposes (and who decides what ain't-so-nice???)??? It would have been really interesting to see a jury of humans sentence Einstein and dozens of other physicists to {life in prison|silence|death} for their work in relativistic and quantum physics since it all resulted in the A and H bombs. Yes, it would be really nice to keep a nice, rational, reasonable eye on the goings on in several thousand fields of research, but it can't (and should never) be done. The inevitable result would be that you would have the world's largest bureaucracy ever created, and thousands of Galileo's locked behind bars. Egads, if you are going to make ginourmous sweeping statements, Julie, at least back them up with something! Remember that it was the Church that locked Galileo's mind away (and do you remember why???)
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (01/09/85)
I don't read net.flame so anyone who wants me to read their responses to this must submit to net.religion >> [ME] >>There definitely is something to it. It's not necessarily limited to what >>Eccles and Popper have said, either. A responsible position must be taken by >>all scientists because, in many ways, science has gained the confidence of >>the masses in the way that religion once had it. Any (and I mean ANY) group >>with that kind of influence must be monitored and must be held responsible >>for the possible results of their influence (discoveries and announcements). Paul Shindman comments: > Yikes!!! So whom do you propose will be encumbered with the responsibility > of monitoring the scientists??? You and me. People. Other scientists, religious leaders, politicians, engineers, businessmen, housewives, children...(and when we learn to communicate with Dolphins, whales or Porpoises (sp?) them too!). Paul asks: > What will be the penalties if those > "...results of their influence" are used for not-so-nice purposes (and > who decides what ain't-so-nice???)??? How about debate? In some instances efforts will be stopped or hastened. We're talking about alot of people with alot of opinions...everybody voicing his in some way...I'm not talking about a system of judgement but, rather, a system whereby scientists report what they are working on and discuss the possible implications. What people decide to do with this is left as an exercise in reasoning (for the reader:-). Paul imagines: > It would have been really interesting > to see a jury of humans sentence Einstein and dozens of other physicists > to {life in prison|silence|death} for their work in relativistic and > quantum physics since it all resulted in the A and H bombs. You've totally gotten away from what I was trying to say. Actually there already exists a group of scientists (who worked on the Manhattan Project) that take responsibility such as I have suggested. They tried to meet with Regan (you know, the Pres.) and he gave them a big 5 minutes to say their piece on their impressions of the current research. They're just trying to educate people. If it's good enough for them (those who made the mistake in the first place), it's good enough for me. Paul deliberates and jumps to conclusions: > Yes, it would be really nice to keep a nice, rational, reasonable eye on > the goings on in several thousand fields of research, but it can't (and > should never) be done. The inevitable result would be that you would have > the world's largest bureaucracy ever created, and thousands of Galileo's > locked behind bars. Actually, the U. S. of A. is a large enough bureaucracy, coupled with the rest of the free world and maybe a few voices from the not-so-free world, we'd have a pretty good jury. Mankind in general has to be the jury. Judgement must be reserved for the particular situation. Paul exclaims and jumps to conclusions: > Egads, if you are going to make ginourmous sweeping > statements, Julie, at least back them up with something! > Remember that it was the Church that locked Galileo's mind away (and > do you remember why???) You've allowed your own concepts of what "monitoring" means into your debate. Firstly, in Galileo's time there was one authority, now there are many diverging opinions and philosophies each of them authoritative in some way (weighting all votes equally, anyway). Our own government is based on the very thing I'm talking about--checks and balances. You can't trust any one group to make decisions that may affect the fate of the world. You couldn't do it in Galileo's time (then it was the church) and I don't believe you can do it now (substitute church for scientific community). People are people--fallible, unthinking, selfish and often just plain old irresponsible. Sure, we all have alot of good qualities too, but the more personal something becomes the more we tend to exhibit the negative qualities that we have, in defense of that thing, often against our better judgement (stubborness...). Just read net.religion or net.flame to see what I mean. All logic gets lost and people just brow beat each other in the hope that their point will be taken more seriously. I don't trust myself either. Plenty of times I made an evaluation only to find that I had to re-evaluate and change my mind. It's very common. In the area of science, a wrong evaluation has much stronger implications and affects many more people. Let the people affected have a say too. That's all I'm saying. What are you saying? All in favor of the Democratic way say "Aye". All opposed? The "Aye"'s have it. Julie Harazduk philabs!jah ps. Sorry, Paul, about not responding to your last two letters (one about Christianity the fullfillment of Judaism and the other a question about the forthcoming response). I forgot all about it and I intend to get back to you very soon on that. Again, I'm sorry.