gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) (03/16/88)
> >As to the futurism aspect, I feel that the future will NOT be based on the > >wishful thinking embodied in the pseudosciences (telepathic communications, > >the world saved by noble UFO pilots, ones future foretold by ones birthdate, > >etc.). Rather, the future depends on applying our knowledge to the problems > >at hand with undiluted vigor. [etc.] > > While I agree that the future will not be based on wishfull thinking, I > would be careful about automatically labelling everything that does not > fit into the conventional model pseudoscience. ... Gerry, you might do better to ask Rich just what are the problems of the world! I asked my AI program what to do about people breeding too fast. It said to exterminate them. The only way to refute that kind of reasoning is to introduce the human element. What is the goal of the human race? And what does it do after it gets there? In short, what do WE want from the future? The scientific paradigm can deal only with *repeatable* events. Strictly speaking, no two observed events are identical, for we change between observations. So repeatability is only a convention. During the past five centuries western culture has been investigating the repeatable, to the neglect of the unique and human. It's one of the glaring limitations of scientific culture that it doesn't tell you whom to marry, or even how to woo. When people try to apply to these problems the abstract methods they have learned from western culture, they usually come to grief! (Look into soc.singles if you doubt it....) -:- "Would you eat a doormat that lives on bark and fungus?" "Wombats: A Pictorial Essay," in _Risks Digest_ -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...!ihnp4!odyssey!gls
glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) (03/20/88)
In article <522@odyssey.ATT.COM> gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) writes: >> >As to the futurism aspect, I feel that the future will NOT be based on the >> >wishful thinking embodied in the pseudosciences (telepathic communications, >> >the world saved by noble UFO pilots, ones future foretold by ones birthdate, >> >etc.). Rather, the future depends on applying our knowledge to the problems >> >at hand with undiluted vigor. [etc.] >> While I agree that the future will not be based on wishfull thinking, I >> would be careful about automatically labelling everything that does not >> fit into the conventional model pseudoscience. ... >Gerry, you might do better to ask Rich just what are the problems of >the world! I asked my AI program what to do about people breeding too >fast. It said to exterminate them. The only way to refute that kind >of reasoning is to introduce the human element. What is the goal of >the human race? And what does it do after it gets there? In short, >what do WE want from the future? Yes, thank you for pointing this out, and you raise some interesting questions. I keep forgetting that not everyone realizes that who we are determines what we see as a problem, and this in turn contributes to how we act in the future. Your questions are an invitation to begin to realize that we really make up the rules of the game ourselves. Before I try to answer questions like that, I first try to imagine the world thousands of years in the future. It's reasuring because I can't see any of the "nightmare" senarios lasting that long. Either we learn to live together without destroying the planet, or the cockroaches will be taking over before long (I guess it's reasuring because I'm an optimist who thinks we are likely to survive). After thinking like this, I envision a world in which most physical needs are handled in an efficient manner (that is everything including food, trasportation, housing, etc.), and that most people have a good amount of time for leasure and creative work. Eventually a large part of the population may live in space. It is possible that money will no longer be important because physical survival doesn't take much of our resources, and would be provided anyway. Instead, what drives people to create works of art and science is as it always has been; the persuit of art and ideas for their own sake. >The scientific paradigm can deal only with *repeatable* events. Strictly >speaking, no two observed events are identical, for we change between >observations. So repeatability is only a convention. During the past >five centuries western culture has been investigating the repeatable, >to the neglect of the unique and human. It's one of the glaring limitations >of scientific culture that it doesn't tell you whom to marry, or even how >to woo. When people try to apply to these problems the abstract methods >they have learned from western culture, they usually come to grief! (Look >into soc.singles if you doubt it....) You have a good point (although some will quibble that science deals with more that just repeatable events). So we need a new paradigm to deal with the unique and human, something that is already developing (although, no doubt, many of those doing this are probably considered "pseudo-scientists" by many so-called "hard-scientists"). You might also ask, "What good is science if it doesn't do anything for living together?" Gerry Gleason