pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (03/10/88)
All the criticism of Omni reminds me of how I've come to detest NOVA. In the beginning I was an enthusiastic NOVA supporter. But the more I saw the less I liked it. The problem is that it presents science half as a cult of personalities and half as religion. The first assertion is probably obvious to everyone. As to the second, if the next time you are watching it you would simply imagine the narrator intoning your favorite creed, you will be persuaded by how well that creed fits. NOVA and religion are appealing to the same emotion. Since I first made this realization, two things have happened to further shake my confidence in science as a social institution. The first has been the discovery of high temperature super- conductivity--a real discovery that exposes other contemporary physics as a species of bookkeeping and the artificiality of theory. Really, how much confidence can you have in some arrogant astrophysicist's elucidation of the first millisecond of the history of the universe when a phenomenon like high-temperature superconductivity wasn't even known. It's not science, it's religion. The second was that I found out that many palentologists don't accept the theory that a meteor striking the earth can account for a sudden mass extinction of dinosaurs. I had bought this because there is evidence that a meteor did hit the earth. Now, apparently the fossil record is ambiguous on the question of whether there ever even was a sudden mass extinction of dinosaurs. And man's own effect on the biosphere shows that if there was the cause could be very obscure. But because the guy that proposed the theory is a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, that is not in the field at all, he thinks his critics should not even be listened to, dismissing them because they are not members of the National Academy of Sciences. Frankly if this sentiment is typical of its membership, it must be a detestible institution. But the bottom line is that science is not logical and not impartial but very much driven by politics and personalities, it's a religion complete with dogma and high priests, and the truth is that Omni taps the true root of science in America today. If you want to understand what science is all about, read Omni, not Scientific American, to find out. (But don't believe anything it says :-) So what happened to science? Was it always this bad? Remembering phrenology one is tempted to say so. But I don't believe that. I think that Science can be something worthwhile, but I think the verdict on whether it is, has been, or will be is not in yet. There is not even convincing evidence for the efficacy of modern medicine. If you doubt this, why don't we live longer than bushmen? Why don't we lead better lives than bushmen? It still seems very likely to me that future generations might look on science the way we look on alchemy or might even regard it with the disgust we resevre for slavery and racism.
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (03/11/88)
In article <73600008@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > All the criticism of Omni reminds me of how I've come to detest NOVA. > In the beginning I was an enthusiastic NOVA supporter. But > the more I saw the less I liked it. The problem is that it presents > science half as a cult of personalities and half as religion. > The first assertion is probably obvious to everyone. As to the > second, if the next time you are watching it you would simply > imagine the narrator intoning your favorite creed, you will be > persuaded by how well that creed fits. NOVA and religion are > appealing to the same emotion. Science and religion may overlap in the way they appeal to us and in the fact that both seek truth in their own way, but they cannot be the same. Why? Because there are Christian scientists, Buddhist scientits, Hindu scientists, Zen scientists and so on. Most religions have the property that they do not include members of every other religion in it. If science were a religion then scientists would not practice those other religions. > > Since I first made this realization, two things have happened > to further shake my confidence in science as a social institution. > > But the bottom line is that science is not logical and not Discovery is not logical. Logic is only used to justify what had already been arrived at by other means (i.e. through random chance or non-logical thinking.) It is not used to make truths where there were none before. Why do you think they call it deduction? So, of course, science is not logical at the bottommost level. The measure of justification is there though. > impartial but very much driven by politics and personalities, > it's a religion complete with dogma and high priests ... So what's new? This has already been well known since Kuhn. The problem is not the dogma nor the supposedly extraneous politicking that goes on. The problem lies in intolerance. The others can exist without it. > It still seems very likely to me that > future generations might look on science the way we look > on alchemy or might even regard it with the disgust we resevre > for slavery and racism. ... or the way the Library of Alexandria was burned down because of a deep- seated prejudice against people who seek knowledge. Future (and present) generations will definitely look upon us as primitive, but they will not possess the obsolete arrogance to regard us in disgust and contempt. That much will be reformed (today or in the near future).
lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) (03/13/88)
In article <73600008@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Since I first made this realization, two things have happened > to further shake my confidence in science as a social institution. > > The first has been the discovery of high temperature super- > conductivity--a real discovery that exposes other contemporary > physics as a species of bookkeeping and the artificiality > of theory. Really, how much confidence can you have in some > arrogant astrophysicist's elucidation of the first millisecond > of the history of the universe when a phenomenon like > high-temperature superconductivity wasn't even known. It's > not science, it's religion. Speaking for myself, I found the discovery reaffirmed my trust in the scientific method. In reverse order: - the discoverers were acclaimed by their peers (and the Nobel committee). - the discovery was replicated at other labs, from its published data, as a check on its correctness. - the discovers published an account that was precise enough to ALLOW others to follow the trail. - the discoverers had the training to know what they had, had the equipment to measure what they had, and, even better, were LOOKING FOR exactly what they found. (They were trying materials, examining them for exactly that property.) - the discoverer's employers were a company (IBM) with the foresight to let the discoverers follow their own hunches. (Ceramics !?!) - the discoverer's employers were willing to fund a long shot (because one research in a hundred can break through and pay for the rest). - the idea had been suggested years before. In the science fiction novel "Ringworld", by Larry Niven, a major plot twist was based on the idea of room-temperature superconductors - albeit, organic, rather than ceramic. (SPOILER: a mutant bacteria ate the superconductor, thus causing a major disaster.) - the idea was scientifically reputable at the time the book was published in 1970. Scientific American had already run an article, suggesting that we might someday engineer molecules so as to allow room- temperature superconductivity. All in all ... we found it because the theorists thought it might be there, so the experimentalists went looking. It was in an obscure place, or it would have been found sooner. Science triumphant !! Yeah team ! Roll on ! > But because the guy that proposed the theory is a Nobel Prize > winner in Physics, that is not in the field at all, he > thinks his critics should not even be listened to, dismissing > them because they are not members of the National Academy > of Sciences. Frankly if this sentiment is typical of > its membership, it must be a detestible institution. If he did that, it was bad of him. His critics did get heard, though. > So what happened to science? Was it always this bad? It used to be worse, but then, society used to be more rigid, and have things like class barriers. (Look up the founding of the Smithsonian ! ) Things are a lot better now, and the triumphs of science had a major hand in the upheaval. > There is not even convincing evidence for > the efficacy of modern medicine. If you doubt this, why > don't we live longer than bushmen? Why don't we lead > better lives than bushmen? Personally, I wouldn't like to live like a bushman. They have a murder rate higher than the rate in my community. They get by without all the toys that amuse me (like, netmail). Their numbers (and size) are kept small by lack of food. As for modern medicine, it has some clear failings ... but it is remarkably efficacious at dealing with the major problems of the last century. I am (just) old enough to remember the discovery of polio vaccine. One of my classmates was crippled by polio, and my wife remembers classmates dying of it. A century ago, polio was the least of one's worries. Or maybe you'd like to live without antibiotics, or aspirin, or iodized salt, or glasses, or pasteurized milk, or x-rays, or blood transfusion ? The next time the paramedics scrape a friend of yours into an ambulance, be sure to tell them that they aren't efficacious, so not to waste any money on transfusions. And stop with all this cleanliness stuff. Keeping your bodily wastes off your family's food supply isn't efficacious, so save the water. Science and medicine have warts, yes. But they beat the hell out of the way it used to be. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science
todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) (03/13/88)
In Gerd Theissen's "Biblical Faith, an Evolutionary Approach"
He make some VERY GOOD distinctions between scientific and religeous
systems of evalutating the "truth".
If you can at least borrow/xerox a copy of it, it is well worth the
reading.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ uop!todd@uunet.uu.net +
+ cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa +
+ {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd +
-----------------------------------------------------------------------pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (03/13/88)
Some further thoughts on science couched as a reply to lindsay. lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes in connection with the discovery of high-temperature superconductivity: > ... > Speaking for myself, I found the discovery reaffirmed my trust in the > scientific method. > ... We do not disagree on this point; I am not attacking the scientific method, nor am I attacking experimental physics. I think if more people had a better understanding of the scientific method then those ridiculous claims about what happened during the first millisecond of the universe's existence would receive the derision they deserve. Surely such speculation is on as shaky a footing as Velikovsky's, and I think more misleading because physicists should know better, and should know too that these claims do not lend themselves to experimental tests. Perhaps it is prejudice, but I have always distrusted astronomy and astrophysics. Once we had Lowell claiming there were canals on Mars. More recently I understand that the supernova has shot holes in theories of supernovas (sure, some theories were supported but others were not). The planetary space missions convinced me that there is no substitute for observation. The bottom line is that a theory needs a certain 'critical mass' of experimental backing before it can be trusted. But I object to more than just astrophysics. For example, It is full speed ahead on the supercollider even though we are at a point in time when superconducting magnet technology is likely to change rapidly. Why should so much money should be devoted to particle physics in the first place. I think the only reason for the "in" people to get easy papers and maintain their reputations, though I suspect the government feels that it can't risk not finding some super atomic bomb technology that might come from the effort. But the researchers can't lose because access to the equipment is the only thing that determines whether or not you can do particle physics research. Something similar happened in Computer Science. When VLSI design tools became readily available a bunch of graduate students invented RISC computers and showed that the experts had all been designing computers wrong all along. (This may be an exageration but contains a grain of truth) On to another point, Lindsay also writes: > ... > Personally, I wouldn't like to live like a bushman. They have a murder rate > higher than the rate in my community. >... Murder rate arguments can not quell my suspicions that Bushmen led better lives than we do. You are comparing our society at its best with what the Bushmen have become under subjugation. Such an unfair comparison should not convince anyone. Likewise, comparisons between contemporary society and other worse versions of it, such as the last century, are unconvincing. Murder itself is a concept from our society, and had I been a Bushman I might still have led a better life, even with murder as a fact of life--for example, I might have been endowed with a compensating quality of courage. And even if it should turn out that they don't lead lives as good as ours, what then of the Aborigines, the Cheyene, the navijo, and so on. And do not forget that the ancient civilizations got on fine (existed at least) with out even mathematics. (Yes I know there was Geometry, but as a social force it wasn't there--they were more honest about recognizing that it was a religion though) Later Lindsay writes: > ... > As for modern medicine, it has some clear failings ... but it is remarkably > efficacious at dealing with the major problems of the last century. > ... > The next time the > paramedics scrape a friend of yours into an ambulance, be sure to tell them > that they aren't efficacious, so not to waste any money on transfusions. > ... The major problems of the last century are artificial ones; the proof is that our life expectancy is about the same as in primitive societies. It is not necessary for people to be scraped into ambulances in the first place. The problems of the last century are threatening to return (gonerea for example has mutated). And is AIDS an accident? Or can we expect new diseases to appear when we live overcrowded in cities? And of course AIDS has served to highlight the risk you always take when you get a transfusion. You might be surprised to learn that x% (x>10) of hospital patients are there for diseases they caught in a hospital. And if you think we have a quality of life up-side to all of this, then witness the suicide rate. Science has had no small part in shaping our society. If we destroy ourselves through nuclear winter, biological warfare, biological accident, genetic engineering, or through disastrous climatic change caused by industry, then the issue is clear: science, as we practiced it, was not only a mistake but a catastrophie. None of these catastrophies need actually happen for science to be rightfully excoriated. Another point is that most science since WWII is military in nature. Science as religion may be a necessity--both to disguise its true nature, and to motivate young people to become practitioners. I have more than once heard scientists bemoan what science has become. We used to have Openheimers and now we have Tellers. I often think of it as "Hitler's revenge". Motivating young people is why OMNI can be regarded as truer to science that Scientific American, SA merely reports the status of current works, but OMNI is in the business of presenting science as religion and making sure there is a new crop of eager, young, naive postulants competing for the priesthood.
rob@amadeus.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) (03/13/88)
In article <73600008@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > The first has been the discovery of high temperature super- > conductivity--a real discovery that exposes other contemporary > physics as a species of bookkeeping and the artificiality > of theory. Really, how much confidence can you have in some > arrogant astrophysicist's elucidation of the first millisecond > of the history of the universe when a phenomenon like > high-temperature superconductivity wasn't even known. It's > not science, it's religion. I don't understand. What possible connection could high Tc superconductivity have with cosmology? From what I know of these materials, it's extremely unlikely that they could occur in nature. In any case, it doesn't matter. Even if superconductors did have some direct relationship to cosmology, does that mean that no one should propose theories about the origin of the Universe just in case some new discovery will come along and invalidate it? Or if they did propose one, we should have no confidence in it? With this kind of thinking, we'd still be assuming that the Sun goes around the Earth, because no one could propose a heliocentric theory. After all, some new discovery may come along and we'll find that the planets really go around the Moon. I do not mean to say that scientific theories can't be proven false. They wouldn't be scientific if they can't. And this is the primary difference between science and religion. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM
edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) (03/14/88)
The God of Science differs from all others in favoring the intelligent, well-informed, and skeptical. For them she performs miracles. All other gods seem to avoid these people for their demonstrations.
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (03/14/88)
In article <2867@gryphon.CTS.COM> edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) writes:
~
~ The God of Science differs from all others in favoring the
~intelligent, well-informed, and skeptical. For them she performs
~miracles. All other gods seem to avoid these people for their
~demonstrations.
This is an excellent quotation. Do you have a source?
Thanks
Bill Jefferys
--
Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (03/15/88)
> But the bottom line is that science is not logical and not > impartial but very much driven by politics and personalities, > it's a religion complete with dogma and high priests, and the > ... > So what happened to science? Was it always this bad? > Remembering phrenology one is tempted to say so. But > I don't believe that. I think that Science can be something > worthwhile, but I think the verdict on whether it is, has been, or will > ... > It still seems very likely to me that > future generations might look on science the way we look > on alchemy or might even regard it with the disgust we resevre > for slavery and racism. Science is a creation of the human mind, so it would be surprising not to find imperfections. I think you NEED science to be a religion. You are looking for absolutes that only dogma can provide. The scientific method (more specifically, mathematics) is the only reasonably effective technique man has developed for understanding the universe, however imperfectly. It is important to remember that scientific "truths" are only the best understanding at any time, they can never be absolute truths. Obviously future generations will consider us primitive, just as their descendants will consider them so. Only recently have most people come to view slavery and racism with disgust. .
fmm@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (F. Miller Maley) (03/15/88)
In article <73600010@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >Some further thoughts on science couched as a reply to lindsay. >... >I think if more people >had a better understanding of the scientific method then those ridiculous >claims about what happened during the first millisecond of the universe's >existence would receive the derision they deserve. Surely such speculation >is on as shaky a footing as Velikovsky's.... Not at all. Velikovsky's "speculations" conflict with some of our most basic scientific knowledge in a variety of disciplines. See the appendix of _Broca's Brain_ by Carl Sagan for a detailed, dispassionate analysis of Velikovsky's ideas. Cosmology, and in particular theories of the early universe, proceed from a basis of well-tested science. We *do* have evidence with which to check these theories: the 3K background radiation, isotope ratios, the distribution of matter in the universe, etc. Observational capabilities in these areas are improving steadily. >Once we had Lowell claiming there were canals on Mars. More recently >I understand that the supernova has shot holes in theories of supernovas... If you already know the answers, you're asking the wrong questions. >But I object to more than just astrophysics. For example, >It is full speed ahead on the supercollider even though we are at a >point in time when superconducting magnet technology is likely to >change rapidly. There are actually several good reasons. 1. Strong electromagnets must withstand the enormous bursting forces induced in their coils. The new superconductors, being ceramics, are brittle, and therefore ill-equipped to withstand these forces. 2. The new high-temperature superconductors have a critical current density that is still about 100 times too low for this application. 3. A low temperature (liquid helium range) is highly desirable in particle accelerators because it minimizes collisions between the accelerated particles and stray gas molecules. (The residual gas in the beam path freezes out.) 4. Magnets and cooling amount to only about 5% of the projected cost of the SSC. >The major problems of the last century are artificial ones; the proof >is that our life expectancy is about the same as in primitive societies. What? It may be that the life expectancy of a healthy adult has not increased much. But because of the dramatic decline in infant and child mortality, the life expectancy of a newborn is much greater in a modern society than in a primitive one. In any case, mortality is not the sole measure of health! You might also consider what modern medicine has done to alleviate physical suffering. >And if you think we have a quality of life up-side to all of this, >then witness the suicide rate. Ay, there's the rub. It seems that human happiness is keyed as much to expectations as to "standard of living". Still, if you wish to return to a pre-scientific way of life, I say go right ahead. Miller Maley 609-987-2808 | ...!princeton!fmm | 3x10^5 km/sec. It's not just Princeton Computer Science | fmm@princeton.edu | a good idea. It's the law.
deanp@hplsla.HP.COM ( Dean Payne) (03/15/88)
> Since I first made this realization, two things have happened > to further shake my confidence in science as a social institution. > > The first has been the discovery of high temperature super- > conductivity--a real discovery that exposes other contemporary > physics as a species of bookkeeping and the artificiality > of theory. Really, how much confidence can you have in some > arrogant astrophysicist's elucidation of the first millisecond > of the history of the universe when a phenomenon like > high-temperature superconductivity wasn't even known. I have as much confidence as is justified by the evidence. The good technical discussions often make clear what models and assumptions are used as a basis for hypotheses or statements. Unfortunately, when technical mumbo-jumbo is translated into understandable lay terms, almost all hints that the claims are tentative or are based on other cast-in-jello results do not survive the translation. > It's > not science, it's religion. It seems that you have been worshipping science as if it were religion. Many of us don't. > The second was that I found out that many palentologists > don't accept the theory that a meteor striking the earth can > account for a sudden mass extinction of dinosaurs. I had bought this ^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ > because there is evidence that a meteor did hit the earth. If you bought _anything_, you weren't paying attention. You should have taken it as a proposal, to sink or swim as more evidence became available. Don't be shocked that it appears to have sunk. And don't be shocked if it later starts swimming again. > But the bottom line is that science is not logical and not > impartial but very much driven by politics and personalities, > it's a religion complete with dogma and high priests, You think science is bad? Take a look at government, business activities, and organized religion. > It still seems very likely to me that > future generations might look on science the way we look > on alchemy or might even regard it with the disgust we resevre > for slavery and racism. I am already disgusted with the way science is portrayed in the popular press. New hypotheses are often portrayed as established fact, with a certainty not at all present in the technical press. Dean Payne
jim@epistemi.ed.ac.uk (Jim Scobbie) (03/17/88)
In article <32@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: > >The scientific method (more specifically, mathematics) is the only >reasonably effective technique man [=people] has developed for understanding >the universe, however imperfectly. > I know what you're saying, but hang on! Have you never read a great novel and come to understand the most complex bit of the universe - us - a bit more? Art, interpersonal relationships etc certainly give me a far greater understanding of life the universe and everything, precisely because in many cases, they don't add up :-). (maths isn't any use there!) -- Jim Scobbie: Centre for Cognitive Science and Department of Linguistics, Edinburgh University, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND UUCP: ...!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!jim JANET: jim@uk.ac.ed.epistemi
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (03/22/88)
> In article <32@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: > > > >The scientific method (more specifically, mathematics) is the only > >reasonably effective technique man [=people] has developed for understanding > >the universe, however imperfectly. > > > > I know what you're saying, but hang on! Have you never read a great > novel and come to understand the most complex > bit of the universe - us - a bit more? Art, interpersonal relationships etc > certainly give me a far greater understanding of life the universe and > everything, precisely because in many cases, they don't add up :-). (maths > isn't any use there!) > They may give a greater subjective understanding of the universe, but objective knowledge must be verifiable. Since all science is based on unverifiable assumptions (i.e., axioms), however, objective knowledge is ultimately unverifiable, too. (Personally, I prefer arts to science because they are more immediate to my experience, and therefore seem more real.) So, we might as well carpe diem. What is it they say about philosophers? They kick up a lot of dust, then complain they can't see. .
macros@deepthot.UUCP (R.) (03/24/88)
Ed Kaulakis writes (in article 2867@gryphon.CTS.COM):
"The God of Science differs from all others in favoring the
intelligent, well-informed, and skeptical. For them she performs
miracles. All other gods seem to avoid these people for their
demonstrations."
This is very curious. I don't know which gods you are refering to, but
those of which I am most familiar as those of the ancient Greek Pantheon
and the above statement does NOT fit them as a group. Apollo, for
example was the god of music, art, and divination (etc); these certainly
involve intelligence (the ability to learn and EXPRESS that learning)
and well-informativeness (a requirement of MASTERY), and skepicism is
essential in ANY endeavour where KNOWLEDGE is at stake. Admittedly,
one has to believe in the efficacy of one's tools (divination for
example), but this is decidedly of equal importance in science. The
CRITERION of efficacy is at work in both spheres, though the problem
of unfalsifyabilty is more pronouned in those related to deities, but
only because there is the additional factor of randomness introduced
through the personality of the god. This makes their task more difficult,
but NOT unworkable. Science too has its limitations, for example, our
laws relating pressure, volume and temperature are statistical, they
tell you very little about INDIVIDUAL constituent entities. Science
also enforces a certain way of viewing the world (i.e. mechanistically)
and this is as much of a piece of dogma as any rite.
Raymond J. Tigg