yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (12/02/90)
In article <1990Nov21.045833.11768@mentor.com> msellers@mentor.com (Mike Sellers) writes: In article <15724@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) writes: >it >would not be ludicrous to say that scientists assume patterns of behavior based >on those of other scientists. It is not ludicrous to say, and in fact is a widely held attitude -- all you have to see this in action is wander into a lab and watch a graduate student and his or her advisor at work! However, this sort of description is unsatisfying, and leaves the reader with the distinct impression that these scientists (or musicians, or artists, or politicians) don't really *know* what it is that they are about, and that they are once again trying to snow us all so they can spend more of our taxpayer dollars on some fool project. It also weakens the case often touted by those championing the conclusions of science, that as a method of describing the world it is somehow qualitatively better than what the poor ignorant souls of previous eras had available to them. If we cannot describe science any better than to say that 'science is what scientists do, and what scientists do, precisely, is what other scientists do', then I suggest that science and its practitioners are not epistemilogically in a position that is any more defensible than any other describer of the world, such as a shaman, priest, philosopher, artist, or politician. The difference is that, unlike the shaman or the priest, *our* magic works -- consider aircraft, telephones, computers, CD players, and CAT scanners. To the average layman these may indeed be magic, but it is a magic that *works*. If a someone prays for world peace, he doesn't really expect it to work, but if he picks up a cellular phone and calls his office, he will be very perturbed if it *doesn't* work. The fact that science is useful for developing new technologies is what separates it from superstition, religion, philosophy, art, and politcs. Science is a better description because you can't build supersonic jets and digital synthesizers based on philosophical treatises or religious dogma. I would argue that, to a large extent, technology is what "validates" science. (This is why it always surprises me to find scientists who are anti-technology, although this disease is relatively rare in the "applied" sciences like CS and AI. Ironically, businesspeople seem more enamored of high-tech than basic scientists.) -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) (12/03/90)
In article <YAMAUCHI.90Dec1155848@heron.cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: [...] > >The fact that science is useful for developing new technologies is >what separates it from superstition, religion, philosophy, art, and >politcs. Science is a better description because you can't build >supersonic jets and digital synthesizers based on philosophical >treatises or religious dogma. I would argue that, to a large extent, >technology is what "validates" science. (This is why it always >surprises me to find scientists who are anti-technology, although this >disease is relatively rare in the "applied" sciences like CS and AI. >Ironically, businesspeople seem more enamored of high-tech than basic >scientists.) This is an interesting view, which I don't think is entirely correct, depending on how it is interpreted. Firstly, the relationship between science and technology is not an equivalence. Developments in science do not necessarily rely on developments in technology, and vice versa. On the other hand, they *do* often have a direct influence on each other. This is especially evident when considering the need scientists have for increasingly better instrumentation for finer observation -- such as more powerful telescopes, microscopes, or computers. Mind you, the practitioners of various religions, much like scientists, have tools of their trade as well -- which I believe must seem very effective to their followers. Various traditional forms of medicine serve as good examples. A big difference between the two approaches however is that science refers in reality to two criteria of explanatory suffiency: 1) rigour/consistency and perhaps minimalness (formal adequecy), and 2) elegance and intuitiveness (informal adequecy). Ideally, informal requirements are subordinate to formal ones. If a theory which fufills the formal requirements does not meet the informal ones, it will meet with prolonged disapproval -- but will usually persist until ideas of elegance and intuitiveness have changed in light of the evidence. Evolution and quantum physics are examples of this, I think. The belief systems used by a shaman, politician, and the others you mention rest immediately on the informal requirements, which renders them and their tools far more arbitrary and subject to change. The conservatism of science, as related above, results in its ideas being subject to far wider review under more careful cicumstances than is the case for other belief systems which fall for support on informal doctrine first. This is not to say, however, that science is not subject to the same social pressures as anything else, merely that it is better equipped to stand apart from them. At this point, it would be correct to say, as you did, that the dissemination of science via technology does spread the validation even further afield, but often long after the work that made it possible -- although this does seem to be changing in this century. Perhaps this is another adjustment of informal ideas that I mentioned above... How's that? :> -- Cameron Shelley | "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu| in strict accordance with the limitations and Davis Centre Rm 2136 | incapacities of the human misunderstanding..." Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390 | Ambrose Bierce
mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) (12/04/90)
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) wrote: >The fact that science is useful for developing new technologies is >what separates it from superstition, religion, philosophy, art, and >politcs. ... I would argue that, to a large extent, >technology is what "validates" science. (This is why it always >surprises me to find scientists who are anti-technology, although this >disease is relatively rare in the "applied" sciences like CS and AI. >Ironically, businesspeople seem more enamored of high-tech than basic >scientists.) to which cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes: .... A big difference between the two approaches however is that science refers in reality to two criteria of explanatory suffiency: 1) rigour/consistency and perhaps minimalness (formal adequecy), and 2) elegance and intuitiveness (informal adequecy). .... Cameron -- I think that your description of science is wrong. It is my understanding that science can be viewed as a body of knowledge which can lead to RELIABLE predictions about the physical world. In other words, science is REPEATABLE. Thus, the relation between technology and science is clear -- technology NEEDS science because science ensures that the results of the technology will be predictable. E.g., no one would build a space shuttle before having a reliable theory concerning the nature of space (such as vacuum, gravity, radiation, etc.) I believe that the characteristics you list are merely criteria that are used by the scienctific community for evaluating scientific theories. In modern science there is a strong tendency to reject theories that do no hold up to the REPEATABILITY criteria even if they fulfill conditions (1) and (2) you listed. (Note that the opposite is not always true -- it may also reject a theory which is repeatable.) Mike Bender
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (12/04/90)
In article <MIKEB.90Dec3132442@wdl31.wdl.fac.com> mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) wrote: >The fact that science is useful for developing new technologies is >what separates it from superstition, religion, philosophy, art, and >politcs. ... I would argue that, to a large extent, >technology is what "validates" science. to which cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes: .... A big difference between the two approaches however is that science refers in reality to two criteria of explanatory suffiency: 1) rigour/consistency and perhaps minimalness (formal adequecy), and 2) elegance and intuitiveness (informal adequecy). .... Cameron -- I think that your description of science is wrong. It is my understanding that science can be viewed as a body of knowledge which can lead to RELIABLE predictions about the physical world. In other words, science is REPEATABLE. Thus, the relation between technology and science is clear -- technology NEEDS science because science ensures that the results of the technology will be predictable. E.g., no one would build a space shuttle before having a reliable theory concerning the nature of space (such as vacuum, gravity, radiation, etc.) Actually, in some cases, technology predates science -- catapults were built prior to Newton's theory of motion; sailing ships were built prior to theories of fluid dynamics. However, the fact that science generates predictions which are reliable and repeatable allows people to build highly complex and/or precise machines which make use of these predictions. (In the case of AI, I think we're still in the sailing ship era...) -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
n025fc@tamuts.tamu.edu (Kevin Weller) (12/04/90)
In article <YAMAUCHI.90Dec1155848@heron.cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > > .... I would argue that, to a large extent, > technology is what "validates" science. (This is why it always > surprises me to find scientists who are anti-technology, although this > disease is relatively rare in the "applied" sciences like CS and AI. > Ironically, businesspeople seem more enamored of high-tech than basic > scientists.) > .... > Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester > yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department I would agree that technology is the major indication of science's validity, but you must remember that technology in and of itself is not an unqualified good (few things are). Consider the current and future effects of acid rain, the threat of nuclear weapons, etc. If technology went away tomorrow (unlikely [thankfully], but still possible), the ways of science would still be valid, though more difficult. Those anti-tech scientists you mention recognize the negative side of the tech coin, often via science itself. Undeniably, some of them go overboard and declare technology generally bad, which is not true either. They misconstrue the technology question as an either/or proposition; I've see the law of the excluded middle misapplied to so many issues that it doesn't surprise me anymore. In any case, I'm anything but a Luddite back-to-nature freak, but I do understand the reservations some harbor toward over-zealous "technologization." -- Kevin L. Weller /-------+--------------------\ internet: n025fc@tamuts.tamu.edu | aTm | GIG 'EM, AGGIES! | CIS: 73327,1447 \-------+--------------------/
cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) (12/04/90)
In article <MIKEB.90Dec3132442@wdl31.wdl.fac.com> mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: > >to which cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes: > .... > A big difference between the two approaches however is that science > refers in reality to two criteria of explanatory suffiency: > 1) rigour/consistency and perhaps minimalness (formal adequecy), and > 2) elegance and intuitiveness (informal adequecy). .... > >Cameron -- I think that your description of science is wrong. It is my >understanding that science can be viewed as a body of knowledge which can >lead to RELIABLE predictions about the physical world. In other words, >science is REPEATABLE. I would not deny that people's concepts of science vary, but I don't know why all variation must be judged right or wrong -- my picture of science is not that rigid, although certainly not all-inclusive either. It is odd, in my view, to look on science as being some nebulous "body of knowledge" (having what meta-physical status?) the covers of which are pealed away by supposedly impersonal investigators. Perhaps I shouldn't say "odd" so much as idealistic. I was attempting to get closer to what actually seems to go on in the conducting of science. The RELIABLILITY and REPEATABILITY of predictions are functions of the mathematical nature of the models being used, aren't they? This is what (in essence) I was referring to with my first point. So perhaps we do not disagree as much as it seems. > >Thus, the relation between technology and science is clear -- technology >NEEDS science because science ensures that the results of the technology >will be predictable. E.g., no one would build a space shuttle before having >a reliable theory concerning the nature of space (such as vacuum, gravity, >radiation, etc.) > Very true, and I did admit that the relation between science and technology seems to be changing of late. But throughout most of history, the irrigation systems, roadways, ships, weapons, etc. (the technology) have been made with no reference to science (as we have it now) at all. Modern man and his technology have existed for roughly thirty thousand years now, how long has science had such a great influence? Also, I think the fact that we are all technophiles here has given us a somewhat distorted view of technology -- the things you mention are all examples of "high-technology", and it's not clear to me that this represents the majority of technology even today. >I believe that the characteristics you list are merely criteria that are >used by the scienctific community for evaluating scientific theories. In >modern science there is a strong tendency to reject theories that do no >hold up to the REPEATABILITY criteria even if they fulfill conditions (1) >and (2) you listed. (Note that the opposite is not always true -- it may >also reject a theory which is repeatable.) > Hmmm. I had envisaged repeatabilty as a formal constraint in line with my first condition, although I did not state it explicitly. I would also like to add at this point that I think the formal adequecy of science serves as its interface to high-technology and is the guarantee of the reliabiltiy you were looking for. The math used to describe physical theories, say, can then be used by engineers to produce more tangible results with reasonable expectations of success -- the interface I was referring to. Since, as I maintained, other approaches to 'explanation' (see the previous post) don't have such a level built into them, they have no effective way of transferring 'results' from one area to another. Thus, a new-improved hallucinogenic drug which brings you to nirvana more quickly and for longer cannot suggest a better way dealing with your cranky car when you come back down (at least not reliably). I'm being facetious of course, but I hope you get the picture. > Mike Bender Does this address your concerns at all? -- Cameron Shelley | "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu| in strict accordance with the limitations and Davis Centre Rm 2136 | incapacities of the human misunderstanding..." Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390 | Ambrose Bierce