Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!bill
From: bill@hpfcla.UUCP (bill)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Science and Fallibility
Message-ID: <45200015@hpfcms.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 18:53:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcms.45200015
Posted: Tue Jul 30 18:53:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 01:16:03 EDT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 132
Nf-ID: #N:hpfcms:45200015:000:7495
Nf-From: hpfcms!bill    Jul 30 14:53:00 1985

An edible line goes here.

I'd like to respond to a few Rosen-isms I've collected.  These quotes
only last a screen and a half, so please be patient.

>I just love the way some people choose to divide the world arbitrarily
>into these physical and non-physical categories based solely on their
>limits of observation, and then seek to cage science (that awful thing!)
>into examining only the "physical", claiming that their pet "nonphysical"
>ideas should be free of the shackles of science, which really means "let's
>not examine these things rigorously because such thinking might debunk
>these notions the way they got rid of geocentrism hundreds of years ago".
>
>What is it that you have against rigorous objectified examination using
>verifiable evidence?  That's all the heinous science is after all.  Why
>should such examination have "limits"?
>
>Since other so-called evidence is rife with the flaws of preconception,
>presumption, faulty patterning of the mind imposed on events, it ain't
>worthwhile evidence.
>
>Unfortunately, my "wishful thinking" is backed up by evidence.
>
>Scientists, when making observations about the world, only call
>them facts after severe and rigorous verification.  [RICH ROSEN]

These statements are taken out of their original settings, but I think
their intended meanings are preserved when isolated.

Geocentrism was itself a product of the scientific community for
hundreds of years.  In fact, when geocentrism was first opposed, the
opposition was ridiculed, by the scientific community at large, almost
to the point of snuffing it out.  You, Rich, are an example of the same
pompous, egocentric attitude that pervades "science" - that attitude
that says, "Hey, if it's accepted by science, it can't be wrong!" - that
attitude that opposes and ridicules any idea contrary to current scientific
thought BEFORE the evidence is heard in full.  That attitude that teaches
our kids in school that science is noble and wise, and that science is the
closest thing to infallibility on earth.  Baloney!  History is a reliable
witness to the miserable failures of science:

    * blood-letting
    * laetrile
    * cyclamates, saccharin, and possibly aspartame
    * early flying machines
    * emissions from internal combustion engines, causing lung
      disorders, acid rain, various cancers, etc.
    * cancer-causing food additives, like sodium nitrate, red dye #2, etc.
    * nuclear fission plants that leak
    * atomic weapons whose after-effects cannot be decided upon by the
      almighty scientific community
    * aerosol propellants that erode the ozone layer
    * the earth is flat
    * killer bees (the result of a "useful" cross-breeding)
    * satellite-launching rockets that topple in pieces to the ground in
      a ball of flame

ALL of these things (and there are many more) were either ideas that were
BELIEVED IN at the time, or side-effects that were unforeseen.  All these
things from science, which is regarded as the final "yes" or "no" for any
concept or item.

I knock science only to add a touch of realism to the ideal you present
in your postings, Rich.  Science has A LOT of marvelous things to its
credit, too.  But what you forget, Rich, is that science, in its ideal
form, DOES NOT EXIST.  Much of science today is motivated by money and
ego, and is therefore just as unreliable as the "unreal" or "non-physical"
things you mention.  Sure, science is an attempt to find answers to the
questions we have through some methodology - that's great.  But realize
that, being a human organization in which humans of all persuasions and
of differing motivations co-exist, science is prone to MAKE MISTAKES,
as my examples above show.

Aren't you aware, Rich, that one of science's main premises is that any
scientific "fact", "truth", "theorem", or "postulate" is only true until
proven false?  That is, it only takes one failure for fact to become
fiction, yet a million instances in which a "fact" holds true still do
not, in a scientific sense, prove its truth.  Thus, science is ALWAYS
dealing in probabilities - sometimes good probabilities, and sometimes
bad ones.  To put your faith in science is fine, but you're putting your
faith in probabilities, which is no better or worse than someone else
upholding a subjective "truth".  The fact that current scientific methods
cannot be readily applied to subjective "truths" does not in any way serve
to degrade their validity, since current scientific methods are themselves
prone to error.

And what about those subjective "truths" which you have labelled as "unreal"?
I'll take as examples those particular subjective entities mentioned in other
postings:  beauty, awareness, and purpose.  I have experienced, over and
over again, these three things, and I therefore maintain that there is a 100%
probability that they are true and exist.  I also maintain that there isn't
a human being alive today who hasn't experienced these things, although the
term "beauty" can be applied to a wide variety of things, depending on the
person.  Therefore, I maintain that these things are 100% true and are real.
How 'bout you, Rich?  Did you ever see something you thought was beatiful?
No?  Baloney!!  You're lying!  There are multitudes of things that are
beautiful to people at various times: water to a thirsty person, a mountain
drive, a member of the opposite sex, etc.  How 'bout awareness?  Have you
ever experienced that?  Are you aware of this discussion?  Are you formulating
a response right now to this article?  If so, you're aware of it.  Do you
agree or disagree with any of it?  Then you're aware of it.  How 'bout
purpose?  Do you go through life without any?  Why post articles?  Why get
incensed at those who disagree with you?  Is there any purpose to it?  Like
it or not, you've experienced these things, Rich.  Because they are distinct,
referencable experiences, they are 100% probabilities that they exist for you.
And if you discount experience as viable proof, then all of science's tests
and "rigorous verification" must be discounted too, because the results of
those tests are experienced through the same senses that allow you to
experience beauty, awareness, and purpose.

You say that "verifiable evidence" is what proves or disproves the existence
of something?  Get 1000 people together in a room, and ask each of them if
they've ever experienced beauty, purpose, and awareness.  All 1000 will say
yes.  You can continue filling that room until earth's population has been
polled in its entirety, and you'll not find one who hasn't experienced all
three.  Try getting that kind of concensus from the scientific community.

Finally, let science analyze anything it darn well wants to - I could care
less.  Science currently has no appropriate tools to validate subjective
truths, so what good would the analysis do?  What validity would there be in
its findings?  It's not those of us who uphold the existence of subjective
truths who are holding off scientific examination - science couldn't do a
decent examination with the tools currently available.  Thus, the only thing
you can conclude on the basis of science about subjective matters is that
"testing is inconclusive at the present time."  NOT that subjective things
aren't "real", but that TESTING OF SUBJECTIVE MATTERS BY CURRENT SCIENTIFIC
METHODS IS INCONCLUSIVE!!!!

Doing a little "wishful thinking" of your own, Rich?  Sorry!  Science really
can't help you right now.

Bill Gates