Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site aero.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack
From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science and Fallibility
Message-ID: <342@aero.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 18:15:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: aero.342
Posted: Thu Aug  8 18:15:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 02:25:57 EDT
References: <45200015@hpfcms.UUCP>
Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734))
Organization: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 121

[ouch]
In article <45200015@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP (bill) writes:
>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.

[Rosen-isms concerning mostly science (in support of science as the savior of
the world???)]

[Examples of the failing of science]

>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.

Rich, do you believe science has made any final "yes" or "no"'s?  I didn't
get that interpretation at all.

>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.

How does science become unreliable because of its motivation?  I can see
that lies motivated by ego or money and under the guise of science might be
unreliable ... [e.g. false data]  But, this is usually debunked pretty
quickly.

>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.

That's right.

>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?
[Restatement of fallability of science]

>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?
 ...
>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.

I think in this situation you are both right and both wrong.  The existence
of these abstract things has not been proved; but then again, it has not
been disproved either. [see later]  Experience is not viable proof; but it
can be.  It must be established that there is no source of illusion first to
invalidate the experience.

>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.

Be careful about absolutes.  Some cultures truly do not have any vestige of
some of the abstract concepts.  However, no matter what the consensus of
belief, it isn't necessarily true.  [I'll pull your own example:  Fill a
room with a 1000 people from 1200 AD and ask them if the World is flat.]

>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.

This may be true now but will it always be?

>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!!!!

This is absolutely correct, and I don't know that Rich would argue with you
about it.  But, just as they have not been disproven; they have not been
proven; yet some people act as if they had.  They are CERTAIN that something
exists, yet cannot prove it.  In general, these somethings are issues of
faith.  I think some of this started with some statement to the effect that
he couldn't understand how someone could be so sure about the existence of
something of this sort.  Someday, they may be PROVEN right ... or wrong.

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

>Bill Gates

I think you started out trying to prove that abstract concepts exist.  At
least that was the feeling I got from the first few paragraphs following
your long opener.  In the end you tempered things a bit and I agree with
that part.  However, re-read some of Rich's postings, he is not QUITE as
hard-nose as you would have him portrayed.

For your consideration,

-- 
 _______
|/-----\|    Chris Warack			(213) 648-6617
||hello||
||     ||    warack@aerospace.ARPA
|-------|    warack@aero.UUCP
|@  ___ |       seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!
|_______|         sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack
  || ||  \   Aerospace Corporation, M1-117, El Segundo, CA  90245
 ^^^ ^^^  `---------(|=