Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Weird Science (What charley said)
Message-ID: <1787@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:55:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1787
Posted: Wed Sep 25 12:55:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 07:58:56 EDT
References: <460@ecsvax.UUCP> <1753@pyuxd.UUCP> <1666@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 117

>>You may not like science (or you may, it's hard to tell), but to suggest
>>substituting for it a set of methods that have repeatedly given us lies,
>>bogus assumptions, and frauds, seems unconscionable. [ROSEN]

> Well, funny thing, science itself has given us "lies", has sometimes
> presented "frauds", and has generally contained lots of "bogus assumptions".
> [WINGATE]

Care to elaborate on cases where science has given us lies.  Science...

> We don't value science for its ability to give us truth; indeed, properly
> practiced, it spends a lot of time telling us what we don't know.  Science
> is most important as a tool for investigation of natural order-- and that
> last phrase is quite important.  A mehtodology which relies and
> repeatability and induction simply fails to work where these cannot be
> either guaranteed or assumed.

Where the evidence has consistently shown us the viability of this methodology
time and again.  You are suggesting "well, there might be some circumstances
in which this doesn't hold and thus my 'theory' might be right".

>>>I believe it was Charley who tried to convince you of the subjectivity
>>>of science. [Gary Smith]

> It wasn't me.  My argument with Rich over science is that he invariably
> assumes knowledge of things for which their is no evidence of the proper
> type.

I.e., Charle's argument with me is that he claims I do the same thing he
does with repeatable regularity.  Right?

>>Before QM became a popularized method of "debunking" science, determinism,
>>or whatever pet peeve one might have, the use of a word like "impossibility"
>>was condemned by the mysticalists and wishful thinkers:  "How dare you
>>claim that that is impossible?"

> Oh really?  Do you have some useful proof?

Of WHAT?  That people did this?  They still do (those who haven't yet gotten
into watered-down QM as a "proof" of their beliefs).

> Actually, the truth of the
> matter is that until Maxwell, Einstein and Planck came along, physicists
> were beginning to talk about knowing all there was to know about basic
> physics.  Einstein was comepletely convinced that the randomness the Quantum
> types were asserting was flatly wrong.

It might be pointed out that the reason he believed this was that he felt
"God doesn't play dice with the universe".  Imagine that, one of the greatest
scientific minds of all time falls prey to a religious assumption (that
he regretted making later in life).  Perhaps the next generation's great
scientific mind (if it has one---the "elimination of secular humanism from
schools" may prevent that) will make even fewer assumptions.

>> Do you throw out a system that offers us
>>facts about the universe because you feel it can never be "objective" in
>>favor of a system that introduces so much more subjectivity and presumption
>>into the mix as to destroy any hope of acquiring knowledge from such a
>>system?  To do this is to bring us back to an age of know nothing wishywashy
>>mysticism.

> As usual Rich is trying to assert a dichotomy where there are a lot of
> options in fact.  The choice is not between science and mysticism; the
> choice is whether or not we want to challenge the ability of science to
> satifiactorily investigate some phenomena.

Why do you want to challenge it?  Has it stopped "working"?  Or, more
likely, has it failed to reach conclusions that YOU like, thus "obviously"
making it wrong (and worthy of being "challenged")?

> Let's take mystics as a case in point.  Now Rich is hardly in any position to
> claim that the claims of any particular mystic or group of mystics are false. 
> He hasn't (apparently) had such an experience, he knows as little about the
> brain and the mind as the rest of us, and he hasn't been studying t/devi10/rasti10/CW.8
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/CW.9
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EB.10
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EB.14
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EB.9
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EI.10
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EI.14
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/EI.9
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HB.10
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/B.10
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/B.14
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/B.16
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HB.14
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/SV.9
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/RASTERLIST
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/B.12
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HB.9
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.10
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.12
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.14
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.16
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.18
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.6
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.8
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HI.9
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HK.10
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HK.12
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HK.14
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/HK.16
/usr/lib/font/devi10/rasti10/H  On the contrary, my friend, these horrors all
>>came from adding in their own bogus presumptions together with the facts.
>>"Hmmm, Darwinism talks about survival of the fittest.  Obviously my Aryan
>>race is superior and more fit than those Jews, who cause all our problems.
>>(An example of a proven scientific fact that introduced a "horror of
>>science"?)  The obvious thing to do is to purify the Aryan race and get
>>rid of the Jews!"  Let's get serious, really.  

> Well, you for one are not so pure.

It is because of foul crap like this that it is likely you will not see
me respond to the obnoxious Wingate in the future.  Doubtless he will
call this a "victory".  Good for him.  Notice that his "victory" consisted
of his not in any way responding to what I said in the previous paragraph.
That the "horrors" that Gary Smith spoke of come not from science but 
from application of scientific facts by people who add in other bogus
assumptions, such as the one I described.  I take Charles' silence (outside
of hrselves this week
Lines: 110
Xref: bonnie net.politics:8217 net.religion:5051

>>>The main problem with most current programs
>>>(and here I think I'm more concerned with sex education than last ditch
>>>sorts of things) is that, in their zeal to avoid offending the extreme
>>>liberals,  ...  [WINGATE]

>>I.e., anyone who recognizes that proper education about sexuality is a
>>necceary part of responsible adolescence and adulthood. [ROSEN]

> No, it's those people who refuse to recogn