Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Weird Science (Attack)
Message-ID: <558@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 14:39:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.558
Posted: Tue Oct  1 14:39:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:35:20 EDT
References: <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> <1724@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 225
Keywords: nuke, world, boom

>> Quite true, and I have no objections.  The subject was science, so that's
>> what I'm confining my comments to.

>But you chose to make a special example/case out of science when that is not
>the case at all.  Thus your points are erroneous in describing the apparent
>"evils" of science.

The argument is simple.

    If there were no religion, we could still blow up the world.
    If there were no politics, we could still blow up the world.
    If there were no prejudice, we could still blow up the world.
    ...
    But if there were no devastating technology (which exponentially
    increases the potential for destruction of each and every person or
    hate-group on this planet), we could never blow up anything at all!

    Besides, my fear is less for ourselves (who gives a damn?); rather,
    we will probably take many, and, given enough development, all forms
    of life with us.

    Only humans care who or what is to blame, and that is totally irrelevant
    to the innocent bystanders on this planet, our cousins -- the plants and
    animals.

>>>Are you asking us to stop looking for facts because someone might use
>>> them for evil?

>> Heavens no (where'd I say that?).

>By implication.  If you would tar science as the "root of all evil" (and not
>the morals of those who use the facts obtained by science for "evil"), then
>you are saying the above by implication.

    Objectively speaking, the `moral purpose' is a meaningless subjective
    illusion. The only real causes are the material and efficient ones,
    the physical mechanisms which cause an action -- the technology
    of destruction.

    Now if we could produce economical weapons that efficiently destroyed
    only humans, we might minimize the evil...

>> My point is, the same set of facts can "prove" several different things,
>> depending on who's interpreting them.  Thus, BE CAUTIOUS!  That's all. 

>Only different base assumptions (like those Hitler made about his racial
>superiority owing to Darwinism) will result in different conclusions.  Thus,
>the goal is to rid ourselves of those assumptions when attempting to reach
>such conclusions.  Which is exactly what science is all about.

    The explosive proliferation of contradictory scientific theories about
    reality shows no sign of diminishing. Consequently, differing conclusions
    are symptoms of science's health. Recall the unhealthy intolerance of 
    medieval scholasticism to `heresy'.

>> Because science has the general reputation of "being true", a mistake made
>> by the scientific community will be bought by all of us who don't exercise
>> caution, or think things through.
>
>Gee, what belief system actually encourages people not to think things
>through, to "act on faith"?

    Gee whiz, why should I believe in empirical induction?

    Empirical induction worked on occasion A.
    Empirical induction worked on occasion B.
    Empirical induction worked on occasion C.
    ...
    Consequently, empirical induction is empirically verified?

    Oh yes, I see. The proof is internal to the system....

>> I mean, does pure "science", the thing that just gathers
>> unbiased, untainted facts and presents them, really exist?  Or, because
>> science is actually a discipline practiced by people like you and me, is
>> it something less pure, less unbiased, than this?

>So, what you're saying is that the goal is to strive for being more pure,
>more unbiased, in analysis, right?

    Science WOULD be more unbiased if its advocates stopped attacking
    those systems that do not really conflict. 

>> I guess I'm saying something similar to, "If there weren't people, there
>> wouldn't be science".  Whaddaya think?

>Fine.  So?  If there weren't people, there wouldn't be a society.  It's that
>notion that leads me to the conclusion that people are more important than
>the society itself as an entity.  But remember that all science does (when
>done right) is to gather facts.

    Correction -- only the `facts' about physical phenomena, distorted by
    experimental error of technology, interpreted according to the faulty
    descriptions in existence at the time.

    No intelligent person is disputing science's authority to that extent.
    The problem is that the reality of humans is by necessity self-created.

    Is it wrong to kill animals? What do `harm' and `freedom from
    interference' mean? Do `God' and `mind' exist? Should developing nations
    discard all customs and heritage, even those that lack scientific
    justification but do not otherwise conflict with science?

    To the extent that people's preconceived notions flatly contradict
    science, such mores will probably yield to pragmatic considerations.

    All other preconceptions are true in proportion to people's life within
    them and false to the extent that they conflict with other human created
    realities. Like a non-interference principle of truth, I suppose.

>>>The interpreters of ANY facts who use their own prejudices to "justify"
>>>things.  So which do we throw out?  The scientific method that gets us
>>>the facts?  Or the prejudices and subjectivist thinking that leads to 
>>>erroneous conclusions based on facts?

>> I dare you to separate the two, Rich.  How many truly unbiased scientists 
>> do we have today?  A monumental task, I think.

>A bogus question and a straw man, I would think.  I separate the two on a
>daily basis.  Why can't you?  Surely I'm far from the only one who does so,
>and far from the best at doing so.  (You "dare" me?)

    Note too that your conclusions often differ substantially from those
    of the scientific community. One's opinions ARE largely shaped by
    one's exposure to ideas -- and powerful new theories are appearing
    faster than anyone can reasonably hope to understand, thus subjectivity
    is enforced by an ignorance due to science's astonishing fertility.

>It would be a lot less rare if religions and other pressures didn't promote
>such shoddy thinking in their own interests.  (Don't think about these
>things, you'll lose faith in god.)

    It is the nature of all institutions, science included, to `pressure'
    nonbelievers to its cause.

>>It is extremely difficult for human beings to throw out ALL preconceived
>>notions and the like, and evaluate facts based on just those facts. In fact,
>>since we are raised to believe certain things, denying those things for the
>>purpose of unbiased analysis would be much akin to denying our very selves.

>That's an unfounded myth if ever I heard one.  Lots of things in life are
>difficult, but they get done nonetheless.  I find the notion that denying
>bogus beliefs is to deny our "very selves" to be horrifying.  Sounds like
>another notion promulgated by religion in a spate of self-interest.

    Unfounded myth? Interpreting evidence the central problem in philosophy
    of science.  I urge you to read any modern thought in this area --
    Lakatos, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend. Not to mention classics like Hume,
    who first held that science cannot justified by pure reason.

    Science does not start with stark observation. Its evidence is by
    necessity seen under the subjective light of some established theory.

    And who said anything about `bogus beliefs'? Even BF Skinner insists
    that we ARE shaped by the values, beliefs, etc.. that to make us into
    what we are.  Unfortunately for Skinnerism, there is no rational
    justification for science either -- it produces `scientific' results no
    better than religion produces `religious' ones.

    Clearly we should be free of institutional brainwashing that might
    impose ideologically petrified beliefs (scientific or otherwise) on us.
    The point is that all non-contradictory systems that complement each
    other and encourage fertile cultural plurality should be tolerated --
    even cherished..

>> Very, very few of us are able to do that.

>Wrong.  We are all able to do that.  We have been taught to do just the
>opposite, unfortunately.

    Yes, society does shove the methodological constraints of favored
    forms of knowledge into our so-called `minds'.

>> Who's more guilty?  Sure, there are lots of loudly-voiced issues in today's
>> world, but technological advances are mainly responsible for them seeming
>> any bigger than they were before.  These same arguments were going on in
>> the past.  Yes, there is a big campaign against secular humanism, but if
>> you'll look on the other side of the coin, there is an equal (or bigger)
>> campaign in favor of it!

>Where?  In the minds of presumptive religionists?  I fail to see a difference
>between what THEY are calling secular humanism and the skills of objective
>reasoning, which you yourself have been quick to say "no one can achieve".
>They certainly can achieve them, and draw whatever conclusions they like
>thereafter about things (like religion).  Is it THIS that the religionists
>fear?

    I cannot speak for the secular humanists -- though I do find myself in
    strong agreement with most flavors of `humanism' I have encountered to
    date -- Chinese humanism (`jen') in particular.

    And who is being presumptive here -- religion or science? Enlightened
    religions do not tell science what to do with its precious material world.
    Note that the wisest mystics invariably speak on non-material concerns.

    Admittedly, those religions that have not successfully extricated
    themselves from physical controversy have much to fear from science.

>> When the explanation hits WHOSE fan, Rich?  Who decides?  This fictitious
>> thing called "science" which seeks only truth?

>Fictitious to whom?  Science represents a set of goals to be achieved in
>analyzing things to acquire truth.  What is fictitious about that?

    Even if rigidly logical machines performed all scientific analysis, the
    results would still be subjective. There is no absolute determiner of
    reality. 
    
    If neither humans nor machines can decide what is real, why should we
    see the world we must live in thru the mechanical eyes?

>> I can't believe it really exists, because SOMEBODY has to run the fan. 
>> Facts don't decide anything until they're interpreted.  BAM!!  We've 
>> run into those interpreters again!
>
>And if those interpreters don't engage in bogus assumptions, then you have
>no problem.  It seems you don't WANT "no problem".  Why?

    All empirical assumptions are subjective bogosities.

    "Free society from the strangling hold of an ideologically petrified
     science, just as our ancestors freed us from the strangling hold of
     the One True Religion!" -- Paul Feyerabend

-michael