>To Mary (Simmons) and interested others:
>It seems our views have converged rather fully, to the point where it may be
>time to draw this thread to a close and get on to other things. In your
>last post on this theme and in the last "oops" post you seem to have
>consented to my basic thrust. Crucial is the part about our stance on what
>is within the realm of science. If something conflicts with what science
>says in its own domain(s) of inquiry, do we reject it out of hand or
>recognize that it might be true, because science is not the only, nor an
>absolutely authoritative way of knowing physical reality? It is possible, I
>suggested, that both the Kogi and scientific accounts of the state of the
>earth might be truly ways the world is, even if they conflict at many
>levels. This you seem to now be much more willing to assent to.
>
>> As I have said, I am quite willing to accept that there are other truths
>> outside the realm of science. I do however continue to believe that
>> there are certain laws of nature that are inviolable--such as gravity,
>> thermodynamics, Newton's Laws, etc. ***I do NOT think that only science
>> can speak of these laws, but there are, as far as I can tell, not
>> subject to suspension.***
>
>Like you, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about a possible connection
>between the Alaskan oil spill and the Mexico earthquake. And if actually
>confronted by the person you quoted, my concern would be mainly or only to
>give them some logical space to establish credibility if they wished to.
>More likely the remark was just a quip in the first place.
>
>Your point, I take it, is that we should accept the fact of limitations in
>nature. I agree (tho I note there is serious opposition from business
>perspectives and some support for their position in the history of science
>-- think of how many times new instrumentation and technology has led
>scientists to revise their accounts of basic natural constants or basic
>concepts such as Newton's view of space/time as absolutes). And in the
>absence of alternative accounts of those limitations, I feel as you seem to
>that we have little choice but to accept and act on the best settled science
>available. (I'll try to come back to the concept of "settled science" in
>later posts.) Anyhow, I recognize and acknowledge that I do indeed do this
>most of the time (with one major exception of cigarette smoking -- I roll my
>own and stubbornly refuse to accept that statistics on smoking and cancer
>are particularly relevant to MY habit. But I digress...) You continue by
>asking
>
>> If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be
>> most interested. I would also be interested in the "other" ways of
>> explaining reality, other than scientific truth.
> -snip-
>
>Now I don't have personal experience of cases of the suspension of so-called
>natural laws, but I think it's worth mention that a variety of practices
>around the world have consistently driven Western observers to wonder
>whether our versions of natural laws have indeed been suspended. Two that
>come to mind are fire-walking practices in Polynesia and spiritual
>manifestations (group Tulku's) in Tibetan village festivals. A good source
>on this sort of issue is Joseph Chilton Pierce's _The Crack in the Cosmic
>Egg_. The Tibetan example I gleaned originally from Lama Anagarika
>Govinda's early book _The Way of the White Clouds_ -- a sort of travelog of
>Tibet (prior to the occupation by China) by a student and disciple of one of
>the then living Tibetan Masters.
>
>Actually, now that I think about it, one sort of example has been right
>under physicists' noses for a couple of centuries and remains unexplained as
>far as I know: Put two pendulum clocks on a mantel piece and set them going
>at different places in their periodic intervals. Check them out in a day or
>so and you will find they are in complete syncrony. The channel tuner in
>your radio or TV works on the same principle. But why does the principle
>work? Science has no answer (at least no settled answer). But George
>Leonard, in _The Silent Pulse_ has some most interesting speculations that
>most scientists, except perhaps a few Berkeley physicists, are ever likely
>to agree with.
>
>Enough for now. It's been a most interesting interchange.
>ps
>
>Philip T. Shepard, Professor
>Lyman Briggs School
>Michigan State University
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's been interesting listening in on the Nature/Culture discussion.
Culture, as has been noted, is a malleable phenomenon, changing with the
general evolution of the species and with shifting geographic, power and
technological developments. Nature changes as well, of course, but the
discussion has really been focused on 'science', the human attempt to
comprehend and then alter nature. Nature changes but, as Mary points out,
some structural dimensions of it do not, e.g. gravity. Science, on the
other hand, changes all the time and has as one of its fundamental purposes
'saving the phenomena'. Thus to some extent whatever works in terms of
providing an explanation is OK. If Ptolemaic astronomy could predict
tides, eclipses, seasons, etc. then it was science. The fact that it
failed to account in an elegant way for the movement of planets was not
important. Ptolemaic science stood off several sun-centred theories,
finally caving in to the Galilean version for reasons of politics more than
'truth'. So we have to ask ourselves how much of our current scuence is
merely 'saving the phenomenon' and open to radical reconceptualization in
coming years. Carolyn Merchant's Death of Nature is a useful tool here, a
reminder than there was a more organicist science that was rudely displaced
by our current newtonian/cartesian hierarchical models and it possible that
organcist/holistic approaches might one day prove more explanatory.
