This is a reply to Loren's post about science.
I thought it was a great post and wanted to interject
some alternative viewpoints <grin>.
To put my comments in perspective, i'm pro science.
Most of my criticisms are directed towards how we use
science and attempts to turn it into a religion. I
think Einstein said it like this:
Why does this magnificent applied science which saves work
and makes life easier bring us so little happiness? The
simple answer runs: Because we have not yet learned to make
sensible use of it. -- Einstein
>In particular, many criticisms levelled at
>science seem unanswerable because the critic gives examples from
>engineering, technology use, or even marketing or public policy realms.
Yes, but who controls the definition of science? Like all
words it is at the mercy of common usage. Forcing a common
definition is almost impossible when the media is full of technology
and nonsense that is labeled science.
>A common criticism of others is that they are using the language and forms
>of science to support their position on an issue which is outside the
>realm of science!
If we define science as a method then just about everything can be
considered within the realm of science. At the same time our use
of scientific methods do not fit some topics very well.
>I think of understanding "how and why" having to do with science, with
>domination or control having to do with technology or applied science or
>engineering.
In my theory of invention course i learned that almost all science
is small incremental expansions of knowledge. We are all standing
on the shoulders of those who came before. For example, most breakthroughs
in electronics were by ordinary people tinkering with components. They
could be considered engineers or they could be considered scientists.
The domination of nature by science/technology might have more to
do with attitudes and the domination tool is science/technology.
Do we blame the tool or the attitude? Are guns a factor in violence
or is it the person pulling the trigger? For me it is both.
>I cannot feel it as
>domination, I experience is as wonder and pleasure and joy. Isn't is
>wonderful that way things can function? Is this world not truly an
>amazing creation?
Yes, if we ignore all the misuse of science it can
be a joy. I'm now reading a book on this topic:
The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
Richard P. Feynman
published in 1999
The book if full of wonder and stories and highly entertaining.
One story in the book goes like this:
When the author was at Cornell he felt the majority of
people talked about dumb things and girls were some of
the worst. Then one day he sat next to two girls in
the cafeteria. They began talking about lines and it
developed into a deep principle of analytic geometry.
They then talked about intersects and developed a mathematical
proof. He was totally flabbergasted. As he sat there
in amazement it dawned on him they were describing
how to knit a argyle sock.
Loren again:
>Economic "science" is a major offender in this respect, which brings us
>around to domination, technology choice, marketing, PR, propaganda,
>etc.; fields which do not demand that matter and energy be conserved,
>that all data must be on the table, and that no assumptions be beyond
>question.
When science moves into abstract ideas anything is possible. For
example "math". Math is not grounded in the natural world and
can go anywhere it wants. Is "math" science?
>I don't know. I hope the above made some sense, and that you can offer
>ideas of how I might be miscommunicating.
It may be that all viewpoints are useful and no one is
miscommunicating. I think we assume there is a right/wrong
viewpoint often and this gets in the way of discussion.
jeff
