DM: Is science so unique? What is this self-correcting mechanism? If it means that theory is checked against experience do we not have to do that with all forms of knowledge? I agree that science is impressively successful, but why is that? Is it because it is such a co-operative activity?
[Krimel] I think science while not necessarily unique in its approach to truth is better equipped and more successful for many reasons. I here Rorty and Dennett discussing this in a radio interview and Rorty was claiming the English common law was on a par with the unraveling of the human genenom. I suppose they are both magnificent achievements but I still think there is a qualitative difference in the precision and lack of ambiguity of science. Law for example establishes standards of practical truth that of necessity recognizes the ambiguity of everyday events. However, the establishment of legal precedent seems more like the enshrinement of truth rather than a discovery of truth. DM: But what to measure and research? Here scientists can disagree as much as in any other field. And just because other field find agreement and testing more difficult (you can't experiment on human behaviour often due to ethical problems) is these any reason to fail to do them too. Science is perhaps less advantaged by its method (and there is no single method) than its subject matter. But let's not only deal with easy, quantifiable subject matter. Science also mainly deals with order and processes that repeat. Most of life-experience is without order and is unique. Something art and religion tries to handle whilst science merely washes its hands of such difficulties, not to mention questions of value. [Krimel] First I think you are exaggerating the nature of scientific disagreements. While scientists may disagree over specifics in their field they do tend to agree on how those disputes can and should be settled. Kuhn notwithstanding, they do not cling to their beliefs indefinitely for personal reasons. As Kuhn points out they do cling to false beliefs; but I think this is in some measure testimony to the degree of understanding it takes to hold a scientific belief in the first place. Your second point about quantitative measures is also misplaced. One might suggest that if you want to study something but can not think of a way to measure it perhaps it doesn't exist at all or is not worth studying. I just went though a lot of trouble to show Platt how morality can and has been studied. I would have mentioned to Platt, had his reply be a bit more thoughtful, that the social sciences actually do devote a great deal of time to the study of individuals and unique situations. Freudian theory arose from Freud's methods of case studies where he profiled individuals and probed for the causes of their emotional distress. Anthropological field work is, in effect, case studies in culture. Within the behavioral tradition single case methodologies were devised to study the effect of treatments on individual subjects and the consequences of removing the treatments to establish causal efficacy. You sound like Platt, getting all in a huff because science won't tell you why you should live. It's like getting pissed at a hammer because it won't saw a board. Science provides us with facts. It can not tell us what is "right" or "good" but it can tell us about the consequences of our beliefs about what is "right" and "good". It can not tell us what we "ought" to do but it can tell us what we actually do and what the consequences of our doing are. Never have I suggested that art, religion or other modes of thinking are not worthwhile but I do insist that in some sense science is king of the hill and that artistic and religious beliefs that run counter to science can not long endure. Those other modes of expression when they are in harmony with science or are irrelevant to science add greatly to the human experience. When they run counter to it they are both destructive and meaningless. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
