[DM] When criticising science it is always easy to be out of date, and so yoiu end up shooting at something that has already changed its spots.I certainly agree that much on the cutting edge of science (as far as I can keep up) is under cutting the sort of SOM positivism and absolutist claims that anti-scientism attacks. That's great but I also know the struggles continue.
[Krimel] It is easier to blast away when your target moves if you don't pay any attention at all. It is easier to launch criticism at a stereotype than to actually think about what someone else is saying. But if your goal is to thoughtlessly overturn the old and replace it with some romantic notion of what ought to be or what sounds good then it really doesn't matter. [DM] A thought: how readily do scientists accept the need to interpret all data, that facts only exist within an interpretative context? Somehow we ask nature questions, nature answers, but there is no language of nature, so we have to interpret in meaningful ways whatever strange gestures/responses nature makes to our peculiar questions. Now, when it comes to interpretations, there are an infinite number of possible ones to choose from. Do most scientists fully accept this problem? I know many do, but do most? Actually scientists are notoriously useless at philosophy of science. [Krimel] I seriously doubt if working scientist spend a lot of time worrying about such things. Often they are thinking very deeply about the narrow questions that interest them. I suspect they do have some vague idea of how their work fits into the big picture but certainly that is not their chief concern and probably would have little impact on what they actually do anyway. I have some close friends who are involved in cancer research and cellular biology. They seem rather amused that anyone would spend much time pursuing metaphysical questions that really can not be answered; when there are so many unanswered but answerable questions to ask. In that sense they seem purely pragmatic. They look at existing theory. They ask questions and they test for the answers. All this talk about idealism vs. realism must just sound silly to them. And really what difference would it make? Whether reality has substance or is just ideas or is undefined or flows from some high falutin' ultimate source, when you kick it your foot hurts. Just a word on "scientism". This seems to be a word, if not invented by certainly co-opted by the romantics and the religious right. It is rather like the Pee Wee move that Arlo rants against. Romantics like dmb and religious fundamentalists want to say, sure we have assumptions (faith) but so do you. Sure we have values but so do you. Sure we have core beliefs but so do you. Nanny nanny boo boo. I would say at least with regards to the "values" of science that they are among our highest and best. Science values the pursuit of "truth". Science values knowledge and sharing of knowledge freely. It values integrity and honesty. It values rigor and logic and questioning the status quo. To the extent that it does not live up to its own values I think everyone concerned is disappointed. Instances of scientific fraud are rare but they reflect badly and are taken seriously by everyone involved. To the extent that science has been corrupted by economic interests or by the pursuit of personal gains, that is tragic. But in the end scientists are more concerned with the expansion of knowledge in their particular fields than with how that knowledge is used. I will admit this is problematic but as I have said before it is economic and political interests that govern how knowledge is used. I get the feeling in listening to Maxwell that much of his problem with the lack of wisdom really comes more from those kinds of corruptions of science than from scientists. 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/
