At 12:18 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
Dear Marsha --
Are the things Science tell us Truth or just useful truth?
Is Evolution the Truth? Is Quantum Theory and the Special Theory
of Relativity the Truth?
Science is a utilitarian approach to the world as it is experienced.
This may be your opinion, Ham, but is it the opinion of all
scientists? Are there groups of scientists who hold different, even
conflicting, opinions about the scientific knowledge they
present? Are there some scientists that believe the knowledge they
present represents an absolute, objective reality?
It is mankind's only source of validated (i.e., universally
confirmed) information concerning the elements and dynamics of the
natural world.
With what percentage of trust should it override first-hand
experience and intuition? Who makes that determination? The
scientists? Surveying the history of science, how many scientific
theories from the past thousand years still hold as true? Now what
percentage would that be?
Everything in experiential existence is relative -- including "Truth".
There is only (t)ruth, unless you're speaking of what is discovered
when something has been proven to be false. There is no (T)ruth.
Nevertheless, by applying the principles of Science to physical,
biological, and electro-mechanical understanding we have learned to
control the environment, prevent and cure disease, mass produce
goods, implement instant global communication, and advance our
civilization far beyond the life style of our ancestors. So, yes,
Science gives us "useful truth" which is reliable and effective for
survival in a relational system.
How do you know science's "useful truths" are always reliable and
effective for survival? Was there survival before science? Can we
know the reliability and effectiveness of the future? Does the past
always predict the future? You say we have learned to control our
environment, yet our water supply is becoming increasingly
polluted? You say we have learned to prevent and cure diseases, yet
malaria and tuberculosis are reaching epidemic proportion. You site
the mass production of goods when in truth we have created a mass
production of garbage. Yes there is instant global communication,
but there is very little of intelligence being communicated. And
humanities survival is yet to be determined, it does not seem assured
by anyone's standards.
Science is funded by corporate and political interests. Is Gobal
Warming the Truth? Science creates machines to
test their hypothesis that have a built-in bias. Science expects
the public to accepts TiTs that are beyond experience. The
history of scientific theories is one of displacement. According
to some in this forum, Scientistic pronouncements
should be considered beyond question much like a new religion.
How Science is funded is a public issue. Much theoretical research
is done at our universities under government grants underwritten by
the taxpayers. But once the theories are applied, private industry
can develop resources, technologies, and products to answer the
needs of the marketplace. In a free market it's consumers like you
and me who determine what Science and industry should focus on. The
only "bias" held by Science is belief in objective reality -- what
most people call "the real world". This should not be confused with
religious faith or philosophical hypothesis. Proving a theorem in
practice is not a "belief system"; it simply demonstrates that the
principle "works", which is all we should expect from scientific
pragmatism. Moreover, because scientific knowledge is always
subject to revision and is continually updated, its capabilities are
constantly expanding.
The most dangerous bias held by science may be the interest in where
the next grant comes from. A free market doesn't have a moral
interest in the public welfare, and consumers do not have the
scientific knowledge to properly evaluate most products. Is the
public being educated concerning genetically-modified food? No, and
there is now a law stating that it is illegal to label food as not
genetically-modified. It is a myth that science is value-neutral,
but at the moment the unacknowledged value is biased towards those
who pay the bills not consumers, or a government looking to enhance
its power.
I had not heard of the 90's Science Wars until a few
weeks ago, and can think of nothing more important
to consider from a MOQ point-of-view. Well, that is imho.
Science is not at war with anybody. Its foundation is the logical
methodology "investigate - test - confirm".
Not methodology, but mythology.
This discipline has no place for emotional bias.
Money creates one emotional bias, but there is the fact that
scientists have egos too.
"Science Wars" is a myth generated largely by the liberal mindset of
academia which is swayed by more by emotion than reason. IMHO.
With this statement you have earned a thump on the head. "Science
Wars" is a label, like "War on Terror" or "War on Drugs". It is time
scientific value be confronted, explored and understood with an eye
on intelligent reevaluation. It is a reassessment that matters, not
the label.
Marsha
At 02:34 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
Marsha, Willblake2 --
What's all this about Science Wars in the 1990s?
Science and religion have always been in conflict ideologically,
and I could see how the Scopes trial of 1925 might be regarded as
the opening skirmish in the "battle" between the Darwinians and
the Creationists. But science wars in the 1990s in which, Marsha
(the sophist) conjectures, "RMP led the attack against Science"...?
To see what I'd missed in the last decade, I checked Wikipedia
(which seemed to be the only reference), and learned that the
cultural journal 'Social Text' was the first to use the term in
May 1996 when it ran a "Science Wars" issue with essays
contributed by controversial writers in the social sciences and
humanities. Among the contributors was Alan Sokal, who submitted
a paper purporting to argue that quantum physics supported
postmodernist criticism of scientific objectivity. Sokal, a
physicist, later confessed it was a "...hoax to see if the journal
editors would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense
if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors'
ideological preconceptions". The incident became known as "the Sokal Affair".
In a 2001 book titled "Making Social Science Matter", Dr. Bent
Flyvbjerg, writes: "However entertaining for bystanders, the
mudslinging of the Science Wars is unproductive. The Wars
undoubtedly serve political and ideological purposes in the
competition for research funds and in defining what Charles
Lindblom and Michel Foucault have called society's 'truth
politics.' Judged by intellectual standards, however, the Science
Wars are misguided."
My Google search also revealed that Wikipedia has itself been
criticized for promulgating a case for the Science Wars. Stuart
Geiger, a Georgetown U. graduate who has submitted a number of
articles to Wiki, notes: "Instead of debating about the efficacy
and authority of science, academics are now debating the efficacy
and authority of Wikipedia." He's probably on to something.
Personally, I think the so-called "wars" are overblown if not
actually bogus. Despite the hand-wringing of Nicholas Maxwell and
others who would "humanize" the methodology of Science, the
empiricists should continue doing what they have done so
brilliantly for more than a century, and the philosophers and
social scientists should have the wisdom to get off their back.
(That's my opinion anyway.)
--Ham
_archive/
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/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
