>>[Ham] >>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.
[Marsha] 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? [Krimel] It is hard to say which is more irritating. You stubbornly clinging to a passel of misconceptions or the fact that you now have me agreeing with Ham. Your insistence on the idea that science claims to provide absolute truth is just flatly false. It is hard for me to imagine anyone trained in science, who would claim that. In fact as you ought to know Bacon himself recognized that no amount of looking at particular instances of any phenomena could yield truth of this kind. ALL scientific knowledge and scientific theories are provisional. They hold until they are disproven. To continuing bitching about science because it does not offer absolute Truth is silly. > [Ham] > It is mankind's only source of validated (i.e., universally > confirmed) information concerning the elements and dynamics of the > natural world. [Marsha] 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? [Krimel] That is not a reasonable standard for evaluating science. All conceptual patterns ask us to override first-hand experience. Firsthand experience is the source of conceptualization and concepts must in some way conform to data from experience but any number of interpretations are possible. Scientists can provide a consensus in their discipline. They can provide explanations for why they think what they do but it is individuals who decide what they chose to believe. The fact that scientific explanations have changed over the past 1000 years is their strength not a weakness. It is what makes them so useful and so powerful. It is fatuous to criticize them for being what they are or for not being what they are not. In fact one of your major hang-ups, absolute versus conventional truth is what really puts you in bed with Ham. The idea of Absolute Truth is a myth. If there were such Truth how would we recognize it. How would we convince ourselves or anyone else that we had established it. In fact where do you think it can be found in any discipline, religion, philosophy or system of belief? You rant against science for not offering what it never claims to offer and what in fact nothing else offers either. > [Ham] > Everything in experiential existence is relative -- including "Truth". [Marsha] 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. [Krimel] Exactly, so what the hell is your problem? [Marsha] 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. [Krimel] What a load of pointless whining. Science tells us what how to pollute water and how to clean it up. In fact water in this country was much more polluted 20 years ago than it is today because we started applying scientific knowledge to clean it. If malaria is increasing in the third world it is hardly the fault of science. And if tuberculosis strains are evolving immunity to our antibiotics it is not as though science doesn't tell us how and why. Any cures for these or other diseases are not going to come from witch doctors and meditation; they will emerge from laboratories. The idea that "...very little of intelligence being communicated" with improved communication is a total load of bunk. How much intelligence is communicated through any other means. Most conversations are totally devoid of intellectual content. What is communicated is emotion and gossip for the most part. As for the prospects for the survival of humankind I would say they are a whole lot better than they were 30 years ago when superpowers were set to blow each other to smithereens. [Marsha] 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. [Krimel] You repeatedly point to a problems in politics and economics and blame it on science. That is simply disingenuous. If people are ignorant, is that the fault of scientists? If people make bad choices, is that the fault of scientists. You repeat this crap all the time and it doesn't make a bit of sense now and it didn't make a bit of sense last time. [Marsha] 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. [Krimel] Maybe that is because there is not one shred of evidence that genetically modified food is bad for you. In fact we don't eat much of anything in the modern world that has not been genetically modified. You are just voicing paranoia about a particular technique of genetically modifying the food supply. [Marsha] 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. [Krimel] Of course science is not value neutral. It values truth, honesty, rigor, intellect, sharing of information and recognition of the contribution of others in the pursuit of knowledge. Most scientists would not work for free but they do not pursue careers in science because they want to get rich. Most or at least the best are driven by a thirst of knowledge. Your repeated pointing at funding issues is not the fault of science. For most scientists funding is a means to an end. Of course they want their research funded and of course they have to play politics to make it happen but the problems in this system are political and economic not scientific. In fact nearly everyone of your posts on this subject criticizes aspects of science that have nothing to do with science. The problem is and has long been that science has made progress while religion, philosophy, ethics, politics, art and economics have done little or nothing. They have not kept pace. Why not try turning your venom on the areas that are really to blame? > [Ham] > This discipline has no place for emotional bias. [Marsha] Money creates one emotional bias, but there is the fact that scientists have egos too. [Krimel] Jesus, of course scientists have egos and of course they often cling to outmoded views. They are people you know. The point is that unlike most other areas human endeavor they have established means of settling disputes and deciding which views are correct. > [Ham] >"Science Wars" is a myth generated largely by the liberal mindset of >academia which is swayed by more by emotion than reason. IMHO. [Marsha] 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. [Krimel] Science Wars is just the name of the lectures you are listening to isn't it? Any real war on science took place from 2000 on, when idiots took over Washington and worked hard to cripple science and spread stupidity. It sure looks from here like their plan worked. 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/
