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?
Are facts "Truth'? If so, that's what Science reveals. We experience
events in time, thus we intellectualize that everything in existence comes
into being and evolves. That is "our truth" as finite observers of nature.
So is the precept of cause-and-effect. Existence is a relational system,
and scientists work in this frame of things, giving us the means to deal
with the world we experience. As a rational, consistent, and productive
discipline the scientific method can't be faulted.
[Ham, previously]:
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?
All human beings have "opinions". The neat thing about Science is that
subjectivity is rejected by the methodology. Certainly scientists argue
among themselves and, depending on their field of expertise, not all
scientists are the "objective purists" that their discipline calls for. But
that's a human fallibility, not a fault of Science. What feeds the media
and excites public curiosity are controversial theories like global warming
for which there is some evidence but no infallible proof. The earth is over
5 billion years old, while the history of man stretches back only 10,000
years. On the scale of a roll of toilet paper whose 394 squares are each 11
cm. long, all of human history would represent only 0.1 cm. of the last
square. That's far too little time to gather predictive information about
earth's climatic cycles.
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?
What does "first-hand experience and intuition" tell you about molecular
changes and planetary orbits, the chemical nature of an apple, the processes
of photosynthesis and genetic transfer? Could Edison have invented the
incandescent light bulb by intuition? With what percentage could your
experience of diabetes give you the knowledge to treat it?
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.
Right. Truth is relative to the knowledge available at any particular time.
How do you know science's "useful truths" are always reliable and
effective for survival?
If they are useful, they are effective in solving the problem they relate
to.
Was there survival before science?
Of course, if you call "survival" a life span of 40 years, most of which is
spent foraging for food and avoiding predators.
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.
History is the best predictor of future events, but nothing in existence is
a certainty. Having the means to make water potable doesn't mean that we
won't pollute its source. Modern medicine has eradicated smallpox, malaria,
and TB in most of the industrial world, but epidemics can still occur in
unprotected societies. If we've produced "garbage", it's because the market
demands it. (Would you want Science to control human desire?) The fact
that people communicate in gibberish and fill the Internet with pornography
and small talk only demonstrates their value sensibility.
Do you think Science should regulate human behavior? Or is it that you want
the goals of Science to be regulated by philosophers, or perhaps the State?
I think you expect too much of empirical Science. It seems that you, like
others here, are looking for a Master Guide to a safe and happy life.
That's the promise of religion, not Science. Humans who are unwilling to
accept the challenges of life are not long for this world. We are all
endowed with reason and the freedom to choose those values that will enhance
our life experience. Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth
living." My moral axiom is: Know yourself and your values, and your life
will be guided by rational decisions.
[Ham, previously]:
"Science Wars" is a myth generated largely by the liberal mindset of
academia which is swayed 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.
Exactly what is it about empirical Science that you fear or find
objectionable, and how would you "reevaluate" (or revamp) it to better serve
your moral or philosophical needs?
Curiously,
Ham
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/
