Hi Ham,
Since Einstein radically altered the scientific view of reality,
there has been a challenge to what scientific knowledge is and what
it means. In the last century scientific knowledge has been
investigated with the same rigor as science might investigate
fossils. The latest attack seemed to be initiated by Thomas Kuhn and
his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', and culminated in
the Science Wars of the 1990s. It is a very interesting area to
investigate with science being called a "craft" or "socially
constructed" and adamant defenders. What does science know and how
does it know it? Interesting and legitimate questions, yes?
How is a person suppose to react to the many scientific theories that
are so far beyond experience yet so deeply entrenched in and
affecting every aspect of daily life?
Marsha
At 05:55 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
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/
.
_____________
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/
