Greetings Krimel,
So it's 'Science, love it or leave it.' Well, I happen to think the
some healthy public criticism is desperately needed. I find it
interesting that most of your comments in this email are enlightened
post-Science Wars rhetoric. You have just mistakenly assumed a clear
winner. And I think the final judgement cannot be make yet. Take
genetically-modified food, not enough time has passed to properly
evaluate the effects on the food source or the generation humans
ingesting the food. We, the citizens of the Earth, are the test, and
the results are yet to be determined. Can you be sure there are no
unintended consequences? And this is just one area. Science is so
integrated into the marketplace that its discoveries are passed on to
consumers at a breakneck speed and we, human beings, are now the lab rats.
- continues below-
-At 05:52 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>>[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.
There are still conservative areas of science that insist that
scientific knowledge be treated as if descriptive of an objective
world "out there", and as if science were the primary source of
knowledge, truth and rationality. Calling my statements "bitching"
and "silly" doesn't address the issues I raise. Bacon is a man who
stated that Nature needed to be tortured for her to give up her
secrets. Come on...
> [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.
As I said this is a post-Science Wars statement, until recently
Science did claim Absolute Truth. Space and Time were once thought
to be absolute, and now they are thought to be relative to a certain
frame of reference.
> [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?
So here we agree. There is no Absolute Truth.
[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.
I would say we are not necessarily better off than 30 years ago. Are
all those bombs be accounted for?
[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.
My repeated point has been that science has become totally integrated
into the political and economic systems, my repeated point is that
scientists have an obligation to educate and explain the products it
introduces into the marketplace, pros and cons, and my repeated point
is that without this knowledge the consumer has no intelligent way to
make a proper evaluation.
And you repeatedly call what I say crap as if that were an argument.
[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.
http://www.holisticmed.com/ge/
[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?
What is Science but a collection of scientists? The in-crowd, for if
you listened to the 24 CBC episodes 'How You Should Think About
Science', you would discover to challenge orthodox science may be to
suffer negative consequences. Not all challenges to funding and
prestige are welcomed.
> [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.
Listen to the CBC program mentioned above:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html
> [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.
The big fear is to challenge science might create public anarchy. Bullpoop!
Marsha
.
_____________
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/
