At around 22/6/06 12:36 pm, Jim Devine wrote:
> I wrote:
>> > C'mon! what we need is _more_ scientific thinking, not less.
>> > (Scientific thinking says, among other things, that a lot what science
>> > believes may not be true.)
>
> 6/22/06, ravi wrote:
>> Could you expand on the parenthetical comment? Scientific thinking, more
>> so than any other practice, seems to me to depend on the
>> consistency/truth of its axioms and prior results, than other types of
>> thinking. My mother is always aware of the fact that her notions and
>> practices could be entirely wrong. Hence the kindness of mothers ;-) and
>> the arrogance of scientists. When some evidence surfaces to question a
>> scientific theory or practice, it causes a "[foundational] crisis".
>
> In science when done well, every "conclusion" is merely a working
> hypothesis that needs to tested further (logically, empirically).
> There are no final conclusions. (This, specifically, is what I was
> talking about in my parenthetical comment.)
>
I think what you are describing is "Philosophy of Science" thinking
(e.g: Popper et al). IOW, I think the above is a prescription on how
scientists should ideally think. But then, the exclusivity of "Science"
disappears, since the above is a good prescription on how anyone should
think, and many do.
> It is true that tremendous amounts of respect are given to "axioms and
> prior results" (summarized by the phrase "research program" or the
> word "paradigm"). This is because these have survived a long process
> of testing and represent the current consensus or near-consensus among
> scientists, representing the accumulation of past work by scientists.
And since you are using Kuhn/Lakatos terms, you will also know that most
scientists do not practice or participate in revolutionary science. They
go about their scientific lives believing in the absoluteness of
Darwin's theory or Newtonian physics, or the consistency of mathematical
proofs, just as my mother goes about believing in the existence of god.
But my point is a bit larger than that: I think (and this is just a
thought, expressed here, and it needs further elucidation) both in
theory and in practice, science/scientists are more committed to "truth"
than lay people are.
You write that scientific thought says that what science believes may
not be true. To the contrary, the conceit is that science only believes
in what is shown to be true (contingently true, if that will make you
feel better ;-)) and reserves comments on other matters i.e., it shoots
for consistency over completeness. Quite the opposite is often the case,
in terms of practice. Additionally, such a preference (consistency) is a
luxury not available in the more complex "real world".
> Scientists can be very arrogant (as can people in most walks of life),
> defending the currently reigning paradigm and their own expertise.
> Luckily, many scientists have been pushed away from this. I've seen a
> greater willingness to accept the results of "folk science," for
> example, rejecting the old arrogance of assuming that "Western
> Science" was _a priori_ correct.
"A priori" correct is, with some license, another way of saying "the
scientific approach is preferable". With regards to arrogance, I refer
you once again to the quite recent Sokal Prank.
> One of the reasons for the attachment to the paradigm -- and thus the
> arrogance of many or most official scientists -- is the arrogance of
> some unofficial or fringe scientists ("cranks" or "pseudoscientists").
> The latter can involve rejecting the whole paradigm -- provoking a
> "foundational crisis" -- because of some small empirical or logical
> hole, often without presenting a coherent alternative, even though the
> official scientists think it's still possible to fill the holes by
> adding epicycles. Or the unofficial scientist is proposing some
> half-baked new paradigm (the way the business types do all the time,
> destroying the meaning of the word "paradigm"). That is, the
> unofficial scientist is seen as wanting to scuttle the hard work done
> by previous scientists, while sometimes being unconscious of the
> nature of that work.
All of which reduces "the scientific approach" to nothing more than the
normal politics that the less of mortals live by. Of course the studies
by PKF and others show that the "official" and established scientists
use(d) very similar politics to attain their current position!
>> > There's no reason why we should emulate the
>> > Bush League's antagonism toward science that doesn't fit their
>> > political and economic goals.
>
>> I agree. I think we should be antagonistic towards science at all times.
>> It is one of the greatest dangers (next only to conservatism, perhaps)
>> facing [freedoms and dignity of] the common person and his/her community.
>
> you agree? you agree that we shouldn't emulate Bush's trampling on
> science? That doesn't fit with your next sentence.
>
I was being clever there: I agree that we should not emulate the Bush
League's antagonism towards science that doesn't fit their political and
economic goals. IOW, BushCo is selectively antagonistic towards science.
I agree that we should not emulate that. You of course mean that we
should be different from BushCo by embracing all of science. I think
that we should be different from BushCo by being suspicious of all of
science i.e., reject the notion that:
Scepticism = Science = Good thing!
Radical Scepticism = Scepticism about Science = Bad thing!
>> Support something better than yourself: ;-)
>> PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
>> GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
>
> PeTA and GreenPeace don't use science?
>
I am sure they do. And so do I. I am all for using science. Just like I
am all for using the government to some good end. Nonetheless, I remain
ever sceptical (and alert) about such a powerful entity (The Golem as
some authors have analogized it).
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
