At around 29/6/06 10:00 pm, Jim Devine wrote:
> I said:
>> > I never said that "Science" was exclusive in any way (or that
>> > "Scientists" were superior in any way ...). _Of course_ it's
>> > the way many people think. I
>> > think that's a good way to think. What I was saying was that we need
>> > more of it.
>
> ravi:
>> Then perhaps we can just call it open-mindedness, rational thinking, or
>> what-have-you.
>
> I don't think it's worth quibbling about the meanings of words.
>
I do not believe I am quibbling. This is a fairly central issue in my
"theoretical" life. As I mentioned earlier, the equating of Science to
certain modes of human activity (thinking, action) has serious
consequences to peoples' freedoms and dignity. And to what is accepted
as knowledge. I think these words and meanings are important. To me,
this is obvious in the way we (left, liberal, Democrat) lose the war of
words to Republicans because we have negotiated around the misuse of
words like 'patriotism', 'freedom', 'liberty', 'peace', 'liberal', etc.
While leftists have condemned Saddam from before it was fashionable,
today Bush is seen as the anti-Saddam crusader for liberty and is able
to get away with lecturing us on the virtue of "liberating" the Iraqis.
>> I didn't suggest that you said Science is exclusive. I am
>> sort of responding a bit generally here, not just to you. What I mean by
>> exclusivity is the claim often heard by some scientists and many science
>> groupies that such a way of thinking is not only unique to Science but
>> is the defining characteristic of it. There are a lot of consequences,
>> with regard to power and relationships, that follow. All IMHO, of course.
>
> I find it useful to distinguish between "science" (which I value) and
> "scientism" (which is silly). It's the latter you're criticizing.
>
I agree there is a difference, and I too value "science". But I think we
probably differ on what we see as the difference. Here are some of my
definitions (which are contingent and provided FWIW):
Science:
1. (a) A body of knowledge expressed in a (b) particular language (math)
2. A specific method of (a) obtaining and (b) validating this knowledge
3. That which scientists do
(3) is a fairly unambiguous definition but unfortunately doesn't seem to
tell me what a "scientific attitude" would be. 2(a) used to be the naive
(or some might say clever) claim/belief, until it was blown out of the
water through examining the history of scientific activity. 1(a) can be
worked with except such a body of knowledge overlaps with other systems
or collections of knowledge.
We are left with 1(b) and 2(b) I think are a bit more legitimate.
However, even here, an examination of the history shows sketchy
adherence to 2(b) and a lack of systematic rigour in both 1(b) and 2(b).
Theories and proofs contain hidden assumptions, hypothesis and
conjectures are often employed in proofs, real world factors are thrown
into consideration, and finally arbitrary fudge factors are introduced
to make the theory stick (as Paul K. Feyerabend has pointed out, this is
somewhat as it should be, but that is a bit peripheral to the attempt at
definition here, though significant to my general argument).
The weakened definition obtained by the modified 1(b) and 2(b), usable
in lieu of (3), does not tell me either what uniquely identifies
"scientific attitude" or "apprach" or what-have-you. Not all scientific
theories are expressed in math and other systems of expression and
validation might be as rigorous if not more.
Scientism:
1. A blind faith in the universal validity of the "method" of science
2. That a unique and single such "method" exists and can be defined
3. The sum of the explanations of the reduced parts explains the whole
4. The mimicry of scientific pose and jargon
5. A belief only in scientific progress
6. The notion that all valid explanations are scientific ones
7. That science and only science has access to "truth"/reality
Scientism, IMHO of course, has to be shunned. Science (as defined above
in my terms) has to be monitored and democratized.
> ravi:
>> I need to explain myself better here. What I mean is that physicists, or
>> biologists, when they are operating within the spaces where those
>> theories (Newtonian physics, evolutionary biology, etc) are applicable,
>> believe in the objectivity/universality of the laws they describe. A
>> related way of expressing my point is to say this: that biologists
>> believe not that Darwinian theory provides a good way to describe and
>> predict biological data and events, but that it actually says how things
>> exactly happened.
>
> probably biologists believe that Darwinian theory "actually says how
> things happened." But if there were evidence against that theory
> (which there isn't as far as I know) or if there were logical holes in
> that theory (which there aren't as far as I know), then the honest
> ones would say "we may need to develop a new theory or to amend the
> existing one."
Which I do not contest at this point (but will on a different thread if
need be, since I believe that what you write about biologists and about
logical and evidentiary holes in theories is only partly true). However,
my point is different: (a) all theories are contingent, but few operate
with this notion at the centre of their "faith", (b) more significantly,
few if any believe or accept the "fact" that strictly speaking all such
theorizing is nothing more than playing with symbols (a sort of
mathematical formalism).
> ravi:
>> Not ignored or forgotten. You are interpreting (perhaps because of my
>> choice of words?) that I am arguing against your viewpoint. Rather, I am
>> questioning your use of terms: I am not happy about
>> science/scientific-thinking being bi-directionally equated to certain
>> ways of thinking that are important (open-mindedness, contingency of
>> belief, etc).
>>
>> Hence you won't find me arguing against the bulk of your thinking, since
>> I tend to agree with it mostly.
>
> okay. But again, I don't find it worthwhile to argue over the "true"
> meaning of terms.
>
Sure, if you find such activity worthless we can let the thread die. I
do believe, for my part, that terms and their meanings are quite
significant. Especially in terms of power and politics, as I have
expressed a few times.
>> But here's my problem restated: its not clear to me what "scientific
>> thinking". So far, the descriptions I have heard list activities that
>> are practised elsewhere, in almost all cases long before science
>> appeared on the horizon.
>
> scientific thinking is probably as old as humanity (if not older).
> It's only the scientific institutions that are recent.
I think your definition above is consistent with your outlook, and is a
good one. But today, the scientific institutions and its members are the
ones who define what scientific thinking is, and are the ones who go to
great lengths to safeguard the term and their control of it (hence the
concerted attacks against "pseudoscience", postmodernism, science
studies, etc, etc). To play this game, I am forced to abandon not just
the term 'science' which I am quite willing to do, but the other
connotation of it that you suggest: open-minded, rational, contingent
thinking based on empirical or logical verification. That latter
category is too important to permit its usurpation. Better to reclaim
that attitude for ourselves (everyday human-beings and "experts" in
other fields) and employ it against those who might misappropriate it
under a different term.
I will end with a somewhat related example from contemporary affairs:
J.K. Galbraith, the man who attracted many of us non-economists to learn
about economics, who died recently, has been ridiculed by the young
turk, Paul Krugman. Krugman, IIRC, suggested that Galbraith is not to be
taken seriously as an economist. Do you doubt that this stems from
anything more than a math fetish (the reason for my post from a long
time ago where I wondered why economists are afraid of math, which was a
bit misunderstood(*))? Yet, I am willing to wager, not just Krugman, but
the majority may argue that his approach and attitude is the right (and
only) way to finally make a "science" out of economics.
--ravi
(*) And isn't it funny that [many] mathematicians are unabashed
Platonists ;-), chief among them, the man who reduced it all to symbol
manipulation, Kurt Godel.
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
