Ah! thus are the affairs of man, and have ever been. And shall ever be. Glad I made past the first two paragraphs.
Ivan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marshall Dudley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 22 May 2000 12:51 Subject: CS>This is interesting in several respects > This was posted by Brian to the wanderers list: > > As a scientist myself, I hope people appreciate the fact that the scientific > method is inflexible, requires replication, and is based on testing > hypothesis using rigorous statistical techniques. It is also mainly > correlational (A is associated with B) when it comes to human affairs, and > becomes causual (A causes B) in the more mechanical area (yeast makes dough > rise). When you look at studies in the social sciences (so called "soft" > sciences), the amount of explanation provided (what is called the "explained > variance" or "R squared" value) is typically in the 30% or so range, leaving > a whole bunch unexplained (this is given in the form of an equation, such as > Y = a + bX, where Y is what you are trying to predict and X is what you use > to predict it). So, prediction is the goal using sets of observations of Y > and a lot of Xs (Xs derived from your theory). (For example, when I > discussed my research many years ago with my brother who was then a > biochemist and specialist in donut dough, he laughed at me because he had R > squared in the 99.5% range compared to my 40% range. Of course, people are > more complex than donut dough, but that made no difference to him; he was a > "hard" scientist and I a mere "soft" one.) > > The Y you choose to investigate (predict) is determined by what is deemed > important in your theory in your field of expertise. Because science is a > type of club, if your Y isn't accepted as important in your club, Y don't > get published, don't get a good job, and don't get respected. Thus, the > "hobby" research into "paranormal" experience by physicists. In a rea l > sense, one has to be aware that it is all very political just like a lot of > life. Not only the Ys but the Xs are also up to critical review, as you > have to be also to document that they are based on accepted theory and are > appropriately measured (have to be reliable and valid and all that). > > Years ago there was the assumption that there existed an entity called the > "unobserved observer," i.e., the scientist. It was presumed that she or he > was a neutral (objective) collector of facts (a fact being a valid > observation of datum). It was never questioned that the observer had any > effect on the facts measured, particularly in the "real" sciences of physics > (more problematic in the social sciences). Now that quantum physics has > changed all that, it has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole affair, > because now the observer becomes an X in the equation (in a real sense). > (Dr. Wolf's books such as PARALLEL UNIVERSES are helpful here and he writes > so one has a shot at understanding all this.) It also becomes challenging > for these hard scientists to have to deal with the reality that the act of > measuring something creates it or that particles have consciousness > independent of time/space or that events in the "future" create events in > the "past" and all those wonderful and previously dismissed as metaphysical > realities. It is wonderfully ironic that their hard science has to deal > with what has heretofore been regarded as so much metaphysical nonsense. > > I take the position that the scientific method is as much a religion (set of > belief system as to what is True) as any other religion. In this religion, > one has to have total belief in it or one is not an accepted member of the > religious community. Now in this religion, you have to believe that what is > "real" is defined by what you can measure. What is "real" and "significant" > is only what you can measure and replicate. Realities which one cannot > measure with the current tools of measurement do not exist. Since the > current tools are 3D based, there is no 4D, etc. In a very real sense, the > whole belief system is tool-based. Also, it is helpful to remember that in > this belief system, one never "proves" anything. One posits the hypothesis > (guess) that Y is not associated by X (the null hypothesis), and if it is > more often than expected based on the presumed lack of association, one > makes the conclusion that the null hypothesis is rejected at a particular > significant level. (This is not just an academic argument. It has effects > on us all. For example, this is how the tobacco industry could get away > with taking the position that tobacco did not cause cancer. Cause is > impossible to prove in this scientific method unless X results in Y every > time. One observation of X not resulting in Y destroys the argument that X > causes Y, and one is left with saying that X is associated with Y. While > the world watched in disbelief, the CEOs of the major tobacco firms could > say with straight faces that they did not believe that tobacco caused > cancer. Having worked for a major tobacco company as a marketing research > manager, I have some experience in this area. It was interesting to have > conversations with the chemists. They were firm in the scientific > conviction that tobacco smoke has no "taste" and could prove it. People > might think that it does, but that didn't make it real. On the marketing > research side, of course, we dealt with "taste" all the time. We conducted > "taste tests" all the time. It didn't matter that it was not real, what > mattered was that consumers believed that it was real. The company changed > the tobacco blends in the brands all the time. We never told the loyal > consumers. They never knew it. They also never knew that all sorts of > stuff was sprayed on the tobacco (called "top dressing") to make it easier > to inhale (not choke). This included sugary stuff like cocoa. The mix of > stuff sprayed on the tobacco was and remains a trade secret. So, here is > another reason why the CEOs could believe that tobacco did not cause cancer. > For all they knew it might have been the stuff sprayed on the tobacco! > This, in fact, has been the belief of some Native Americans who regard > natural tobacco as sacred. Another interesting fact was that we had the > express directive to not investigate health-related factors associated with > smoking. We did not ask questions we did not want answers to. We were told > that we were not in the health business, but in the consumer products > business (i.e., image business) manufacturing and distributing a legitimate > farm crop. They had no data on health factors because not only did they not > ask about them but when they by chance showed up, the data was destroyed on > the rationale that the consumer didn't properly answer the question, that > is, gave us information we did not ask about. In any case, all original > data was always shredded and only the final reports were saved. All data, > of course, belonged to the company so it took the position that it had every > legal right to get rid of it. They also had the policy that one did not > discuss health issues with anyone in the company, never kept written notes, > etc.) > > The tool-based scientific method was never made to tackle spiritual > realities. What is distressing to a lot of folks, nonetheless, is the > belief held so dear by many Western scientists that it is the ONLY yardstick > to define what is real and not real. It is a "holier than thou" attitude. > Not only that but they seem to enjoy making ordinary folks feel stupid > because they believe in these "non-sense" things and destroy the careers of > scientists who would dare share in these "delusions." > > So, it is a wonderful modern irony that rigorous science must now face the > challenges facing quantum physics and all the nonsensical realities facing > it. They have to face the challenge of the dictum of "as below, so above" > or "as subatomic, so atomic" and all that. It is also refreshing to hear > some physicists saying that although they see no theoretical need for a God > to create the universe(s), it would be impossible without God to maintain it > (them). > > Blessings, > > Brian > > > > -- > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > > To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: > [email protected] -or- [email protected] > with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > > To post, address your message to: [email protected] > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> >
