[MD] Science Wars

[Ham Priday]

Dear 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?

Science is a utilitarian approach to the world as it is experienced.  It is 
mankind's only source of validated (i.e., universally confirmed) information 
concerning the elements and dynamics of the natural world.  Everything in 
experiential existence is relative -- including "Truth".  Nevertheless, by 
applying the principles of Science to physical, biological, and 
electro-mechanical understanding we have learned to control the environment, 
prevent and cure disease, mass produce goods, implement instant global 
communication, and advance our civilization far beyond the life style of our 
ancestors.  So, yes, Science gives us "useful truth" which is reliable and 
effective for survival in a relational system.

> Science is funded by corporate and political interests.  Is Gobal Warming 
> the Truth?  Science creates machines to
> test their hypothesis that have a built-in bias.  Science expects
> the public to accepts TiTs that are beyond experience.  The
> history of scientific theories is one of displacement.  According to some 
> in this forum, Scientistic pronouncements
> should be considered beyond question much like a new religion.

How Science is funded is a public issue.  Much theoretical research is done 
at our universities under government grants underwritten by the taxpayers. 
But once the theories are applied, private industry can develop resources, 
technologies, and products to answer the needs of the marketplace.  In a 
free market it's consumers like you and me who determine what Science and 
industry should focus on.  The only "bias" held by Science is belief in 
objective reality -- what most people call "the real world".  This should 
not be confused with religious faith or philosophical hypothesis.  Proving a 
theorem in practice is not a "belief system"; it simply demonstrates that 
the principle "works", which is all we should expect from scientific 
pragmatism.  Moreover, because scientific knowledge is always subject to 
revision and is continually updated, its capabilities are constantly 
expanding.

> I had not heard of the 90's Science Wars until a few
> weeks ago, and can think of nothing more important
> to consider from a MOQ point-of-view.   Well, that is imho.

Science is not at war with anybody.  Its foundation is the logical 
methodology  "investigate - test - confirm".  This discipline has no place 
for emotional bias.  "Science Wars" is a myth generated largely by the 
liberal mindset of academia which is swayed by more by emotion than reason. 
IMHO.

--Ham


> At 02:34 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>>Marsha, Willblake2 --
>>
>>
>>What's all this about Science Wars in the 1990s?
>>
>>Science and religion have always been in conflict ideologically, and I 
>>could see how the Scopes trial of 1925 might be regarded as the opening 
>>skirmish in the "battle" between the Darwinians and the Creationists.  But 
>>science wars in the 1990s in which, Marsha (the sophist) conjectures, "RMP 
>>led the attack against Science"...?
>>
>>To see what I'd missed in the last decade, I checked Wikipedia (which 
>>seemed to be the only reference), and learned that the cultural journal 
>>'Social Text' was the first to use the term in May 1996 when it ran a 
>>"Science Wars" issue with essays contributed by controversial writers in 
>>the social sciences and humanities.  Among the contributors was Alan 
>>Sokal, who submitted a paper purporting to argue that quantum physics 
>>supported postmodernist criticism of scientific objectivity.  Sokal, a 
>>physicist, later confessed it was a "...hoax to see if the journal editors 
>>would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded 
>>good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".  The 
>>incident became known as "the Sokal Affair".
>>
>>In a 2001 book titled "Making Social Science Matter", Dr. Bent Flyvbjerg, 
>>writes: "However entertaining for bystanders, the mudslinging of the 
>>Science Wars is unproductive.  The Wars undoubtedly serve political and 
>>ideological purposes in the competition for research funds and in defining 
>>what Charles Lindblom and Michel Foucault have called society's 'truth 
>>politics.'  Judged by intellectual standards, however, the Science Wars 
>>are misguided."
>>
>>My Google search also revealed that Wikipedia has itself been criticized 
>>for promulgating a case for the Science Wars.  Stuart Geiger, a Georgetown 
>>U. graduate who has submitted a number of articles to Wiki, notes: 
>>"Instead of debating about the efficacy and authority of science, 
>>academics are now debating the efficacy and authority of Wikipedia."  He's 
>>probably on to something.
>>
>>Personally, I think the so-called "wars" are overblown if not actually 
>>bogus.  Despite the hand-wringing of Nicholas Maxwell and others who would 
>>"humanize" the methodology of Science, the empiricists should continue 
>>doing what they have done so brilliantly for more than a century, and the 
>>philosophers and social scientists should have the wisdom to get off their 
>>back.
>>
>>(That's my opinion anyway.)

>>--Ham
_archive/