[MD] Science Wars

[MarshaV]

At 12:18 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>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.

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?


>   It is mankind's only source of validated (i.e., universally 
> confirmed) information concerning the elements and dynamics of the 
> natural world.

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?


>   Everything in experiential existence is relative -- including "Truth".

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.

>  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.

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.



>>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.

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.  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.  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.


>>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".

Not methodology, but mythology.


>  This discipline has no place for emotional bias.

Money creates one emotional bias, but there is the fact that 
scientists have egos too.


>"Science Wars" is a myth generated largely by the liberal mindset of 
>academia which is swayed by more by emotion than reason. IMHO.

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.


Marsha




>>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/
>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/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.