[MD] Science Wars

[markhsmit]

Hi all,

Let me first say that I carry the burden of scientific
training, Ph.D. and all.  That means full indoctrination.

I read, below, scientific facts thrown about as though they
were truths.  The earth is 5 billion years old!  Did you measure
this, or are you parroting somebody's opinion?  Oh, it has 
been proven.  Please explain to me that proof.  Is it all based on
assumptions?  Science is a convention, that seems to provide
some predictability to our lives.  That predictability comes true
simply because the cause and effect are supporting each other, 
like a closed logical circle, no other reason.  1 + 1= 2.  What does 
that mean?  Absolutely nothing more than a convention.  Neuronal
 firings that are shared amongst people.  The more people that
have similar neuronal firings (or patterns), the more meaningful
it seems to be.  Why?  Because we like company.

It is my opinion that science describes that which is considered
outside of us; this includes the brain as described by science.  
Spirituality describes that which is within ourselves.  It is my belief 
that which is within is much greater than what is outside.  (It could also 
be said that the world we create is within (and I don't mean within
the brain)).  The "rules" for describing spirituality are very different
from the rules of science.  There is no cause-effect.  If we could transmit
feelings directly (no thoughts or words in between) it would be
much easier to convey spirituality.  Instead we are left with
the scientific (logical) tool of language.

Science has sacrificed that within for that outside.  For every
word concerning experience in English, there are forty in Sanskrit.  It is 
because of this obsession with that which is outside, that we
find no real meaning or satisfaction or truth.  How could there be?
Science has taken much away.  There is no balance.

It seems that the more detailed we make this outside, the more 
dominant it becomes, until it is all.  What an illusion!

The real war is between that which is within, and that which is outside (without).

I think this has something to do with MoQ...

Willblake2


On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:55:56 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

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?

Are facts "Truth'? If so, that's what Science reveals. We experience 
events in time, thus we intellectualize that everything in existence comes 
into being and evolves. That is "our truth" as finite observers of nature. 
So is the precept of cause-and-effect. Existence is a relational system, 
and scientists work in this frame of things, giving us the means to deal 
with the world we experience. As a rational, consistent, and productive 
discipline the scientific method can't be faulted.

[Ham, previously]:
> Science is a utilitarian approach to the world as it is experienced.

[Marsha]:
> 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?

All human beings have "opinions". The neat thing about Science is that 
subjectivity is rejected by the methodology. Certainly scientists argue 
among themselves and, depending on their field of expertise, not all 
scientists are the "objective purists" that their discipline calls for. But 
that's a human fallibility, not a fault of Science. What feeds the media 
and excites public curiosity are controversial theories like global warming 
for which there is some evidence but no infallible proof. The earth is over 
5 billion years old, while the history of man stretches back only 10,000 
years. On the scale of a roll of toilet paper whose 394 squares are each 11 
cm. long, all of human history would represent only 0.1 cm. of the last 
square. That's far too little time to gather predictive information about 
earth's climatic cycles.

> 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?

What does "first-hand experience and intuition" tell you about molecular 
changes and planetary orbits, the chemical nature of an apple, the processes 
of photosynthesis and genetic transfer? Could Edison have invented the 
incandescent light bulb by intuition? With what percentage could your 
experience of diabetes give you the knowledge to treat it?

> 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.

Right. Truth is relative to the knowledge available at any particular time.

> How do you know science's "useful truths" are always reliable and 
> effective for survival?

If they are useful, they are effective in solving the problem they relate 
to.

> Was there survival before science?

Of course, if you call "survival" a life span of 40 years, most of which is 
spent foraging for food and avoiding predators.

> 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.

History is the best predictor of future events, but nothing in existence is 
a certainty. Having the means to make water potable doesn't mean that we 
won't pollute its source. Modern medicine has eradicated smallpox, malaria, 
and TB in most of the industrial world, but epidemics can still occur in 
unprotected societies. If we've produced "garbage", it's because the market 
demands it. (Would you want Science to control human desire?) The fact 
that people communicate in gibberish and fill the Internet with pornography 
and small talk only demonstrates their value sensibility.

Do you think Science should regulate human behavior? Or is it that you want 
the goals of Science to be regulated by philosophers, or perhaps the State? 
I think you expect too much of empirical Science. It seems that you, like 
others here, are looking for a Master Guide to a safe and happy life. 
That's the promise of religion, not Science. Humans who are unwilling to 
accept the challenges of life are not long for this world. We are all 
endowed with reason and the freedom to choose those values that will enhance 
our life experience. Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth 
living." My moral axiom is: Know yourself and your values, and your life 
will be guided by rational decisions.

[Ham, previously]:
> "Science Wars" is a myth generated largely by the liberal mindset of 
> academia which is swayed more by emotion than reason. IMHO.

[Marsha]:
> 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.

Exactly what is it about empirical Science that you fear or find 
objectionable, and how would you "reevaluate" (or revamp) it to better serve 
your moral or philosophical needs?

Curiously,
Ham


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/