[MD] Science Wars

[MarshaV]

Hi Ham,

Since Einstein radically altered the scientific view of reality, 
there has been a challenge to what scientific knowledge is and what 
it means.  In the last century scientific knowledge has been 
investigated with the same rigor as science might investigate 
fossils.  The latest attack seemed to be initiated by Thomas Kuhn and 
his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', and culminated in 
the Science Wars of the 1990s.  It is a very interesting area to 
investigate with science being called a "craft" or "socially 
constructed" and adamant defenders.  What does science know and how 
does it know it?  Interesting and legitimate questions, yes?

How is a person suppose to react to the many scientific theories that 
are so far beyond experience yet so deeply entrenched in and 
affecting every aspect of daily life?


Marsha







At 05:55 PM 4/16/2009, you 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/

.
_____________

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