[MD] Science Wars

[MarshaV]

Krimel,

I assume that you consider your patterns to be conventionally 
true.  I consider my patterns to be conventionally true.  Since there 
conventional truth (patterns) are relational and ever-changing and do 
not represent an Absolute Truth, I will let this post turn to dust in the wind.

Besides, I totally melted with you story of TaBee story.  You are 
such a sweetheart!


Marsha





At 03:11 AM 4/17/2009, you wrote:



>Greetings Krimel,
>
>So it's 'Science, love it or leave it.'  Well, I happen to think the 
>some healthy public criticism is desperately needed.  I find it 
>interesting that most of your comments in this email are enlightened 
>post-Science Wars rhetoric.  You have just mistakenly assumed a 
>clear winner.  And I think the final judgement cannot be make 
>yet.  Take genetically-modified food, not enough time has passed to 
>properly evaluate the effects on the food source or the generation 
>humans ingesting the food.  We, the citizens of the Earth, are the 
>test, and the results are yet to be determined.  Can you be sure 
>there are no unintended consequences?   And this is just one 
>area.  Science is so integrated into the marketplace that its 
>discoveries are passed on to consumers at a breakneck speed and we, 
>human beings, are now the lab rats.
>
>- continues below-
>
>-At 05:52 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>> >>[Ham]
>> >>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.
>>
>>[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?
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>It is hard to say which is more irritating. You stubbornly clinging to a
>>passel of misconceptions or the fact that you now have me agreeing with Ham.
>>
>>Your insistence on the idea that science claims to provide absolute truth is
>>just flatly false. It is hard for me to imagine anyone trained in science,
>>who would claim that. In fact as you ought to know Bacon himself recognized
>>that no amount of looking at particular instances of any phenomena could
>>yield truth of this kind. ALL scientific knowledge and scientific theories
>>are provisional. They hold until they are disproven. To continuing bitching
>>about science because it does not offer absolute Truth is silly.
>
>There are still conservative areas of science that insist that 
>scientific knowledge be treated as if descriptive of an objective 
>world "out there", and as if science were the primary source of 
>knowledge, truth and rationality.  Calling my statements "bitching" 
>and "silly" doesn't address the issues I raise.  Bacon is a man who 
>stated that Nature needed to be tortured for her to give up her 
>secrets.  Come on...
>
>
>
>> > [Ham]
>> > It is mankind's only source of validated (i.e., universally
>> > confirmed) information concerning the elements and dynamics of the
>> > natural world.
>>
>>[Marsha]
>>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?
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>That is not a reasonable standard for evaluating science. All conceptual
>>patterns ask us to override first-hand experience. Firsthand experience is
>>the source of conceptualization and concepts must in some way conform to
>>data from experience but any number of interpretations are possible.
>>Scientists can provide a consensus in their discipline. They can provide
>>explanations for why they think what they do but it is individuals who
>>decide what they chose to believe. The fact that scientific explanations
>>have changed over the past 1000 years is their strength not a weakness. It
>>is what makes them so useful and so powerful. It is fatuous to criticize
>>them for being what they are or for not being what they are not.
>>
>>In fact one of your major hang-ups, absolute versus conventional truth is
>>what really puts you in bed with Ham. The idea of Absolute Truth is a myth.
>>If there were such Truth how would we recognize it. How would we convince
>>ourselves or anyone else that we had established it. In fact where do you
>>think it can be found in any discipline, religion, philosophy or system of
>>belief?
>>
>>You rant against science for not offering what it never claims to offer and
>>what in fact nothing else offers either.
>
>As I said this is a post-Science Wars statement, until recently 
>Science did claim Absolute Truth.  Space and Time were once thought 
>to be absolute, and now they are thought to be relative to a certain 
>frame of reference.
>
>
>
>> > [Ham]
>> > Everything in experiential existence is relative -- including "Truth".
>>
>>[Marsha]
>>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.
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>Exactly, so what the hell is your problem?
>
>So here we agree.  There is no Absolute Truth.
>
>
>
>>[Marsha]
>>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.
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>What a load of pointless whining. Science tells us what how to pollute water
>>and how to clean it up. In fact water in this country was much more polluted
>>20 years ago than it is today because we started applying scientific
>>knowledge to clean it. If malaria is increasing in the third world it is
>>hardly the fault of science. And if tuberculosis strains are evolving
>>immunity to our antibiotics it is not as though science doesn't tell us how
>>and why. Any cures for these or other diseases are not going to come from
>>witch doctors and meditation; they will emerge from laboratories.
>>
>>The idea that "...very little of intelligence being communicated" with
>>improved communication is a total load of bunk. How much intelligence is
>>communicated through any other means. Most conversations are totally devoid
>>of intellectual content. What is communicated is emotion and gossip for the
>>most part.
>>
>>As for the prospects for the survival of humankind I would say they are a
>>whole lot better than they were 30 years ago when superpowers were set to
>>blow each other to smithereens.
>
>I would say we are not necessarily better off than 30 years 
>ago.  Are all those bombs be accounted for?
>
>
>
>>[Marsha]
>>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.
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>You repeatedly point to a problems in politics and economics and blame it on
>>science. That is simply disingenuous. If people are ignorant, is that the
>>fault of scientists? If people make bad choices, is that the fault of
>>scientists. You repeat this crap all the time and it doesn't make a bit of
>>sense now and it didn't make a bit of sense last time.
>
>My repeated point has been that science has become totally 
>integrated into the political and economic systems, my repeated 
>point is that scientists have an obligation to educate and explain 
>the products it introduces into the marketplace, pros and cons, and 
>my repeated point is that without this knowledge the consumer has no 
>intelligent way to make a proper evaluation.
>
>And you repeatedly call what I say crap as if that were an argument.
>
>
>
>>[Marsha]
>>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.
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>Maybe that is because there is not one shred of evidence that genetically
>>modified food is bad for you. In fact we don't eat much of anything in the
>>modern world that has not been genetically modified. You are just voicing
>>paranoia about a particular technique of genetically modifying the food
>>supply.
>
>http://www.holisticmed.com/ge/
>
>
>
>>[Marsha]
>>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.
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>Of course science is not value neutral. It values truth, honesty, rigor,
>>intellect, sharing of information and recognition of the contribution of
>>others in the pursuit of knowledge. Most scientists would not work for free
>>but they do not pursue careers in science because they want to get rich.
>>Most or at least the best are driven by a thirst of knowledge. Your repeated
>>pointing at funding issues is not the fault of science. For most scientists
>>funding is a means to an end. Of course they want their research funded and
>>of course they have to play politics to make it happen but the problems in
>>this system are political and economic not scientific.
>>
>>In fact nearly everyone of your posts on this subject criticizes aspects of
>>science that have nothing to do with science. The problem is and has long
>>been that science has made progress while religion, philosophy, ethics,
>>politics, art and economics have done little or nothing. They have not kept
>>pace. Why not try turning your venom on the areas that are really to blame?
>
>What is Science but a collection of scientists?  The in-crowd, for 
>if you listened to the 24 CBC episodes 'How You Should Think About 
>Science', you would discover to challenge orthodox science may be to 
>suffer negative consequences.  Not all challenges to funding and 
>prestige are welcomed.
>
>
>
>> > [Ham]
>> >  This discipline has no place for emotional bias.
>>
>>[Marsha]
>>Money creates one emotional bias, but there is the fact that
>>scientists have egos too.
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>Jesus, of course scientists have egos and of course they often cling to
>>outmoded views. They are people you know. The point is that unlike most
>>other areas human endeavor they have established means of settling disputes
>>and deciding which views are correct.
>
>Listen to the CBC program mentioned above:
>
>         http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html
>
>
>> > [Ham]
>> >"Science Wars" is a myth generated largely by the liberal mindset of
>> >academia which is swayed by 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.
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>Science Wars is just the name of the lectures you are listening to isn't it?
>>Any real war on science took place from 2000 on, when idiots took over
>>Washington and worked hard to cripple science and spread stupidity. It sure
>>looks from here like their plan worked.
>
>The big fear is to challenge science might create public anarchy.  Bullpoop!
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>.
>_____________
>
>Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
>.
>.
>
>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.........
.
.