[MD] Science Wars

[MarshaV]

Ian,

How is one suppose to act on information created by science when it 
cannot be experienced and is market-driven?   Trust?


Marsha



At 06:34 AM 4/20/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha, thanks ... I'd not heard the label used.
>(Kuhn is behind a lot of the Nick Maxwell work I've been looking at lately.)
>
>My reference to bad science is the kind of science that believes its
>access to truth is somehow privelidged because of its so-called
>"objective" methods - the kind that deserved the backlash. A science
>that recognizes its limitations is in that sense "better".
>Regards
>Ian
>
>On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
> > At 02:17 AM 4/20/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Ian:
> >> Marsha (I've not been concentrating for a few weeks) what explicitly
> >> did you mean by the reference "science wars" in the 1990's ? My
> >> starting point (before the turn of the millennium) was that the
> >> "scientific" view had become too dominant in all walks of life - a
> >> thoughtless and all-too-easy knee-jerk instead of quality thinking.
> >> (But here scientific is "bad science" - over-simplified science for
> >> the mass media and social and other pseudo-sciences.) I see the "faith
> >> wars" of recent times as a backlash to this bad science of the last
> >> two or three generations - since Copenhagen.
> >
> > Greetings Ian:
> >
> > Starting in the 1990s sociologists, anthropologists, historians and
> > intellectuals of all stripes started to evaluate the knowledge and methods
> > of science.  Science's objectivity, neutrality, and explanations were found
> > to be myth-laden.  There was, of course, a conservative backlash, with the
> > conflict being labeled the 'Science Wars'.  It wasn't just good science
> > versus bad science, it's the age-old crisis of what constitutes truth and
> > knowledge severely damaging Science's privileged tower.  Supposedly the
> > challenge started with the book 'The Structure of Scientific 
> Revolutions' by
> > Thomas S. Kuhn.
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [Willblake2]
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >> > I'm with you Willblake2. The cosmos exhibits an inner will to be better.
> >> > That's the message of the MoQ.
> >> >
> >> > Platt
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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/
> >> >
> >> 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.........
> > .
> > .
> > 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/
> >
>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.........
.
.