[MD] Science Wars

[MarshaV]

Ian,

Call me a skeptic, but I see no evidence on which to base 
trust.  Occasionally a whistle blower comes forward and I gain a 
smidgen of trust, but that usually diminishes with multiple levels of 
disinterest.


Marsha



At 08:11 AM 4/20/2009, you wrote:
>Ultimately Marsha, yes trust. Reading intent into what people (even
>scientists) say and do, supported by experience at the touch points we
>do have access to, and by second hand trust (or authority) if that's
>all we can get. Even with "direct" experience we need to beware
>illusions and psychological "tricks".
>
>A competitive self-interested market view of every situation sure 
>doesn't help.
>Ian
>
>On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > 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.........
> > .
> > .
> > 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.........
.
.