I wrote:>>In science when done well, every "conclusion" is merely a
working hypothesis that needs to tested further (logically,
empirically). There are no final conclusions. (This, specifically, is
what I was talking about in my parenthetical comment.) <<
ravi: >I think what you are describing is "Philosophy of Science"
thinking (e.g: Popper et al). IOW, I think the above is a prescription
on how scientists should ideally think. But then, the exclusivity of
"Science" disappears, since the above is a good prescription on how
anyone should think, and many do. <
I never said that "Science" was exclusive in any way (or that
"Scientists" were superior in any way and I don't remember
capitalizing the word except at the start of a sentence or to refer to
others' perspective). _Of course_ it's the way many people think. I
think that's a good way to think. What I was saying was that we need
more of it.
It's an ideal (which I found well-stated by Thorstein Veblen, not Karl
Popper), but it doesn't work without the second element (the paradigm
or research program).
me: >>It is true that tremendous amounts of respect are given to
"axioms and prior results" (summarized by the phrase "research
program" or the word "paradigm"). This is because these have survived
a long process of testing and represent the current consensus or
near-consensus among scientists, representing the accumulation of past
work by scientists. <<
ravi: > And since you are using Kuhn/Lakatos terms, you will also know
that most scientists do not practice or participate in revolutionary
science. They go about their scientific lives believing in the
absoluteness of Darwin's theory or Newtonian physics, or the
consistency of mathematical proofs, just as my mother goes about
believing in the existence of god. <
Of course few scientists engage in revolutionary science. It would be
hard to have a scientific community if they did. I think it would be
better, however, if more of them did revolutionary science and that
the scientific elite were involved in more "normal" science, so that
there is less of a division of labor.
I don't know if professional biologists believe that Darwin's theory
is absolutely true, since I don't know enough biologists. (I would
guess that most say it's the _best_ theory there is currently; I
agree.)
I do know that professional physicists _know_ that Newtonian physics
is only a special case rather than being absolutely true. I'm pretty
sure that professional physicists think of the more general
Einsteinian physics as the best theory that currently exists.
Given the axioms, aren't mathematical proofs logically consistent? how
could they be anything else, unless they aren't good proofs? that, of
course, doesn't mean that they're consistent with perceived empirical
reality.
By the way, my view that scientific skepticism and respect for the
paradigm should form a tension-filled whole (a unity of opposites,
perhaps) was somehow forgotten or ignored.
ravi: >But my point is a bit larger than that: I think (and this is
just a thought, expressed here, and it needs further elucidation) both
in theory and in practice, science/scientists are more committed to
"truth" than lay people are.<
I was NOT making a distinction between scientists and "lay people" or
arguing that the former are superior to the latter. Rather, I was
arguing for more of the "scientific thinking" that scientists profess
(but may not practice).
You write that scientific thought says that what science believes may not be true. To the
contrary, the conceit is that science only believes in what is shown to be true ... and
reserves comments on other matters i.e., it shoots for consistency over completeness. Quite
the opposite is often the case, in terms of practice. Additionally, such a preference
(consistency) is a luxury not available in the more complex "real world". <
we'll have to agree to disagree "that science only believes in what is
shown to be true" and the domination of completeness over consistency.
I don't know enough about scientific practice to argue. I don't see
why consistency is "a luxury not available" in the real world. Please
explain what you mean by this.
me:>>Scientists can be very arrogant (as can people in most walks of
life), defending the currently reigning paradigm and their own
expertise. Luckily, many scientists have been pushed away from this.
I've seen a greater willingness to accept the results of "folk
science," for example, rejecting the old arrogance of assuming that
"Western Science" was _a priori_ correct. <<
ravi:>"A priori" correct is, with some license, another way of saying
"the scientific approach is preferable". With regards to arrogance, I
refer you once again to the quite recent Sokal Prank. <
My use of _a priori_ referred to the conclusions of "Western Science"
as opposed to the skepticism and respect for past scientists' work.
I see no problem with the Sokal Prank itself. After all, its target
was arrogant obscurantists (Stanley Aronowitz and his ilk), not
third-world peoples or some other powerless group. The use of the
Prank went too far, however.
me: >>One of the reasons for the attachment to the paradigm -- and
thus the arrogance of many or most official scientists -- is the
arrogance of some unofficial or fringe scientists ("cranks" or
"pseudoscientists"). The latter can involve rejecting the whole
paradigm -- provoking a "foundational crisis" -- because of some small
empirical or logical hole, often without presenting a coherent
alternative, even though the official scientists think it's still
possible to fill the holes by adding epicycles. Or the unofficial
scientist is proposing some half-baked new paradigm (the way the
business types do all the time, destroying the meaning of the word
"paradigm"). That is, the unofficial scientist is seen as wanting to
scuttle the hard work done by previous scientists, while sometimes
being unconscious of the nature of that work. <<
ravi: >All of which reduces "the scientific approach" to nothing more
than the normal politics that the less of mortals live by. Of course
the studies by PKF and others show that the "official" and established
scientists use(d) very similar politics to attain their current
position! <
"normal politics"? politics is hardly subject to the same peer review
as normal science.
BTW, I never have pretended that science actually lives up to its ideals.
"PKF" is Feyerabend? Let's please be a bit less elitist and stop
assuming that everyone knows your idols' initials.
I had written:>>>>There's no reason why we should emulate the Bush
League's antagonism toward science that doesn't fit their political
and economic goals. <<<<
ravi responded: >>>I agree. I think we should be antagonistic towards
science at all times. It is one of the greatest dangers (next only to
conservatism, perhaps) facing [freedoms and dignity of] the common
person and his/her community. <<<
I responded to this: >>you agree? you agree that we shouldn't emulate
Bush's trampling on science? That doesn't fit with your next sentence.
<<
ravi: >I was being clever there: I agree that we should not emulate
the Bush League's antagonism towards science that doesn't fit their
political and economic goals. IOW, BushCo is selectively antagonistic
towards science. I agree that we should not emulate that. You of
course mean that we should be different from BushCo by embracing all
of science. <
NO, I DO NOT. Science in practice differs from ideal science. I was
pushing scientific thinking, not everything scientists do.
Please do not put opinions in my mouth. Some might call that "arrogant."
I think that we should be different from BushCo by being suspicious of all of
science i.e., reject the notion that: Scepticism = Science = Good thing! Radical
Scepticism = Scepticism about Science = Bad thing! <
if you're saying that we should question authority (including
scientific authority), then I say "amen." If you're saying that we
should assume that even scientific ideals should be criticized, I
disagree.
me: >>PeTA and GreenPeace don't use science? <<
ravi: >I am sure they do. And so do I. I am all for using science.
Just like I am all for using the government to some good end.
Nonetheless, I remain ever sceptical (and alert) about such a
powerful entity <
I'm all in favor of skepticism (Rosa Luxemburg's motto "doubt all" is
one of my favorites). But I also respect the hard work of scientists.
Skepticism is not cynicism.
--
Jim Devine / "The optimist thinks that this is the best of all
possible worlds; the pessimist knows it." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer.
