At around 22/6/06 7:07 pm, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Then perhaps we can just call it open-mindedness, rational thinking, or
what-have-you. I didn't suggest that you said Science is exclusive. I am
sort of responding a bit generally here, not just to you. What I mean by
exclusivity is the claim often heard by some scientists and many science
groupies that such a way of thinking is not only unique to Science but
is the defining characteristic of it. There are a lot of consequences,
with regard to power and relationships, that follow. All IMHO, of course.
> 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.
I need to explain myself better here. What I mean is that physicists, or
biologists, when they are operating within the spaces where those
theories (Newtonian physics, evolutionary biology, etc) are applicable,
believe in the objectivity/universality of the laws they describe. A
related way of expressing my point is to say this: that biologists
believe not that Darwinian theory provides a good way to describe and
predict biological data and events, but that it actually says how things
exactly happened.
> 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.
Not ignored or forgotten. You are interpreting (perhaps because of my
choice of words?) that I am arguing against your viewpoint. Rather, I am
questioning your use of terms: I am not happy about
science/scientific-thinking being bi-directionally equated to certain
ways of thinking that are important (open-mindedness, contingency of
belief, etc).
Hence you won't find me arguing against the bulk of your thinking, since
I tend to agree with it mostly.
> 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).
But here's my problem restated: its not clear to me what "scientific
thinking". So far, the descriptions I have heard list activities that
are practised elsewhere, in almost all cases long before science
appeared on the horizon.
For example: politicians profess a high moral code. But we do not call a
high moral code a political code. Its a bit of a crass example, but I
hope it is meaningful.
> I don't see
> why consistency is "a luxury not available" in the real world. Please
> explain what you mean by this.
Scientists and/or mathematicians (and I do not much see the point in
differentiating Math from Science, especially since there is a strong
interpretation of math as an empirical study, within the community) can
often withhold judgement on open questions. Goldbach's conjecture can
sit around another 100 years without impacting someone's life. OTOH, lay
people have to make calls, despite incomplete information or analysis.
This could often lead to inconsistency, especially in method.
> 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.
Relative to scientists, IMHO, (as Stanley Fish sort of argues),
sociologists, STS types, pomo philosophers, are a bit of a powerless
group. Further, Sokal and Co did not just attack Aronowitz. What they
attacked (and intended to, as is evident from their later comments) as
"his ilk" is a broad set of thinkers, including philosophers of science.
The mathematician Gabriel Stolzenberg lays bare their motivation and
illogic in a series of wonderful papers, links to which I can provide on
request.
> 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.
>
By 'normal politics' I mean the regular games we play in real life,
whether we are politicians, friends, parents, spouses, friends, etc. I
think I do get quite a bit peer reviewed by my friends ;-). Politicians
actually have to submit to something harsher: review by the public at
large (whether the public meets this responsibility is another
question!). If only "science" were that democratic!
> BTW, I never have pretended that science actually lives up to its ideals.
Sure. I do not attribute any scientism to you. My only doubt is in the
use of terms like "scientific thinking" or "scientific approach". IOW,
the professed "ideals" aren't "it's" ideals. They are ours, including
the "third world" people mentioned above. I would analogize my criticism
to the criticism that all of us have towards US govt (or conservative)
action and the defense of it: we have great ideals (spreading democracy
around the world, etc), its just that we often do not live up to it.
IMHO, that's untrue. Those ideals are that of the people, the liberals,
misappropriated and used in false humility.
> "PKF" is Feyerabend? Let's please be a bit less elitist and stop
> assuming that everyone knows your idols' initials.
Yikes! Elitist? How many times have you heard me mention my "idol"s name
in full on this list! Do not attribute to elitism what can easily be
explained by laziness.
>
> 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.
>
Right, fine. So where do I write that you embrace everything scientists
do? Let me revisit the text:
You wrote:
> There's no reason why we should emulate the Bush
> League's antagonism toward science that doesn't fit their political
> and economic goals.
By which I assume the following structure:
We should not emulate Bush league's antagonism toward (science that
doesn't fit their political and economic goals)
i.e., I assume that the qualifier "that doesn't fit" applies to the science.
So you believe:
a) Bush is antagonistic toward science that doesn't fit his goal
b) We shouldn't emulate that
What follows to me is that (b) entails us to:
c) We should not be antagonistic toward science that doesn't fit our goal
i.e., stated loosely earlier by me: we should embrace science even if
that doesn't fit our goal. Combined with the idea that we would embrace
science that fits our goal, that implies we should embrace all science,
not just what fits our goals. IOW, I read you to state that unlike
BushCo we should not be selective w.r.t science based on what fits our
goal. Is that a wrong reading?
As I mentioned I was being clever (or attempting to be humorous):
>From (a) and (b) I derived the other alternative:
d) We should be antagonistic toward science that fits our goal
Combined with (a) I get:
e) We should be antagonistic toward science, period. Even if it fits our
goal.
> Please do not put opinions in my mouth. Some might call that "arrogant."
Not attempting to do that at all. I retract any parts of my text
willingly, and with an apology, that, as explained above, is an
misstatement or misunderstanding of your text.
When we are debating something as long-winded as this, there is, it
seems to me, always a process of understanding/interpretation. In this
case, my statement of your point was not to put words in your mouth, but
to demonstrate the "cleverness" (goofiness) that I was attempting. I
fail to see where there is any "arrogance" in such things. In your
responses to me, there are probably multiple examples where you assume I
am saying something, and respond to that. I do have the opportunity to
clarify your error, in my response, yes?
>
>> 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.
>
I am saying that I have no idea what "scientific ideals" are, for
instance, in comparison to "enlightenment ideals", or "Gandhian ideals",
etc. Whatever they all are, however, I do believe they should all be
subject to criticism. Why not?
> 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.
Sure, I respect many people and hard work, too. What do you see as the
difference between cynicism and skepticism? If by the first is implied
an assumption of the worst, I would say that is an unnecessary
accoutrement. Surely you are not putting words in my mouth with the
reference to cynicism? ;-)
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
