On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jason Holt wrote:

> But I can also offer something better than the scientific method for living.  
> The scientific method doesn't work well because we're not smart enough to
> figure out life in one lifetime.  We'd spend our whole lives trying to set up
> unbiased experiments and isolate all the variables, which are constantly
> moving around.
> 
> Instead, we have to do life engineering - find something that works kinda okay
> and then bang on it until it works a little better.  You may never get all the
> variables isolated, never fully nail down exactly who this being is that's
> nudging you from time to time, but you /can/ find ever more powerful methods
> of maximizing the variables important to you: happiness, life, connection with
> others.

I totally agree with your post, Jason, but with one small quibble:
to me, your "life engineering" is _exactly_ what "the scientific method" 
is--find something that works kinda okay and then bang on it until it 
works a little better. We found Newton's laws and they worked kinda okay, 
and we banged on'em until we found something a wee bit better.

Did we spend centuries trying to set up unbiased experiments and isolate
all the variables to get something a wee bit better? No, not really. We 
used what worked, and then when we ran into something where it looked 
funny, we banged on it a bit until we got something better.

Same with life--we can't inequivocably _know_ that the path we're taking 
is the "mathematically best course of action"--but we use scientific 
principles to take the course that seems best, and revising our path as 
new information comes along. It's the only way _to_ live, IM[NS]HO.

> Put another way, I used to look for the Grand Unified Theory of life from
> which I could always mathematically derive the best course of action.  But I'm
> just not smart enough for that.  Instead, I focus on what actually makes life
> worthwhile - my relationships with other people.  And in making that
> transition, I find that there's Somebody who isn't interested in being a
> subject of my laboratory experiments, but who is very interested in having a
> relationship with me.

I've realized, from long years of experience ;-) , that the relationships
we have with other people are the single most important things in our
lives. [Unixy tangent:] If I had come around about five years earlier, I
probably wouldn't have got very interested in computers at all. I was
programming at a wee young age, but my interested started to wane after a
few years. I would have been gone to some other hobby if I hadn't
discovered the world of BBSes, first of all, and then subsequently the
glorious Internet. Why? Because through networks I could talk to _real
people_ and, without that connection, those human relationships, I really
didn't, and don't find computers that attractive at all.

  ~ ross

-- 

This sentence would be seven words long if it were six words shorter.


____________________
BYU Unix Users Group 
http://uug.byu.edu/ 
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list

Reply via email to