NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/philosop/tech/2862

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-21 | 6.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!altitude!Nyongwa.CAM.ORG!steve
From: [e-mail] (Steve M. Robbins)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: propaganda and the new physics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jul 92 02:24:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Chiral Symmetry Breakers of Montreal
Lines: 111

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Snodgrass) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve M. Robbins) writes:
>
>>>      In fact, nothing of the sort is involved. This is the way subjectivist
>>>science operates: it makes grandiose claims which are never realized in
>>>practical application (unless they can manage to horn in on something
>>>adventitiously). So far has this process gone, that subjectivist science can
>>>make claims of supreme understanding while producing absolutely nothing but
>>>verbiage -- as though understanding doesn't bring with it control, yet can
>>>still be called understanding.
>
>>This is a rather bizarre redefinition of the word 'understand'.  Why should
>>understanding bring control?  I understand (at some level) how a car works,
>>yet I certainly cannot control cars driven by someone else.  Am I misusing the
>>word 'understand' or 'control'?
>
>>I don't think so; so why should my understanding of the universe be any
>>different?
>
>      We are not talking about what a single individual can do at a single
>time and place.
[..?..]
>      I suppose there is a further objection to the linkage of understanding
>and control with regards to phenomena out of our range to control, such as
>the solar system.

Yes, this is the objection I was raising.  And to go back to my car example
one last time: even if we understand everything there is to know about cars
and the 'social processes of manufacturing', I claim the ability to control an
individual driver will still be outside our range of control.

Your original post seemed to me to imply that to claim understanding of the
basic interactions of nature, we would need to be able to control them in
arbitrary ways.  (you mentioned time travel, je crois)  This would deny
science a lot of understanding, which seems to be your goal for some reason.

>You might say that our recognition of the heliocentric
>nature of the solar system didn't allow us any greater ability to control the
>motion of the planets than we had with the geocentric model. This is true,
>But the what was the point in understanding the solar system and the motion
>of the planets? Wasn't it to predict these motions for various Earthly purposes?
>Or even to break the power of the Church? These are both purposes to which
>this knowledge can be put; i.e. prediction of one process so as to better
>control another process. But there are limits to the level of indirection
>we want to pursue, and it seems important to me that we recognize that
>proof of understanding lies first in control, and secondarily in prediction.

Are you suggesting that nobody could claim to 'understand' the heliocentric
model until they demonstrated control by breaking the power of the Church?
(or some equivalent act)

If you had written "...we recognize that proof of understanding lies in
empirical testing", I would entirely agree.  I can empirically test a solar
model in many ways without having control over it.  This corresponds fairly
closely to your usage of 'prediction', I think.

>No understanding can be demonstrated by pure academic debate, by logic,
>or by mathematics alone.

For understanding of physical phenonema, I agree entirely.

>      The cornerstone of the new physics is subjectivity in exactly this
>respect. They wish it to be accepted that truth -- though only as _they_
>define it -- is somehow an object of scientific discovery and understanding,
>independent of the notion of control. The reason is very simple. Having
>cut the link between control and understanding, they have removed ALL SOCIAL
>CONTROL OVER _THEIR_ ACTIVITIES. This is what they want: even they live
>only for control. That's why the new physics is decadent and corrupt: it
>is a science which takes academic and bureaucratic control to itself, but
>gives society nothing in return. All in the name of 'absolute truth'. In
>other words, it has become, or is in the process of becoming, a religious
>belief system.

I think you're reading a tad too much intent into the actions of "_they_".
But then I've been indoctrinated by "_them_" already :-)

Now I'm really confused.  You are saying that if we accept science using the
term 'understand' in the everyday sense, (which does not imply control of the
object understood) suddenly all social control of science is lost?

And precisely when did this 'new' physics start?

>      So confident are they that they have it all sewn up, that they are
>willing to say such nonsense as I quoted earlier from Paul Davies, i.e.
>that they now have a theory of all existence. This shows such a abysmal
>level of awareness, such complacent, fatuous stupidity regarding the
>lessons of evolution and history, one is left stunned by the fact that
>these fools are running the fundamental research at our universities and
>writing the textbooks our kids read.

I think someone is reading far too much into the notion of 'theory'.  Maybe
it's Paul Davies, but most often it's an error in 'translation' from jargon
to plain language.  A theory is not a claim of absolute truth.  It is nothing
more than a compact way of summarising a set of experiments.  The more compact
the better.  The larger the set of experiments, the better.  If it has
predictive power over as-yet unperformed experiments, better still.

All the physical "laws" are nothing more than a set of rules that haven't yet
been contradicted.  I'm not sure non-scientists are entirely aware of this fact.

I believe most scientists accept this implicitly, but rarely express it, and
use language that sounds like a theory is "truth".  One could fault
scientists for not making this point forcefully and misleading a lot of
people.  But I think it's wide of the mark to condemn them all for 'fatuous
stupidity'.

>      SnOdGrAsS

--
Steve Robbins  --  [e-mail]
God's last name is damn.