NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/philosop/tech/2882

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-27 | 7.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!crash!snodgras
From: [e-mail] (John Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: propaganda and the new physics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:51:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Lines: 137

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve M. Robbins) writes:

>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.

      That's because we don't understand the individual driver. If we
did, we could control him. Which is not to say we _can_. I don't even
claim we can understand _cars_. A car is a purpose, really, not a thing.
Maybe we can achieve that purpose by magnetic levitation, or by changing
society so everyone uses public transportation. What we are trying to
understand is how to achieve our purpose: transportation in this example.
On a deeper level is it human empowerment and survival. This is what I'm
saying is central to science. Not some purist concept of 'truth'. This
is the biggest lie of all -- always. The real truth is that we have to
grow and survive, and science is our basic means of doing that.

>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.

      I'm not interested in understanding, as I said, except as it leads
to control. I deny there is such a thing, in fact.

>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)

      The heliocentric model made it easier for us to grasp our 3-D
position and motion in larger space, and the relative motions of objects
surrounding our planet. This made it easier to predict the positions
of the planets for various purposes. It also put our place in the universe
in a different perspective, helping to break the hold of the church. This
was _the power of the idea_. So yes, that's what I'm saying -- that to
understand an idea without power is meaningless, and amounts to the same
thing as not understanding it. If you don't understand the power of an
idea, you don't understand it. If there is no power in an idea, then the
idea is _inherently incomprehensible_. How's that?

>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.

      You can only test predictions if you don't have control. This is
a halfway test, in my estimation, and much more open to error. For
example, you wouldn't say you really understood a disease unless you
could cure it, even if you could predict it's course. It is significant
if you can make correct predictions, but control takes prediction a
step further. But even control is not total proof of understanding;
it may only _appear_ you have control. But it is better than prediction.
And far better than idle speculation, which most of New Physics consists
of.

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

>For understanding of physical phenonema, I agree entirely.

      There are no other type of phenomena (that I know of).

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

      If you were, you wouldn't say that. You'd be like certain truly
indoctrinated personality types I've come to know: either full of
vitriol and resentment at being questioned, or sulking in a corner
and refusing to say anything at all.

>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?

      Yes. If scientists are freed from any responsibility to _control_
anything, their actions become essentially risk-free on the scientific
level, and they can devote their attention to politicking in their
departments like busy little beavers. It's called the gravy train. It's
happening now.

>And precisely when did this 'new' physics start?

      Good question. It's a wrong path, that's all. It's roots extend
back into scientific history. I'd say it was overtly adopted and
popularly accepted with Einstein.

>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.

      I agree. But let's look at the human motive too, so often ignored
in these discussions. Scientists are people who want power. They want
the average person to look upon them as specially gifted, as penetrating
the deepest mysteries of life. And that view should be accurate, but
IMO it is not today. It's become a sham, and it's getting worse. Like
a developing priesthood, they're slinking toward the God-thing. They want
it, and they think they can get it. Those of us who are pro-science don't
want to see it become dominated by these types.

>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.

      Well put.

>I believe most scientists accept this implicitly, but rarely express it,

      That's a generous belief. I disagree. I think a few scientists
realize it and express it. Most scientists (like Paul Davies)
think 'physical laws' are something transcendental. IMO the notion of
physical law is an overblown metaphor from the inception of human law
in society, projected onto nature.

>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'.

      I'm speaking specifically of one group: subjectivist cosmologists.
They've gotten far too comfortable, and too self-confident, given the holes
in their arguments. For this I call them fatuous. For thinking they're on
the verge of figuring out 'life, the universe, and everything', I call them
stupid (and ignorant of history and evolution). But that's just my opinion,
obviously.


>Steve Robbins  --  [e-mail]

      SnOdGrAsS
      ---------
      [e-mail]