NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/environm/14296

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 4.6 KB | 100 lines

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!daffy!skool.ssec.wisc.edu!tobis
From: [e-mail] (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: objective environment?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Keywords: Physics is almost as precise as anthropology.
Sender: [e-mail] (The News)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:07:55 GMT
Lines: 86

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick) writes:
|>
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|>
|>  > Well, in physical science, when we make a mistake we are generally rewarded
|>  > in short order with a conclusion that makes no sense. "That violates
|>  > angular momentum conservation." or "That violates the second law." or some
|>  > such.
|>
|> As is the case in the social sciences. What, do you think we just make
|> things up as we go along, or what? Actually, of all branches physics
|> and anthropology are probably most closely methodological related as
|> we face a similar level of uncertainty in making observations,

Amazing! Which anthropological constants are accurate to a part in
100,000,000?

|> unlike
|> zoology for example where they appear quite free to simply call a pig
|> They only really run into strife when they discover such creatures as
|> a porcine specimen and throw it in a box with other porcine species.
|> the platypus and the echinda, but all they did there was to throw them
|> both in the same box together as *monotremes*, despite the fact that
|> one is a aquatic browser with a duck-like bill while the other is a
|> terrestrial ant eater with a snout and long tongue.

Awful! How dare they?

|> Sure, and when you apply a 19 mm spanner to a 12 mm hexagonal nut the
|> outcome does not make much sense either. Even with an adjustable spanner
|> to fit all size nuts, however, the spanner itself only makes any sense
|> at all against the invention of nuts and bolts, and indeed against the
|> machinery within which context nuts and bolts themselves make sense.
|> Else they are all just various lumps of steel, or even probably just
|> ore still in the ground.

Precisely on point! I am awestruck by the elegance and precision of the
argument. I am at a loss how I can defend the existence of objective
truth before such elegant and original reasoning.

|>  > Your claim that the idea of an objective reality is untenable is completely
|>  > inconsistent with the success and power of physical science.

|> Hang on, please make some effort to trace the path by which resources
|> are fed into the "objective reality" of your successful and powerful
|> physical science, the historical context in which it arose, and the
|> cultural and political context by which it is maintained.

|> Further, BTW, I would put to you that your view of "objective reality"
|> is very much subjective. Indeed, how do you make living that you are
|> able to pursue it? Who do you go to see for funding, or when an issue
|> arises concerning your salary? To what extent is the receipt of funds
|> or salary contingent upon your continued adherence to one particular
|> view of the world not by any stretch of the imagination shared by most
|> other people on earth?

I presume that the athlete who wins, say, at Wimbledon is only under
the delusion that he is a good tennis player, having failed to consider
the social ramifications of the motivational aspects of the political
structures of tennis, as well. Am I getting it yet?

|> etc. etc. ...

|> If someone else is mistaken it does not make their particular view more
|> subjective than that of the scientist; of all people scientists pursue
|> a discipline which very much admits of error at its foundation. It is
|> the probability one can be certain that one is *not* in error which
|> underwrites the pursuit of science, yes?

Sorry, this one is too deep for me. I cannot make heads or tails of it.

|>...

|> Perhaps the same patient and thoughtful demonstration for which you
|> plea might well reveal instead its useful and positive contribution to
|> the program of science by shedding light on its origins, history and
|> progress to date. But that progress is marred in the extreme by the
|> constant sniping of so-called scientists against other people.

|> Why don't you want to work together with them instead? That is the
|> question I find most intriguing...

I really can't imagine. What a tragic loss indeed for so-called science!

mt