From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 19:56:14 GMT
This reminds me of Scott saying there would be
four Buddhist monks channg a light bulb.
Okay say
1. all causal relationships (Glenn?)
2. all acausal relationships (astrologer)
3. both causal and acausal (Jung)(you?)
4. neither (you?)
Rejecting science in a way and also rejecting the rejection is #4.
Then the whole heart and a brain argument is #3.
Do you think you fall firmly into one or hop
around?
erin
>
>I think that the pull of psuedo-science like astrology is a rejection of the
>"reduction to oblivion" that science tries to pass off as "explanation." I
>reject science in a way and then also reject the rejection.
>
>E.g.
>
>Seeker: What is substance?
>
>Scientist: Substances are made of molecules
>
>Seeker: What is a molecule?
>
>Scientist: Molecules are comprised of atoms.
>
>Seeker: What is an atom?
>
>Scientist: Atoms have protons, neutrons, and electrons.
>
>Do we know what substance is yet? Can we ever know by reducing in this way?
>We can only understand these things in relation to other things, or better,
>we only even understand these mental constructs in relation to other mental
>constructs as all these "things" exist on the intellectual level.
>
>Here comes a curve ball.
>
>Seeker: What is an electron?
>
>Scientist: We describe electrons as probability waves, probabilities of
>existence.
>
>Seeker: Probabilities of existence of what?
>
>Scientist: We are not sure that it is appropriate even to ask.
>
>
>To the skeptics society type who I'll refer to as the Skeptic, scientific
>understanding means breaking the phenomenon down into smaller and smaller
>parts until the person to whom the phenomenon is ³explained² is finally
>convinced that he wasnıt really that curious to begin with or until the
>listener is fooled into thinking that he understands when there is always
>more reducing to be done.
>
>The consequence of the Skepticıs reductionist understanding of science is
>that it destroys the wonder that attracted the Skeptic to science to begin
>with. This is because to the Skeptic science ³explains² reality in a way
>the Scientist (like Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg) knows that it doesnıt.
>
>Worse, the Skeptic doesnıt merely use science to explain but to ³explain
>away.² For example, I was baking bread when a science teacher friend of
>mine was visiting. I commented on how cool yeast is. ³Wow! Yeast is neat!²
>I was in awe of my rising bread. Her first impulse was to agree and share
>my wonder, but then her skeptical conditioning kicked in and she said,
>³Yeah, well I guess thatıs just cuz(mumbo jumbo that prefaced differently
>could have been interesting),² This friend usually does not take this
>perspective, but the Skeptic definitely shares this ³thatıs just cuz² idea
>of science.
>
>The ³thatıs just cuz² way of thinking about science appears to have a
>strange consequence: once science ³explains² something (i.e. breaks it into
>bits) it no longer exists. I heard a news report that scientists located
>the part of the brain that is responsible for feelings of empathy. The
>Skeptic can now tell you that empathy is just a chemical response. Empathy
>no longer exists. If you are near a Skeptic when you bring up altruistic
>behavior among certain species of animals, the Skeptic will use an
>evolutionary argument and will ³thatıs just cuz² altruism into oblivion.
>Watch out! Physicists promise that a ³Theory of Everything² may be just
>around the corner.
>
>What the Skeptic doesnıt realize is that what has been destroyed by
>understanding science as reduction is not altruism or empathy but the
>Skepticıs own wonder. You can hear his wonder dying when he throws in the
>word ³just² as in ³thatıs just because like a billion years ago(something
>silly and dull-sounding but an explanation of something that is actually
>neat)², he really means ³no wonder.² Not ³no wonder² as in ³no wonder the
>Skeptic is so miserable!² but ³no wonder² as in no amazement, no awe, no big
>deal. Wonder is not simply curiosity. It is an attitude toward the world.
>
>I'll call the type who is attracted to psuedo-science the Romantic. The
>Romantic recognizes the problem with the Skeptic's attitude toward the world
>and rejects science to some extent. The Romantic recognizes that science
>doesn't really explain anything.
>
>E.g.
>
>Seeker: Why is it that if I want to accelerate a 2kg mass by 3 m/sec per sec
>it requires a force of 6 N?
>
>Skeptic: Thatıs easy, because force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma.
>
>Seeker: Thatıs not an answer. Youıve just generalized my question. Why
>does F=ma?
>
>
>But while the Romantic rejects science, he still tries to explain the world
>with causes. (I don't see synchonicity as "acausal," just mysteriously
>caused.)
>
>The Romantic sees causes everywhere. We hear him say things like, ³Iım not
>surprised you donıt believe in astrology cuz Capricornıs never do!² But,
>unlike the Skepticıs Materialism, the Romanticıs pseudoscience increases
>rather than destroys wonder. The Romanticıs ³thatıs cuz!² does not
>contain a ³just² and is said in excitement and in awe of nature.
>Pseudoscience, despite its irrationality, has the redeeming quality that it
>preserves the wonder necessary to fully appreciate life.
>
>One of Winston Churchillıs famous quotes applies: ³Any man who is not a
>liberal before the age of 30 has no heart. Any man who is not a
>conservative who is over 30 has no brain.² Churchill seems to assume that
>the choice to live without a heart or a brain is an ³either/or² and that a
>person should prefer being heartless over being brainless. From the
>Romanticıs point of view, the Skeptic is choosing to be heartless. To the
>Skeptic the Romantic is choosing to be brainless. Is this really an
>irrational choice for the Romantic? The way that the Romantic thinks about
>the world may be irrational, but the choice to view the world romantically
>rather than the way the Skeptic sees it may be a completely rational one
>considering the alternative of the Skepticıs reduction to oblivion.
>
>But we also know that the Romantic solution has an important casualty, the
>Romanticıs brain. Is there another way? The Scientist for one has been
>able to keep his brain and hasnıt lost his sense of wonder. Albert Einstein
>describes the Scientistıs sense of wonder:
>
>³A scientists religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at
>the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
>superiority that, in comparison with it, all the systematic thinking of
>human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the
>guiding principle of his lifeıs work.²
>
>Niels Bohr echoes this sentiment:
>
>"Whoever talks about Planck's constant and does not feel at least a little
>giddy obviously doesn't appreciate what he is talking about"
>
>While maintaining a respect for what the tool of science still has to offer,
>our worldview should differ from the Skepticıs view of the world, which is
>filtered through the lens of science. (Science models reality but its
>models should not be mistaken for reality.) Thus, if we think like the
>(capital "s") Scientist rather than the Skeptic we can avoid the
>irrationality of the Romantic and the Fundamentalist Believer while
>preserving an attitude of wonder toward the world. This is just to say that
>I think it is possible to have a heart and a brain.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 19:49:53 GMT