From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:17:32 GMT
erin:
> 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?)
>
Steve:
On 2., I disagree that the astrologer deals in acausality. They think in
terms of cause and effect just like scientists, but the scientist puts his
causal rules to the test of experimentation, the astrologer supports his
causal rules with anecdotal evidence (i.e. coincidences). Which method is
of higher quality?
erin:
> 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?
Let me explain how I understand science and the way of understanding science
that I reject.
One way we refer to science is as a body of knowledge, but at its most basic
level, science is a method of inquiry. Science is a way of learning about
reality. But the Skeptic (I'm still talking about the skeptic society type)
doesnıt just value science as a useful method, he takes it one step further.
The Skeptic believes that science is the only way to learn about reality. It
is the method. There is no rational basis for making this or any other
assumption about reality.
The Skepticıs worldview is known as Scientism. Scientism holds that science
is the only way to know reality. It is a worldview in that the Skeptic
views the world through the lens of science, thus by definition, nothing
that isnıt scientifically measurable exists. The Skeptic still does not see
the problem. To the Skeptic I am just saying, ³only what is real is real.²
The Skeptic asks without really wondering, ³Whatıs wrong with that?²
The Skeptic does not only subscribe to Scientism. He is a Materialist.
Materialism includes the assumption that Scientism is truethat science is
the only way to know reality--but in addition posits that science reveals a
material reality (quantum mechanics sheds doubt on this assumption).
Basically, Materialism holds that only that which has matter and energy is
real.
The greatest scientists have understood what science is and just as
importantly, what science isnıt.
Consider how Einstein describes scientific models of reality:
³Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our
endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to
understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving
hands, even hears the ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he
is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be
responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure
his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will
never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot
even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison.²
What Einstein is saying is that the capital "s" Scientist never assumes that
his explanation is reality. Human words and mental constructs can never
fully represent reality, at best they point to reality. The Bohr model of an
atom (electrons orbiting a nucleus in solar system fashion) is not what an
atom is. It is a tool for imaging the invisible, and it is a useful one, but
ultimately it doesnıt even make sense to talk about what an electron looks
like. The range of wavelengths of visible light is too large relative to
the size of an electron to make the idea of seeing an electron meaningful.
The Bohr model of the atom like any physical theory is a model of realityan
analogy. An analogy draws a comparison to create insight, but by definition
an analogy is never factually true, so it is never meaningful to ask if an
analogy is correct.
For example, try to think of what it would mean to directly compare a mental
construct like ³force equals mass times acceleration² to reality. You
should hear the sound of one hand clapping. The Scientist ³cannot even
understand the meaning of such a comparison,² but the Skeptic thinks he can.
To continue Einsteinıs analogy, force, mass, and acceleration are parts of
our model watch, and the relationship F = ma makes predictions that are
consistent with our experiences of the Universe Watch. While in the watch
analogy we could imagine opening up the Universe Watch to compare its inner
workings to that of our model watch, such a comparison makes no sense at all
when we step back from Einsteinıs analogy and try to imagine comparing a
scientific theory to the actual universe which has no case to be opened or
inner mechanism to peer at.
We are studying a universe of which we are a part, and we only become aware
of it through our senses. The Scientist knows that it is impossible to think
outside of this box, but a Scientist knows that he must recognize that we
are in a box. Consciousness is contained within a universe of perceptions,
and our senses are only tuned to perceive a part of reality. We cannot know
what remains of the universe to be sensed that lies outside the purview of
our seemingly limited number of senses.
Even the senses that we have are limited to part of a spectrum of possible
perception. We see only certain wavelengths of light. We are always wearing
something like rose-colored glasses compared to the part of reality that is
revealed to us through the actuality that our concept of light reflects. The
same idea applies to the rest of our senses.
Still other senses may be possible, but even when we try to imagine ³special
power² sorts of sixth senses, these are exaggerations of or derivations from
our existing senses. It is impossible to imagine anything else, but we
should keep in mind that our different types of sense perceptions are merely
some of the shadows cast by reality and we canıt assume that our everyday
experiences of reality represent the sum total of reality.
The Scientist's theories are neither right nor wrong nor closer nor further
from the truth in any absolute sense. The truth canıt be gotten closer to
through the scientific process because as was explained earlier, it is not
possible to make a direct comparison of reality and a scientific model.
This is not to say that every model is just as good as any other. The
Scientist creates a model for a purpose, and his purpose gives him standards
by which to measure the success of the model. He may not be satisfied with
his model and may develop a new model that makes predictions that are more
consistent with experience. If he is able to create such a model, he will
certainly think that his new model is better than the previous onebetter,
but not truer. His model is a description of reality, not a substitute
reality.
A scientific theory is neither true nor false. We can only talk about how
well the model works and to do so we have to decide on standards for what we
mean by ³works.² Referring to Einsteinıs example, it makes sense to ask,
³Does our model clock predict the same time as the Universe Watch? Is it
predicting all the ticking noises, too? Can we come up with a model that
makes more accurate predictions?² The method of science does not provide us
with these standards. These come from the values that the Scientist brings
to his study.
Niels Bohr agrees with this understanding of science: ³In our description
of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of the phenomenon
but only to track down, so far as it is possible, relations between the
manifold aspects of our experience.² For example, F=ma may be a true
relationship. No other relationship between force, mass, and acceleration
may ever be ³closer to the truth², but remember that force, mass, and
acceleration are human inventions. They donıt ³disclose the real essence²
of reality. Scientists have discovered what may be a true relationship
between concepts that they have invented. These are concepts scientists use
to quantify certain aspects of our experience of the universe, but these
categorizations of experience are, as Einstein said, ³not uniquely
determined² by the universe. Even if we assume that a given model makes
predictions that are exactly the same as the measurements it was created to
predict (which is absurd since it is impossible to make measurements and do
calculations based on measurements to infinite precision), we could not
assume that this model is the only model that could make correct
predictions.
In the modern worldview, science is used as a filter for all of our
perceptions. Science is not merely a tool for learning about reality and
developing the technologies that make us more comfortable, it is the way we
interpret reality. We may be on the boundary of a new worldview that first
and foremost includes the realization that we have a worldview. It is a
culturally conditioned construct that is relative rather than absolute.
History requires us to conclude that the modern worldview is almost
certainly not the final word on reality any more than previous worldviews
have been. If we recognize that our worldview is a cultural construct, then
we give birth to a new worldview that at least includes this idea.
In short, I think in terms of cause and effect like everyone else, but I
recognize that trying to impose any such structure on the universe fails on
some level.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:06:59 GMT