--------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message includes replies to: Jerry Monaco, boddi satva, martin, Andy F, Joel Schalit, jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messages in this group
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance
=========== Message 5 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste
At around 3/10/06 12:46 am, Andy F wrote:
> On 10/2/06, ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:
>
>> c) How do you define "superior"? Do you really think that astronomy is
>> superior to astrology (for explaining the nature of the universe) in
>> every sense? How do you expect to demonstrate that conclusively?
>
> For the first part, I defer to Dwayne. Regarding its conclusiveness,
> you don't. See the end paragraphs of
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html>.
>
I can live with the provisional definition of "fact" offered above. Note that Stephen Jay Gould took the trouble to go out and make his case to the general public in favour of evolution, and against creationism (in particular against teaching creationism in schools, especially in lieu of evolutionary theory).
>
>> e) What is meant by "validity" (of science)? Valid in what sense? In
>> representing "truth"? In being "superior"? Or just in the mundane
>> sense of being more reliable than a few other systems?
>
> Totally mundane, in a tiresomely persnickity way.
>
;-)
>> f) Can you define "science"?
>
> You already did. Back during the alternative medicine thread, you
> suggested what you described as an alternative to science:
>
> "Here, spelled out, off the top of my head, is one alternative
> non-scientific means of selecting possible treatment: (a) use a
> conception of the world and its components, (b) choose theories (in this
> case treatments) in the order of least inconsistency with this
> conception, (c) use the conception to device tests on the efficiency of
> the theories (treatments), (d) evaluate the test results to ascertain a
> possible best candidate, (e) apply the best candidate to the world and
> (ii) monitor its effectiveness, (f) either as a result of e(ii) or
> because you have the energy or time, evaluate in reverse order other
> theories, (g) use the theories and findings to revise your conception of
> the world, (h) design counter-tests that challenge your conception and
> your theories."
>
> I read this carefully too late to reply at the time, but this is a
> superb (if perhaps idealistic) description of the scientific method --
> you can boil it down quite cleanly to "guess and test". You went on
> to note that you observe your toddler performing the above, but you
> wouldn't call him a scientist. Why not? The authors of _The
> Scientist in the Crib_ made a thesis out of saying just the opposite.
> That you present the above as an alternative to science suggests that
> you're persuing the wrong whale.
>
I have one of two tacks: either abandon the term "science" to those who want to push "Science" over all else, or reclaim "science" as one of the various human activities that we all benefit from. I am attempting to do both: the little guy is a scientist in the best (and inclusive) sense of that term, and he is not one in the sense in which science is defined as
a particular well-differentiated object or system with exclusive claims (to truth, certainty, etc). I constructed my description above exactly to tease you (and those like you: perhaps Jerry and Dwayne ;-)) towards my POV.
>> g) When we abandon one system of explanation for another because the
>> latter is more parsimonious or more elegant (easier to work with,
>> etc), is this because the latter is more "true"? Or is it just a
>> matter of "taste? (a preference for parsimony, elegance, etc).
>
> Replace "true" with "closer to observation" and you have yourself an
> interesting question that I won't address since that doesn't seem to
> be what we're discussing. :-)
>
Yes, in fact I am doing the opposite -- sometimes we replace one system for another though they both are equal in degree of their closeness to observation. Unlike [some] physicists, mathematicians are honest and unabashed in their use of elegance and beauty as criteria -- not to forget, utility.
=========== Message 6 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste
At around 3/10/06 7:14 pm, jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Your analogy fails me. Botany is a sub-field of science. Reading tea
> leaves has nothing to do with it.
>
> Note that I did not offer the contrast between astronomy and
> astrology, and I assume that the original poster meant to contrast
> them (when using the phrase "nature of the universe") in the context
> of where they do intersect.
>
> Astrology attempts to use the position of celestial bodies to
> understand and predict future events. That is what it has to do with
> explaining something.
>
> Now you may believe that it does a poor job of doing that, but I am
> afraid that would be an entirely different point or question.
>
> === John Thornton adds his response below ===
>
> My analogy fails you because you apparently believe astrology
> attempts to explain anything. It does nothing of the kind. It is
> merely an amusement, like reading tea leaves. Using tea leaves to
> foretell the future of a sporting game or to reveal something about
> the nature of botany itself makes no difference. Using astronomy to
> foretell future events or reveal something about the nature of the
> universe also makes no difference. Neither has any explanatory
> ability in any field. They are parlor games, for entertainment
> purposes only. You write "reading tea leaves has nothing to do with
> it" meaning botany, as if reading tea leaves explained something
> else.
>
Well, even if astrology does not attempt to explain anything it is still puzzling to compare astrology <-> universe to tea leaves <-> botany. Botany is a technical term about which you can speak only in the corresponding technical language. That is not true of the universe and any one can make syntactically proper statements about it. Whether these statements are sound or not is a different thing. Now regarding astrology... take Indian astrology for example: this was the field that studied the movement of the planets, provided calendars, and so on. These were not only explanations of some sort, but also useful. But even without such redeeming values, it cannot be said that the intent is amusement not explanation.
=========== Message 7 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolera
At around 3/10/06 8:12 pm, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> As I said in a parallel thread, from what we can gather from
> scientific explanations and theoretical models, the idea that the
> current models of astrology (and there are hundreds) can somehow
> provide us with a psychological-astronomical confluence in such a way
> as to predict or describe individual behavior is highly unlikely. But
> that is about all that I can say. It is a negative statement about
> what is likely and unlikely and about how certain I can be given how
> little we all know, and how much we delude ourselves about what we do
> know.
>
> But who knows. Maybe astrology is getting at a deeper truth that we
> don't yet understand.
>
A generous and well expressed post! A few comments below:
> Up until a few years ago we thought that we knew a good portion of
> what we had to know about matter and energy in order to begin to
> understand most of the universe. Now we know that we don't know
> anything about 95% of the universe -- dark matter and dark energy.
> Most physicists I know of actually find this exciting, even
> invigorating. They are excited by all that they don't know. If only
> most people (including astrologists) would take that attitude.
Here is Paul Feyerabend on astrology, which I think you will find of interest:
"Modern astrology is in many respects similar to early mediaeval astronomy: it inherited interesting and profound ideas, but it distorted them, and replaced them by caricatures more adapted to the limited understanding of its practitioners. The caricatures are not used for research; there is no attempt to proceed into new domains and to enlarge our knowledge of extra-terrestrial influences; they simply serve as a reservoir of naive rules and phrases suited to impress the ignorant. Yet this is not the objection raised by our scientists. They do not criticize the air of stagnation that has been permitted to obscure the basic assumptions of astrology, they criticize these basic assumptions themselves and in the process turn their own subjects into caricatures. It is interesting to see how closely both parties approach in other in ignorance, conceit and the wish for easy power over minds."
> What I am suggesting is that astrology is almost certainly wrong in
> its denotation -- its model of the astronomical-human personality
> confluence -- but it may be correct in some of its connotations -- its
> belief that we are connected to the cosmos in some way and that way
> should be honored.
This is an excellent point which has been offered by some disinterested participants in the debate. You are in fact more generous than I am. I think that even in a holistic context, modern astrology is quite lacking in value. But: (a) that is my position and it does not give me license to ridicule those who may take a different position, and (b) to go back to the main question of this sub-thread: what astrology offers, as you outline above, are indeed explanations. Wrong explanations, perhaps, but explanations nonetheless. In a sense, this treatment of their explanations (as if they are contemptible jokes) is part of the very problem that I am trying to understand/highlight.
=========== Message 8 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste
At around 3/10/06 7:14 pm, jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Your analogy fails me. Botany is a sub-field of science. Reading tea
> leaves has nothing to do with it.
>
> Note that I did not offer the contrast between astronomy and
> astrology, and I assume that the original poster meant to contrast
> them (when using the phrase "nature of the universe") in the context
> of where they do intersect.
>
> Astrology attempts to use the position of celestial bodies to
> understand and predict future events. That is what it has to do with
> explaining something.
>
> Now you may believe that it does a poor job of doing that, but I am
> afraid that would be an entirely different point or question.
>
> === John Thornton adds his response below ===
>
> My analogy fails you because you apparently believe astrology
> attempts to explain anything. It does nothing of the kind. It is
> merely an amusement, like reading tea leaves. Using tea leaves to
> foretell the future of a sporting game or to reveal something about
> the nature of botany itself makes no difference. Using astronomy to
> foretell future events or reveal something about the nature of the
> universe also makes no difference. Neither has any explanatory
> ability in any field. They are parlor games, for entertainment
> purposes only. You write "reading tea leaves has nothing to do with
> it" meaning botany, as if reading tea leaves explained something
> else.
>
Well, even if astrology does not attempt to explain anything it is still puzzling to compare astrology <-> universe to tea leaves <-> botany. Botany is a technical term about which you can speak only in the corresponding technical language. That is not true of the universe and any one can make syntactically proper statements about it. Whether these statements are sound or not is a different thing. Now regarding astrology... take Indian astrology for example: this was the field that studied the movement of the planets, provided calendars, and so on. These were not only explanations of some sort, but also useful. But even without such redeeming values, it cannot be said that the intent is amusement not explanation.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/