Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!news!cln.etc.bc.ca!achapman
From: achapman@cln.etc.bc.ca (ANITA CHAPMAN)
Subject: Re: New Physics Curriculum
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: sparky.etc.bc.ca
Message-ID: <1995Mar29.170101.7572@news.etc.bc.ca>
Originator: achapman@sparky
Sender: news@news.etc.bc.ca (System Administration)
Reply-To: achapman@cln.etc.bc.ca (ANITA CHAPMAN)
Organization: Education Technology Centre of B.C.
References: <3kndoj$6gm@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <3j3ck3$27r@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3k5ono$d2a@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <3k6449$1rh@vent.pipex.net> <3k7vct$uuu@nntp.stanford.edu> <11728@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 17:01:01 GMT
Lines: 169


In a previous article, rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark) says:

>dmp1 (D.M.Procida@ukc.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article <3k7vct$uuu@nntp.stanford.edu>,
>: Adam Heath Clark <rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>: >               My  only point was incredulity that a prize given for
>: >reconciling physics and theology would be taken seriously by any
>: >respectable scientists.  Science is based on empirical evidence, with
>: >repeatability, good methodology, and lots of scepticism as cornerstones,
>: >and inherent in it is the recognition that what 'sounds' right or 
>: >'feels' right or what we want to be right has *nothing* (zip, zilch, zero)
>: >to do with what is actually right.  
>
>: With respect, I believe that you are misrepresenting the nature of both
>: science and theology. Science is not 'based upon' empirical evidence,
>: science *requires* empirical evidence. I'm not splitting hairs here, or at
>: least, I don't think I am. Science, I would argue, is *based upon* a certain
>: conception of material nature, and a certain conception of humanity and
>: rationality (more of which below). More important to science than empirical
>: evidence are firstly, its mathematical foundations, and secondly, its
>: attempts at theorizing nature according to mathematical principles (of
>: course, biologists may not be too pleased with this account, which seems to
>: refer more to physisists and chemists than anyone else - but I think it is
>: appropriate in the context of this discussion). Methodology is important too
>: - essential - but I think 'scientific methodology' is necessary but not
>: sufficient to characterize science.

>I disagree.  Science has no hard-set principles, and does not (as some 
>claim) require 'faith' in a certain world-view.  Science is the study of
>the empirical universe, and nothing more.  The techniques and ideas used
>by science are used for the sole reason that they work.  If the universe
>turned non-rational, or non-local, or in any way violated the 'tenets'
>of science, science (although not necessarily all scientists) would say
>"Hey, some of our theories don't match empirical observation.  Let's
>change them."  It should also be made clear that science doesn't claim
>to be *truth*.  It is a set of rules which describe, to some level of
>accuracy, the behavior of the empirical world.  Whether the empirical
>world is inherently rule-based, or whether the empirical world is 
>'reality', and *entirely* beyond the scope of science.

  I don't think that science ALWAYS requires empirical evidence, and a
certain amount of faith IS involved (IMHO). I agree with you statement on
the basis of science.  Most theories could be interpreted as wrong if
viewed from a different perspective. 

  The rules you speak of, which describe most of the empirical world, 
don't usually do that.  They can only describe non-dynamic systems, such 
as... well I can't even think of an example.  I would suggest reading 
James Gleick's book _Chaos_.  

>: I would also like to question your remarks about what 'feels' or 'looks'
>: right; insofar as scientists are human beings, they are equipped with
>: intuitions. One of the important things about being able to understand
>: theories, to understand empirical tests of them, to formulate theories, to
>: propose tests, and so on, is an intuitive grasp of these things. Just as an
>: example, a theory or idea can 'feel' wrong - which might well be because it
>: is self-inconsistent, or inconsistent with some other part of our
>: understanding of the world that we are reluctant to abandon. To a great
>: extent, these feelings are what guides the creative part of scientific
>: thinking. The question *what to do next* in science is not one that can be
>: answered with reference to rules, precisely because it is at this point
>: breaking new ground, for which there are no rules.
>
>Yes, an idea can 'feel' wrong and be wrong.  But quantum uncertainty
>'felt' very wrong to Einstein, yet it seems to be correct.  And vitalogy
>'felt' right to a lot of people, yet turned out to be wrong.  The great
>thing about science is that there are ways to objectively determine
>which ideas are wrong, and that, in the long run at least, it is the
>empirical merit of ideas that determines their success.
>
>And yes, scientists are human, and science is a human enterprise.  The
>direction that science 'looks' is determined by human wants and needs,
>and to some extent human emotions can interfere with science by 
>suppressing investigation, or pushing an inferior theory.  But these 
>are not part of, and in fact detract from, science itself.

<Bzzzt!> Human emotions can play a very important role in science.  For 
instance, the theory thatn the earth is round was once conidered foolish
and inferior.  If it had not been for the EMOTIONS (we know it's right)
of it's supporters, it may have ended right there.  And emotions do 
certainly NOT detract whatsoever from science.  As you say, we ARE human.

 >: You continue:
>
>: >                                   Theology is basically a bunch of
>: >stories passed down from our ancestors, who very clearly had much less
>: >knowledge of what was going on around them (and inside them) than we
>: >do, which claims to be *TRUTH*, is filled with things that people want
>: >to believe but for which there is no evidence, and which has been in
>: >almost constant battle with scientific thought for millenia.  Now, does
>: >this sound like prize that someone dedicated to scientific thought
>: >would covet?  It sounds more like a prize designed to make religion
>: >look respectable.
>
>: Again, with respect, this is mistaken. Theology is not 'a bunch of stories
>: passed down', and anyone who claims that clearly misunderstands its nature
>: and its purpose. Theology is an attempt to understand the world, in terms of
>: humanity's relation to (*not*: with) its creator. As such it is of course an
>: attempt to articulate certain features of the human condition. There is no
>: 'evidence' for theology, but then there is no 'evidence' for - say - Italo
>: Calvino's novels. One neither demands nor requires evidence for them, they
>: are not in the business of saying the kind of thing about the world which
>: requires evidence. Calvino's novels attempt to elucidate some feature of the
>: human condition, to say something about what it is or might be to be human,
>: to help understand the human predicament, to tackle some problem of human
>: existence. Theology does much the same; of course it doesn't do it on a
>: secular level, but that is *one* of the differences between theology and
>: literature.
>
>You assume a creator.  To those of us without one, theology *is* just a
>bunch of stories.  I agree that those stories can tell us a lot about
>ourselves, but I say this in a Joseph-Campbell/religion-is-metaphor type
>way, and consider god-is-out-there-let's-try-to-appease-him approaches
>at the very least unscientific.

I agree totally.  IMHO, God (whomever he is to you) has not much to do 
with science.  In past times, theology was one of the larger stumbling 
blocks for the advancement of science.

>: I fail to see why there should *necessarily* be any 'battle' between
>: theology and science. In fact, the reason that science arose in Europe was
>: at least *in part* due to Judeao-Christian theology. If you compare this
>: with the Hellenic cosmology, you will see that the former offers an account
>: of the material world and humanity which is compatible with science, and
>: provides the soil from which scientific thought might grow. For example: the
>: Christian deity is fairly much a _Deus absconditus_, (a hidden God), who
>: does not constantly interfere with the world, but more or less lets it
>: continue according to its laws. The Greek conception of the world involved
>: Fate, a whimsical fiddling in affairs by the numerous supernatural powers,
>: and so on. This is just one example.
>
>I think you'd have a hard time getting too many people to agree with the
>hidden-God idea.  AFAIK, most people believe in angels, miracles, personal
>communication, and other instances of God taking a hand in the world.  As
>for compatibility with science, check out talk.origins sometime.  Admittedly
>Creationism is a particularly virulent strain of anti-science theology,
>but I think it makes an important point.  Nobody would argue that Biblical
>inerrancy is compatible with science.  So the question is, how much of
>the Bible is literally true?  (Sorry for using Christianity exclusively,
>where I live it's the most prevalent and most outspoken.)  From what I
>can tell, most people don't take literally the parts that science has
>disproven (the flood, genesis) but take literally the parts that 
>science can't address.  This has alternatively been called 'hiding God
>in the cracks of ignorance' and I regard it more as 'theology with
>disprovable gods' than 'theology compatible with science'.
>
>Basically, religion operates off the authority of texts and personal
>experiences of believers.  Science considers both those to be
>thoroughly inadequate as sources of evidence.  Thus I don't see how
>science and religion can even coexist peacefully, much less be integrated.

In my opinion, religon mostly operates on taking someone's word for it.  
Probably the majority of god-fearing catholics (or whatever else) have 
NEVER had any experience to support their belief. 

>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Adam Clark                           One of these days, I'm going
>rubble@leland.stanford.edu           to cut you into little pieces...
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
>

My $.02

Jason

