Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.bio,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
From: books@michaels.demon.co.uk (Rodney York)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!demon!michaels.demon.co.uk!books
Subject: Re: Why scientists popularize premature speculations?
Distribution: world
References: <3c015j$9n8@pobox.csc.fi> <3c04ga$l5v@prime.mdata.fi> <3c0vjo$ifi@pobox.csc.fi> <D0IG9G.GEz@festival.ed.ac.uk> <3cbf3f$kg9@pobox.csc.fi> <3cf7ek$40m@mtnmath.mtnmath.com>
Organization: The Online Bookshop
Reply-To: books@michaels.demon.co.uk
Lines: 42
X-Posting-Host: michaels.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 12:46:08 +0000
Message-ID: <787236368snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97906 sci.psychology:31512 sci.physics:103252 sci.philosophy.meta:15538 sci.bio:23924 comp.ai.philosophy:23596

In article <3cf7ek$40m@mtnmath.mtnmath.com>
           paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com "Paul Budnik" writes (excerpted):

"  What is unethical is to fail to distinguish between speculations and
"established science.
"  Because QM is so strange some physicists have mistaken the failure
"of their limited imagination to come up with a more complete theory
"...
"has encouraged physicists to publish their own personal speculations
"without adequate disclaimers.

Paud Budnik argues his own viewpoint on quantum mechanics (QM). While I don't
agree with him, I don't think this is a major problem for anybody except
specialists in QM.

Let's take a problem where scientists' opinions make a major impact on
peoples' lives. Lobotomy (leucotomy, pre-frontal lobotomy). In the 1940s
someone came up with this idea. There have been changes in detail, but one
very popular implementation was to drive an ice-pick (not an ice-pick for
ice, a medical equivalent) around someone's eyeball, through the bone, and
into the brain, then wiggle it around a bit; a very fast procedure. This was
done by very reputable mainstream physicians to cure depression, violent
behaviour, etc. And it really worked: have you ever seen a depressed cabbage?

The technique has now been discredited (as far as I know it hasn't been used
since 1980), after ruining thousands of lives (and probably giving a lot of
carers and relatives peace of mind; as I said, it did genuinely change
behaviour).

During its heyday the proponents of this idea would surely have claimed that
this was mainstream, non-speculative, healing; medicine at its best.

Now it's discredited. Surely this is more important to the non-scientist than
whether continents drift on the earth's crust (vehemently denied by the
mainstream a few decades ago, now accepted, because the evidence has all
pointed that way)?

--
Rodney York             UK books for export at a discount!
The Online Bookshop     Orders within UK at list price, delivered free.
===================     Ask for our 9Kbyte Frequently Asked Questions & Answers
books@michaels.demon.co.uk
