Re: More than Medicine?


"John Wilkins" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dqgjbb$2k2d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>> "John Wilkins" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:dqcrue$1rlg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> JW: Science is the expression in a model with the fewest number of
>>> >> measurable variables of the greatest number of facts within a
>>> domain. Or
>>> >> briefly, science expresses as many facts as possible in the shortest
>>> sentences.
>>
>>> GL:-
>>> 1. Obviously these -- our mutually variant preferred
>>> definitions of science -- approach it from different perspectives (which
>>> is
>>> simply an observation and not necessarily an indication that either is
>>> right
>>> or wrong).
>>>
>>> JW:-
>>> True enough, but I think that my definition captures what is *unique* to
>>> science (as opposed to theology or political "science").
>>
>> Hmmm. I don't see this at all. Both theologians and political
>> scientists seem to me to also value economy of expression in their
>> conceptual schemes and taxonomic structures. I doubt that there
>> is ANY field of human thought where the use of 'long sentences'
>> is applauded, though science and philosophy are perhaps two fields
>> in which the most care is taken to not make the sentences TOO short.
>>
>>
> I studied theology, so I am here to tell you that they express no facts,
> as
> such, but interpretations, and the length of the sentences often covary
> with
> the paucity of facts.
>
> I also studied philosophy. On that, I pass over in silence.
>
> But it is my belief that it is the "fact:length" ratio that identifies
> science. If political scientists have a high ratio of this kind, then they
> are
> scientists. Of course, I might challenge you to offer examples (note:
> theoretical economics doesn't count :-).
>
> Expressing conceptual schemes and taxonomies briefly is a common aspect of
> good human endeavors in general. Expressing many *facts* briefly is
> science.
>
> [For some value of "facts" that ties it into empirical measurement...]
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
> Servum tui ero, ipse vespera

I am very happy to learn that you have studied theology John, and look
forward to being made privy to insights regarding SCIENCE that you have
gained from that. One of my closest friends studied for the RC priesthood
but decided upon a career as a librarian for the U. S. government, working
in several foreign countries. He is very debilitated by osteo-arthritis, so
I visit frequently in his home for long discussions relating to the things
he has seen, first hand, in other countries, and of deep issues that would
be out of place in this particular forum.

But getting on down to science and brevity... Brevity is golden PROVIDED it
is sufficiently comprehensive and exhaustive for any given purpose to which
it is applied. Had Darwin condensed everything he contributed to the
advancement of critical thought on subject of biological evolution -- honing
it down to one or two paragraphs of pure essence -- I doubt you or I ever
would have heard of him.

Often -- and I shall be MORE than glad to provide examples -- brevity is a
result of leaving out things that should not be left out, and leads to a
misleading result. A many a falsehood can have been swept under the carpet
of succinctness, in arriving at what appears to be a solid front of sound
logic.

If I were to be asked if I am an honest man, and would not be allowed to
elaborate, but were required to answer "yes" or "no," I would answer, "Yes,
I am an honest man."

If asked to elaborate, I would begin by saying that in all honesty I do not
believe there is any man capable of being absolutely honest with himself,
much less with anybody else. Psychological studies have proved conclusively
that memories can be created, can be altered over time by subsequent
experiences and by emotional needs. And recent research on "beliefs" which
have utilized iMRI scans have revealed that the more strongly one believes
something, by choice, the more obvious that something becomes to him.

But as to being asked if I am an honest man, and allowed to answer only
"yes" or "no" that would indicate to me that I am being asked, in effect, to
classify myself as to whether I fit into one or the other of two artificial
stereotypes, the one stereotype containing the worst sorts of liars and
scoundrels and the other containing individuals like me, who try rigorously
to be self-honest and try to withhold no REASONABLE truth from another human
being where doing so would tend to bring him/her harm.

Hence, whereas a simple "no" would be misleading beyond the confines of the
question scenario; and a simple "yes" would, also, the MOST truthful answer
within the scenario would be for me to answer "yes."

Scientists are not angels. Scientists are human. And being human they are
not immune to all human defense mechanism which -- Hobbesian style -- are
both essential to good mental health and capable of being used in mentally
unhealthy ways.

Scientists are capable of asking questions which do not encompass all that
needs to be addressed in reference to a research issue. And, because of
this, they can come up with an answer which is not false, but which omits
something essential. The researcher may not even be aware that he has
boiled down his research to the briefest result of the questions he has
asked. The researcher may BELIEVE he has ruled out all the possible issues
which SHOULD have been taken into account, and not intentionally have boiled
down to a succinct statement or formula that missed the boat on something
important. The result can be brief and accurate so far as it goes, but
erroneous because it presumes not to have overlooked anything important.

If you will look at some of the statements I have offered on the thread
titled PRESUMPTIONS IN
SCIENCE, you will see some statements and elaborations concerning them,
which address some of the issues. My including statements considering
"known scientific facts" was, in fact, inspired by your
reliance upon the term "facts" in reference to what you said is your
preferred definition of "science."

Two of the most elusive of all meanings are: "truth" and "fact." It is
surprising to see one who has studied philosophy at length using either of
them casually and without a great deal of due qualifying.

g



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Globaloney elsewhere
    ... any way similar to the present scientific standing for global warming is ... "science" is politically motivated junk science IMO and I refuse to ... Another poor game of the whipped by the facts crowd is to try to play ... we invoke the aid of the scientists and Al Gore instead. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
    ... Then try studying the facts of history. ... You look at others opinions of how science works. ... Working daily with scientists that are doing science was necessary. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... > remarks that some of you make, why don't you ask me honest probing ... > "Intelligent Design is Not Science." ... > trained professionals are buying into this I.D. paradigm. ... Mathematicians are by and large not scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: APES, MEN AND MORONS.
    ... Facts, Faith, and Fairness ... require that creationism should be taught alongside the theory of evolution?" ... Defining Science and Religion ... Scientists who investigate the past must proceed in the same way that detectives ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Question on Falsification of Common Descent
    ... about the justification of a knowledge claim rather than about attaining ... to adopt Popper's view of science or not, ... Do scientists have the right to say that they "know" anything? ... If 'facts' are useless at best, and an obstruction to doing science, ...
    (talk.origins)