Re: "Political Correctness" drives scientific errors
From: tadchem (thomas.davidson_at_dla.mil)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: kenseto: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Previous message: Mark Martin: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- In reply to: OsherD: "Re: "Political Correctness" drives scientific errors"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Mar 2005 06:47:26 -0800
OsherD wrote:
> >From Osher Doctorow
>
> Replicability of results is an excellent method provided for results
> that are "replicable". I wouldn't quite apply it as a standard to
> 9-11, the beginning of the Matter-Dominated Era, evaporation (or not)
> of black holes, the cure of AIDS, and on and on.
The main application of replicability in empirical sciences is in the
testing of the predictions made by physical theories.
I am not aware of any physical theories concerning 9-11 that make amy
predictions that cannot be (or have not already been) empirically
verified. For example, the techniques used to thermally insulate the
central pillars (load-bearing structures) in the WTC Towers have been
tested and shows to be vulnerable to removal by explosions. Gravity
(the reason the buildings fell straight down when structural integrity
was lost) is tested and verified countless times daily.
Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation are
replicable.
Observations of Hawking radiation allegedly emitted by black holes are
replicable.
A cure for AIDS (if found) should certainly be replicable.
> There are definitely
> places where imagination and originality and speculation are needed
in
> science, mathematics, engineering, medicine, etc., and where
> exploratory studies are needed.
All theories (good and bad) are developed by people using imagination
and originality and speculation. It is the repicability of
observations of the predicted consequents of these theories that
decides which theories are good and which are not.
> In fact, biological and behavioral
> and social sciences are full of exploratory studies, which could well
> be studied by physicists not wearing blinkers or should I say
> sunglasses?
If you think there are no 'exploratory studies' in physics, then you
just have NOT been paying attention.
> Exploration does require an axiom or two (or should we say
"convention"
> in order not to frighten the Fairy Tale believers in young physics?)
> such as "tolerating rather than killing off competing theories",
> "thinking about what could be rather than exclusively about is",
> "thinking abstractly as well as or sometimes more than concretely,"
and
> on and on.
These are neither 'axioms' nor 'conventions.' These are mindsets that
encourage speculation - the very beginning of the development of any
theory. Einstein reportedly developed Relativity after 'thinking
abstractly' about how the world might look to someone riding a beam of
light.
They are useful fuel for creativity, but there is far more that must
occur before a new theory becomes acceptable, let alone established.
> I realize that in a generation where marching for the "good
> guys with lots of promises and little to show" in politics is far
more
> the fad than philosophy, it is difficult to "peddle" philosophy and
> modifications of methods.
The scientific method - unique among epistemological methods in that it
relies upon empirical validation as the criterion for the establishment
of the truth of a proposition - is relatively new as an organized
method, and remarkably successful. Its main inadequacy is that it is
incapable of handling events and phenomena that are by their very
nature impossible to define operationally, to observe independently, or
to validate empirically. Modification of the method to include such
events and phenomena would be welcome - perhaps new validation tools
are called for.
> My guess is that philosophy will survive the
> Age of TV/VCR/Dumb-But-Fast-Computers/Conformity, at which point
> Exploration rather than Survival-Of-The-Fittest will probably resume.
Philosophy and empirical science will both survive. Exploration and
survival will both continue. People (both individually and
collectively) will continue to adapt to the discoveries made in their
explorations, or perish due to their inability to adapt.
Change happens, whether we make it or it is thrust upon us. We deal
with it and move on, or not.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
- Next message: kenseto: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Previous message: Mark Martin: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- In reply to: OsherD: "Re: "Political Correctness" drives scientific errors"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
