Conference hydra::dejavu

    Ah, to philosophy: what _is_ Science?
    
    It's a means of gathering data and building models around it.  The
    models are indeed transitory (oxygen, for instance, was in opposition
    to the "phlogiston" theory of the time).
    
    But the point of any scientific model is not to find Truth, but
    to find a _workable_ way of predicting behavior in the real world.
    It it works, use it; otherwise, don't.
    
    But what is "truth"?  The answer to that question has been debated
    without resolution since the beginning of philosophy.
    
    You don't need "truth" to make things work for you.  As I;'ve mentioned
    elsewhere, if you want to navigate at sea using the stars, you can
    do so easily if you consider the Earth to be the center of the universe
    and the stars small pinpoints of light on an overhead dome.  The
    model is in violent contradiction with our perception of reality,
    but for purposes of navigation, it works quite well.
    
    Now if you have a philosophical argument with what you perceive
    to be reality, well and good.  But it's a bit ironic to be sitting
    at a video terminal discussing the utility of science over a worldwide
    computer network as if there were no merit in the using the models
    currently accepted as "scientific fact" on a day-to-day basis.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I think a key question is whether one deifies Science or the scientific
    method, or more generally, Mind or even Consciousness.  I believe
    that such deification is tempting, especially to brilliant people,
    but Reality is more than Science, just as the body is more
    than clothing.
    
    Donald Reinke

    Re .2:
    
    I'm not sure what to make of the question.  For instance, you can't
    actually measure/quantify love, though you can take measurements
    of physiological changes involved in a love situation.  Does this
    mean that either love or life-process monitoring is "wrong"?  Does
    the fact a doctor might take a blood pressure mean he or she is
    missing the real "essence" of the patient?
    
    A problem here seems to be that one must know and respect the limits
    of any specialty.  Which means that if something in the real world
    impinges on that specialty, it's legitimate for them to interact.
    You may believe the Earth is flat, for instance, but if you try
    to react to the real world, you'll do far better assuming it's round.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re .3

>    A problem here seems to be that one must know and respect the limits
>    of any specialty.  

    Analogy time:
    When they built the Veranzano Narrows Brige in New York (not sure 
    about spelling), they built the two suspension towers exactly 
    perpendicular to the ground.  But the tops of the towers were two 
    inches farther apart than the bottom.  What was wrong?  Nothing.  
    They forgot to take into account the curvature of the earth.  The 
    towers were really tall and really far apart.

    Another analogy: Quantum Mechanics works fine on a micro scale but not 
    a macro scale.  Newton's Laws work vice versa.  Right now some 
    physicists are working on a Theory of Everything that will tie 
    everything together.  Until they do we have to use the right theory
    with the right piece of reality.  

    One more: Behavorists say there is no mind and Freudians say that 
    there is a mind and it has multiple parts.  Does either one have "the
    truth" about the mind/body?

    I think reality and truth encompasses both the tangible and the 
    in-tangible; what can be measured and what can't.  I'm not ready to 
    give up science or the spirit in the quest for truth.

    Mike

    re .0

    I heard an Einstein quote that went something like: "It is the theory
    that determines what can be measured."

    Mike

    re: .4
    
    That story seems plausible.  Consider the following picture
    
                                                      			top
                                        base of pillar                  x
    
    Centre of Earth			half way between pillars        up
    									from
    									1/2way
                                                                         
    where x is the point parallel to the half way line.
    
    
    Now		|top - x|                  |base - half way|
    		---------           	=  -----------------
    		|x - base-of-pillar|       |half way - centre of earth|
    
    Or, simplifying
    
    		1"        1/2 distance apart
    	       ---     =  ------------------
                height    radius of the earth           
    
    Lets try a few numbers in here.  Say the pillars are 2 miles apart,
    then they would have to be a mere 400 feet high to get the effect.
                                                                     
    Of course wind and thermal effects would be MUCH larger than the
    couple of inches due to the curvature of the earth, so it probably
    didn't upset the builders too much.
    
    /Bevin

I also highly recommend Kuhn's _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_.

Another train of thought:  for something to be accepted as science, it must be
 constant, or recurring.  The idea is that anybody can do the same experiment
  and get comparable results.

This means that science can only reveal that which is constant or recurring in
 reality, and that it's not sufficient to explore that which isn't constant or
  recurring!
   <_Jym_>

    There is a great deal of truth in Kuhn, but he should be taken with
    a certain grain of salt.  Parapsychologists like to quote Kuhn since
    he implicitly provides a place for parapsychology within science
    even though many scientists are unwilling to admit to such a place.
    This does not, however, make him the source of all truth about science.
    
    Kuhn's theories provide one, grossly incomplete, view of science.
    As an anodyne to the unrealistic absolutism which dominated the
    philosophy of science when he published his theories, his contribution
    was immense.  There is more to science, however, than a completely
    arbitrary set of "culturally" determined standards.  (Kuhn is also
    responsible for the complete destruction and devaluation of the
    word "paradigm" which has come to be simply a buzz word to mean
    almost anything (method, technique, style, methodology) but it sounds
    more impressive).
    
    				Topher