Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Silveroak (
6 Sep 1996 21:50:29 GMT

Paul Gorman ( wrote:
: You seem to have missed the point entirely. I'll restate it then: science
: proceeds from the sole assumption that what we observe is real. You have
: stated that your mental state influences the rate of acceleration due to
: gravity. You have observed and you have produced an empirically testable
: hypothesis. To that extent you are doing science. All that you now
: need to test whether acceleration due to gravity does change around you
: (i.e. prove that your model is valid).
Ah, but how then o we gather prof on my mental state? Also, all my
observations which were dramatic (as compared to possible extreem coincidence
in my lab studies) were effects on me personally- which actually leaves two
modeles with one heavilly prefered by secondary inconclusive evidence.
Now, assume that we hook up a lie detector to me, and then measured
acceleration due to gravity of nearby objects, and myself. We might get a
positive correlation, but the ability to induce repeatability to an extreem
mental state (and an unussual one at that- it wasn't fear so much as focused
apprehension) would undermine both the efficiency of the expiriment, and make
it essentially unreapeatable, since it is reflective of an indiviual rather
than a general principle.

: You are correct in saying that these facts don't show up in my model of
: gravity. But I have never observed gravity changing significantly from
: it's average value (I *do* wonder how you measured your acceleration
: during a fall from a bike however). So I'm inclined to reject your
: hypothesis as being the result of an insufficiently rigourous analysis.
As to my acceleration on the fall from a bike, I measured it due
to the fact that I *didn't* fall, but rather moved in the *opposite* direction.
I would say that that is a rather radical alteration in the effects of
: Feel free to prove me wrong though.
What proof would you find acceptable? Remember, this is not something
I have claimed concious control of, it is an unussual phenominon. As such, it
may not fit within your model of repeatability- your model assumes that
everything is the result of a set of constant laws, and anything which falls
outside those "laws" in the real sense- i.e. an event occurs which simply does
not conform to an "objective" nature's rules of physics vs. not being within
your understood measurements of those laws, all you can do is claim that the
event did not occur, while it is perfectly obvious to those who witnessed the
event that it did!
Which is pretty much what you did in the above, isn't it?

: If an entity is unobservable in principle then its existence cannot be
: proven or disproven. Another fact you seem to have trouble grasping.
: It is a metaphysical hypothesis and as such yields no questions which
: would allow us to determine whether it is true or false. To that extent
: it is meaningless.
Meaningless to a point. However, it is also one of the assumptions
in any test performed that said entities do not exist- because, as you have
said, an assumption to the contrary would be "meaningless"
But in fact it is not meaningless, and metaphysical hypothesis are
just as important as the physical ones. It might be nice to think that any
entity that you can define out of existance is not one to be troubled by,
but this is as dangerous as ignoring oncoming traffic to determine where
the road is laid- or perhaps ignoring the construction workers building
the road- it is easier, since the road does not move, and it's presence
is continual. One doesn't think they saw a road and then look up and it
is gone, as one might with a moving car or person, but the cars and people
are just as important as the road.
In this case, the road are these laws of nature that your precious
science obsesses in, while the traffic and workers are all the other
sentient entities you so casually dismiss as meaningless.

: : That's a question of motivation- if you do not feel that the quest
: : is beneficial, then why engage upon it?
: Irrelevant and fails to address the point. But if you want an answer
: then ask a mountaineer.
And if they are honest, they will describe in poetic words the beauty
of the vision from the mountaintop, or the sense of accomplishment when
they have succeeded against the task they set before themselves.
Or if they are too worried that a scientific type might question these
values, then they will answer "because it is there" which is an answer
which cannot be ebated in terms of value because it is intended entirely as
a way to not answer the question.

: : In fact, at a later time this was shown to be true, since if one of the
: : two slits used to demonstrate the wave properties is equiped with a particle
: : detector which is active then the expiriment will demonstrate that there is
: : *not* a wave, and the behavior will be that of particles moving through two
: : slits. The exception to this is that if a computer records the data of incoming
: : particles, then erases that information at a later time with nobody having
: : observed the data, then the etected particles will behave as if they had not
: : been detected, and will behave like a wave instead of a particle.
: I'm familiar with the two slit experiment and it's implications. I'm not
: so sure about your description of it however. If the computer records the
: data and then erases it before it is observed the how do you know it was
: recorded? I'm also curious as to the thought process which regards a
: verification of one of the cornerstones of modern science as a vindication
: of their thesis (which seems to be: Science doesn't work).

Because my "thesis" is that science *appears* to work because it
is believed in- that human observation can make the determination between
how reallity will shape itself in regards to an event demonstrates that
expectation plays a role in that development, regardless of the presumed
"objectivity" of the observers, and that additionally there *is* a need
to consider the events of sentient beings upon an expiriment.

: : Subject deleted, but the explination: for one moment assume a
: : *subjective* reality- things only work if people expect them to. Now, put
: : yourself in the position of both a scientist an the peasants about 150-200
: : years ago. The scientist understands the machine, and expects it to work. The
: : peasants are confused by this "infernal contraption" and expect it to blow
: : apart as an abomination to nature and God.
: : So reality flips a coin, and some of the time it works, some of the
: : time it fails catastrophically. After a few more models (which the peasants
: : have observed working better over time, thus reducing the chance of failure
: : as they come to expect it to work most of the time) the evice can now be
: : operated without the scientist present. After a lot more time, as people
: : come to expect technological devices to work, they do, and the long drawn
: : out process of several models from a century ago no longer applies.
: I can account for all these observations with a different theory
: But I won't. All I will note is that you have shown no neccessary
: connection between expectation and result. It's not that you aren't doing
: science old bean, just that the science you're doing is appalingly bad.
: You are aware that quantum effects are only observable on the quantum
: scale?

Perhaps it is a difference in how we observe?
In theory, on a macro scale coul not a principle remarkably similar
to the quantum effect occur, but since each event is observed by a multitude
of people, it would then be the prevailing belief which would prevail?
After all, do not most people believe in gravity?
Now the scientist, sitting alone in their labratory, makes supposedly
"objective" observations. Perhaps there is a small team- the point is
irrelevant. They observe, while in a different state of mind from the general
populace, events which cause them to model a new variation upon the old ways
of assuming that reality worked. As their views become accepted, more people
begin assume the new model works, and reality starts to behave in this fashion.
Practically, this model offers very little benefit to science, since
it kicks away the primary support of science: the objectivity of both science
and nature.
Or as one person put it "if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody
observes it, is there really a forest?"

: : : a series of events more accurately than the current scientific model
: : : then pretty soon it (or a hacked variant) will *be* the scientific model.
: : No, because it is, as you have said earlier, not science.
: Actually I'd say its more likely to be because your models don't in fact
: predict the outcomes of any given series of events better than the
: current model.