|
|
Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Silveroak (ag-oak@amber.nvt.net)
21 Aug 1996 17:38:41 GMT
Paul Gorman (eqivp@westminster.ac.uk) wrote:
: Silveroak (ag-oak@amber.nvt.net) wrote:
:
: : Theirs happens to be centered around the opening of a book that is
: : supposed to contain all answers, your focuses upon a method of observation,
: : modeling, approximation, and elimination, while discaring certain points of
: : view from consideration as untestable (aka: Occam's razor)
:
: One could advance the argument that science is 'better' because it
: presumes less. It does not invoke a metaphysical entity to explain
: percieved reality. It simply *assumes* that the universe that we see
: around us is real. That which is real can be modeled though the models
: are never the equivalent of the reality (no more than maps are the
: territory). To the extent that the models predict the observed
: behaviours (and new observations based (e.g.) on new instruments) they
: are accurate representations. The degree of accuracy varies...
It makes more assumptions than that! It assumes, to begin with, that
none of the phenominon it seeks to explain are influenced by an unobserved
sentient being (non sentient beings, following predictable behavior patterns,
are irrelevent). Thus anything that was influenced by such a being science
would have to find another explination for, ussually involving the suggestion
of fraud. (Gee, if we can achieve the same results by fraud, it must be fraud
every time).
It also assumes consistancy, and assumes that reality is objectively
defined- otherwise repeatability would not be an issue (if you repeat an
expiriment in a subjectively defined universe, you will obtain the same result
since you will *expect* the same result, unless you strongly disbelieve in the
orriginal expiriment...)
Also, by implication, it assumes that it would be to our benefit to
have knowledge of the infinitly minute mechanisms by which the universe
functions- the one assumption which has consistenly borne out.
Also, while I am on the topic, do you not fin it strangely coincidental
that the one time science has come to two contradictory conclusions (quantum
physics, wave & particle, though the two models are mutually exclusive, and
only one will occur at a time...) was when two different scientists were
purusing opposite trains of investigation simultaneously without communication
between them? It would certainly seem to argue for the subjective universe
model.
In fact, so would the general history of technology, from a different
perspective- when people were suspicious of machines, and refered to them as
infernal devices, they were prone to breakdown and inefficient. As people came
to believe in technology, devices became more reliable and less prone to
malfuntion- even the brand spanking new devices! Perhaps as the view of the
masses towards technology changed, it became easier to develop technology...
: : better? Obviously the bibliologists aren't going to accept scientific
: : standards of evidence...
:
: Are the predictions of scientific models more accurate in determining
: the outcome of a series of events? Less accurate? None of the above?
Depends upon the events in question. I have certainly seen a number
of trails of events for which the scientific prediction was wrong. In my case,
several of those events deal with the way that gravity functions...
|