Posted by Amanda on January 04, 1997 at 13:13:15:
In Reply to: Re: ..... continuation of re: Unlikely Existence of God (Readability improved.. having browser trouble!) posted by Stephen Charchuk on January 04, 1997 at 11:27:37:
: : Also, you or anyone interested in science ought to be reading the book that I am. It is entitled, _The End of Science; Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age_. A very compelling read so far, and you can see a synopsis of it at the Amazon Books link below.
: I've heard of this book and it is very short sight. They had once thought that the library at ancient Alexandria contained all the knowledge that could ever be know. Now we produce the equivilent of this library every day. The book doesn't take into account different methods of coming up with new ideas.
I read the excerpts from the book in the last "Skeptic" magazine - here's what I highlighted and why...let me know what you think.
"...But according to Darwinian theory, science stems not from our desire for truth per se but from our compulsion to control our environment in order to increas the likelihood that our genes will propogate." Yet another misinterpretation of Darwin - the list is long on all the misunderstandings and abuse of Darwins findings - much longer than the proper interpretation. Our desire for truth can in part be for the purpose of being better adapted to our environment - the more we know about the Cosmos - the more we know where we fit in and how we can make it all work to our advantage - the more we know about ourselves and our actions - the more better we can serve the purpose of our survival, so our desire for truth is advantageous to our species and this is a part of Darwinism. By evolving it may not be in our best interest to reproduce exponentially (most of us see clearly that it isn't) and so Mr. Horgan has misunderstood the theory of evolution here. We are not trying to control our environment and propogate genes solely - there is much more to it than that - our main goal is to survive and we have yet to discover what is in our best interest to attain that goal - when we do, it will more than likely fit into the theory of evolution.
I do agree with how he explains soceity's support of science by quoting Stent - unfortunately he's right in this area and society's lack of support will end up to our disadvantage in the short and long term.
The idea that science will end is an example of a bad joke to me - and I am not at all in agreement of it. I see it diminishing in importance due to soceity's lack of support but no doubt - actually, that's happening right now - but we'll see that it leads to further problems and support will again rise - science will never stop.
Here's another part I highlighted that fits into my work -
"Although it cannot compete with science's far more compelling stories about the physical realm, religion still retains some value in offering moral guidance." I, you may have guessed, disagree with this very very much. The myth that religion is responisble for morality is one area that all sorts of people, from every walk of life, are still terribly misinformed about - and there is evidence of course to back my claim up. Morality is inherrent in our nature and can be seen in other social species from all categories. The earliest fossils found are called stromatolites - they're generated by mats of bacteria and the individual cells live together in order to survive. We see in ants also a society based on getting along and sharing. The morals that include our species working together and all the wonderful things that go with that - kindness, sharing, love, etc... is inherent in our nature and it is in our best interest to survive so that is why we see it. Now look at the other things like reclusit, racism, war etc.. - they have been started by misconceptions between right and wrong - by movements such as religious ones - they are not in our best interest to survive yet - few people have realized that. Here is another way people have misunderstood Darwin - the inappropriate phrase "survival of the fittest" has been used to justify war between our own people or to justify the killing off of what some people see as the "inferior" class. We are a species - we either are all fit to surive or we are not - there is no boundary between us of fit and unfit. We see in other species - the strong protecting the weak and helping them along when need be - it is in their species best interest to do so in order that they survive. It is in our species interest to help those who are weak among us not to kill them off - but by minimizing ignorance and the other causes that make them weak. To me, religion has nothing to do with this morality and as I'm sure you know, has worked against it many times in the past and I claim, they continue to do so. Dependency does not work - as can be seen both in religion and in government proposals such as welfare - we need to work to break that dependency and increase strength.
He also states that science keeps imposing limits on itself by the advancements it makes - like Einstein's theory - this too is a joke. If there are limits we must work inside them but of course continue to question them for the limits may not actually be what they appear to be. Science in no way works against itself - how can one explain that?
Another statement "we have come so far so fast" - I hear this everywhere "- wow, look at what science and technology has discovered - it's advancing so quickly!" I laugh here too. Look at the timeline we're using - from the Greeks onward to the Renaissance - science was suppressed almost completely and in the last couple of centuries we've been able to break the bondage a bit but still it continues to be supressed by a variety of influences - one of the major ones being religion. It could go a lot "faster" - and we'd most likely be much more advanced now if it was let loose to roam freely in the first place. The idea that it has been advancing without interuption is not true.
He mentions the adverse consequences of science and yes, these have to be taken into consideration. Along with advancements in science we also need to advance in several other fields - ourselves being top priority here so that we don't have idiots using nuclear weapons to destroy parts of our species et al. We need to figure out what's in our best interest but science as a tool is a very important part of that goal and we can't lose it because of the bad it's done - like criminals we need to understand the reasons why the bad was done to fix the problem.
Another highlight which I still have to think about because I believe there's a little truth to it and we need to work to avoid it is "As scientists become more arrogant and less tolerant of other belief systems, notably religious ones, Spengler declared, soceity will rebel against science and embrace religious fundamentalism and other irrational systems of belief." I think this might be going on right now - it's fucking scary. One thing must be said and that's the idea that it is the scientists who have the answers - no, no, no - they are just the mediums and they aren't the only ones. I've been around my share of scientists and a lot of what they are about I disagree with - there are a few who have worked towards the goal but only a few - Carl Sagan and Stphen J Gould are among these few but there have been others throughout the ages and will no doubt continue to be some in the future. I pick on scientists as well because I understand science - much of it - and I disagree with the idea that the people behind it are the key to our survival. So many of them are terribly one sided and focussed soley on their area of expertise and cannot apply it to the big picture. So many of them haven't a clue about reality and the many other fields that will help us solve a few of our serious problems. Science is an important tool - probably the most important - but there is so much else that must be considered - history, philosphy, psychology, and the majority of people that live in this world that are ignorant of ALL. I dropped out of my science degree after 2 years of studies as I felt I wasn't learning a damn thing I didn't already know and because it was so terribly confined to the one subject that it would lead me in the wrong direction. Since then I've educated myself and though I know I'm far from the ideal well-rounded person - and I've got mountains to climb that will take me 5 lifetimes - I do believe what I see is a damn fine picture of the way it actually is and the advantage to the life I've lived has been to also see possible solutions. I may be completely wrong - I do accept that possibility - but I figure if my end result is to make this place a better place then by trying to voice my opinions - I figure there is nothing to lose. Everyone should voice their opinions I think, in whatever subject interests them and no matter if they have an immense and complex formal education or if they've been living on the streets or in prisons all their lives. Evolution will weed out the bad opinions naturally - if our intelligent people continue to strive for the betterment of soceity.
"we have been deluded into thinking that such a rate of progress can be maintained indefinately" Quote of Glass in the book. I think we're looking at this the wrong way - maybe we won't have great discoveries like that of evolution and relativity but now we will begin to see progress in other areas due to the discoveries of science. Look at medicine and psychology - we're beginning to understand ouselves and have a ha\eck of a way to go. Look at all the room we've got left to figure out the brain - what will we find? What wonders will be next in technology? What effect will nanotechnology have on soceity - It's so freaking exciting I can hardly attain myself. I don't think I'm deluded - maybe I am but I see great things in our future if we figure out how to weed out the bad. I'm not entirely optimistic - sometimes I get little Philip Dick type dystopias running through my thoughts but shit, we can't give up - let's go go go! A universal pep rally would be appropriate here; I used to be a cheerleader, maybe I can contribute!
Two more comments and then I'll let you mull it all over. (I've had far too much caffeine today - that's my excuse for this lengthy post)
"both physics and science as a whole are now beseiged by environmentalists, animal-rights activists, and other anti-scientific movements." I agree with this but I don't agree that those two types mentioned are necessarily anti-science. Sure, there are the extremes and they can really get under my skin but I consider myself an envirmentalist and I am in no way anti-science. I think there are others like me also. The ones that are intelligent and have qualms about science usually have something worthwhile to listen to and neither side should be discounted - in most cases a happy medium can be found which will advance science in the proper direction and protect the environment as well. The altruists however in these groups are seriously misguided and should be enlightened.
And then there is a comment that both the ignorant masses and the highbrow types find scientific knowledge mildly interesting. No wonder! The majority of it has been made far too complicated for the simple mind or the explanations given are far too dry and unimaginable BUT we do have the great contributions of Sagan, Asimov, Gould and others and then the amazing tales in scifi that could be used to our advantage in getting science out to the public. They are the minority right now unfortunately but people like ourselves should follow their example and not be concerned about using big words and our misconceptions of intelligence to impress our colleagues or those we want to say "boy, that guys smart - look how he uses the word 'monosodium glutamate' instead of salt!". Humour and wit should also be an ingredient when writing cause we all love it and it will have the right effect. So - lets try to communicate to the rest of the world why we get so darn excited and happy about science - it's a fascinating part of life and so are all the others that we can do the same for. I read a book (with pictures) on oil rigs the other day - it was great.
Here's my purpose in life....(copyrighted of course cause it's the best thing that's ever come out of my mouth)
"What Bugs Bunny did for classical music, I would like to do for science." I'm not the first or the last that has this idea in mind - we can all contribute - no competition or jealousy need come into the picture.