From: mece1xg@menudo.uh.edu (purna)
Subject: the scientist as a human being (was Re: Science and Technology)
Organization: Dept. of Applied Alchemy, Univ. of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:05:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.154509.20037@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> mgundeko@pcserver2.Naitc.Com (Murthy Gundekota) writes:
>
> [...stuff deleted...]
>
>.................Unfortunately, science
>itself suffers from these interpretations. The whole gamut of
>literature about time-space continuum following Einstein's relativity
>is a good example of popular fiction. The interpretations are needed
>in the first place because there is no means to verify. That is to
>say, a lot of bad science precedes one good scientific breakthrough.
>And most of the scientists who write popular books are just
>too happy to be singing fisherman's songs than making catches (well,
>did you watch `Old Man And The Sea'?). Note that scientists don't have
>to be doctorates from accredited universities, well not always. All
>they need to be is inquisitive, objective, sexually repressed, and a
>good sense of humor.
>
>Murthy

i am not sure if you understand science very well, based upon the
above posting.  science does NOT suffer from interpretation; science
is about observation and measurement!  interpretation is what is
done by SCIENTISTS.  these scientists also happen to be human (as
far as i can tell :) ) and subject the scientific data to their
personal prejudices, judgements, beliefs, etc.  to give you an
example, consider Einstein.  Einstein was very bright man.  after
all, he gave us the photoelectric effect, special and general
relativity, as well as many humanistic principles to live by.
however, with all of this, he still had a major downfalling.  he
refused to believe in quantum mechanics, even though all of the
data supported that theory!  his problem was his PERSONAL interpretation
of how (he believed) the universe should function.  for those
who wish to throw his "famous" statement at me, "God does not play
dice", i offer Bohr's reply "Do NOT tell God what to do!"

i agree that a lot of "bad" science precedes a breakthrough.  however,
a lot of "GOOD" science does also.  what i mean by "bad" and "good"
is in the methodologies used by the scientists themselves.  By adhering
to sound scientific methods (keeping track of all data, maintaining
as much control over the experiment as possible, keeping accurate
records of the experiments, etc.) scientists do "good" science. "bad"
science is when data is fudged, lied about, or not reproduced, for
example.  however, the INTERPRETATION of the data must come afterwards
and can also be either "good" or "bad" in terms of accuracy.  if
there is more interest, i'll continue to discuss this point, however
for now, i'll leave it.

as for not being able to verify such theories as time-space
continuum, some of the concepts CAN be verified.  Granted, if
you are talking about black holes or time tunnels, it has
not been EXPERIMENTALLY verified.  however, Einstein's theories
have succesfully predicted the precession of Mercury, the
NON-existence of the "ether", the speed limit of light (it's
not just a good idea....it's the law :) ), etc.

one last note.  your comment about scientists not needing PhDs
is correct, but being sexually repressed is not.  Now, sexually
DEPRESSED may come closer to the truth! :) :) :)

peace,
-purna
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian