From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:26:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.065803.21698@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>>What's wrong with being a Reductionist?

>>Nothing, if you have no qualms with the conceit that goes with reducing the
>>nature and workings of life to a handful of flimsy theories deduced from
>>likely misinterpreted observations collected through extremely band-limited
>>sensors.

>Shit.  This sounds almost like the drivel we get from Creationists.

Drivel also comes from armchair scientists who forget that science is
about asking questions and fall into the trap of tenaciously clinging to
favorite models and theories. Sort of like what creationists do. Do you
really see no conceit in the presumption that life can be neatly sliced,
diced and packed into a few clever theories constructed from limited
perception and intelligence?

>I'm disappointed, because from other articles I'd seen from you, I
>had developed a good deal of respect for you.

Sorry to have disappointed you. That's electro-chemical reactions for ya.

>Is this your own position, or is this something taught by Buddhism?

My own, of course, influenced by buddhist leanings. But there's nothing
especially buddhist about my position on this. Ask anyone who understands
the transience and fragility of scientific knowledge, or of any sort of
knowledge.

>I'll be the first to admit that our sensors could be better, but I

If they're off by so much as an inch, may as well be a mile for all we know.
Then consider that their output gets filtered through minds blotted with
cataracts and choked with preconceptions.

>don't think they're so bad that we should give up on them.  As for

Who said anything about giving up? The heart of science is in the process
of discovery and refinement, not in the dried, crumbling little
knowledge-turds we drop along the way.

>the flimsy theories and misinterpreted observations, did you have
>anything specific in mind?

Yes. All of them.

>Yes, life is
>fascinating and fairly complex.  But "unfathomingly" is a pretty
>powerful word.

Not to mention nonexistent. :-)

>To me, the most fascinating and inspiring thing about
>it is that we are getting to the point where we can fathom it quite well.
>What's the mystery?

That you actually believe this. From what I see and read, every new answer
brings up ten new questions. Just like in the good 'ol days.

>How does it advance the cause of science to pick some
>arbitrary thing such as life, and declare it "unfathomable?"

It advances the cause of science by keeping scientists from getting
cocky and complacent. Keeps 'em lean and itchy. But they don't have to
wait around for someone to call it unfathomable. All they have to do
is look at it and realize how little they know.

>Is it
>just human life that is unfathomable, or is the life of an amoeba
>unfathomable as well?

I'm not qualifying it. Just plain life. All of it.

>Declaring something unfathomable is not recognizing your limitation
>as an investigator.  It is tossing in the towel.

I don't know about you, but unfathomability induces curiousity and
fascination in me, in copious amounts. The stuff that drives science,
y'know. Hang on to that towel.

>>>Perhaps this is why scientists tend to
>>>do their best work while they are young.

>>Do they really, or are you just making this up?

>I could be making it up.  Einstein did his best work when he was
>in his twenties.

Well, I'd have to hear that from him. Personally, I think he wrote his
best stuff later in life, after the brilliance of youth had been
tempered with the wisdom of age.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho