From: andrick@sun.rhrk.uni-kl.de (Ulf Andrick [Biologie])
Subject: Re: Re^3: Science&Politics
Reply-To: andrick@sun.rhrk.uni-kl.de (Ulf Andrick [Biologie])
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern (Germany)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:46:26 GMT

In article <1804.178.uupcb@wugate.wustl.edu>,
carl.camurca%travel@wugate.wustl.edu (Carl Camurca)  writes:
[...]
> There are directions you wouldn't try to think dictated by your ideolgy.
> For example, you wouldn't think about experiments with Australian
> aborigines, because you realize they are human beings. If you don't
> think so, you can use them in experiments.
> 
> UA[>When reading some paper how someone has gathered what data, then
> UA[>I can't see any political ideology in it, and that was what I
> UA[>thought of.
> 
> True. When I try to find any ideology in a SDS-PAGE (for non-biologists:
> Truthsaying-like kind of experiment), I fail. (In fact, I'm happy, when
> I find *some* useful information in it :-) ).
> But the design and direction of your experimenting is dictated by your
> ideology. And you see only, what you want to see. The other data is
> ignored (remember those zillions of PCR agarose gels with some strange
> bands beside the interesting one? You ignored it, right?)

In principle, an experiment serves to verify or falsify a hypothesis.
It is true that such a hypothesis does not fall from Heaven, but 
arises from a certain background. Additionally, the methods used in the 
experiment must have proven to be accurate before. Data which are not
relevant for the validity of the hypothesis can be ignored. If the
results are statistically significant and reproducible, then it is
decided if the hypothesis is right or wrong under the conditions of
the experiment.

Theoretically, I don't see how some ideology should influence the result
of the experiment. Perhaps it could play a role in the stage of 
finding a hypothesis considered worth while testing. 

I don't deny that, in practice, research results may be manipulated
unconsciously or even consciously, e. g. by ignoring experiments which
do not deliver the intended result. Here the criterium of reproducibility
is a good protection, but the problem is that it is neglected because
reproduction is not honoured much. 

If one looks closely at some area of current research one will find that
things are usually not so simple and secure as described in the textbooks.
I have experienced that myself. Nevertheless, I think that our knowledge 
can only improve, and that it is a matter of time that errors are
uncovered. 

What always remains is that no ideology also is an ideology.
I have no objection to that.

> 
> UA[>I didn't mean to say that the practice of science is independent of
> UA[>society, but that there is something at the bottom of it which
> directs UA[>it by setting boundary conditions, and that is the real
> world. UA[>(I don't know, of course, if the real world exists, but I am
> certain UA[>that its representation exists in my mind; further
> discussion cf. UA[>Kant: ,Kritik der reinen Vernunft'.) It may depend of
> society UA[>what data you collect, but the data themselves do not.
> 
> So you believe that the image of the real world, that science delivers
> is the real world?
> I would prefer to see the whole modern science as a *model* of the
> world, not the world itself. Nobody ever saw an atom, only pictures of
> it. I agree, the model works pretty good (I'm spending most of my life
> in refining it), but it's only a model!

I tried to avoid lengthy considerations on how real is reality by referring
to Kant. Of course, we cannot recognise the world as it is immediately,
and that is why we have to apply a strict scientific discipline in order 
to find valid evidence about reality; but there is no better 
method to find out something about the world. I think that (objective) 
science is not just some arbitrary view of the world, but a necessary 
result of the exploration of the world by the human mind. The main
stream of science goes to a broader and deeper knowledge of the world,
regardless 
what turns and twists the single currents may take. The Church tried to 
stop it with all the power of its Age, but the dam became leaky and was 
over-flooded finally.   
  
> 
> UA[>Our knowledge about the real world is growing, as recognition
> UA[>(Erkenntnis)  is irreversible; and this has its impact on society.
> 
> What do you know about *the real* world? see above.

More and more.

> 
> UA[>E. g., the more we know about the world, the less religious we are
> UA[>(see also Freud: ,Die Zukunft einer Illusion'). The interaction
> UA[>between science and society is no one-way street. What is the hen
> UA[>here, what the egg, and what was there first?
>
[...]
> 
> UA[>Now to see an example of independence of science look at physics under
> UA[>national socialism: It took severe damage
> UA[>because many physicists had to emigrate, but `German physics' was not
> UA[>broadly accepted by those who remained. Against all NS ideology the
> UA[>relativity theory and quantum mechanics continued to be valid in
> UA[>Germany.
> 
> The *model* remained valid.

And I daresay it will remain valid forever, in the same way as Newtonian 
mechanics still is valid, as any new theory has to include the older ones.

> At this place, take a look at the modern
> science, and the attitude, that made it possible. It's deeply rooted in
> the christian view of the world (...and rule the earth...).

Objective science liberated itself from religious ideology. To me, the
biblical phrase just expresses the nature of Man: he does not survive
by adapting to his environment, but by adapting his environment to his
needs. The formulation as a law given by an abstract, `artificial' deity
reflects a more developped stage of religiousness, which is not so much
preoccupied with reconciling First Nature in form of personalised deities
as in animism, but with the rules of society, the Second Nature of Man 
(see again Freud, ibid.). 

> With that license, you are free to see the world as a set of tools,
> especially made for you. And you can use them without bad feelings.

It is a fact that we humans make use of the world to our advantage.
Apparently, we have some freedom to do it, but no liberty is unlimited.
We experience now the limitation of natural resources.

I'd like to emphasise that Mankind has to decide on its own to what
degree it makes use of its freedom with which it is endowed by whoever
you like. 

> Ironically, one of the consequences of modern science was the
> undermining of the power of religion, as you pointed out above.
[...]
> 
> May this fruitful discussion be continued, until the MODERATOR reads one
> of those  messages,

Is there any third party here interested in this discussion? If not, I think
we have to consider to remove it from soc.culture.german (and look
for a better home for it?). 

> 
> gruss, Carl.
> 
>  * OLX 2.1 TD * Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
>
No, I just feel hungry.                              



Ulf R. Andrick                                  andrick@rhrk.uni-kl.de
Tierphysiologie
FB Biologie
Universitaet
D-W 6750 Kaiserslautern

Newsgroups: soc.culture.german,misc.forsale,rec.travel