From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: relativism or adaptationism
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:36:18 GMT


|> > = me
|> = Alan McGowen

|> >Meanwhile, I am glad to see Alan McGowen coming around to realize the
|> >dangers of radical relativism
|> 
|> I think that anyone who reads my post ("No Objective Environment?") carefully
|> will see that it is obvious that this is not a view to which I have recently
|> "come around" but one which is implicit in everything I have been saying in
|> this group for some time.

Maybe so, but you have expressed discomfort with my previous forays into
this area, and you still seem to think this trend is at worst foolish and
not particularly dangerous. 
 
|> Neither does it follow from what I said that science is *not* a social 
|> production.  My view is that it is an extension of human adaptation. My point
|> was that it is ultimately up to nature, not to us, to determine how successful
|> any such adaptation is. 
|> 
|> In fact, the whole method of science is a deliberate effort to render it
|> as strongly selected by nature as we can arrange. 

Very nicely said indeed! I concur wholeheartedly.

|>Some seem to lose sight
|> of the "selection" side of this process, and some to lose sight of the
|> (cultural) "variation" side. Those who lose sight of the role of selection
|> are relativists ("all maps are equally mythic -- *nothing* is really known"). 
|> Those who lose sight of the creative role of variation are naive empiricists 
|> ("reality is just identical to my map of it -- *everything* is known").
|> 
|> But *both* selection and variation are essential requirements for adaptation.
|> (Some scientific maps are tolerably adaptive -- a *little* is known.)

I'm a little less enthusiastic about this part, but I see what you're driving 
at. I would contend that a *great deal* is known, and it is this that
causes some people to believe that everything of significance is known or
controllable. Thus, one camp concludes that since a great deal is unknown,
nothing much is known, while the other group contends that since a great deal
is known, nothing much is unknown. Both are errors. The universe is vast
enough to contain enormous knowledge and enormous ignorance at the same time.

|> "Radical relativism" has its dangers, to be sure -- but avoiding them does
|> not justify courting the dangers of the naive empiricism rampant among the
|> technocentrics, according to which everything that matters is known and 
|> controllable (or substitutable), or soon will be -- and all limits can be
|> overcome with a little engineer's arithmetic and a determination not to fuss
|> over such imponderables as "quality of life". [Who really cares about such 
|> things as the appearance of wood or the taste of a fish, anyway?]

I agree with this completely, and am often a bit astonished by the 
brutish lack of taste and subtlety among those claim that "adequate
substitutes can be found for everything", who claim that Paris is inferior
to Los Angeles because it is less convenient to hurtle through in a
gigantic car. It isn't surprising though: since the field of what is known
necessarily consists of what is simplest (not that it is simple!) those who
would believe that our knowledge is nearly complete are necessarily 
ignorant of the subtle and experiential.

|> As a society, this is our bias and this is a far greater present danger 
|> than "radical relativism."

Here is our point of contention. For one thing, it is unclear to me which 
way the society tends. Your feeling aggrieved by those who arrogantly
assume that everything of interest is already subsumed by science is
fully matched by the injury felt by that group and others (including myself)
who beleive that the power of reason and evidence (the "scientific method"
if you like, though I don't. See Peter Medawar "Pluto's Republic" on this 
point.) is treated not solely with the traditional incomprehension and
misapprehension but with genuine hostility and disbelief. 

Consider your local newspaper.  What gets more press: science or astrology?

Also consider what environmental issues get the most attention. Foolish
NIMBYism, which only amounts to the more affluent and/or politically adept
foisting their problems on others, and driving up costs to no real purpose.
Sentimental mawkishness about traditional seal hunting. Massive deployment
of resources to save the occasional crustacean that has wandered into
the line of sight of TV cameras. Bizarre paranoia about "anything with
atoms in it". Pompous self-righteous propaganda aimed at convincing young
children that economic activity is intrinsically evil. (propagated by
Ted Turner, yet! see "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" on TBS.) 

In this context, it is little wonder that serious problems, such as those
outlined so effectively in the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity", 
are frequently dismissed as just more noise.

Specifically: ozone layer damage, greenhouse effect changes, coastal
damage to biologically active regions of the ocean, loss of soil,
loss of habitat, loss of species and loss of biological information
within species are important and urgent issues. Whether I take my groceries
in paper or plastic is not.

Some of the people who treat
environmental concern with such venomous contempt are often reacting
to scientific illiteracy among the most visible of the activists. They feel,
not without justification, that this represents the cutting edge of
an antirational tendency that is growing in importance and tending to
doiminate society, as genuine education retreats while pseudointellectual
babble allies itself with "new age" superstition in denying the existence
of objective fact.

There is a strong contingent in favor of radical relativism at the
universities these days. They are trying to convince people not to be
challenged or frustrated by their ignorance but to flaunt it proudly.
We have now had at least two prominent examples in this newsgroup of the 
quality of discussion that ensues when people are indoctrinated into
this way of speaking (not to say thinking).

|> *Some* movement in the relativist direction 
|> would be a very good thing, on the whole. This is where I differ from 
|> Michael Tobis, who seems to believe that it must be all or nothing. 

Not at all- a healthy dose of understanding of the extent to which
the history of science has been affected by particular individuals and
particular cultures is imho a very good thing, one which I'd recommend to
all scientists. (see Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery,
Scientific American, 12/72, e.g.)

I believe that society errs in BOTH directions, consistently. The balanced
view is unfortunately all too rare.

|> In 
|> my view that idea plays into the hands of the technocentrics. It 
|> unwittingly serves to protect their lethal status quo -- by holding out 
|> as a bogeyman a completely pixilated alternative to their arrogance.

I do not take that position. 

But your bogeyman point stands by
itself. I do not take hope in an alliance between people worried about
real and serious problems and those worried about chimeras. I think for
those worried about the real problems, it is a serious mistake, though it
may provide some benefit for the anti-chimera league.

It is therefore necessary to make clear that there are reasons
other than pure unadulterated superstition and intuition to respond
to the situation. In order to make a case that is convincing to resonable
people, one must be willing to make a reasoned case, and also be willing
to disown the arguments of those whose motives one agrees with but whose
appreciation of the methods of reason and evidence is tragically weak.

I vigorously oppose radical relativism for two reasons. First, as 
it tends to discredit any cause it takes up. Secondly, a cause that
prevails with the help of such people is compelled to make compromises
with ill-informed intuition and superstition. Our predicament is too
vast and complex to allow very many concessions to well-intentioned
romantic foolishness in trying to find a workable strategy.

mt

PS - Alan has seen this message in email, and prefers not to pursue the
discussion further. This shouldn't be taken as his acquiescing to these
points. Clearly, he sees errors that take environmental damage too lightly
as far more dangerous than errors that exaggerate impacts, while I see
them as quite comparable. I resolve not to write more on this topic for a
while. After all I do owe you all a climate change FAQ, so I'll dedicate
my net energies there. But I would be interested in hearing what others
have to say on this topic.


Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa