From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reductionism, etc (was LIFE GOES ON)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:04:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Douglas Graham writes

>>How can one agree, on the one
>>hand, that our powers of perception are limited, and, on the other,
>>that they are nevertheless capable of acquiring perfect knowledge?
>>How could one ever know that such acquisition had in fact been
>>finally achieved?

>I for one, hope that we never achieve that perfection.  Life
>would be pretty boring if we knew all the answers.  What would there
>be left to do?  But I see nothing wrong with saying that our
>approximations get better as time goes on.

But that's not what I hear the reductionists saying. What I hear is,
"Science explains (or can explain) everything", which is an
astoundingly arrogant thing to say. Case in point is the boiling down
of life to "electro-chemical reactions". There seem to be some who
can't or won't consider that all we'll ever have are approximations. 

>>The only rational approach I see is to forge ahead
>>(in all directions) with an open mind, with an emphasis on
>>exploration, unfettered by delusions of Final Resolution. 

>I'm in full agreement with you here, but I think we're straying
>quite far from your mystical position,

I don't think so. My "mystical" position is simply, "I don't know."
That is, I'm not about to insist that the universe squeeze itself
into my range of perception and conform to my sensibilities. This is
the beginning and, I daresay, the whole, of mystical perspective. I
can't imagine why anyone would exclaim "Life is just physics and
chemistry!" unless they had some dire personal need to believe that. 

>>Better to what extent? How much better can [theory] be made? If you think
>>there's a theory somewhere that can be hammered into irrefutability,
>>you're getting pretty durn close to religion. 

>Better to the extent that they have better predictive capabilities I
>suppose.

Yes, but it either gets abandoned or pushed aside at some point, or
it becomes religious doctrine (which is what I consider reductionism
to be). Are you willing to push reductionism aside if the time
comes? 

>For example, we know now that Newton's theory of gravitation was
>only an approximation to Einstein's.  So, in that sense, Einstein's theory
>is better than Newton's.  But that doesn't make Newton's work useless
>or irrelevant.  It doesn't make Newton's theory flimsy.  And Newton would
>not have been wrong to think that he had unlocked one of the secrets of
>the universe.

How would he or we know he had unlocked one of its secrets unless the
universe itself had told him so? Perhaps we invent the existence
of these secrets and then proceed to crack them with methods based on
preconception, all the while the universe is up to something quite
different. 

>>But the principle point is, as I said, the process of
>>discovery itself. Plowing under old misconceptions. The big Wow that
>>comes every time we're reminded that things aren't necessarily what
>>they seem, and are quite a bit more.

>What are those "things" you're referring to?  By that statement,
>it seems to me that you do agree that there is some objective
>reality out there,

Not necessarily. The "things" I speak of live in the mind of the
perceiver. I don't see how I can know that there's an objective
reality, as I've never been able to venture "out there", nor have I
found the walls that separate it from "in here". Looked all over for
'em, even under the sofa cushions. 

>and that we do learn more about it through science.

What we really learn through science is something of the nature of
mind, particularly the mind that does science. 

>If a scientist
>could make an amoeba from a vat of chemicals in his lab, would you still
>consider the life of an amoeba as unfathomable?

Oh yes. Again, I don't make a distinction between amoeba-life and
other manifestations of life. There's just life. The scientist might
be able to explain, in current terms, how he thinks the chemicals
combine to make the amoeba, but could he tell me why? Could either of
us be sure that there wasn't some other as-yet unseen element or
process in operation? 

>>>[..] those who choose to
>>>believe that science is capable of finding real answers to real
>>>questions.

>>I have no problem with such belief as long as the believer
>>understands that all he's actually finding are real tentative answers
>>to what are sometimes real misdirected questions. 

>I think you're touching on the real issue here.  I don't think you
>want life to be reduced to a set of equations, and therefore
>resent those who attempt to do so.  (Hence, "misdirected questions")

Well, no. I mean 'misdirected' (perhaps not the word I should have
used) as in 'barking up the wrong tree'; as in asking why, when the
thermometer goes up, does it get hot outside. There was no intended
emotional content in my remark. If life were somehow reduced to
equations, I'd be surprised but would wonder at it just the same. I
would also wonder which equation it was that described the drive to
write equations. 

>I must admit that I share some of those feelings, but I'm also quite
>aware of the damage that has been done in the past, and continues to
>be done in the present, by those who shun science because they're
>afraid of what they might find out.  I don't want to be one of those
>people.

Me either, and I don't think I am. But I'd be wary of anyone or
anything that claimed to have all the answers, or even all the
questions. 

--
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology