From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:24:18 GMT

What the heck, I'll reply to everything in sight.

In article <memo.837515@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk 
(Leo Smith) writes:


|> The third valid use however, is to develop new fundamental basic 
|> concepts - the paradigm shifts of Kuhn.  I cannot help but see the 
|> whole of the current complexity of experimental and theoretical 
|> physics as the ultimate and logical conclusion of some very basic 
|> tenets - that 'we' inhabit a 'universe' which is composed of 'matter' 
|> that 'exists' in 'time' and has 'space' as a component of it, and 
|> which 'universe' is in fact a complex solution to a series of simpler 
|> equations called 'physical laws'. These are as succinctly as I can 
|> express them, the assumptions underlying physics.

I always get a little nervous when I hear announcements of the coming 
paradigm shift.  As Kuhn makes clear, a new paradigm (a poorly defined 
concept in Kuhn, by the way) is accepted when it does a better job of 
accomodating the data than the existing one.  Most of the concepts that 
you list in the current paradigm have changed, sometimes radically, during 
the last century.  If someone shows that a new way of thinking about 
the physical world will do as good or better a job of explaining what 
we've seen so far, and also show us new things to look for, great.  Until 
that happens, speculating about what the next revolution will look like 
doesn't get anyone very far.  
	Either it is the case that we are so blinded by our belief structure 
that all scientific observations are controlled by them, or it is the case 
that our observations are leading us to a new paradigm, but I don't see how 
both can be true.  

|> But are they the most appropriate ones? They are certainly highly 
|> appropriate for a 'tool' 'wielding' 'ape-man' trying to make his way 
|> in the 'world' (PC female readers assume the feminine alternatives 
|> please). But are they appropriate for nuclear physics, or even 
|> weather forecasting?

Does Buddhism do a better job of weather forecasting
than meteorology?  I can understand, and even sympathize with, the 
belief that what science investigates is not important, that direct 
experience of the real is or would be better.  What I don't get is the 
assertion that Buddhism is going to provide more effective tools for 
doing science.  

|> Investigations of quarks and leptons may just help 
|> us develop new power sources, better computers or lasers, but should 
|> not affect personal morality.

Well, they're not likely to do the former, and I can't see how they could 
possibly do the later.  
 
|> It is this terrible extrapolation, of 'scientific theory' to 
|> 'universal fact' that has really caused some fundamental human 
|> problems in the twentyieth century. Because the assumption of 
|> physical science have been spectacularly successful, there has been 
|> the tendency to assume also that 'there is no god but Universal field 
|> theory, and Newton is his prophet'. Christianity has been unable to 
|> do more than meekly nod in assent, but Buddhism has in fact got the 
|> answer. "That is a suitable *assumption* for sending rockets to the 
|> moon, but is it the right attitude to bring towards other aspects of 
|> human life?"

As a Christian, I'm quite puzzled by the first half of the sentence, 
especially since, with the substition of "model" for "assumption" I agree 
with the second half.

|> And it may not even be a suitable assumption for subatomic physics 
|> either. 

Seems to be doing a pretty good job so far.

Time to get back to my favorite computer program . . .

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta