From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:58:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <184656@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>In article <Bz95zB.DsJ@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter

>|> >completely with quantum mechanics, where, not only are things not what
>|> >they used to be -- photons have momenta but no mass -- but they
>|> >deteriorate totally into
>|> >meaningless equations which accurately predict how certain observations
>|> >will be recorded in an observation space looking with a particular device.
>|> >
>|> >How you look determines what you see.  You can't get any more subjective
>|> >than that. 
>|> 
>|>   I disagree.  "Look", above is defined objectively.  Six physicists
>|>   "looking" at the same dual-slit experiment will "see" the same thing.
>|>   Six clergymen praying will not necessarily get the same answer; six
>|>   theologians reading the same sacred text will not produce the same
>|>   interpretation.  Six economists reading the same economic data will 
>|>   not reach the same conclusion either.
>|>
>
>Six economists counting the number of units sold by GM will arrive at the
>same answer

  They will only arrive at the same answer about the *number of units*,
  they won't arrive at the same answer about what's happening in terms
  of their model.  The physicists will arive at the same answer about
  what's happening.

  NOTE: (I hate to repeat myself, **BUT**)  As I said before, of
  course physics has its frontier where things are still in
  dispute.  But this is a tiny part of what physics "knows".
  The vast majority of a freshman physics textbook is beyond
  dispute.  This is simply not the case in, say, psychology 
  or religion.  In the social sciences the disputed parts

  
> and six priests chanting Om-mani-padmi-Om will have the same
>experience -- namely their experience of chanting Om-mani-padmi-Om.

  I diasgree that we can say with any confidence that their subjective
  experience is the same.


>On the other hand, six scientists looking at the universe will produce 
>six completely different world views.  In fact six scientists looking 
>at a dual-slit experiment will 'see" different things.  One might see
>the dual particle-wave nature of light; another might see a reading
>of 16 on his meter.

 Why do you think of these as "different"?  They don't necessarily
 contradict each other.  But when social scientists observe the 
 same event, they *do* contradict each other.


>  Ask Einstein and Bohr what *they* saw.  Same data, huge difference.

 Good example.  Einstein in his letter declared, "God does not play
 dice with the universe" (referring to Heisenberg's theory).  And
 today we know that Einstein was wrong.  That's the sort of resolution
 you don't get in other fields.   Someone can make a statement in
 physics and later we can say "this was wrong".  You can't do that
 in religion.   Or right: "Dirac's Sea" predicted positrons -- the
 positrons were right; the "Sea" was wrong.


>|>                                       Not is it my personal opinion
>|>   that there's any clear sense that science *has* produced that benefit.
>|>   It's not clear to me that the modern human is any "happier" than the 
>|>   the hunter-gatherer, but I can't defend that opinion.
>|> 
>
>I mistakenly thought you were of that mind.  I agree. I think, on balance
>its SSDM -- same shit, different milenium.  I often wish I was hunting and
>gathering rathing than looking at a computer screen.
                                         
 Fortunately, they're not mutually exclusive.  But I suggest you get
 your hunting done soon before the animal rights nuts get their
 way, or HCI decides to broaden their goal to ban bow hunting.


>Science is good at quantifying observation.  Anything beyond that is 
>a subjective stretch.
  
 I disagree.  Science is good at forming conceptual models (theories)
 based on well-quantified observations.   Well-quantified observations,
 without good model-building would not have allowed anyone to predict 
 controlled (or chain-reaction uncontrolled) atomic fission.   Or
 atomic fusion.  

 Indeed the whole concept of the experiement is based on theory-construction.
 Once you've made your quantified observation, what then?  You'd have to
 stop, and that would be it.   The next step is the theory, which you
 then test with your next experiement.  The theory suggests what to 
 observe and what it means.   It's this reiterative obervation->theory
 -->observation->theory (etc) process that makes science unique, and
 IMO successful as a discovery tool.


---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory