From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Prescientific Traditions, again (was: Re: Herbs...)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 11:10:01 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

-*----
I wrote:
>> ... I do not impugn the physicians and investigators
>> of any prescientific tradition.  They undoubtedly did as well as
>> they could given their time and place.  Unfortunately, the same
>> cannot be said for modern proponents of their now obsolete
>> theories.  At certain times and places, giving credence to the
>> four humour theory of medicine, or evil spirits infesting the
>> body, or qi, etc., made a lot of sense.  But not now. 

In article <1993Jan6.144320.587@news.wesleyan.edu> RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
> OK, Russell, I'll bite this time (thought I may regret this).

I hope never to be a cause of regret in our dear Dr. Ruth, keeper
of FAQ, and general net wise woman!

> Could you please define what distinguishes prescientific 
> traditions from scientific traditions, preferably without 
> using the term 'science' redundantly?

Of course.  In the last three centuries, there has developed an
extensive study of how to go about investigating general empirical
phenomena, what kinds of mistakes are likely in observation,
experimentation, and relating evidence to claims, how to minimize or
avoid these mistakes, and how to discuss and disseminate results with
an eye toward finding out the truth.  This has resulted in a better
understandings of such investigation and better techniques for doing
so, most of which did not exist previously.  Performing investigation
and research applying this better understanding and using these better
techniques is science. 

> The reason I ask is because I am not nearly so sure as you are that
> there is a *sharp* dividing line between science & "pre-science" or 
> between science & non-science.  ... This is *NOT* (no flames, please)
> to say that there is no difference between science & non-science, 
> any more than (e.g.) to say there is no difference between poor
> and wealthy.

To some extent, I agree.  It *is* a matter of degree, which is
(1) why I have always tried to give due respect to those who made
progress prior to the advent of modern science, and (2) why
people who talk about "the scientific paradigm" are usually
blowing smoke.  But the degree of change has been tremendous.  In
a practical sense, a sufficiently large quantitative change
becomes a qualitative change.  Ask anyone who has eaten dandelion
soup because they could not afford other food. 

> Here is my underlying agenda:  I *think* I'd want to argue that
> where, exactly, one chooses to draw those lines is ultimately 
> political, because there is a continuum between one & the other, 
> not a sharp break. ...  It is just to say that where one draws a line 
> dividing one from the other is constantly contested, and ultimately 
> political.

Drawing lines is a pragmatic activity.  I am not going to argue
vehemently with anyone that, for example, Copernicus counts as
science but that Galen does not.  

Science, like all human activity, is political.  Did  Ruth
Ginzburg think I would say otherwise?  To the extent that there
is an underlying lietmotif to science as a whole, it is to
discover empirical truth, though this, of course, is bent to
other ends and many other political goals get mixed in the
practice.  

It is important in doing this kind of political analysis to
realize that impure motives do not always prevent progress in
discovering empirical truth, and that pure motives do not
guarantee it.  The last refuge of many quacks is to use the broad
label of politics to cover the investigative and analytic
mistakes they make.  That dog doesn't hunt.  

Russell
Xref: sparky sci.med:23664 sci.skeptic:22217 alt.psychology.personality:422