From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:35:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.152653.23023@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.065803.21698@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>>>What's wrong with being a Reductionist?
>
>>>Nothing, if you have no qualms with the conceit that goes with reducing the
>>>nature and workings of life to a handful of flimsy theories deduced from
>>>likely misinterpreted observations collected through extremely band-limited
>>>sensors.
>
>>Shit.  This sounds almost like the drivel we get from Creationists.
>
>Drivel also comes from armchair scientists who forget that science is
>about asking questions and fall into the trap of tenaciously clinging to
>favorite models and theories.

Certainly there is that danger.  I'm not sure that the solution is to
declare all the theories flimsy though.

>Sort of like what creationists do. Do you
>really see no conceit in the presumption that life can be neatly sliced,
>diced and packed into a few clever theories constructed from limited
>perception and intelligence?

No, I see no conceit in that.  I think it's the only rational approach.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that is special about life is that
we happen to be it.

>>I'm disappointed, because from other articles I'd seen from you, I
>>had developed a good deal of respect for you.
>
>Sorry to have disappointed you. That's electro-chemical reactions for ya.

Sometimes they do go awry. :-)

>>Is this your own position, or is this something taught by Buddhism?
>
>My own, of course, influenced by buddhist leanings. But there's nothing
>especially buddhist about my position on this. Ask anyone who understands
>the transience and fragility of scientific knowledge, or of any sort of
>knowledge.

Ok, so it's transient and fragile.  A lot of what we think we know
is probably wrong.  But it seems to me then that the solution is not
to declare all the theories flimsy, but rather to find one that you
know to flimsy, and try to make it better.

>>I'll be the first to admit that our sensors could be better, but I
>
>If they're off by so much as an inch, may as well be a mile for all we know.
>Then consider that their output gets filtered through minds blotted with
>cataracts and choked with preconceptions.

Yup.  And minds that are filled with mystic fog and superstition.

>>don't think they're so bad that we should give up on them.  As for
>
>Who said anything about giving up? The heart of science is in the process
>of discovery and refinement, not in the dried, crumbling little
>knowledge-turds we drop along the way.

What's the point of it all then, if the only product of all that
labour is flimsy theories and misinterpreted observations?  Do you
just do it to kill time?

>>the flimsy theories and misinterpreted observations, did you have
>>anything specific in mind?
>
>Yes. All of them.

If I didn't know that you were just bullshitting, I'd be impressed
with your wisdom.

>>To me, the most fascinating and inspiring thing about
>>it is that we are getting to the point where we can fathom it quite well.
>>What's the mystery?
>
>That you actually believe this. From what I see and read, every new answer
>brings up ten new questions. Just like in the good 'ol days.

Ain't it grand?

>>How does it advance the cause of science to pick some
>>arbitrary thing such as life, and declare it "unfathomable?"
>
>It advances the cause of science by keeping scientists from getting
>cocky and complacent. Keeps 'em lean and itchy. But they don't have to
>wait around for someone to call it unfathomable. All they have to do
>is look at it and realize how little they know.

I think that realizing how little you know, and declaring that you
can never know anything are two quite separate things.

>>Declaring something unfathomable is not recognizing your limitation
>>as an investigator.  It is tossing in the towel.
>
>I don't know about you, but unfathomability induces curiousity and
>fascination in me, in copious amounts. The stuff that drives science,
>y'know. Hang on to that towel.

To each his own I suppose.  But I think you're making a big mistake
in criticizing as youthful and unenlightened those who choose to
believe that science is capable of finding real answers to real
questions.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.