From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Reductionism, etc (was LIFE GOES ON)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 00:41:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.222733.29803@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Douglas Graham writes
>
>>>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.
>
>I see no rationality in it whatever. 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.  Einstein's theory
is a better approximation to reality than is Newton's.  Knowledge
does progress, and not by declarations of unfathomableness.  (Is
*that* a word?)

>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, which is what I was
disagreeing with.

>>Ok, so [knowledge is] 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.
>
>Better to what extent? How much better can it 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.  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.

>>What's the point of it all then, if the only product of all that
>>labour is flimsy theories and misinterpreted observations?
>
>If it's a tangible product you're after, there are, of course, all
>the nifty techno-doodads that come in the wake of scientific
>discovery. 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, and that we do learn more about it through
science.  Even if all we learn is that things aren't what they
seem, we're still learning.

>What are you hoping for, some
>kind of Total Explanation? What mind could possibly contain such a
>thing? 

Sounds like you're going mystical again.

>>>>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?
>
>This sounds like agreement on your part. If it is, how can you say
>that we're "getting to the point where we can fathom [life] quite
>well"? 

Ok, scrap the "quite well."  I mean that we're beginning to understand
how life got here, and how we arose from the slime.  We're almost at
the point where we can manufacture life forms from scratch.  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?  Wouldn't the fact that
this could be done mean that we were actually learning something about
an objective reality, rather than just rearranging neurons in our brains?

>>[..]  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.
>
>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")
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.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.