From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Objective Environment, again - reluctantly (was Re: Temperate ...)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:10:49 GMT

I think Michael Tobis and I are more in agreement than in disagreement
and I hope it was understood that my criticism of the inappropriate
extension of rational methods was not directed at him, rather as a
description of why I believe that so many people discount the
objective framework that science uses.  That these attitudes are
based on a critique of the _misuse_ of scientific methods rather
than their correct use (which would be the appropriate target of
a critique) is my central point.

Michael also excuses himself from this discussion to deal with
other tasks so I don't expect a reply; for now at least :)
>
>In article <1993Jan25.174847.19299@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>|> Policies in the real world need to recognize the ignorance of humanity
>|> as much as the knowledge of humanity.  Some people suggest that this 
>|> ignorance be recognized as an ethic, those others believe that this
>|> would impede further knowledge.  Yet others prefer
>|> an intellectual understanding of our limits of knowledge, but it seems
>|> to me that an intellectual understanding of ignorance is problematic
>|> at least. 
>
>Well, "problematic at least" hides many millions of words of discussion,
>some of it quite serious, though much of it is pompous puffery. My point is,
>though, that while of much philosophical interest, it has little
>practical value. We have ways of knowing which demonstrably work,
>regardless of what exactly "knowledge" or "truth" means. To deny this 
>is to proceed blindfolded through the rough terrain in which we find 
>ourselves. Our position is too precarious for childish games like that.

The problem is not so much in defining the applicability of what works
but in defining the inapplicability of what works only occaccionally.
A cautious scientists will not apply theories inappropriately but there
is no analog to the peer review process for the opposite case.  In a
sense, I think this problems is fundamentally the engineers and the
technologists.  The results of their mistakes are the 
baggage that the scientists carry, for they provide the engineer and
the technologist with their tools, though not their rationale.
>
>|> To deny the objective environment altogether may serve a
>|> pragmatic purpose in a world where its mis-application causes so many
>|> problems.
>
>Your argument that some people overestimate the extent of our knowledge
>(which I agree with) is quite distinct from a statement that denying the
>existence of any knowledge at all serves some practical purpose. 
>If it serves any purpose, it is as a neurotic, if not psychotic, defense
>mechanism. That is, it may be comfortable, but it is deeply dysfunctional.

By denying an objective environment, I do not mean denying knowledge.
I am referring to denying the widespread utility of this knowledge.
The practical purpose it serves is to deny the framework necessary for
the credibility of those who are guilty of the misapplication.  The
tradeoff is the hampering of further rational investigation.  This is
most certainly a loss but the gains from such rational investigation
will again be followed by its inappropriate use.  Catch-22.
>
>The existence of a few foolishly arrogant techno-libertarians (a 
>self-contradictory position, in my opinion, since high technology requires 
>large scale organization, but never mind that) will not serve as an excuse
>for abandoning the remarkable edifice of rational thought that is
>arguably the most profound, beautiful and impressive accomplishment of 
>humankind. This is particularly true now that we find ourselves in an
>ever more tangled maze of complex interconnnected problems that requires
>reason of the highest order if any progress is to be made.

I will leave the argument about the "most profound, beautiful and 
impressive accomplishment of humankind" to another time.  I agree 
that rational thought is most needed now, but if it is used 
inappropriately, the net gain/loss to society is arguable. Without
establishing some new guidelines, or preferably ethics, for the use 
of the results of rational investigation, it very well may not be 
used to solve the problems that are such a strong motivation for 
the research.
>
>A problem with the debate as it appears here (and possibly elsewhere) is
>that both you and Alan McGowen, and possibly others seem to think it
>represents the debate in society at large. Here, we find ourselves arguing
>against arrogance, overconfidence, and insensitivity to subtlety. In society
>at large, the battle is against inertia, apathy and defeatist fatalism,
>not to mention superstition and misinformation. 

If we see science as basic production and society as the end user, then
the technologists are the middleman/salesman.  You say we need smarter
(less fatalistsic and apathetic) consumers (with which I agree), but 
that will do no good without truth in advertising!
>
>Rallying to the clarion call of relativism may score a few points against
>people who confuse space cadet fiction with reasoned analysis, but it
>looks to society at large (and to me) like a celebration of confusion
>and uncertainty. Difficult and expensive changes in behavior are unlikely
>to be widely accepted using anti-rational arguments. Indeed, I would
>hope they would not be, as changes promoted by anti-rational people are
>far more likely to be counterproductive than to be helpful.

I do not support "anti-rational" arguments.  I believe that there is a
limit to the _utility_ of rational methods based on the current
technology and perception of humans.  Arguing for other methods
based on an understanding of these limits is not anti-rational.
In fact, I think it is the height of rationality.  When such limits
are better understood, then rational investigation will be accepted
more widely and the pure "anti-rationals" will lose their audience.
>
>It's been suggested that change requires a profound shift in the values
>of the populace, but I would argue that much of the necessary shift has
>already occurred, and that many people see the banality and futility 
>of a course that doesn't recognize the value of nature's health and
>the aesthetic harmony of both the natural and the built environment.

Then you are an optimist!  I hope you are right.
Nevertheless, above you describe the, "inertia, apathy and defeatist 
fatalism" in society.  How does your optimistic view of society 
match with this "battle" in society?
>
>What we need is carefully reasoned responses to our situation so that
>changes tend to be ameliorative. The last thing we need is to convince
>ourselves that we are powerless and stupid, which is ultimately the
>purpose of the unholy relativist alliance of "new age" superstition and
>academic "deconstructionist" nihilism.

But to do this we must determine what feeds this attitude and respond
to it.  More of the same merely feeds it.
>
>Let's be reasonable.
>
>mt
>


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.environment