From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Reductionism, etc (was LIFE GOES ON)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:27:33 GMT

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? 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. 

>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. 

>>>[I] don't think they're so bad that we should give up on [sensors].

>>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?

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

>>>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"? 

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

Maybe, but at what point can you claim that you have final, complete
knowledge of something? How can you know that there is absolutely
nothing else about it that remains to be discovered? 

>[..]  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. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Newsgroups: alt.atheism