From: sals@random.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:48:11 GMT

In article <C1JEup.5yK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> czeller@ih-nxt05.cso.uiuc.edu  
(Christopher M Zeller) writes:
(i.e. it is unlikely that  
> Newton's laws will be overturned, however they were ammended whith the  
> discovery of quantum mechanics.)
>  
> 	You are right about this one. Simply stating that they rely on  
> logic doesn't give anyone credibility. But the best thing about logic is  
> that if done correctly, it leaves a paper-trail. So if you doubt  
someones  
> conclusions you can ask for their proof, and they will show you. If you  
> still find a problem with it, you can show them where they went wrong,  
> and, assuming that you can logically prove them wrong, then both of you  
> can agree. Much the same way that you show your work in math class, or  
> provide your data and calculations in a scientific paper. 
> 
>  As a matter
> > of fact, their insistence on the validity of logic to the exclusion of
> > everything else, makes them seem simple minded. Real people are a
> > complex of perceptions, subordinating every intellectual and sensual
> > attribute to logic ignores the fullness of being human.
> 
> 	What makes you think that there is a difference between the world  
> around us and ourselves. Or do you think that we are all the result of  
> some higher power and posess these powers ourselves. Our thoughts don't  
> define the universe. It is there wether we like it or not. 2+2 always  
> equels 4. We may see it any way we want, but that doesn't change how it  
> IS. 
>  
> >    Objectivists sre enamoured of Science, thinking that past successes
> > mean something. The ability to create 20th century Science existed
> > even before civilization, it's just that people lived by a different
> > set of possibilities.
> 
> 	No one CREATES science. The universe IS, we just discover it.
> 
> > There have always been brilliant minds,
> > genuises, our generation has no significant margin in that regard,
> > it's all more aquestion of emphasis than value. To define ourselves by
> > the current state of Science is ridiculous, evrything channges.
> 
> 	The fundemental laws of the universe don't change. What we think  
> they are does, and therefore we must always be on the lookout for new  
> answers as long as they are correct. Objectivists are not simple. The  
> universe just isn't as complicated as it first seems once we admit that  
> are preceptions of the universe aren't controlling it. 
> 
> >    Your reference to Quantum Physics may not be as cogent as you
> > believe. Physics of whatever variety, has become very adept at
> > describing observed events, but it's still not entirely certain that
> > they -understand- what they describe. 
> 
> 	Hold that thought, Bill, we are still serching for the unified  
> field theory.....If you seriously want all the answers to all the  
> questions of science NOW, then you had better forget it all and start  
> making them up yourself. It simply won't happen. But we ARE trying......
> 
> 	An engineer on the other hand,
> > has to know exactly what is required, hunches won't cut it. Who would
> > you rather have build a bridge, an engineer or a quatum physicist?
> 
> 	When was the last time you have ever heard a physicst mistake a  
> hunch for reality. Physicists compose THEORYS. The very name, theory,  
> admitts that it is not fully proven YET. Over time, those theorys MAY  
> become law. Physicists know the difference between knowing exactly what  
is  
> and a hunch. It's the general public that doesn't. Besides, where would 
> the engineer be if it weren't for all the laws that physicists  
discovered  
> in the first place.
> 
> >    Science suggests possibilities, engineers test and exploit the
> > possibilities; again a question of emphasis. I don't mean to denigrate
> > Science or exalt Engineering, my point is that, in both cases, logic
> > is a fundamental element, but in neither case is humanity fully
> > defined. 
> 
> 	Here you go again. Why do you continue to assert that the laws of  
> science are fundementally different from the questions of humanity?
> 
> 
> >The resort to Science that is so typical of Objectivists,
> > simply dodges the very issues they claim address, namely, what is a
> > person, how does he relate to others, what are his obligations (if
> > any), and what sort of society best conforms to his nature ...
> 
> 	Bill, science and logic offers our best hope for solving these  
> dilemmas. That way. the solutions CAN come from nature and the universe  
> itself, and NOT the fundementally biases of human thinking. Otherwise  
you  
> could make the point for anything you want and I would have no way to  
ever   
> prove you wrong. In such a case, there would be no answer to "person,  
how  
> does he relate to others, what are his obligations (if any), and what  
sort  
> of society best conforms to his nature ...," no use for philosophy, and  
no  
> sense even discussing it. That is the purpose of logic and I think I'll  
> stick with it. 
> 
>                      Chris Zeller

I think you are ignoring the fact that science is biased by the way we  
think. Our ability to  perform experiments and to theorize are shaped by  
the way we think as humans. Science and logic are not equivalent. In logic  
and math you can prove most things, however, in science you prove nothing  
you can lend support to a particular theory but you have no way of knowing  
if you theory is actually the Truth. I also disagree that math is  
something above man. 2+2=4 is indeed true in the manner we define 2 to be,  
however, in more abstract math I wonder if there are actually physical  
entities which correspond to our mathematical constructs. In fact  
scientists and mathematicans have construted theories which are internally  
consistent, but which do not correspond to reality. For example Euclidean  
geometry. Approximately true yes, however, exactly true no. Or on a  
different note what about and infentesimal, does one real exist? 
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism