Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!violet!cpshelley
From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: Science (was Re: Consciousness)
Message-ID: <1990Dec4.154454.3276@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1990Nov9.202525.11717@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3489@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <15724@venera.isi.edu> <1990Nov21.045833.11768@mentor.com> <YAMAUCHI.90Dec1155848@heron.cs.rochester.edu> <1990Dec2.201517.10777@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <MIKEB.90Dec3132442@wdl31.wdl.fac.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 15:44:54 GMT
Lines: 80

In article <MIKEB.90Dec3132442@wdl31.wdl.fac.com> mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes:
>
>to which cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes:
>   ....
>   A big difference between the two approaches however is that science 
>   refers in reality to two criteria of explanatory suffiency:
>   1) rigour/consistency and perhaps minimalness (formal adequecy), and
>   2) elegance and intuitiveness (informal adequecy).   ....
>
>Cameron -- I think that your description of science is wrong. It is my
>understanding that science can be viewed as a body of knowledge which can
>lead to RELIABLE predictions about the physical world. In other words,
>science is REPEATABLE.  

I would not deny that people's concepts of science vary, but I don't know 
why all variation must be judged right or wrong -- my picture of science
is not that rigid, although certainly not all-inclusive either.  It is
odd, in my view, to look on science as being some nebulous "body of
knowledge" (having what meta-physical status?) the covers of which are
pealed away by supposedly impersonal investigators.  Perhaps I shouldn't
say "odd" so much as idealistic.  I was attempting to get closer to what
actually seems to go on in the conducting of science.

The RELIABLILITY and REPEATABILITY of predictions are functions of the 
mathematical nature of the models being used, aren't they?  This is
what (in essence) I was referring to with my first point.  So perhaps
we do not disagree as much as it seems.

>
>Thus, the relation between technology and science is clear -- technology
>NEEDS science because science ensures that the results of the technology
>will be predictable. E.g., no one would build a space shuttle before having
>a reliable theory concerning the nature of space (such as vacuum, gravity,
>radiation, etc.) 
>

Very true, and I did admit that the relation between science and technology
seems to be changing of late.  But throughout most of history, the 
irrigation systems, roadways, ships, weapons, etc. (the technology) have
been made with no reference to science (as we have it now) at all.
Modern man and his technology have existed for  roughly thirty thousand
years now, how long has science had such a great influence?  Also, I
think the fact that we are all technophiles here has given us a somewhat
distorted view of technology -- the things you mention are all examples
of "high-technology", and it's not clear to me that this represents the
majority of technology even today.

>I believe that the characteristics you list are merely criteria that are
>used by the scienctific community for evaluating scientific theories. In
>modern science there is a strong tendency to reject theories that do no
>hold up to the REPEATABILITY criteria even if they fulfill conditions (1)
>and (2) you listed.  (Note that the opposite is not always true -- it may
>also reject a theory which is repeatable.)
>

Hmmm.  I had envisaged repeatabilty as a formal constraint in line with
my first condition, although I did not state it explicitly.  I would also
like to add at this point that I think the formal adequecy of science
serves as its interface to high-technology and is the guarantee of
the reliabiltiy you were looking for.  The math used to describe
physical theories, say, can then be used by engineers to produce 
more tangible results with reasonable expectations of success -- the
interface I was referring to.  Since, as I maintained, other approaches
to 'explanation' (see the previous post) don't have such a level built
into them, they have no effective way of transferring 'results' from 
one area to another.  Thus, a new-improved hallucinogenic drug which
brings you to nirvana more quickly and for longer cannot suggest a
better way dealing with your cranky car when you come back down (at
least not reliably).  I'm
being facetious of course, but I hope you get the picture.

>  Mike Bender

Does this address your concerns at all?

--
      Cameron Shelley        | "Logic, n.  The art of thinking and reasoning
cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu|  in strict accordance with the limitations and
    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |  incapacities of the human misunderstanding..."
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |				Ambrose Bierce
