Re: "Science is about exploration not about consensus."

From: Don Mikulecky <[email protected]>
Date: Thu 20 Dec 2001 - 04:14:59 CET

I have an inherent distrust for fundamentalism in any belief structure. In
science it manifests itself when people claim to have some sort of divine
guidance to tell the rest of us whether or not what we are doing or saying
is *really* science.
Respectfully,
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edwina Taborsky" <taborsky@primus.ca>
To: "Multiple recipients of list FIS" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: "Science is about exploration not about consensus."

> In reply to Jerry Chandler: I repeat: The role of science is to
> explore not to seek consensus.
>
> In Popper's terms, it's called fallibility. In other terms it's called
> the inductive method, an activity that sets up a probable rather than
> a necessary conclusion, i.e., it permits non-normative actions to
> exist and even, to develop. To operate only within a deductive method
> is to promote dogma. In other terms, it's called the acceptance of
> doubt - Abelard's heresy of 'dubito', and furthermore, a doubt that
> is not individual (as it was with Descartes) but operative within the
> cosmos. In other terms, it's called an acceptance of freedom. And, an
> acceptance of evolution; an evolution that is continuous rather than
> finite.
> No- I don't accept that the material world is 'out there', in a finite
> mode, having finished evolution, and our lack of knowledge of it is
> due merely to our ignorance and that we will eventually, finish our
> explorations and all shed our ignorance and reach a consensus.
>
> I do feel that we, as a community, think within habits, within
> normative and community-based modes of belief. That is, there will be,
> for a time, various modes of consensus among the community. A variety
> of modes of consensus; I've never seen a universal consensus and would
> consider such a mindset quite dangerous in its fundamentalism. These
> various habits-of-thought must be pragmatic; they must really
> represent the external world rather than mystify it. But, these same
> habits can never be final; they must be open to critique and further
> exploration. Our habits-of-cognition, our axioms, are partly
> determined by our old habits (our consented-to beliefs) and partly by
> our new experiences...as our cosmos evolves. If we close our minds to
> new experiences and new hypotheses, then, we are living, albeit
> happily, in Plato's Cave.
>
> Oh- and that's valid for 'subscribers to this list who are:
> ..scientists and non-scientists. Thought processes aren't different
> within the disciplines.
>
> Edwina Taborsky
> 39 Jarvis St. #318
> Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
> (416) 361.0898
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jlrchand@erols.com <jlrchand@pop.mail.rcn.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of list FIS <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:41 PM
> Subject: "Science is about exploration not about consensus."
>
>
> >
> > Edwinia writes:
> >
> > > Science is about
> > >exploration not about consensus.
> >
> > For subscribers to this list who are scientists, I ask that you
> > consider what this philosophy entails for your understanding of
> > science and the structures of science which have emerged from the
> > capacity of scientists to reach consensus.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > What are the roles for reproducibility in scientific
> experimentation?
> > What role does consistency play in the analysis of natural systems?
> > How do scientists create harmony between analysis and synthesis?
> > What are the roles of mathematics in describing and predicting the
> > behavior of complex systems?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jerry LR Chandler
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 20 04:16:38 2001

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:45 CET