Subject: Re: rational knowledge
Date: Jun 6 22:08:38 1995
From: James West - jdwest at u.washington.edu


Interesting response to a post that simply pointed to two articles.
Whether you read the pointer rationally, holistically or in any other way,
it contains nothing that suggests that scientific (in the broadest sense)
knowledge is the only kind. The "NY Times" article in question, in its
turn, simply reports on a conference. The people gathered at the
conference obviously held a variety of opinions, but most of them seemed
not to be defending "scientific" knowledge as exclusively right, but
rather to be pointing to the dangers of what is, ironically, a line of
false _reasoning_, that goes like this:

1) There are some alternatives to strictly scientific thought
and knowledge;
2) Scientists are sometimes wrong, and some of them are even
occasionally caught cheating;
3) Therefore the alternatives to science (or more often a
particular alternative) are _exclusively_ right.

This issue always seems to become inflamed (pun intended) around
unprompted assumptions of exclusivity. Meanwhile, many of us have
"inclusive" friends who fit the general category "cello-playing,
church-going physicist with an Art Museum membership," or even perhaps
belong to that category. If the word "scientific" has really become a red
rag to the cognitively challenged, we could trade it in, probably with
very little loss, for the mellower and more inclusive expression
"clear-thinking." And as endangered species go, clarity of thought (of any
kind) is out there with the Snail Darters of this world. I think that's
what's worrying most of the participants in the conference the NY Times
reported.

On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Steve Hallstrom wrote:

> Wisdom may yet prevail!
>
> Not being a scientist my thinking is a) not necessarily rational, b)
> often intuitive, and c) sympathetic to the beauty and wonder of the
> natural world bereft of science in any sense.
>
> It is not that science as a methodology of learning is wrong or bad. The
> knowledge arrived at by thinking rationally about facts is one set of
> knowledge. The problem that I percieve is the claim of the scientific
> community that it is the only knowledge with credence.
>
> With this we have lost the knowledge and wisdom that was everywhere
> around us and known to us in different cultures and environs. The
> indigenious understanding of medicinal powers of medicine, the
> connectivity of the electric centers of nerves to health, the many
> kinds of snows in the Artic and the ability to travel without
> compass over vast regions.
>
> Science is under attack for reasons similiar to medicine being under
> attack. In my opinion, and there is nothing scientific about its
> basis, the people are realizing the impacts of science at the alter
> not being satisfying to the soul, just as they question giving their
> lives savings and their childrens inheritance to sustain a life for
> another 2 weeks or days. Science and the technology it has praised
> as the saviour of society is clearly not.
>
> I gringe each time an environmentalist yells for science as the
> basis for decisions. Too often the science that wins is that bought
> and paid for by the developers or corporations. And so the
> forest is lost, the fish gone, the birds depleted while the
> scientific knowledge is debated by those with the resources to
> fund the research.
>
> Wasn't it science that brought us the green revolution of the 60's
> allowing the world population to double in decades? Isn't it science
> that creates the toxics that promote cancer (of course other science
> happily takes large grants to find cures)? Isn't it science that
> rejects homepathic medicine and the healing power of "faith" - a
> mental state of health?
>
> This concept of thinking rationally about facts is likened to early
> computer scientists discussions about artificial intelligence (which
> these folks clearly demonstrated). With a leap of rational logic
> that was never questioned they went from the concept that the ability
> to accumulate massive amounts of data and develop statistical and
> neural modelling would lead to a knowledge base unparalleled in
> history. Independent, self learning machines that rivaled man in
> thinking. The concept of wisdom never entered the discussion. It
> still doesn't, but one doesn't read much about the artificial systems
> any more. Seems the biological mechanisms are a hundred fold more
> efficient at storage of and retrieval of information and capable of
> concieving of it in patterns not represented by rational thinking of
> facts - sort of a right brain exercise.
>
> Kind of like enjoying the butterflies and flowers while listening to
> the birds sing and not giving a damn if its a Wilson's Warbler or
> a White Crowned Sparrow, it's pretty.

On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, James West wrote:

> The science section of today's New York Times (6/6/95, pp.B5-B9) contains
> two articles addressing issues that have been discussed recently on
> TWEETERS. One is "Scientists Deplore Flight From Reason" (B5), which deals
> with the growing sense among the scientific (in the broadest sense)
> community that knowledge arrived at by thinking rationally about facts is
> under serious attack these days.


_________________________________________________________________________
JAMES WEST|University of Washington DP-32, Seattle, WA 98195|206-543-4892