(no subject)

[anotherusedpage]

neonchameleon; I saw this and thought of you. Or rather our ongoing discussion on the nature of reality.

Neil Gaiman puts it better than I ever could (as usual).



"I can believe things that are true and I can believe things that aren't true and I can believe things where nobody knows if they're true or not. I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and Marilyn Monroe and the Beatles and Elvis and Mister Ed. Listen - I believe that people are perfectible, that knowledge is infinite, that the world is run by secret banking cartels and is visited by aliens on a regular basis, nice ones that look like wrinkledy lemurs and bad ones who mutilate cattle and want our water and our women. I believe that the future sucks and I believe that the future rocks and I believe that one day White Buffalo Woman is going to come back and kick everyone's ass. I believe that all men are just overgrown boys with deep problems communicating and that the decline in good sex in America is coincident with the decline in drive-in movie theaters from state to state. I believe that all politicians are unprincipled crooks and I still believe that they are better than the alternative. I believe that California is going to sink into the sea when the big one comes, while Florida is going to dissolve into madness and alligators and toxic waste. I believe that antibacterial soap is destroying our resistance to dirt and disease so that one day we'll all be wiped out by the common cold like the Martians in War of the Worlds. I believe that the greatest poets of the last century were Edith Sitwell and Don Marquis, that jade is dried dragon sperm, and that thousands of years ago in a former life I was a one-armed Siberian shaman. I believe that mankind's destiny lies in the stars. I believe that candy really did taste better when I was a kid, that it's aerodynamically impossible for a bumblebee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there's a cat in a box somewhere who's alive and dead at the same time (although if they don't ever open the box to feed it it'll eventually just be two different kinds of dead), and that there are stars in the universe billions of years older than the universe itself. I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesn't even know that I'm alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of causal chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck. I believe that anyone who says that sex is overrated just hasn't done it properly. I believe that anyone who claims to know what's going on will lie about the little things too. I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies. I believe in a woman's right to choose, a baby's right to live, that while all human life is sacred there's nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system. I believe that life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you're alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it." - Sam, American Gods



I don't agree with every statement, but the gist of it is my impression of the way the universe works.

Comments

[anotherusedpage.livejournal.com]

Ok, this is the bit I feel most strongly about, and also the bit I have most difficulty in expressing.

When people believe in The Truth in terms of theology, the discipline is set up to support this belief. Bad Things follow. We're agreed on this, I think.

In the case of science - While each individual component of science is set up as a theory - despite many scientists seeming to claim The Truth about a specific theory - the set up of the disipline itself is touted as a The Truth. The idea of provability and unprovability and peer review (one of my least favourite aspects of the scientific set up) is seen as if it is the only sensible way of viewing the world. Beliefs that are not based on Hard Evidence are ridiculed.

My dad Believes in Science. Not in the sense that he believes every scientific theory - he doesn't - and not in the sense that he sees science as Ultimate Truth - he doesn't. (Incidentally, his study path was actually very similar to midnightmelody's - he did biochemistry and philsophy at uni...). The point at which I realised he believed in something that I had fundamental issues with was the point at which he said he could never believe in god because belief in such wasn't disprovable. Simply because he couldn't understand it within the bounds of scientific reasoning, he had to dismiss it altogether.

There are so many things that can't be understood in terms of provability, and I think they're some of the best things about humanity. All sorts of abstract concepts like love and beauty and inner-freedom - we have them, and the fact that we have them can't be proved; there will never be hard evidence for it, it simply cannot be understood within that framework.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

the set up of the disipline itself is touted as a The Truth

You've not heard me on the subject of Dawkins... (And no it isn't and wasn't - it just showed itself to be so vastly superior to the competition in a variety of ways that people tried placing it on a pedestal.)

was the point at which he said he could never believe in god because belief in such wasn't disprovable

Did he claim he couldn't believe in God because God wasn't disprovable or that he actively disbelieved in God because God wasn't disprovable? The second is daft (and the proponents of it are the best arguments I've seen for Theism), but the first simply lacks ambition. On the other hand, it can be summarised as "I can't see a way this could be proved either way so I'm going to leave it to those with time/those who care" - not my way, but hardly an illigitimate one.

peer review (one of my least favourite aspects of the scientific set up)

Peer review works if and only if you have a touchstone to hold everyone to - in this case the physical world. The absence of peer review allows real crap to be published as supposed thought (see the Sokal affair for details). It's not a perfect system (and I can't think that anyone would claim it was)- but can you come up with a better one?

There are so many things that can't be understood in terms of provability, and I think they're some of the best things about humanity.

Agreed. On the other hand, where provability (or rather falsification) works it is manifestly superior to hand-waving and ex-cathedra arguments. Take it for what it is - and what it is is a damn useful tool. Unfortunately, some people take it as their only tool- and when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.

[anotherusedpage.livejournal.com]

Culturally, we put that way of thinking on a pedestal. I know individuals who don't. I'm not disputing that it's a useful tool, I just dislike the number of people with an awful lot of influence who take it as their only tool. You have a tendency to do it in argument - to say 'where's your evidence for that' - when what I'm trying to do is discribe how I feel or how I view the world. I'm thinking of some of the feminist debates here - If I say 'women feel excluded by androcentric language' saying 'where's your evidence?' isn't particularly helpful in my opinion... I very very strongly hold the point of view that just because you hold the most evidence, it doesn't make you right :P

(I know there are problems with that as a position, and I know I sound like I'm coming close to saying 'I'm right no matter what...' which isn't what I mean.)

The second is daft (and the proponents of it are the best arguments I've seen for Theism), but the first simply lacks ambition.

He was talking about the first - why does this lack ambition? I'm not saying that it's not a stupid position to hold, but I don't see why it lacks ambition...

Nope, can't come up with a better option than peer-review, but I violently, violently dislike it because anyone who disagrees with any of the fundamentals is going to have difficulty getting to a position where they can take part in the process. Kinda like the issue of democracy again. "Dictatorship by me" sounds like the best system from where I'm sitting, so maybe "review by me"? Only I don't understand enough to make judgements on most of it...

ex-cathedra arguments

huh?

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

I just dislike the number of people with an awful lot of influence who take it as their only tool

Agreed - with the caveat that that would apply to any tool and science is a more benign one than most.

And there are far, far fewer than there were. I wish there were more scientists in fairly promenant positions such as on newspapers (the correlation between New Scientist headlines on Thursday and newspaper headlines on Friday isn't coincidental - and the BBC has sacked the entire Horizon staff).

To be accurate, I wish that there were far more people trained in science- and the limitations of science.

You have a tendency to do it in argument - to say 'where's your evidence for that' - when what I'm trying to do is discribe how I feel or how I view the world. I'm thinking of some of the feminist debates here - If I say 'women feel excluded by androcentric language' saying 'where's your evidence?' isn't particularly helpful in my opinion...

And here I would say that the issue is one of precision and accuracy (not synonymous). Were you to say "I feel [foo]", I would accept your statement as it stands. Were you to say "A few women feel [foo]" "Some women feel [foo]", I wouldn't bother to challenge - you are almost certainly right. If you say "Women feel [foo]", you've missed a signifier off - you almost certainly mean "Some Women feel [foo]", but you've spun it so that "All Women feel [foo]" is an equally valid reading- I'm going to challenge. If you say "[foo] happens", I may well challenge both whether it does and the extent- you are making statements about external realities rather than feelings, and at this point it is time for science to get involved.

I very very strongly hold the point of view that just because you hold the most evidence, it doesn't make you right :P

I agree. On the other hand, the person with the most evidence and the best understanding of the evidence is the one most likely to be right. Anyone who deliberately ignores the evidence in favour of their ideology is likely to be wrong.

He was talking about the first - why does this lack ambition?

He's restricting himself to what Science™ can say. Very good within the limits of scientific knowledge, but utterly and completely useless outside it.

I violently, violently dislike it because anyone who disagrees with any of the fundamentals is going to have difficulty getting to a position where they can take part in the process

What do you mean by fundamentals? A flat earthist is not going to get to publish in an astrophysics journal and an astrophysicist is unlikely to publish in a flat-earthists journal. All being published means is that the peer-reviewers employed by that journal don't consider you to be wrong (and it's easier to overturn ideas in the sciences than the humanities for obvious reasons).

Either that, or if the academic discipline is intellectually bankrupt, they can be made subject to a Trojan Horse (see Alan Sokal and Social Text for details).

Only I don't understand enough to make judgements on most of it...

That doesn't stop those responsible for the "Sociology of Scientific Knowledge" from pontificating. [/Rant]

huh?

Appeals to (often irrelevant) authority.