S&S vs. SF in BotNS

António Pedro Marques · 23 Dec 2011, 15:16 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:16:31 +0000
Subject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
In-Reply-To: <6850562C3B1A4D9BA2DED54E5910C581@Rover>
References: <SNT123-W6264EC536A69C6A6153331CFAA0 at phx.gbl><4EF414CF.3000700 at clueland.com>
	<4EF462C8.909 at gmail.com> <6850562C3B1A4D9BA2DED54E5910C581@Rover>
Message-ID: <4EF49B4F.3060806 at gmail.com>

Gerry Quinn wrote (23-12-2011 13:44):
> *From:* Ant?nio Pedro Marques <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
> Jeff Wilson wrote (23-12-2011 05:42):
>
>  > > You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop hexings are
>  > > not reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well enough that
>  > > we can reproduce Zeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent it from
>  > > striking houses when it occurs naturally.
>
>  > It may be so, but we could do much of that with classical science. 'Our
>  > Theory of Gravitation is as good as perfect', ironical or not, was written
>  > in the first half of the 19th century. 'We' got to the Moon without the
>  > fancy computers and mobile communications of today. Current science may be
>  > impresssive in comparison to that of just a few decades ago, but it doesn't
>  > follow that it has a technological import of the same magnitude. At the end
>  > of the day, it works better than praying to Zeus, but so does Classical
>  > Physiscs.
>
> Yes, but classical physics *is* part of modern science. Our understanding is
> deeper now, but we still use Newtonian gravity over 99% of the time because
> the equations are simpler and it?s more than accurate enough for most
> purposes (...)

What we use doesn't matter, because this discussion is about how things 
_really_ are. Classical Physics is very at odds with Current Science in 
respect to how the Universe works. This discussion is about giving credence 
to explanations of the Universe, and Jeff pointed out the usefulness of a 
given explanation is the criterion for credibility. The criterion works 
psychologically, but not scientifically, so it actually supports rather than 
negates Lee's original assertion that people function by belief.

>  > For the common man, it's a matter of having access to services.
>  > This is a matter in which I find myself in complete agreement with Lee -
>  > '[y]ou have never seen an electron and you have not done original research
>  > on the subject', '[e]lectricity seems to work so you believe the experts who
>  > tell you how it works' express very well my own view on the subject.
> The experts don?t just tell me how it works, they produce extensive and
> consistent mathematical models covering a wide range of domains and invite
> me to pick holes in them, or carry out any experiment that might invalidate
> them.

And since you don't, you _believe_ they are correct. Unless you _do_, and 
then you are not merely a believer _in that domain_.

> Lee is spouting a tired old argument which uses cultural relativism to
> assail all notions of objective truth.

Such an argument, tired and old or not, may exist somewhere, but that's not 
what's being discussed here.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net