Hi

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Dewey Dykstra, Jr. wrote:
> >Hmmm..but surely you miss the point that science is self-correcting. The
> >theory proposed in 1987 is longer supported as science has moved on. This
> >list appears to cater to those who would attack science for various
> >reasons. Are we supposed to believe that it is some kind of miracle that
> >the theory of general relativity has been vindicated by empirical studies
> >of binary pulsars to within one part in ten to the power twelve?
> >            Stanley Jeffers
>
> How do we KNOW "science is self-correcting"?  Theories change, sure.  The
> changes usually result in our explanations encompassing more of our
> experiences each time.  BUT, how do we know these are more "correct"?

It is hard to answer a question where "correct" is in quotation
marks, as that suggests some idiosyncratic or unknown use of the
term.  By one meaning of correct (i.e., corresponding to
experience), your own statements make clear that the statement is
"science is self-correcting" is almost tautological.  Moreover,
the improved correspondence, prediction, control, etc. requires
some explanation.  How do _you_ explain the improvement if it is
not due to closer correspondence with reality (i.e.,
correctness)?  The idea that it is simply "change" would seem to
imply that we could move in any direction, from more to less
correspondence, from one degree of correspondence to the same
degree, or from less to more (the typical pattern in science).

> At any given time, how do we know that there is not another explanation
> which does not just as well explain all experience so far plus more that
> our current explanation does not?

How do we know that all humans are going to die, that the sun
will rise in the morning, ...?  This naive position simply leaves
one wallowing in complete ignorance about _all_ future
events.  Don't give me some hypothetical possibility; specify the
alternative so we can see if it does as well as existing theory
and so we can design a study to discriminate between the
competing theories.

> The only data we have, all the data we have so far tells us there is always
> such a new explanation, the character of which or direction of which was
> not imagined.  If the history of science appears to tell us nothing else,
> it appears to tell us this, doesn't it?

Not on my reading.  Rather history tells us that scientific
theories move from less to more complete correspondences with
reality.  How could it be otherwise, at least without some kind
of divine guidance that would infuse us with complete insight
into the nature of the world?  That is, we start out in a state
of relative ignorance, depending on the current knowledge in some
domain, and through creative, painstaking, tediuous scientific
work we drag ourselves slowly out of ignorance.  Your
characterization also seems to make the unwarranted assumption
that former well-founded theories (which probably only properly
applies to theories of the last few hundred years) are completely
overthrown by later theories.  I suspect that scientists like
Newton and Darwin are still so greatly respected because they
largely were correct in their ideas, although these were
qualified and adapted by later scientific work.

> I would add too that with each major new explanation the
> assumed nature of the phenomenon has changed in an
> unpredictable, non-asymptotic way.  Light was something that
> came from the eyes, then it was rays from sources, then it
> was tiny particles, then it was waves of aether, then it was
> waves of EM field, then it was chunks of energy...  This is
> not an asymptotic approach to anything, yet all the while we
> are able to explain more and more of our possible experience
> with the phenomenon we call light.

I am unclear why you are so confident that it is _not_ an
asymptotic approach to anything, yet still recognize that we can
explain more of our experiences.  What grounds do you have for
rejecting the idea that "chunks of energy" is more correct than
"waves of aether" which in many ways is more correct than light
coming from the eyes.  With respect to the latter, you also
appear pretty liberal with what you call "scientific
theory."  Wouldn't philosophical speculation be a better
characterization of light coming from the eyes.

> I'm not attacking science, but I am taking issues with
> representations of science that do not seem to make sense.

No, you are attacking science, whether you think so or not.  You
are lending credence to some far-fetched pseudo-philosophical
ideas ("fashionable nonsense" to use Sokal and Bricmont's phrase)
that many claim do undermine science, supposedly making science
no better than and perhaps even subservient to other ways of
knowing (narrative, intuition, ...).  You might think that you
are just gently lapping against the hard rock of science, but, as
Darwin argued and demonstrated so well in several domains (i.e.,
atolls, earthworms, evolution), dramatic transformations can
result from the cumulative influence of what seem like feeble
causal factors incommensurate with their profound ultimate
effects.

If one instead subjects these alleged challenges to science to
the kinds of rigorous and critical criteria for knowledge that
are commonplace in science, then one sees how very feeble are the
criticisms and how little consideration they actually deserve.

Best wishes
Jim

 ===========================================================================
James M. Clark                          (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology                (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg                  4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9             [log in to unmask]
CANADA                                  http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
 ===========================================================================