Stanley

The scientists proposed (believed) that a theory constituted a truth, a fact. They
propogated this theory as a fact but with little or know empirical evidence to support
them. It is perfectly ok to propogate a theory as a theory, it is not however
acceptable to propose a theory and not to be able to produce any empirical evidence
that supports it and worse still for the scientific community to not challenge the
absurdity of the theory. Scientific theories produce policies and actions which impact
the world, all scientific theories have to be justified and should only be discussed
in terms of probability and risk.

It is frankly unfair to compare the behavior of scientists and technologists in
relation to the BSE crisis, where scientists colluded with industry and the state
rather than accurately state the limitations of there knowledge, with the story of the
proofs gained around the theory of general relativity. I suspect however that Bas Van
Fraassen might have something to say about the concept of vindication by empirical
study....

Personally I believe that absolute certainty should be left to religious bigots.

best
sdv

Stanley Jeffers 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
>
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, sdv wrote:
>
> > Jim
> >
> > The BSE history shows that the scientists involved in the research blindly
> > accepted the theory proposed in 1987 that BSE was spreading into cows in the
> > meat and bone meal. The conclusion of the early theory was that BSE was a form
> > of scrapie (a disease of sheep which they believed could not pass from one
> > species to another... contrary to the evidence they presented). In the 1980s it
> > was already well know that diseases had often jumped the species barrier.
> >
> > The early BSE theory was blindly accepted and propergated as a fact with the
> > status of scientific truth.  But in science a fact, a theory can only ever have
> > the status of a theory, only those theories with a substantial amount of
> > empirically proven evidence can have the status of being probably true. This
> > theory was presented to the media and non-scientists as being the truth rather
> > than as being a theory and probabilistically true.
> >
> > Of course the science of the time (1987) was based on the best evidence and as
> > such could be regarded as an acceptable position to take. But, and it is a very
> > large but, the statements were not challenged, investigated and tested against
> > evidence or alternative theories.
> >
> > The great 'lie' here is the status of scientific theories as fact and truth. The
> > use of the status of science as truth to keep the public reassured contrary to
> > all the empirical evidence, the idea of scientific certainty as being possible
> > resulted in the public administrators (who were usually scientifically trained)
> > justifying the bad practices of the time and refusing to address the
> > probabilistic nature of scientific theories and the risks associated with the
> > issues.
> >
> > This may relate directly to other recent statements arguing that science is
> > badly taught, but that is not my concern here.
> >
> > Incidentally the use of science and technology to justify the turning of animals
> > into cannibals is so morally repugnant as to be totally unspeakable.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > sdv
> >
> > jim clark wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, sdv wrote:
> > > > The below are [snips] from Promed these emails are evidence in the
> > > > ongoing uncovering of the lies and evasions which science and
> > > > technologists have committed related to the BSE food scare. The
> > > > interesting thing here is that the audience who were 'lied to' by the
> > > > science and technologists concerned seem more capable of dealing with
> > > > probability than the trained scientific community.
> > >
> > > The only mention of scientists that I saw was that they
> > > identified the disease in 1995.  Exactly what were the lies
> > > referred to in the preamble?
> > >
> > > 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
> > > ============================================================================
> >