Sokal et al

[Cal McInvale]

At 1:52 PM -0800 12/5/96, Diana York Blaine wrote:

     But I don't want to build a bridge, I want to have a dialogue with the
     people who do, about where, and why, and if.

Having a dialogue *is* building a bridge. To use a networking systems
paradigm, dialogue is the verbal equivalent to the 7-layer OSI model,
basically a bridge for the transfer/transmission of data (information)
between two computers.

     I'd like the autocratic
     demeanor that often rains down on the heads of those who look at life
     using different paradigms than physicists do and dare challenge "progress"
     and "science" to  be exposed for what it is.

Well, I cautiously agree. There's no place for "autocratic demeanor" in
science. It happens, but it generally leads to bad science. I spend a great
deal of my time trying to "democratize" the image of science, if not
science itself, by communicating scientific ideas to non-scientists and
encouraging their questions. "There's no such thing as a stupid question,"
I am constantly telling people. So I'm all for the fair examination of of
other paradigms. (I even disagree with the notion, prevalent among my
colleagues, that we can ever "close the book" on a particular subject.
There are a few things for which all the evidence is in [see below], but
there are more questions than answers. Which is what makes science great.)

But I'd also like those other paradigms to take a little responsibility for
the accuracy/validity of their statements/claims. For example, let's look
at one popular paradigm -- astrology. Not only is there no valid physical
reason to believe the claims that astrology asserts, those who adhere to
the tenets of that paradigm often distort historical accuracy in order to
further their goals. They make claims that are unwarranted and, in turn,
contribute to a climate of ignorance and superstition that cannot be
helpful to the future of the human species.

Certainly there are paradigms which warrant more investigation. There are
things which were dismissed decades ago that are now proven to be at least
partly valid. This is perhaps best evidenced by acupuncture: reliable
studies have shown it to be a mild analgesic. But again, the adherents of
that paradigm make wild claims as to its efficacy and capabilities. So a
little responsibility on the part of those "alternative theorists" would be
nice.

     Perhaps some of us don't do
     science because we don't want to. Does that eliminate our right to have an
     informed, even professional, discussion about how and why it is done?

Nothing ever eliminates your right to educate yourself and espouse your
opinions. And you certainly don't have to "do science" to have an opinion
on it. Of course, informed opinions are always better than uninformed ones.
The problem is usually that people read some book or see something on TV
that gives them inaccurate information about something (like a recent
discussion I had with someone who had heard on TV that quantum physics
proves God exists!); they then think they have an "informed opinion" and
resist anything to the contrary.

At this point, it is no longer science -- it is religion. Whether that
person has a 10th-grade education or a PhD in Chemistry -- if he/she is
resitant to new data, then he/she is a bad scientist.




------------------
cal mcinvale                      entropy specialist
calm at tpdinc.com                   tpd publishing inc.

This message may contain forward-looking statements which
involve risks and uncertainties. The user's actual results
could differ materially from the results discussed herein.