NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14194

Text File | 1993-01-01 | 4.8 KB | 99 lines

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!daffy!skool.ssec.wisc.edu!tobis
From: [e-mail] (Michael Tobis)
Subject: objective environment? (was Save the Planet)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The News)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:23:11 GMT
Lines: 87

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick) writes:
|>
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|>
|>  > In article <[e-mail]> and a previous article,
|>  > [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick) writes:
|> > |> The notion of a single objective environment we together must look after
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>  > |> better is absolutely untenable, when plainly one's subjective social,
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>  > |> built and natural environments are merely a part of the wider context
|>  > |> in which one finds oneself.
|>  >
|>  > Eep. This is another hazard of an education in social science rearing its
|>  > ugly head. The worst hazard, in fact.
|>  >
|>  > I think this radical relativism is the single most dangerous idea currently
|>  > receiving any serious attention. It is inimical to the whole program of science
|>  > and also to the prospect of getting our problems under control and reviving
|>  > the moribund ideas of optimism and progress.
|>  >
|>  > It's also demonstrably wrong, but only demonstrably to people who have the
|>  > patience to examine the demonstration, which is physical science itself.

|> Mikey, please *do* proceed with your demonstration, as patiently and
|> as thoughtfully as you wish over the next five years if you feel it
|> necessary. I anticipate it with a profound relish as finally bringing
|> the potential of sci.environment to fruition, if you are indeed capable
|> of leading such a debate.

Well, in physical science, when we make a mistake we are generally rewarded
in short order with a conclusion that makes no sense. "That violates
angular momentum conservation." or "That violates the second law." or some
such. There are objective criteria for judging truth. I am not one who
believes that they cover all aspects of reality, btw, but having experienced
the power and consistency of these criteria I am not about to casually
dismiss them either.

Your claim that the idea of an objective reality is untenable is completely
inconsistent with the success and power of physical science.

|> Else you merely seek here to impose your own version of scientistic
|> mysticism inaccessible to all except your own *true believers*.

I agree that a fallacy appropriately called scientism exists. I do not
agree that objecting to a bald statement of the non-existence of objective
reality is an example of that fallacy.

|> I am
|> yet quite deeply intrigued by the unrelenting propensity of those in
|> this group to claim scientific standing in order to repudiate my own
|> as unrelenting plea for a reasoned and thoughtful inter-disciplinary
|> discussion based on real data and substantial field experience.

No doubt. But it was no such plea that caused my vehement objection, but
more like its opposite, which seemed to me tantamount to a claim that evidence
is irrelevant. See the paragraph at the top of this posting, your initial
claim that prompted my response.

|> I am weary of the personal attacks made here, so go ahead any time you
|> want and I also shall keep archives.

I apologize if anything I have said can be construed as an attack on your
person rather than your ideas. Sometimes exasperation gets the better of
me. My intention is only to discuss ideas, and to avoid ad hominem attacks
despite the frequency with which certain others resort to them. But though
I haven't been a saint in this regard, I see no evidence of a personal
attack on my part in this latest exchange, although your use of a childish
familiar form to address me ("Mikey") might be so construed.

|>If you want some breathing space
|> to research and prepare your case, or need to take time out to more
|> clearly define your vocabulary, or validate the premises from which
|> you wish to proceed, or indeed find others to assist you, no problem
|> whatever.

It's an extremely interesting topic, but my past forays into this area
(from before your arrival) have convinced me that this is the wrong forum
to address them. I will only say that the idea of discussion based on data
and experience you cite above is one which appeals to me. But if reality is
merely subjective without an objective component, what is the point of data?

If you'd like to discuss this at greater length, perhaps you could
recommend a more appropriate newsgroup?

mt