Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA23296 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:07:22 +0100 From: Ned Wolpert <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org In-reply-to: <923D41E0-5285-11D6-9556-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> (email@example.com) Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions References: <923D41E0-5285-11D6-9556-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> Message-Id: <20020418140116.MIUF7829.firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:01:16 -0400 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:34:29 -0400
> From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com>
> > For me, personally as opposed to generally, facts are quite relative.
> The facts are not relative, you are.
Perhaps I'm not using my vocabulary as I should... let me rephrase...
Facts are deemed true by the individual. We (humans) base our ideas
and ideologies on facts that we deemed true. I understand that for
you in this discussion, a fact is not personal opinion... it is a
trait of the universe. I agree that reality works that way. The
problem I have with all this is that the word 'fact' is a word that we
(humans) made up to draw a line in the sand. Sometimes this word does
infact describe the 'universal truth of an objective reality' and
sometimes it doesn't. A fact is relative to me, and more
specifically, my point of view. What troubles me is that a fact is
also limited by my lack of detail when I discuss facts. This lack of
detail helps our (human) communication by applying to the fact to the
subject at hand (gravity gets you down) but the lack of detail can
miss some important issues. (gravity kills)
> > This is, in fact, the 'fact' I was looking for.
> Your search is over, then.
Well, interesting enough one would think so, yes.
> A condition of objective reality is indeed a fact. However, the
> requirements to determine objectivity are, alas, in contention.
> People cannot be objective. This is sad, but true.
Yes... and the basis of my point that one needs to be careful about
the language that describes what a 'fact' is... the word is defined in
human terms, not terms that the rest of the universe cares about. The
universe is very relative. We humans have limited understanding of
the universe, and science shows the detail of our limited
understanding. There is one model to describe how huge quanities of
matter (suns, black holes) relate and another for small (standard
model for partical physics) matter. The grand unification theorm is
still yet to be completed (which is a matter of opinion. :-) but it
should be obvious to the casual observer that things should work in
one way. And forgive me, but that one way is relative to the
observer. (Again, I invoke Eienstin's special relativity here, not
the human mind)
> Thus, no astrology believer will ever deny the 'objectivity' of their
> belief system. And, feel free to replace 'astrology' with anything you
> like from any cult.
> Science is not a system of memes, but a system of removing the
> subjectivity of the human observer from the measurement. It is objective
> as objective can get with human agents as part of the mix.
I didn't not mean to imply that science was a 'system of memes',
rather subject to the same memetic forces as everything else. The
scientific process is an attempt to validate theories and create
models to describe the natural world; and the scientific process
assists in reduction of bunk. However, nothing is foolproof.
> Science finds nothing objective about astrology.
> Therefore, astrology is a subjective declaration about the universe, and
> not factual.
Factual in the eyes of science. And this distinction is important to
me. Not because I think science is 'wrong' but because within science
one needs to be aware of political issues that tend to push certain
ideas and models forward and hold other ideas back. Back in my
graduate school days, I was quite aware of the political process as a
student, as well as the scientific process I was following. (I was a
computational chemist) Obviously, the political side didn't change the
results from the scientific process, rather it minimized the impact of
those same results, and what becomes publishable.
> If the universe backs up your story, it's a fact, yup.
> If it don't, it ain't.
Nicely pragmatic and to the point. Reminds me of when Howard Bloom
was discussing about how many cultures/religions have as religious
doctrine that 'one should not kill another human' and then start
deciding on who fits this 'human' category.
.....if the universe I observe backs up my story, its a fact...
> PS- "Is it a fact that the Earth is round?" Last I heard, it was an
> oblate spheroid. And we've seen it from out there a ways.
Again, my poor vocabulary gets the best of me. :-)
Ned Wolpert <firstname.lastname@example.org> 4e75
1024D/5DEA314E: 7FFB 99C3 BF90 6135 12F4 07B8 0B23 2E5C 5DEA 314E
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Public key at http://www.keyserver.net
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 18 2002 - 18:54:25 BST