Conference hydra::dejavu

In reading your objections, I feel that you are equating "scientific thought"
with "scientific politics".  

>1.  Science-oriented thinking judges the "correctness" of experience by its
>    reproducibility.

I find myself agreeing to most of your objections, but the "scientific thought"
that you are referring to seems to be not "thought" but "politics".

>	C.  Objection 3:  The requirement for reproducibility is frequently
>	    different based on the prestige or influence of the laboratory
>	    presenting the original results; that is, one study that "fails to
>	    reproduce (or corroborate)" another may be sufficient to destroy
>	    the credibility of a particular experiment conducted by a "fringe"
>	    or otherwise politically unprotected researcher, while a "well-
>	    connected" researcher may continue to have an uncorroborated study
>	    quoted in the scientific literature for many years afterwards.

This is mostly a political game... and to be honest I don't feel that politics
should influence scientific research.  Unfortunately, Utopia does not exist.  

>2.  Science often presents the facade of being "value-free" (sort like Joe
>    Friday's "Only the facts, m'am" attitude).

True science can be "value-free", scientists cannot be because of personal
values and prejudices that they bring into the research.

Values often get put on scientific research when it becomes technology.  
Science is "the process or method by which knowledge is obtained."  Technology 
is "the use of scientific knowledge in an effort to improve the quality of
human life."  How we use our scientific knowledge, or how major fundings
get allocated, is usually based on what future technology may come of the
research.  This type of research is not "value-free", and may even be morally
questionable.

>3.  Science sometimes becomes "paradigm-bound".

By what method is the paradigm invalidated?  By how many failed experiments?
The scientist may have to make a judgment here, maybe colored by political
and financial implications.  What is considered meaningless noise?  Is it
something defined by the scientific elite?

Do we automatically discard an experiment that has failed?  Do we give up
because the results didn't occur immediately?  This again may be a function
of the scientific institutions, not of scientific thought itself.

Paradigm shifts seem to be shifts of a "group mind" composed of leading
elements of the scientific community.  Is this a valid way to do research?

Just throwing some fuel on the fire....


					-- Mike

    There are too many people who are accepting science as "truth" instead
    of "description".  The problem with this form of belief is that
    when something is unprovable with present scientific methods, like
    ESP, spirits, GOD, and a host of other topics discussed in this NOTES
    file, it is labelled as a "Non-truth", or it doesn't exist instead
    of labelled as "Not described" which could more appropiate.

    And then we have my favorite example of something unable to be
    described by Science:
    
    There has been a lot of Hoopla this year about Superconducting.
    Before this year, the highest tempature that would show SC was real
    close to absolute zero, now scientists are talking about tempatures
    near room tempature.  And do you know what?  THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND
    HOW IT WORKS!  

        re priors
    
    There is nothing wrong with scientific methodology within its domain
    of applicability.  That domain is roughly those processes of phenomena
    that are reproducible, quantifiable, and about which, operationally
    falsifiable hypotheses may be made.
    
    Probably the biggest shortcomming of the scientific method, is that
    it is *reductionist*.  The assumption is, that all of a process
    by be described by its parts.  The scientific method as practiced
    since the time of Galleleo, Newton, Hooke, Huygens, and DeCartes
    does not deal with Holistic description.  The closest approach to
    Holism in modern science are field theories, but even these are
    limited by assuming locality of effects (due to light speed
    restrictions).
    That is why Bell's Theorem presents such an enigma.
    
    You will notice, that the classical theories of the nineteenth century
    contained within them the seeds of their own destruction and rebirth.
    Thus the beautiful electro magnetic theory of Maxwell  implicitly
    hatched Relativity theory. And the classical theory of black body
    radiaton died of its own inability to deal with quantized radiation.
    
    However the methodology survived!  The reconstruction of Mechanics
    by Hamilton was one of the mathematical bases for the later quantum
    mechanics.  It turns out that a good theory even when it goes down,
    is not completely wrong, it simply can't handle second order effects.
    The later theory that supercedes it usually has the older theory
    as a limiting case.
    
    If scientific methodology can be extended to handle Holistic
    situations, i.e. where the whole is *apparently* greater than the
    sum of its parts, I see no reason, why scientific methodology can
    not be brought to some of the more "mysterious" happenings.
    
    What we call "mysteries" today, are tommorrow's scientific problems.
    

    The most disturbing aspect of scientific research in America today
    (to me) is that almost all of the funding is provided by the Department
    Of Defense and therefore the priorities, goals and objectives, values,
    and methods and procedures of the research(ers) are being determined
    or heavily influenced by DOD priorities, values, goals and objectives,
    and methods and procedures.
    Is there anyone who really feels that scientific research today
    isn't based on political considerations?  The freedom to explore,
    to question, to learn, to play seems to have been lost to financial
    necessity.  (sigh ... from all the computer and science lovers)

    	See DEJAVU Topic 186.
    
    	Larry
    

    re: all   
      
       Nice topic, Paul!  Great responses, all!
      
    re: .5
       I understand your anger/frustration, Mary.  It isn't, of course,
    limited to what you've stated.  While perhaps science has been skewed
    by "the war machine", even art has been altered by politics and
    national policies, and not just now but throughout time.  Imagine
    if you can a world where manipulation and control and domination
    do not exist and our free creative and visionary concepts/ideas
    have freedom to truly be expressed.  Science has as its limits
    only the thoughts that support it.
      
    Frederick
    

    Re:  Military and Science.
    
    We were warned of the "Military-Industrial complex" by Eisenhower.
    Unfortunately, our present president has not heeded these warnings.
    What has really upset me is the amount of research being funded by DoD
    that should be funded by a peaceful branch of the government, like the
    National Science Foundation.  The DoD is not only pushing Star Wars
    (one of the greatest research projects of all times) but they also have
    their fingers into Superconducting research, Microelectronics, and
    a lot of others under the guise "It is in the interest of national
    defense that these areas be developed".

    (Sarcastic slap of forehead with palm of hand)  "Of course!  Peaceful
    research is good for the nation, as long as the military has control of
    the research and says how the money is spent."  Someone in Washington
    has to learn that research can be funded without the military getting
    involved.  I don't trust the military when if comes to R&D. Just look
    at the cost and reliability of the weapon systems, the bureaucracy, the
    stifling of innovation, the politics!  All of this is poison to an
    R&D project, within a nation or within a company.

    Re .8: 
    
    >We were warned of the "Military-Industrial complex" by Eisenhower.
    >Unfortunately, our present president has not heeded these warnings.
     
    ...Nor did any other President following Eisenhower.  (Actually, Ike warned
    about the _formation_ of a military-industrial complex.)
    
    However, this note is, in my opinion, teetering on the lip of a
    rathole.  One can say Bad Things about military-funded research,
    and I'm certainly not a defender of DoD spending policies; however,
    I thought that the subject was the inadequacies of the scientific
    method/philosophy rather than spending on research.
    
    Also, just because "military spending" may be bad, that doesn't
    mean that "nonmilitary spending" is _inherently_ good.  There are
    "grant abuses," where researching a subject for years rather than
    solving a problem is a way of life (and job security).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                  

    re priors
    
    I think the main question of this topic is the methodology,
    epistomology and metaphysics of the scientific endeavor. As Steve
    very ably pointed out in the previous reply, there is always the
    possibility and very often the actuality of political abuse of any
    human activity, be it science or not, be it military or not.
    
    The rational/empirical approach to understanding the world has
    challanged other views; the mystical, the holistic, the religious
    and verily, the central role of religion in the life of western
    man has been displaced by the more secular, rational world view.
    
    This being noted, the question remains how much truth has been missed
    as result of this shift. Are there honest to goodness happenings
    in the real universe that are not dealt with adequately, or are
    missed entirely by scientific methodology.  If this is so, then
    scientific methodology must be expanded and improved to catch what
    is lost, so our understanding may be both broadened and deepened.
    
    Also, please do not confuse the rational/empirical method of asking
    questions, with the related but distinct process of applying the
    principles discovered by science, i.e. technology.  Verily technology
    has been both used and abuused since G_D invented dirt.  Look at
    the abuses of the wheel and fire, both invented before the corporations
    took over arms production.  Rest assured that technology will be
    abused for as long as it is developed.  That is a function of human
    nature, and will hold true untill either evolution intervenes or
    the Messiah comes for either the first or second time (depending
    on your religious or non religious convictions :-)  )

There is good science, and there is bad science. There is no one 
all-inclusive "scientific method." Individual scientists use 
different methodologies depending on their field, training, 
background, and personality. You cannot expect sociologists, 
theoretical physicists, medical researchers, mathematicians, 
anthropologists, and psychologists to use the same approach to 
their varied problems.

Most of the science that goes on at Digital is actually applied 
science, and/or engineering (which itself is a subset of applied 
science). This is using scientific methods to achieve a specified 
goal. It is not pure science, but certainly uses 
"science-oriented" thinking.

Here are some of my thoughts on topics that have been discussed 
in this note:

Re: .1

   > Science-oriented thinking judges the "correctness" of its 
   > experience by its reproducibility.

   and

   > Science often presents the facade of being "value-free" 

Mike (.2) had a good answer to this. I would add the following:

Not necessarily. Anthropologists and geologists, among others know that 
much of their material cannot be reproduced. Geologists (I have two
degrees in geology) try to unravel the history of the earth 
based on what is left after millions of years of erosion. Often 
what is observed is not quantitatively or qualitatively well 
defined. 

Geologists use what is called the method of "multiple working 
hypotheses." This means that you simultaneously consider several 
different explanations for a phenomena. As you learn more about 
the subject, you will discard some hypotheses, revise others, and 
postulate new ones to fit the newly-discovered data.

Scientists, being human, have values, and these values are certainly 
influenced by political, financial, and other considerations. A basic 
tenant of scientific research is, however, an open mind. Ideally 
(and the ideal is approached but never fully realized) a scientist 
is open minded enough to realize he or she has personal values, 
and these must be evaluated and considered.

If a scientist does not have values, much of the research becomes 
meaningless. An epidemiologist looking for a cure for a specific disease 
must place values on what are valid approaches and methods. The 
reason for the existence of the research in the first place is 
the value judgment the scientist makes which says "we can find a 
cure for x." (A lack of values clarification is apparent in much 
of the military research.)

   > Science becomes "paradigm-bound."

Mike answered this very well. Today's science is built on what 
previous people have done. Some people and organizations have 
more credence than others, for better or worse. There are fads in 
science, as in anything else, and fads change. In geology, proponents of 
continental drift were laughed at by their colleagues for many 
years. Today continental drift is an accepted theory.


Re: .4

   > ... the biggest shortcoming of the scientific method is that 
   > it is *reductionist*

Not so. The human brain is more than a large bunch of cells. Love 
is more than applied friction. A total human being is more than the 
sum of its organs. A rain forest is more than a collection of plants 
and insects. Earth (Gaea) is more than the sum of its parts. The universe 
is more than a catalog of stars and galaxies. 

I agree, we should apply scientific methodology to "some of the 
more 'mysterious' happenings."

Re: .5

Amen. Too much research is based on political considerations, 
particularly the military. Many academic scientists are evaluated 
in large part by the amount and number of grants they can bring 
in, and sometimes their survival depends on it. They have to go for 
the money. This clouds people's approach, values, and 
methodology, and has, more than anything, given science a bad name 
and reputation.

I believe that the scientific method is one of most important 
tools of human beings, and its discovery and use ranks among the 
greatest achievements of mankind. Furthermore, I believe that many of 
the topics discussed in this file can be examined and explained by 
scientific methods.

-bs

    I've personally experienced only two troublesome facets of the 
    down-side of exclusively rational, scientific thinking.
    
    The first trouble I've had with acquaintances who subscribe
    exclusively to rational (scientific?) thinking was that many of them
    let their method of cognition limit the assumptions to be tested.
    In addition, many identified so proudly with their method of cognition
    that they often refused to consider that the ideas they considered 
    Absolute Truth were, in fact, conditioned beliefs from peers, parents, 
    society--ideas that should have been considered assumptions to be 
    subjected to rational, scientific examination.  Even those of us 
    who are tremendously skilled at rational, scientific thought are not 
    as governed by rational cognition as we like to think.
    
    This is not limited to the paranormal field.  For some great essays
    on misuses of the so-called "scientific" method throughout history,
    read _The_Panda's_Thumb_ by Stephen J. Gould.
    
    The second trouble I've had is that many acquaintances striving
    to be exclusively rational evaluate all writings, speakings,
    communications of any kind as if they should be scientific treatises.
    They deride poetry and poetical, philosophic prose for not being 
    a logical proof, for not stating "facts" in a straight line.  Stating
    facts in a straight line is not the purpose of the lovely verbal 
    discipline called poetry.  And it seems that many people's personal 
    experiences (especially those that are mystically oriented) can be 
    better expressed in poetic terms.  And mystically oriented people 
    can be derided and disbelieved by more rationally oriented souls.
    
    No wonder the two groups can get the feeling that they're in separate
    camps, that this is a split that can't be healed, that one way of
    thinking and experiencing the world must be correct, the other 
    wrong.
    
    Marcia

    If I may digress for a moment to say what I believe is right about
    the 'scientific method' (without starting a new topic):
    
    - It teaches people to think in a logical way (if, then, else)
      and when all else fails, one can resort back to this method and
      it will then serve a useful purpose.  It certainly helped me along.
    
    Now as to what is wrong with the 'scientific method':
    
    - Some people get trapped into the rigid left-brain mode and never 
      really discover that their artistic right-brain exists (something
      which almost happened to me).  In other words their perception of 
      the world becomes very cut and dry and the creativity and the 
      ability to 'let one's mind wander' gets lost along the way.  Hence 
      you end up with a very intelligent, close-minded individual.
           
    I support the holistic approach to science - that while we should
    be firmly grounded in the structure, we should still be encouraged
    to consider possibilities outside of the so-called 'scientific realm'.
    
    Somewhere in the last few paragraphs is a buried message on the
    current state of the American educational system and intensive
    specialization, particularly in the sciences which, I believe, does 
    our future scientists a grave disservice by not including a wider 
    array of liberal arts courses in the science-oriented curriculums.
                                  
    Cindy
                                                                     
      

    
    
         Although this discussion ended a few days ago, I just wanted
    to add something. I have very little faith in the scientific method
    as a way of attaining knowledge. The "scientific" method would have
    us believe that nothing can be accepted unless someone has duplicated
    it in a lab under "controlled" conditions. Eventually, particularly
    as we move into the new age, there will be a progressively greater
    shift toward toward intuiting knowledge based on far deeper philoso-
    phical principles than those principles which underly the current
    "scientific" method. 
    
         It was many centuries ago in our history that the mainstream
    of intelligent (western) thought became oriented toward reduction-
    istic explanation. It was decided that only rational, reproduceable
    phenomena would be accepted as scientific fact. As science moved
    into deeper and deeper levels of observation, events and processes
    were appeared which could no longer fit existing paradigms. Contra-
    dictions and puzzles emerged which necessitated brand new models
    (i.e. the theory of relativity), and in fact some of these models/
    theories began to converge with eastern ways of thought. 
    
         Suddenly, many of the ideas from eastern mysticism could be
    understood in the light of the new science--refer to books like
    'The Tao of Physics'. To date, the further that physics has gone
    into searching for the ultimate nature of reality, the more obser-
    vation has converged with eastern ideas. 
    
         To envision this perspective applied to all of the sciences
    and carried through to it's natural end, one can see that the 
    attainment of knowledge ultimately will be as the eastern mystics
    have described it. True knowledge will come from "within" and no
    longer rely on the experimentation modes of the current scientific
    method. Even now as I look at the world around me, my intuition
    tells me that everything is ultimately from the same source, is
    of the same nature and follows the same universal laws. Everything
    can be understood from these first principles, with simply the right
    intuitive focus. 
    
         Food for thought....
    
    
    Roy
    
    
    

RE: .14
    
    I'm always amazed at what people (some of them scientists) think
    that the scientific method is.  You would think that the only
    science which exists is 19th century physics and chemistry.
    
    				Topher
    

    The scientific method is an attempt to convince you "that's the way it
    is."  Unfortunately, I have known many people who will refuse the
    conclusions derived with the scientific method stating that the method
    is based on "inadequate information."  So it doesn't matter what the
    scientific method says, what is important is what we believe and
    experience to be true.
    
    Dave

    The scientific method, to the extent that there *is* a single thing
    called that, is simply common sense applied consistently -- not
    always an easy task.  Although it uses many "working assumptions",
    its basic assumptions are such "deep" beliefs as "Just because you
    want something to be so, don't make it so."
    
    					Topher
    

    Re .16, .17:
    
    >The scientific method is an attempt to convince you "that's the way it
    >is."  
    
    No, it isn't "attempting" to "convince" you of anything.  It's a method
    of acquiring knowledge, systematizing the data, and from that, trying
    to build a consistent model that can be used to predict the result
    of specific conditions.  It is a valid method of gaining a
    _symptomatic_ understanding about the material universe.  And scientist
    worth his or her salt will happily throw away any model when a better
    one comes along (as Newton did with the Copernican heliocentric
    model).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Intuition also has its place.  Science, as it evolves, has 
    (almost by its nature) consistently proven many of its own conclusions
    to be wrong.  Native Americans, Aborigines, Oriental belief systems
    have arrived at many of the same conclusions that science has...
    only they give them different names.  There is room for both methods
    in our world, both search for answers and neither is cast in bronze. 

    Good science is mostly intuition -- it just doesn't stop their and
    say "since it seems right, it *is* right."  The people who are admired
    in science are those who have strong intuition.
    
    				Topher

	>>The people who are admired in science are those who have strong
    	>>intuition.

    Can you verify that in a controlled laboratory experiment Topher?_:-)

    Re .21:
    
    No, but he can intuit it. ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    >>No, but he can intuit it, ;-)
    
    Can you prove that consistently under controlled scientific conditions
    Steve?_:-)

    Re .23:
    
    Use your intuition. :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .21
    
    > > The people who are admired in science are those who have strong
    > > intuition.
    >
    > Can you verify that in a controlled laboratory experiment Topher?
    > _:-)
    
    Taking that statement semi-seriously -- my statement is an intuitively
    derived hypothesis which accurately describes a possibly biased
    sample which was informally collected.  Since it is essentially
    a sociological hypothosis, a controlled laboratory experiment is
    not the proper tool for testing it -- rather controlled field sampling
    is.
    
    Did anyone else see "The Race for The Double Helix" with Jeff Goldblum
    (and other actors who I was not familiar with and so can't remember)
    which was broadcast on the A&E cable network last week?  It illustrates
    the point beautifully.  Three guesses as to whether Crick and Watson
    were the most "intuitive" or the most "analytic" scientists protrayed
    (and if you can't guess a two choice question in three guesses you've
    got a problem)?
    
    					Topher

    Intuition is mostly prediction. When a scientist uses intuition,
    he or she is making an educated guess or prediction based on a theory
    or hypothosis. 
    
    The facts, when discovered, may or not agree with the theory, and
    may lead to greater acceptance of, or revision, or even discarding 
    of the theory.
    
    Some examples: 
    
    Copernicus theory of plantary motion totally overthrew (it took
    time) the prevailing ideas of epicycles because his theory could
    be used to predict the movement of bodies in the solar system.
    
    Einstein's prediction about the slowing of time as you approach the 
    speed of light was shown to be correct by measurements made by 
    astronauts.
    
    Darwin's theory of evolution has proven to be essentially correct,
    with some modifications made based on later findings.
    
    -bs

    Re .26:
    
    A minor nit --
    
    >Copernicus theory of plantary motion totally overthrew (it took
    >time) the prevailing ideas of epicycles because his theory could
    >be used to predict the movement of bodies in the solar system.
     
    Oddly, Copernicus _kept_ deferents and epicycles; however, a helio-
    centric system needed fewer and less complex epicycles.  It was
    Kepler who moved from deferent/epicycles to conic-section orbits;
    Newton used these to develop the Universal Gravitation model.  And
    in fact, epicycle/deferents _could_ be viewed as a primitive approact
    towards Fourier analysis.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

RE: .26
    
    Actually, I would say that the major use of intuition in the scientific
    enterprise is in the *creation* of hypothoses and theories.  In
    many cases the consequences of the theory can be mechanically derived,
    little intuition needed.
    
    At other times of course, the scientist must use intuition to guide
    the process of figuring out the consequences of a given theory.
    Even here, though, you could describe the process as "hypothesizing"
    about the correct application of a theory to a situation.
    
    Intuition is also used in selecting fruitful areas to pursue.
    
    					Topher

    At a party I came across a puzzle.  It was a circular piece of plastic
    with 7 pegs sticking up from it, 6 arranged around the central 7th.
    There were hexagonal disks with the numbers 1 - 6 written on them
    that fitted onto the pegs.  When the puzzle was "solved", wherever
    a number touched another number on a puzzle piece, it would be the
    same.
    
    A couple of people, who are very analytical, tried to solve this
    and failed after an hour of trying (kinda reminds you of Rubick's
    Cube).  I picked it up, fiddled with it for 5 minutes, and solved
    it.
    
    I have absolutely no idea of how I solved it.  I was aware of
    purposeful mental activity, but was not saying to myself things like
    "Let's see . . . If, then, else."  But I definitely wasn't moving
    the pieces around at random, it was just that I wasn't consciously
    directing the action.  Yet because I couldn't verbally and consciously
    produce the "trick" to the solution for the people who tried to
    solve it and failed, my solving the puzzle was dismissed.  But it
    was still solved!
    
    Marcia

    Re: -.1
    
    Maybe you're just smarter than those people, Marcia. Intelligence
    is not necessarily verbal, or even analytical.
    
    Re: -.2
    
    You are right - in 99.9% of the cases, vision did not evolve. (The
    actual percentage probably is more like 99.9999999%.) In all of the
    animal kingdom, there are only two classes of animals that have
    evolved eyes (vision): vertebrates and cephalopods. The majority of 
    vertebrates have eyes, and octopusses and squid among the cephalopods
    have eyes. What is interesting, is that although the function and
    form of cephalopod and vertebrate eyes are similar, their actual
    anatomy and tissue structure is quite different. 
    
    This is an example of convergent evolution - the adaptive evolution
    of superficially similar structures in unrelated species. (Another
    example is the wings of birds, bats, and insects.)
    
    -bs
                                                       

    Re .30:
    
    Marcia, I think here there's a distinction between solving a problem
    and getting a job done.
    
    If the puzzle was set out to be solved consciously (you seem to
    have a good subconscious for such things), then in a formalistic
    perspective, you didn't _solve_ it.
    
    If the puzzle was set out so that the idea was to arrive at a result
    (as with  Rubick's Cube) regardless of how, you solved it handily.
    
    Alexander The Great (he wasn't) "solved" the Gordian Knot by sutting
    it with a sword.  Anyone could have done _that_.  No wonder his
    empire crumbled on his early death.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    re .26:
    
    Copernicus's heliocentrism did *not* predict the movements of the
    planets better than the older Ptolemaic system. It was actually much
    worse than the Ptolemaic system. It took over for many complex reasons,
    but mostly because it was elegant -- intuitively pretty. There are
    Ptolemaic machines that track planetary movements (built for doing
    hororscopes) built in the late middle ages that still track the five
    planets as well as anything we have today. 

    Time dilation was found by particle physicists long before the
    astronauts did any experiments. And the dilation found by the atronauts
    is so small that if it were the only evidence we had for time dilation,
    it would be pretty flimsy. The effect could be explained away (if you
    were the sort who liked to explain it away) by jostling, bumping, and
    banging the clocks, or by experimental error. They tracked less than a
    nanosecond's worth of dilation, which is hardly significant, unless
    you're pretty sure that it happens anyway. 
    
    Lastly, please avoid the word "prove" when talking about science.
    Science does not prove anything. "Prove" is a sort of fighting word
    that raises people's hackles. Your statement that Darwin's theory of
    evolution has been proven to be essentially correct is false. There is
    a lot of evidence that leads one to believe that species change into
    other species, but nothing has been proven, and there are theories of
    evolution that compete with Darwin's. 
    
    	Jon

    
    Re.28 and a few others
                                             
    (Please forgive the terms - I know what I'm thinking, but expressing
    those thoughts is another matter entirely....)
    
    I've recently come across the intuitive idea (:^) that we are really
    searching for the questions (the untested theories, hypotheses and
    other words for such independent and freeform thinking).  Some people
    refer to this as right-brain orientation.
                     
    After the questions are formulated, the answers are validated or
    invalidated using the scientific method - or rather the methodical
    approach of looking at the question/theory from as many different
    aspects as possible.  This is left-brain orientation.  The scientific 
    method runs aground when someone refuses to look at or test with 
    evidence which may invalidate the study at the onset (in other words, 
    refuses to perform the experiments with maximum awareness), and 
    refuses to change their position or prior findings based new 
    evidence based on future information and instead holds on to their 
    prior findings and conclusions with everything they've got.  I suspect 
    that scientific grant money plays a big part in this process as well, 
    so perhaps part of the solution would be to come up with a better way 
    to fund scientific research. 
    
    I see this problem in science as well as religion and politics and 
    just about every aspect of everyday living as well.
                     
    The terms "it's always been that way" and "I'm right and therefore
    you are wrong" comes to mind. 
    
    Just my thoughts.
    
    Cindy
    

RE: .34
    
    Well said Cindy.  My only disagreement is the association of "the
    scientific method" with "testing of hypotheses".  The scientific
    method includes the creation of those hypothoses as well (and a
    lot of other activity which is not strictly part of the "hypothetico-
    deductive method").  Science can only exist when there is both
    "right-brain" and "left-brain" activity going on, its dead without
    both (the terms, by the way, are not well justified-- but I'm being
    a scientist again, sorry).
    
    					Topher

	"In the circle of firelight which we are pleased to call an en-
	lightened scientific civilization, we usually feel secure in the
	knowledge that most of our worst childhood terrors and night-
	mares were merely fantasy. But if and when the firelight happens
	to dim, at those times when the unknown presses hard upon us, in
	the presence of death or insanity or insurmountable calamity, we
	again know instinctively that science is ultimately irrelevant,
	and we once again experience the old childhood terrors.
	We are still powerless in the face of overmastering fate. Science
	still completely fails to come to grips with that outer darkness
	beyond the flickering ring of light.
	However, down the ages it has seemed to some intrepid souls that
	only with weapons forged from the darkness itself, and by the
	aid of those others before them who have made it their business
	to know the ways in and out of the unseen world, can any man maybe
	hope to bend to his will an indifferent fate, whose roots appear
	to reach back into the outer regions of that night.
	Those who understand the darkness which is no darkness to them
	anymore, have walked of their own accord beyond the ring of fire-
	light and learned the paths in the wilderness beyond."
 
	These are the first sentences of the book "Mastering Witchcraft"
	by Paul Huson (1970). The book is a sort of guide to become a witch
	or warlock, including all the phrases you have to mumble, recipies
	for all kinds of potions and rituals.  I do not practice any of
	that stuff but I strongly believe that, although science is a big
	help in our daily work, you need other things to solve the problems
	of life. Be it any religion, the Tarot, the I-Tjing, the Ouija-
	board, the pendulum, cristals, channeling, palmistry, anything that
	is based on a virulent imagination, a will of fire and rock-hard
	faith AND that is ment to be benificial for humanity (including
	yourself in the first place) and this world, can accomplish
	miracles. That is, "miracles" can not be explained by science, but
	once you can make them happen, they become reality for you.
	Remember always, the power is in us, we can do it because we are
	created with the ability to do it, but any scientific approach will
	thwart our endaevour. The essences of science are doubt and the
	seeking after truth which means that science doesn't believe in it
	and therefore, when it comes to worldy wisdom, the only yield of
	science is the doubt itself...

.36

I like that!

Jay

    me too