Science and Reality (was: Re: [epistemology] Muddle)

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Hi Folks,

I think there are two manners which any one of us democrats

can apply to for one's own approach to one's own daily reality.

1. The first and seemingly oldest manner (M) is one's taking as

"scientific", i.e. trustworthy, every practice that is suggested -

supported by the scientific authority, insofar as that practice

leads to predictable-commendable results.

2. The second, perhaps new, M is one's taking as trustworthy,

i.e. "scientific", every practice that is repeatable and leads to the

same (repeated) predictable, hopefully commendable, results.

There is not so great a difference, among us commoners,

between the two approaching-reality Ms, since what counts

to us it is the commendable, maybe predictable, results of

our issuing practice.

There is but a great difference between the two Ms by us

democrats.

That is, 1. M accustoms any one of us to take as worthy

whichever practice that is suggested-supported by the

[scientific] authority, thus empowering the authority itself

in principle.

Vice versa, 2. M accustoms any one of us commoners to

take upon oneself the full responsibility of the practice,

because 2.M gives any one of us the task of verifying --

by repeating it -- the practice to be issued, thus empowering

any one of  "We the People" ourselves.

This perspective is no academic speculation. In the past

century, all of us have been able to see the evil -- even

though quite predictable -- results of 1.M.  The simplest

fact is, we the commoner people have no means to check

out whether the authority who suggests-supports the

practice is "scientific" or else.  As far as a practice is

supported-suggested -- finally, commanded -- by the

authority in office, we take it as trustworthy and follow

it, and therefore we empower the authority in principle:

be the latter a scientific or religious or political authority

does not matter to us.

There is no wonder then, if the German people, according

with the 1. Manner of Thinking and approaching reality,

did empower so much their authority in office, and took

as trustworthy-commendable the predictable results.

No wonder then, for the same token, if at the Nuremberg

Trial the recurrent justifying of the Nazi officers has been:

"But we have followed the authority's commands!!"

What else could they do, even, according with 1.M ?

Now, coming to our scientific authority, below.

There is no wonder, if  he performs a "scientific" -- to

wit, restlessly repeated and repeated -- defence of the

above "1.Manner of Thinking-approaching reality" option,

since he appears to have been nurtured and educated

*unter der linden* during his earliest, mostly mind-shaping,

age. He looks like he sucked 1.M with the breast milk.

There will be no wonder, then, if  the  predictable results

(when obtained) of  his own quite repeated endeavours

advocating 1.M *** are expected to be the ultimate

empowering of  the authority himself: for us commoners

(democrats?) to scientifically oblige.

***Let me recall, in my bad English:

"1. manner (M) is one's taking as "scientific", i.e.

trustworthy, whichever practice being suggested -

supported by the (scientific) authority.

Just my two cents, best regards,

antonio

At 16:35 +0100 24-11-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:

> ========================================================
> "Definitions" of
> http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/metanomskiindex.htm
> show the inanity of dictionary definitions of general concepts.
>
> To prove this Antonio found a particularly idiotic dictionary
> asserting that "scientific" means "repeatable within
> practice"
> thus raising masturbation to the rank of science and parrots
> to deepest scientists.
> Followed by some idiocy about "axiomatic" meaning
> "formulated
> into !!!" which means just bad English.
> ========================================================
> As if that was not enough, Tonguessy
> joined the mess presenting
> Nazism as a scientific theory and talking sarcastically about
> some statements being "axiomatic" or otherwise.
> ========================================================
> For people who could be muddled with this mess, a few
> clarifications.
> ========================================================
> A scientific theory is an abstract map of observable
> phenomena, which organises them into
> an inference structure
> in form of a network. Middle nodes or THEOREMS are conclusions
> of higher nodes or premises and, in turn premises with respect
> to lower nodes. Top nodes are AXIOMS, "pure" conclusions
> having no premises and accepted as granted. Bottom nodes
> having no conclusions are FACTS.
>
> Top-Down deduction verifies logical consistency of the theory
> and defines logically consistent facts to be empirically
> verified, or PREDICTIONS.
>
> Once predicted facts observed with some Certainty, they
> initiate the Bottom-Up inductive inference procedure
> distributing observed Certainties via logical operators
> across the whole network.
>
> Axioms and Theorems getting reasonably high Certainty are
> verified, otherwise they are falsified which leads to
> partial (Theorems) or complete (Axioms) refutation of the
> Theory.                                          
>
>
> Theory is a working hypothesis. When
> verified it keeps the
> not-yet-falsified status. It can
> never be proved or demonstrated
> as "true". "Truth"
> does not exist in rigorous scientific
> terminology. In metalanguage it
> denotes a high level of
> Certainty.
>
> Thus, Antonio's "A truth that cannot be demonstrated, what
> kind
> of a scientific truth is it?" is just empty noise.
>
> And "Axiom" being defined only within a full inferencing
> structure, Tonguessy's "is this an axiomatic or a dogmatic
> statement?"
> is meaningless as well.
> ========================================================
> As to Antonio's:
> "It remains to be explained whether G.'s RD is meant to be
>
>   1. the whole (NMT) *To-Be-Applied-Epistemology*, or
>   2. a pole of a dialectic NMT polar structure encompassing
> RD."
>
> RD is a theory of Polar Structures consisting of complementary
> Poles. Antonio seems to ask if RD, in turn, is a Polar Structure
> or one Pole of some more general Polar Structure.
>
> In order to answer it, one has to assume first that a theory
> dealing
> with some "concepts" is one of these concepts itself. Now,
> it's
> enough to consider one or two well known theories to see that this
> assumption is false:
> -The Theory of Numbers is not a Number,
> -Zoology is not an Animal,
> -RD is not a Polar Structure, nor a Pole.
>
> Georges
> ========================================================