About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:58pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Katherine,
Great find.  Thanks for posting this.
Glenn




Post 1

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Thanks Katherine!

Ed




Post 2

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:55amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Yes, there is that. 

But caviat emptor, that the love of Science does not become a blank check for any activity calling itself scientific.

With the collapse of philosophy in the twentieth century,  science has been left in the state of an expedition that has lost its leader and its way in the jungle of the unknown, with the members of the disintegrating team - from assistants to secretaries to mess boys to weight-carriers - scattering through the jungle in any random direction, each going blindly through the motions of inquiry, turning over rocks, scratching tree-bark, counting raindrops, with no knowledge of what he is looking for, what to do if he finds it, or what may be properly taken as knowledge.  (Cut from "What Is Capitalism?"  Written in 1965.  See Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)
 




Post 3

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Curious as you where you found this, if it was cut from the published version.

I've long thought that Rand's remarks about science in What is Capitalism? were an unfortunate example of her cultural pessimism.  She predicted, exactly 40 years ago, that, because of the perilous condition of the philosophy of science, technological progress was about to shut down.  We're still waiting.

Peter

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 9/15, 2:27pm)




Post 4

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Peter,

Are we?  Are Americans doing the top flight research in Science?  Do Americans fill the preeminent chairs at our Universities.  What % of students at MIT or RPI are natives?




Post 5

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Rand was talking about technology, not basic science.

You take this as a prediction about the US.  That's not what I meant, and nothing in the essay suggests that it's what Rand meant.  The philosophy of science plays to a worldwide audience, albeit a small one, and you'd expect it to have the same outcomes in practice everywhere.

In any case, the facts you mention weigh heavily against the claim, had anyone made it, that the the US is losing its scientific preeminence.  People coming here from all over the world to study and practice science are just the opposite of what you'd expect if this were happening.  Americans would be going abroad (i.e. we'd see net emigration; anecdotes don't count).

This reminds me of 20 or so years ago, when people used to say that foreign (read: Japanese) investments in American securities and real estate showed that the country was in economic decline.  Why would they have bought these assets if they expected them to be cheaper in the future?

I'm still curious as to where you got that quote.

Peter




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:58pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ignore science and reality will creep up from behind you and give you a big kick up your ass!!! ;-)



Post 7

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:17pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Marcus,

Science qua Science is one thing, the scientific establishment is quite another.  Loving Science is like saying you love philosophy. Are Hegal and Kant really friends of yours?

These quotes are from the courtroom scene in "The Fountainhead". Roark speaking.


"Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light  He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But there-after men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not con­ceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build.  He was con­sidered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world. . .

 

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received-hatred. The great creators the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors-stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed.

  Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was con­sidered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unbor­rowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid.  But they won.



 

 

This will give you a clue as to why I ride the scientific "community".

 





Post 8

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:22pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Poor Peter, looking for trouble.  If it's all you look for, it will be all you find.

I'm still curious as to where you got that quote.

It is quoted in a letter by Ayn Rand entitled FROM MY "FUTURE FILE" published in The Ayn Rand Letter in June 1975.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 9/16, 7:09am)




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, September 16, 2005 - 3:32pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Loving Science is like saying you love philosophy.

It is not philosophy or science per se, but what valuable things one accomplishes with them when one upholds reality and reason.




Post 10

Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 7:20amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Marcus,

Since we both agree on that issue, why do you pretend that I am attacking science qua science? 

Instead why not assist me in bringing attention to a community encumbered by tenured 'greats' who silence new ideas because of the threat they pose to privileged position or text book revenues?  Why not add your voice to those who would reform a funding process that limits research grants in the basic sciences?  Why not argue that research has withered under onorous regulations and government grants?  Why the pose that everything is okay?




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Hey Wolf Man,

Why do you assume I am defending the entire scientific establishment?

There is good and bad science. I.D. for example, is bad science.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 9/17, 1:24pm)




Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 2:38pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bad science? - strictly speaking, it's not even science.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Robert M,

Excellent point. There is a continuum of good-bad science, measured by dependability of results: 100% reliable results at the good end of the continuum, random chance at the bad end. Most computer models of climate change have so many free variables that they are near the bad, near-chance end of the quality-of-science scale.

And then there is stuff that does not have any way of generating predictions specific enough to be compared to reality at all. That is outside of science. All stage magic, religion including including ID, any ideology that denies the mediation of reason and the evidence of the senses between reality and knowledge - all those are outside of science altogether.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand wrote:
>With the collapse of philosophy in the twentieth century, science has been left in the state of an expedition that has lost its leader and its way in the jungle of the unknown, with the members of the disintegrating team - from assistants to secretaries to mess boys to weight-carriers - scattering through the jungle in any random direction, each going blindly through the motions of inquiry, turning over rocks, scratching tree-bark, counting raindrops, with no knowledge of what he is looking for, what to do if he finds it, or what may be properly taken as knowledge. (Cut from "What Is Capitalism?" Written in 1965. See Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)

Peter commented:
>I've long thought that Rand's remarks about science in What is Capitalism? were an unfortunate example of her cultural pessimism. She predicted, exactly 40 years ago, that, because of the perilous condition of the philosophy of science, technological progress was about to shut down. We're still waiting.

Exactly. It is an absurd thing to say. Actually, when she was writing this, the world was in the middle of probably the biggest technology boom in human history. Doh! Yes, and science and technology is just "random", going "blindly through the motions" as I type this post on my computer that is twice as fast and twice as capacious as it was 2 years ago, which was twice as fast as its predecessor etc. Oh yes, that's just "random" how that came about, the result of hopelessly lost people who do not know "what may be properly taken as knowledge".

Perhaps the oddest thing of all is the suggestion that science has somehow lost its "leader"! Science needs a "leader"??

- Daniel






Post 15

Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Marcus,

Why do you assume I am defending the entire scientific establishment?

There is good and bad science. I.D. for example, is bad science.


This is a cop-out.  Your touchiness on the subject of Science is universal.

Bad ideas fall of their own weight, we don't need a list of approved ideas buoyed by weighty reputations.



Stones do fall from the sky.

The earth does move around the sun.

Germs do cause disease.

Vaccines do not kill.

Earth has been visited by cateclysm.

The coelacanth is alive and well.

The continents do move.

If you don't favor big government, how can you favor big science?  It's rhetorical.  The answer is that you belief scientists are inherently and invariably honest, dispassionate and objective. 

(Edited by Robert Davison on 9/18, 7:48am)

(Edited by Robert Davison on 9/18, 7:53am)




Post 16

Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 9:11amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Gould, S. J. - "Not Necessarily a Wing"

Perhaps the most formidable of Darwin's critics was St. George Mivart. His major book, On the Genesis of Species, took aim at the notion that natural selection could account for the accumulation of the incipient stages of useful structures (Mivart, 1871). Stephen Jay Gould notes that
"Darwin offered strong, if grudging, praise and took Mivart far more seriously than any other critic...Mivart gathered, and illustrated "with admirable art and force" (Darwin's words), all objections to the theory of natural selection---"a formidable array" (Darwin's words again). Yet one particular theme, urged with special attention by Mivart, stood out as the centerpiece of his criticism. It remains today the primary stumbling block among thoughtful and friendly scrutinizers of Darwinism. No other criticism seems so troubling, so obviously and evidently "right" (against a Darwinian claim that seems intuitively paradoxical and improbable).
Mivart awarded this criticism a separate chapter in his book, right after the introduction. He also gave it a name, remembered ever since. He called it "The Incompetency of 'Natural Selection' to account for the Incipient Stages of Useful Structures." If this phrase sounds like a mouthful, consider the easy translation: we can readily understand how complex and full developed structures work and owe their maintenance and preservation to natural selection---a wing, an eye, the resemblance of a bittern to a branch or of an insect to a stick or dead leaf. But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing or gain much protection from an iota's similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form?"
Gould goes on to point out that among the difficulties of Darwinian theory "one point stands high above the rest: the dilemma of incipient stages. Mivart identified this problem as primary and it remains so today."
Gould, S. J. (1985)
"Not Necessarily a Wing"
Natural History, October, pp. 12, 13
Permalink




Post 17

Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 4:07pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Your touchiness on the subject of Science is universal.

And so...?

What has that to do with the establishment?




Post 18

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 5:10amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Marcus,

The academy is what I am arguing against.  You insist that I am talking about ID.




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.