RE: Down with Scientism

From: rmiller <rmiller.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:32:59 -0500

At 12:16 AM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
>I sometimes get into arguments with anti-science associates, who are into
>wholism, mysticism, spiritualism and so forth. They think that scientists
>are an elite with their own brand of 'ism (scientism, perhaps), which is
>no more valid than these other 'isms. I point out to these people that if
>they have figured out they have to open their mouth in order to put food
>in it, turn a handle to open a door, vibrate their vocal cords to make a
>sound, then they have performed a scientific experiment and abstracted a
>theory from it. If science is an 'ism, it's the most basic one in the world.

Rant follows from RM:

>I agree. But even the best scientists won't take a look at the data
>unless it's properly ordered (an Excel or Statistica spreadsheet would be
>nice.) AND there has to be a chunk of *serious* money
>attached. Personally, I'd like to see some of the bright scientific
>lights (such as found in this group, IMHO) tackle the basic problems the
>professionals can't seem to find the time to address. Did you know for
>example, that Homeland Security spent untold millions of dollars and two
>years trying to detect Marburg (and other) virus particles (0.9 u
>diameter) using only the great tools of C and S band radar? (5 and 10 cm
>wavelength respectively)? Without promising any money, can anyone here
>see a very basic flaw in that design????

As "Stevie" in "Malcolm in the Middle" might say. . .
Two. . .years?

RM

   
Received on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 01:52:00 PDT