Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Ahh, science

Posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 18:01:10

In reply to Efficacy as a trump card, posted by bob on May 30, 2000, at 22:46:48

I do dearly love these exchanges, as heated as they can get. I think discussing the value and limitations of sciencce vis a vis other disciplines or belief systems is of utmost importance. So much "faith" is placed in science these days, and so much influence is still exerted by religion and philosphy, to cede the debate to those in the lofty heights of the Ivory Tower or to disparage it with dismissive slights like "esoterica" is to do humanity a reckless disservice.

I think scientists and those who critique science would do well to dispense with the whole idea of "Truth" from the outset. Doesn't Relativity, the Uncertainty Principle, and what is known of the limitations of conscious thought and memory give us enough cautionary information to realise that Truth, beyond being unattainable, may not exist?

All that can matter in science is the scientific method, which is a well-tested algorithm for approaching problems, testing them, and communicating our observations, and the theories that result from the application of the method, which stand so long as they retain sufficient predictive power to be of use. Many theoretical constructs are still utilized by scientists or technicians (Newtonian mechanics, for example) because for many applications they work very well, dispite the fact they are fundamentally inaccurate. Often minute differences between the needed prediction and the actual phenomenon are too insignificant to worry about. Newton can get you into Earth orbit just fine. Einstein would just slow you down.

Of course we aren't unfeeling machines, and we are so hungry and inquisitive that to acknowledge such limitations is rather unsatisfying. I think scientists do enough to propagate myths on their own by claiming we may someday "know the mind of God", or by making "beauty" a criterion for theoretical success.

Whether or not we find ourselves affirmed, actualized, or aesthetically pleased by science, I think we need to come to grips with the absolute need for science to be impersonal and unfeeling. Of course this is an impossible goal for a personal and feeling species to attain, but we can do our best to approach it. Perhaps the best possible balance will be to bring the emotional satisfaction of scientific discovery and the personal significance of our particular specialization to our work ethic, but to leave these at the door as best we can when evaluating the data. Since we cannot be perfectly impartial, we rely on peer review and duplication to bolster our theories. When our theories are disproven we feel a loss, maybe even a bit insulted. That's life.

As for what science can tell us about perception, vs. figures like Freud and Jung ("figures" meaning the men and the mystique that surrounds them), it seems to me there's nothing wrong with saying progess has been made since the turn of the century in our understanding of the mind. I wouldn't go so far as to say that since the discoveries of science can never converge on the "Truth", theories and folklore cannot be rated by degrees of accuracy. Freud and Jung were often astonishingly insightful, but did not put much of their insight to the standard of scientific investigation. We can credit them for ideas, and then credit those who have effectively expanded on or refuted those ideas.

And as for the study of the "unconscious", it seems to me that any distinction between physiology and psychology can only exist as an academic convenience, in that it is often too much work with all there is to know for psychologists to be neuroanatomists or cellular biologists. All should acknowledge the contribution to the whole picture each contributes, and not be trapped in ideological camps that often arise with such specialisation.

The information is telling us that there are in all probability subliminal processes at work, that our apprehension encompasses more than our conscious perception, and that many stimuli we are both unaware and aware of contribute to our behavior and how we reflect on ourselves and our surroundings. Whether this is what Freud meant by the "unconscious" I don't know. Disctinctions between unconscious and subliminal are bound to be so semantically convoluted I'm guessing there is little value in wasting time on clarifying them. What Freud meant and what we have come to understand as a result are likewise of more interest to historians of science than those who practice it. Newton thought force at a distance was mediated by the Holy Spirit. Does this negate the value of his equations?


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:Adam thread:34863
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000526/msgs/35426.html