(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[António Pedro Marques]

Gerry Quinn wrote (23-12-2011 13:44):
> *From:* António Pedro Marques <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
> Jeff Wilson wrote (23-12-2011 05:42):
>
>  > > You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop hexings are
>  > > not reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well enough that
>  > > we can reproduce Zeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent it from
>  > > striking houses when it occurs naturally.
>
>  > It may be so, but we could do much of that with classical science. 'Our
>  > Theory of Gravitation is as good as perfect', ironical or not, was written
>  > in the first half of the 19th century. 'We' got to the Moon without the
>  > fancy computers and mobile communications of today. Current science may be
>  > impresssive in comparison to that of just a few decades ago, but it doesn't
>  > follow that it has a technological import of the same magnitude. At the end
>  > of the day, it works better than praying to Zeus, but so does Classical
>  > Physiscs.
>
> Yes, but classical physics *is* part of modern science. Our understanding is
> deeper now, but we still use Newtonian gravity over 99% of the time because
> the equations are simpler and it’s more than accurate enough for most
> purposes (...)

What we use doesn't matter, because this discussion is about how things 
_really_ are. Classical Physics is very at odds with Current Science in 
respect to how the Universe works. This discussion is about giving credence 
to explanations of the Universe, and Jeff pointed out the usefulness of a 
given explanation is the criterion for credibility. The criterion works 
psychologically, but not scientifically, so it actually supports rather than 
negates Lee's original assertion that people function by belief.

>  > For the common man, it's a matter of having access to services.
>  > This is a matter in which I find myself in complete agreement with Lee -
>  > '[y]ou have never seen an electron and you have not done original research
>  > on the subject', '[e]lectricity seems to work so you believe the experts who
>  > tell you how it works' express very well my own view on the subject.
> The experts don’t just tell me how it works, they produce extensive and
> consistent mathematical models covering a wide range of domains and invite
> me to pick holes in them, or carry out any experiment that might invalidate
> them.

And since you don't, you _believe_ they are correct. Unless you _do_, and 
then you are not merely a believer _in that domain_.

> Lee is spouting a tired old argument which uses cultural relativism to
> assail all notions of objective truth.

Such an argument, tired and old or not, may exist somewhere, but that's not 
what's being discussed here.