Re: virus: The Trouble With Science
Sat, 2 Nov 1996 15:03:51 -0600 (CST)

On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Reed Konsler wrote:

> Oh, I couldn't resist...
> "Science's success hinges on a very rigorous application of the principles
> of logical deduction and the meticulous testing of hypotheses...although
> these proceses derive from common sense, the rigour with which they are
> applied in science is genuinely unnatural....for the scientist as much as
> the layman, the restrictions of the scientific method become irksome: we
> want to leap ahead, to jump to conclusions, to act impetuously on an
> exciting new idea and bask in the glory of everyone's recognition of our
> achievement...detailed analysis is hopelessly inefficient in the context of
> everyday survival. Our minds have been honed to find rules of thumb that
> suffice for everyday purposes as quickly as possible...our minds seem
> predisposed to deal with social matters rather than the nature of the
> physical this...crucial element in our story...we now must
> turn." p. 13
> Ok, I'm better now...

This is an instance of something I have been forced to induct:

Social reasoning and logical reasoning are mutually incoherent. The
methods for generating conclusions in one domain often generate
automatically wrong conclusions in the other domain.

The above says nothing about intelligence or anything similar. I don't
want to arbitrarily elevate one above the other. However, it IS
difficult to use one version to emulate the other--but if one has vastly
more practice with one version, that one's going to be the default mode,
and the emulation may be required. [In my case, I will tend to botch
social reasoning, since I have to emulate IT.]

The above frustration is reasonable when social reasoning has to emulate
logical reasoning: it can be done, but it's a lot more work. I have much
the same experience in the reverse direction.

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd