From: Greg Schmitz (gws1@columbia.edu)
Date: 09/27/03-01:55:00 AM Z
I know there are more than a few trained scientists on this list (Bob?
Gord?) - help me I'm melting :*). I thought about using the subject
line "Science and Art," but I could write a book on that subject and
it would have more to do with one inspiring the other and vice versa.
So............
Enough is enough. You are both wrong.
If you are really claiming to be using science this statement is wrong!
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> > I've never understood the virulence of the attacks lobbied here against
> > that pigment test and its proponents; it simply makes no sense to me. My
> > position on the pigment test, which I've elucidated at length before,
> > (anyone who's interested can consult the archives) is that if the test
> > is useful to you (as it was to me) use it and be glad for it, and if
> > it's not useful, don't use it. But to attack so vehemently those who
> > have used the test and found it useful, makes no sense. It makes no
> > sense in terms of community; it makes no sense in terms of science, it
> > simply makes no sense.
and so is this!
on Friday, 26 September, Judy Seigel wrote:
> Katharine has strangely re-written "history" above, which I cannot take
> lightly. Far from attacking "proponents, " I myself was nearly lynched on
> this list for heresy in doubting said GPR test -- mostly by Katharine
> herself, who found my disrespect for "authority" (Scopick) "disgraceful,"
> declaring "I hope I never see such a sight again," in about those words.
> Given the vehemence and emotion of her attack, I replied more mildly
> perhaps than I should have. If I'd made more fuss, revision might not have
> come so easily.
Please don't use the word science if that is not what you really mean
you will only muddy the waters - or perhaps be the fool, and here's
why (IMHO):
The nature of the scientific method is that you can reproduce and
document the results of your theory using standardized materials
(keywords here: standardized and reproduce), and so can others. If
others cannot reproduce your results, chances are your results are
incorrect (not wrong - there is no "value judgment" involved).
I once read a wonderful essay (which is packed in a box somewhere and
the author of which I don't recall, perhaps: Franklin Pierce, Jacob
Bronowski, Jaques Ellul...I simply can't pull it out of my Cranium -
sorry) which described the scientific method as it relates to the
working scientist in very human terms. First and perhaps foremost,
personality and ego have nothing to do with what you are
investigating. The object of your investigation is what is paramount.
It is perfectly legitimate to attack both the methodology and the
results of your colleges, provided you have proof or can demonstrate
logical inconsistencies, but you must take care not confuse the object
of the research with the investigator. As an investigator you must be
able to remove your ego from the process and focus on the subject of
your investigation. The colleague that might prove you wrong is not
attacking you, she/he is doing you a favor by speeding your
investigation and research forward.
I am not a scientist but I use the scientific method in my day to day
work (thus, applied science) to reduce the time it takes me to do
things and to achieve the results I want. You can give me an unknown
film and developer and after running some tests I can go out and
develop a given field exposure to within .05 logD 2 hours later using
the same. I can make the material serve my vision using the methods I
have adopted from science; very handy (Historical note: I think common
sense preceded science - even if it was sometimes called magic - see
Ellul).
Best to all -greg schmitz
----------
Thus, if it be true that death is annihilation, then the man who
believes that he will certainly go straight to heaven when he dies,
provided he have fulfilled certain simple observances in this life,
has a cheap pleasure which will not be followed by the least
disappointment.
Charles Sanders Peirce
"The Fixation of Belief" (1877)
----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST