Email to Mark Wilkerson
Scientific Process
     Index     
Return to:   Site   or   Emails   Description

20121114                        Language                        Epistemology

To: Mark Wilkerson ejtonefan@gmail.com
From: Scott Sinnock ssinnock@netzero.com, Nov 14, 2012, 5:41pm cst
Subject: Re: Soul

Thought Process: In today's sports section a wildlife-hunting-fishing-conservationist columnist Dale Bowman mentioned a policy of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to be "science-based" and then lamented that some policy decisions might not be "science-based". This reminded me of the nuclear waste issue where everyone, state, feds, utilities, environmentalists, all said decisions should be "science-based". EPA touts its "scientific basis". It seems science rules policy. But it can't. Science can never determine policy which always (ALWAYS) includes values contained in desired outcomes of policy, it is the desires that contain the values. Science can only

   • describe observations about conditions that occurred in the past, and
   • Guestimate about possible logical outcomes given assumptions about
      ○ Initial conditions for
         § spatial distribution of properties of things within the "field' of interest and
         § energy and mass flow into or out of the field (boundary conditions)
      ○ Generally applicable mathematical equations (or other logical formalities) that describe energy and mass movement through the field, i.e. exchanges of information among the things based on their properties.

Guesstimating, also called "modeling", is sometimes is done quite well, like models of spacecraft trajectories, and sometimes quite poorly, like models of groundwater or climate behavior over long times. "Well" and "poorly" here have to do with the "size" of the range of possible outcomes relative to the "size" of the initial conditions, I'll leave "size" for you to define. The initial conditions and the spatial relations among "properties" of matter are generally selected by intuitive (inductive) recognition of "best truth" from observation. Often our observations are of another's assertion of "best truth", like standard government recordings of wind speeds used in weather models. The generally applicable mathematical processes describe, in model space, "absolute truth" rather than "best truth". They are non contingent at their most fundamental premises. Though "process" can be contingent, of course, not the processes by which processes change. Rarely are third derivatives even considered. O f course all properties are contingent on process and may or may not change, in the model, as energy moves by. I use terms biased from my background. "Matter" could be, for example, money; investment "proclivity" a property of such "matter", and rate of return the generally applicable process.

Language:With these limitations then, "science" can only talk in "if-then" terms. "If my initial conditions are right, and "if" my property distributions are right, and "if" my process descriptions are right, "then" this is the outcome. Nowhere in that "explanation" are "values of desirability" considered, except in establishing the "rightness" of such items by "rules of correspondence" with observed nature or, almost entirely, with previously established, but derived "possible (often 'most likely') states of nature". Of course "values" can be considered in models as "properties" say, in models of the buying behavior of female southern Baptists who favor abortion. Policy IS value. It sets a course of "desired" outcomes. In the case above about the wildlife, the desired outcome was more salmon in Lake Michigan.

The columnist claimed "There's science to support why the four Lake Michigan states are reducing salmon fishing" and "There's no science that establishes a casual link ......." (to support a policy change advocated by some). Maybe, but reducing salmon fishing achieves some unstated purpose, some desired condition, probably more salmon in the lakes.

Science can never establish that such a condition is desirable, only what might happen if certain conditions occur, by "nature" or by "human intervention". The same is true of any claim that policy is "science-based" such as the claim for the need for reduction of carbon emissions. I agree, but not because we are probably affecting climate, but because we are destroying the wonderous chemical treasure trove that the sun, plants, and earth's heat have cooked up for us to use to create almost any hydrogen or carbon based molecule of the imagination. But that is my value. Wanting to avoid increased flooding in Bangladesh is some others' reason for wanting to stop carbon burning. Science can "guestimate" by modeling how "best" to avoid, forestall, adapt to, or even fear or love climate change, but it can NEVER say whether it is desireable or not. Science can not tell us whether eliminating all other life on earth is a sin to be avoided (or not), only whether we can or not.

My take on the issue is "so far, so good".
-----------------------------------------------------
Rnd(600) = 103 days ago or August 3, 2012
8.10.2012 (J)