John D. Barrow & Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, 2009).
I am reading the latter, having read about it in the former. Some discussion might be relevant on this blog, especially in relation to Anderson's cosmological sf. Barrow and Tipler make a point that might be relevant to the discussions in our combox:
"...the authors are cosmologists, not philosophers. This has one very important consequence which the average reader should bear in mind. Whereas many philosophers and theologians appear to possess an emotional attachment to their theories and ideas which requires them to believe them, most scientists tend to regard their ideas differently. They are interested in formulating many logically consistent possibilities, leaving any judgement regarding their truth to observation. Scientists feel no qualms about suggesting different but mutually exclusive explanations for the same phenomenon. The authors are no exception to this rule and it would be unwise of the reader to draw any wider conclusions about the authors' views from what they may read here."
-Barrow & Tipler, op. cit., p. 15.
Many scientists also feel no qualms about subscribing to emotionally charged religious or political views just like the rest of us! We need not only theories to test but also a world-view to live by but we do not have to be dogmatic about it. A philosophy of nonattachment involves nonattachment to the details of a philosophy.
Poul Anderson's novel, Mirkheim, dramatizes social conflict and change, presents a vast cast of characters with every conceivable viewpoint and incorporates sympathetic treatment of the single character that the author most obviously disagrees with.
4 comments:
Scientists get emotionally attached to -scientific- theories too.
That's why science has elaborate protocols to prevent bias distorting evaluations of evidence... and it's why they don't always work.
Yes, I thought so too. Blish's THEY SHALL HVE STARS shows the scientific process at work with a particularly unpleasant scientist.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Too true! A recent example of how scientific objectivity was during the Covid hysteria, when some scientists allowed partisan bias to say foolish or false things about Covid's origins, vaccines, lockdowns, etc.
And we are seeing Politically Correct nonsense about so called "transgenders" by people who must or should know better! (Snorts)
Ad astra! Sean
I overlooked a word like this: "A recent example of how scientific objectivity was CORRUPTED..."
Sean
Post a Comment