Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Science and prostitution



Bryan Wallace http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual
prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession
is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and
thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any
commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to
acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the
dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. So in a
sense, I tend to agree with Weart's argument that the earliest scientists
were the prehistoric shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts
science on a par with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with
the argument of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much
in common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a duck,
quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck: I support
the argument that since there is no significant difference between science
and religion, science should be considered a religion! I would also agree
with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological differences between
science and the other religions. The other dominant religions are static
because their arguments are based on rigid doctrines set forth by their
founders, such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, who have died long ago.
Science on the other hand, is a dynamic religion that was developed by many
men over a long period of time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the
scientific method, that demands that the arguments change to conform to the
evolving observational and experimental evidence.

The word science was derived from the Latin word scientia, which means
knowledge, so we see that the word, in essence, is just another word for
knowledge. An associate of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of
Physics at Eckerd College, once told me that students in his graduate
school used to joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one
considers the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates
modern physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of
the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that showed
Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use scientific
methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to consider that
they have two to three times more right to be called scientists then the so-
called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with Popper's argument that
observations are theory-laden, and there is no way to prove an argument
beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the very least, the scientist
should do more than pay lip service to the scientific method. The true
scientist must have faith and believe in the scientific method of testing
theories, and not in the theories themselves. I agree with Seeds argument
that "A pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science but does
not obey the rules of good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of
the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they
should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to
believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be
considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the
professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political
reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l