🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5167@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
> 
A lot of stuff which I will summarize as saying that most scientists have no
imagination and that OMNI is a good science magazine.
> 

Now my impression of this argument is that after Mark sang the praises of
OMNI a lot of people wrote back and said that OMNI, whatever its virtues
as a fiction magazine, was painfully credulous and promoted belief
in pseudoscience.

Mark then responded by saying that, in fact, he believes every piece of
pseudoscientific drivel that has been popular some time in last fifty years.
(I may be exagerating this point.  I remember some praise of Velikovsky,
Astrology, various forms of ESP belief, and a little New Age stuff.)

It seems to me that he has conceded the main point.

As far as scientists having no imagination, some don't.  The very best
must rely on a dynamic balance between being willing to entertain
all kinds of ideas and a clear sense of the distinction between fantasy and 
reality.  Mark seems to be attacking people for having the second attribute,
one that OMNI magazine holds in low regard, but that is the attribute
which makes science possible.  No one has ever condemned creationists for
having no imagination.


> >Have you ever met a physicist ? Seriously ?
> 
> I am one.  Some of the best workers in General Reletivity are here too.
> One was my thesis advisor.
> 

If I were feeling hostile,  I might say that this proves that it is possible
to learn GR without knowing anything about science.  Sadly, one can say the
same about any particular discipline.  Instilling a critical sense is the
most difficult task facing a faculty member.  It's one that we frequently fail
to accomplish.  Instilling imagination, while also important, is frequently
superfluous, and when not, frequently impossible.

Finally,

> 
> One can tell that it is not the problem with the education of our people.
> Rather, the problem is simply that many scientists have lost much of their
> credibility in the eyes of the public, partly because of them having been
> burned so often while lashing out at people wrongly believed to be 
> pseudo-scientists.
> 

I would like to see an example of someone you think has been "wrongly believed 
to be pseudo-scientists" that is not such an obvious joke as Velikovsky et al.
Alternatively, who has been "burned" by pointing out his errors?
I agree that if the scientific community would refrain from making fun
of the Velikovskys and Uri Gellers of this world that people would
rarely get pissed off at scientists.  I had no idea that avoiding
popular anger was a criterion for a valid argument.

>     Then again, my standards are very high.

I'm just quoting this part for fun.
-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU