Log edited with Logedit 2.7.0pl on Sat Apr  7 21:25:43 CDT 2007

Editing out:
Logged by Stoko
Word-wrapping at 72, 0, 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Stoko says, "This lecture will give a brief overview of Philosophy of 
  Science. My qualifications for holding this lecture are several books 
  I read on philosophy of science, and the course on philosophy of 
  science which I had on college." 
Stoko says, "I'll have to apologize in advance for not preparing this 
  lecture completely. Unfortunately, the lecture will neither have the 
  amount of content, nor the quality which I intended for it to have." 
Stoko says, "Philosophy of science has existed for centuries, but we 
  will cover only the most important schools of thought in the twentieth 
  century." 
Stoko says, "The schools of thought will be mentioned in chronological 
  order." 
Stoko says, "Der Wiener Kreis (in English: The Vienna Circle) was a 
  community that consisted of a handful of scholars which specialized in 
  several different sciences. Their aim, which was explained in their 
  manifesto 'Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis' (in 
  English: The Scientific Conception of the World: The Vienna Circle), 
  was to spread the scientific conception of the world, and to oppose 
  methaphysics in science. The school of philosophy of science which 
  they founded was called 'logical empiricism'. 'Verein Ernst Mach' 
  (English: Ernst Mach Society), which consisted of the members of the 
  Vienna Circle, was founded in the late 1920s, when Vienna Circle's 
  manifesto was also published. The school was founded in Vienna, but 
  later it spread outside Austria." 
Stoko says, "In their works, the logical empiricists were mostly 
  analyzing the logical structure of scientific theories. They claimed 
  that every scientific theory has to be expressed in such a way that 
  all its aspects can be confirmed by observation. They developed 
  logical symbols for writing scientific theories. They classified the 
  sentences used for expressing scientific theories into the sentences 
  of theory and the sentences of observation. Also, they classified 
  truths into analytic and synthetic truths, analytic truths being the 
  truths which are true regardless of reality, and synthetic truths 
  being the truths whose verity depends on reality." 
Stoko says, "Some of the most prominent members of the Vienna Circle 
  were Carnap, Reichenbach, and Schlick. Logical Empiricism isn't 
  popular anymore in philosophy of science. In the early 1950s, Willard 
  Van Orman Quine, an American logician, published his essay 'Two Dogmas 
  of Empiricism' which refuted the fundaments of logical empiricism. The 
  essay shows that it's often impossible to say if a truth is analytic 
  or synthetic, and that it's impossible to base theories on observation 
  to the extent that the logical empiricists proposed." 
Stoko says, "That much about the Logical Empiricists. I can completely 
  understand if something about the logical empiricists is unclear, or 
  insufficiently explained, and will be glad to answer any questions 
  which might arise at this point." 
Stoko says, "No questions, it seems. Okay." 
Stoko says, "Karl Raimund Popper was an Austrian of Jewish descent. He 
  spent most of his career in London, where he was a professor of 
  philosophy of science. He lived in the mid-twentieth century. His most 
  important work is 'Logik der Forschung' (English: The Logic of 
  Scientific Research). The school of philosophy of science which he 
  founded is called 'falsificationism'." 
Stoko says, "One of Popper's most important ideas is that the value of 
  scientific theory is measured by the number of different kinds of 
  observations which could refute it. He claimed that a scientific 
  theory is refuted as soon as a scientific observation which is in 
  conflict with the theory occurs." 
Stoko says, "Popper believed that a scientist shouldn't defend his own 
  theory. He believed that a scientist should try to make his theory as 
  vulnerable to refutation as possible, in order to be sure that the 
  theory doesn't remain accepted if it's incorrect." 
Stoko says, "Next is Thomas Samuel Kuhn. He's the only philosopher of 
  science about which I've written almost as much as I planned to." 
Stoko says, "Thomas Samuel Kuhn had a Ph. D. degree in physics, and was 
  an expert in history of physics. He was an American college professor 
  of Jewish descent. The fundamental idea of his most famous book, 'The 
  Structure of Scientific Revolutions', is, in his own words, merely 
  borrowed from social sciences, namely history and history of art. The 
  fundamental idea of the book is that big changes in science don't 
  happen through evolution of science, but instead happen through 
  revolutions of science which take place in relatively short periods of 
  time. Such an opinion about the way of science's development was 
  unknown in philosophy of science when the book was published. The 
  Structure of Scientific Revolutions gives a realistic and intelligent 
  description of how science works and how scientific revolutions 
  happen." 

<Audience> Boris says, "my favorite topic, kuhn." 

Stoko nods to Boris. 
Stoko says, "The most important thing in the book is probably Kuhn's 
  description of the stages a science goes through during its existence. 
  The first stage is pre-science. In this period, different schools 
  exist, each having its own idea about the fundaments of the science in 
  question. None of the schools is significantly dominant neither in the 
  number of followers, nor in the number of scientific successes. A 
  modern example of a science in the pre-scientific stage of development 
  is psychology. There are different schools - behaviourism, 
  psychoanalysis, gestalt psychology - and each school has different 
  ideas about the fundaments of psychology. In a science which has 
  developed past its pre-scientific phase, different schools of thought 
  don't exist - there is only one. Examples of such sciences are 
  mathematics, physics, and chemistry. A science stops being in 
  pre-scientific phase when one of the competing schools becomes more 
  successful and more popular than all other schools. Other schools die 
  out, and the science in question is united on the fundaments set by 
  the winning school." 
Stoko says, "The science thus moves to the second stage, which is called 
  'normal science'. Research is based on the fundaments set by the 
  winning school, and scientific discoveries are being made for some 
  time. Sooner or later, a big, unsolvable, unignorable problem occurs 
  for the science. Research can't go on if this problem isn't solved." 
Stoko says, "When this problem appears, the science moves into the third 
  stage, which is called 'an anomaly'. An example of an anomaly is 'the 
  ultraviolet catastrophe' which occured in thermodynamics at the end of 
  the 19th century. The fundaments of thermodynamics of the late 19th 
  century implied that a blackbody radiates an infinite amount of energy 
  per second. It was obvious to all scientists that this can't be 
  correct, because nothing can radiate an infinite amount of energy per 
  second, so science was in crisis." 
Stoko says, "'Anomalies' end with the fourth stage of a science's 
  development, which is called a 'scientific revolution'. A scientific 
  revolution happened in the case of 'ultraviolet catastrophe', as well. 
  In 1900, Max Planck offered new fundaments of thermodynamics which 
  didn't produce this anomaly, and has thus founded quantum physics. 
  Notice that Kuhn implies that every scientific revolution occurs as a 
  response to anomalies. History confirms it, because, for instance, 
  Copernican revolution happened because Ptolemaic (geocentrical) 
  astronomy has been in a crisis of its own during the hundred years 
  which preceded the acceptance of the Copernican system (as Ptolemaic 
  system developed, mathematical calculations behind the astronomy 
  became extremely long and complex, and Copernican system offered a 
  much simpler alternative). Another example is Einstein's theory of 
  relativity, which was a response to a crisis in physics which started 
  a decade before Einstein published his paper on special relativity 
  (the problem arised from the assumption that macroscopic bodies obey 
  Galileian relativity, and that electrons obey Lorentzian relativity - 
  Einstein showed that both macroscopic bodies and electrons obey 
  Lorentzian relativity)." 
Stoko says, "After this fourth stage, science moves into stage two, 
  'normal science', but with its fundaments changed. The process 'normal 
  science-anomaly-scientific revolution' is cyclical." 
Stoko says, "Another important new idea in Kuhn's book is '(scientific) 
  paradigm'. However, the term 'paradigm' was later broken into two 
  terms, 'exemplar' and 'disciplinary matrix' by Kuhn himself, because 
  he concluded that 'paradigm' was used in his book to denote too many 
  different things. 'Exemplar' is the solution of a certain scientific 
  problem which is imitated in solving all other scientific problems in 
  the area of the science in question. 'Disciplinary matrix' is the set 
  of beliefs and methods shared by all members of the same scientific 
  community which work in the same period of normal science." 
Stoko says, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is, of all books 
  dealing with Philosophy of Science, the one I would most heartily 
  recommend. It's educational both about Philosophy of Science and about 
  history of science. By some, it's considered to be one of the most 
  important books of the 20th century." 
Stoko says, "Any questions or comments at this point?" 

<Audience> Boris nods, and has one. 

Stoko says, "Go ahead, please." 

<Audience> Boris says, "Could you please help me clarify something about 
  Kuhn? Is it correct to say one of his major ideas was essentially 
  "when old scientists die, their old ideas die, and then the younger 
  generation, with their newer ideas, take hold, and this is how we move 
  forward."" 

Stoko says, "Have you read 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'?" 
Stoko says, "There's a similar, but not exactly the same thought there." 

<Audience> Boris read it a loooong time ago 

Stoko nods. 
Stoko says, "Well, what he said was that old scientists defend old, 
  outdated theories." 
Stoko says, "And since some of such old scientists are very influential 
  (Einstein, for instance - he was against quantum mechanics), they pose 
  a problem to the newer, better, theories." 

<Audience> Boris thinks this is a critical, key point, in orgizational 
  structure, and in education as well. Thank you for answering my 
  question. 

Stoko says, "Also, some of the less influential scientists pose an 
  obstacle for new, better theories. As long as such scientists are 
  alive, the old theory exists in the scientific community." 
Stoko says, "You're welcome. I hope the answer was satisfactory." 

<Audience> Boris says, "quite satisfactory, thank you." 
<Audience> Brazil emerges from the Linux Lobby. 
<Audience> Brazil has arrived. 

Stoko nods. 
Stoko greets Brazil. 
Stoko says, "Any other questions, perhaps?" 
Stoko says, "I guess not." 
Stoko says, "Imre Lakatos was a Hungarian-born philosopher of science of 
  Jewish descent. Same as Popper, he spent most of his life in London, 
  teaching philosophy of science. For some time, he was Popper's 
  teaching assistant." 
Stoko says, "The most important concept which Lakatos introduced was 'a 
  scientific program'. 'A scientific program' is a similar concept to 
  Kuhn's 'disciplinary matrix'." 
Stoko says, "Lakatos claimed that a scientific theory consists of a 
  'hard core', which is the fundament of the theory. The rest of the 
  theory is a sort of a defensive layer which protects the theory from 
  refutation." 
Stoko says, "Lakatos said that a good scientific program is ahead of 
  scientific facts. Such a program successfully predicts new, yet 
  unknown scientific facts. Most of the activities of the scientists 
  working under a bad scientific program aren't the discovery of new 
  scientific facts, but attempts to save the hard core of the scientific 
  program from refutation. Such scientific program is behind the facts, 
  and new facts aren't predicted by that program, but are instead a 
  threat to the existence of such a program because they are in conflict 
  with it." 
Stoko says, "Any questions about Lakatos? Anything unclear, or 
  insufficiently explained?" 
Stoko says, "Okay, finally we come to Paul Karl Feyerabend, which will 
  be the last covered philosopher of science." 
Stoko says, "Paul Karl Feyerabend was a philosopher of science who was 
  born in Austria, but who spent the second half of his life in USA. In 
  the beginning of his career, he was oriented towards physics, but 
  later he devoted himself to Philosophy of Science." 
Stoko says, "His most famous book is Against Method, in which he 
  proposed an anarchistic approach to science. The main idea of his book 
  is that scientific methods can do nothing but harm to scientific 
  research, and that science would be better off if there was no method 
  which should be obeyed by the members of the scientific community. The 
  motto of his theory is 'The only rule is: Anything goes'." 
Stoko says, "Feyerabend expressed profound doubt in importance of 
  science. His book contains plenty of rude criticisms of science, 
  scientists, and people who don't share his opinion about science. 
  Feyerabend didn't believe science would ever uncover truth. He implied 
  that it's more important that a theory is 'interesting', than that 
  it's correct. He claimed that there's a dictatorship of science, and 
  that people should rebel against that dictatorship. The dictatorship 
  is, he says, manifested in the fact that all children are obliged to 
  take science classes in school, and that a scientific opinion on any 
  issue is considered to be more correct than any other opinion. Also, 
  he believes that scientists get more respect in the modern society 
  than they deserve. He claims that science is today what religion was 
  in the medieval times." 
Stoko says, "In my opinion, Feyerabend's theory received much more 
  attention than it deserved. I was prepared to accept any ideas in his 
  book which were sufficiently well argumented. But there was no good 
  argumentation, and most of the argumentation was based on insults and 
  uncivil tone. Regardless, Feyerabend is considered to be one of the 
  most important theorists of Philosophy of Science, and was respected 
  enough to be employed by the university in Berkeley as a professor." 
Stoko says, "Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that Against Method was 
  published in 1970s." 

<Audience> Jules emerges from the Linux Lobby. 
<Audience> Jules has arrived. 

Stoko says, "If someone wants to read more about Philosophy of Science, 
  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions can probably easily be found 
  in libraries. Also, translations of Logic of Scientific Research and 
  the manifesto of the Vienna Circle can be found in libraries or 
  bookshops." 
Stoko says, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism can be downloaded from the 
  internet (it has around 20 pages)." 
Stoko says, "Also, there are articles on Wikipedia." 
Stoko says, "It's probably better to read the original works and to 
  judge them yourself, than to base your opinion on someone else's text 
  on philosophy of science, in case you have enough time and interest to 
  spend on studying this subject." 
Stoko says, "Any questions on philosophy of science, on any of the 
  mentioned philosophers of science, their works, or theories?" 

<Audience> tramp has a question. 

Stoko says, "Yes, please?" 

<Audience> tramp says, "Feyerabend..." 

Stoko says, "Yes?" 

<Audience> tramp says, "would it be fair to suggest that perhaps the 
  underlying issue of his proposal is that methodologies and ... um... 
  the 'institution' of science had created excessive barriers to entry 
  for new ideas? and that his theory is a reaction to that (and that he 
  perhaps expressed it with vitriol)?" 

Stoko says, "Firstly, it indeed is true that science prevents some new 
  ideas from taking hold..." 
Stoko says, "... and that it has nearly wiped out some older beliefs and 
  ideas." 
Stoko says, "His theory is a reaction to that, that is true. But the 
  question we might ask ourselves here is whether it's good or bad that 
  some ideas have been wiped out or prevented from taking hold." 
Stoko says, "Personally, I think science does good to human knowledge 
  and human beliefs, and that most of the ideas which are in conflict 
  with science are bad, and don't deserve to be accepted." 

<Audience> tramp says, "well, we certainly want to filter out those 
  ideas which have no truth in them. the earth is not flat. the sun does 
  not revolve around the earth, etc." 
<Audience> Boris raises an eyebrow 
<Audience> tramp says, "I have another question, but don't want to hog 
  this portion. Is anyone else wanting to ask something?" 
<Audience> tramp says, "seems not, so I'm gonna ask my next question..." 

Stoko says, "Seems not. But it would be interesting to see other 
  people's thoughts about this issue." 
Stoko says, "Does anybody have a comment here?" 

<Audience> tramp types, but waits. (: 
<Audience> Boris says, "I could chime in here, but I don't want to hog 
  the time" 
<Audience> tramp says, "hog away, Boris." 

Stoko says, "We have almost an hour and a half left." 
Stoko says, "Feel free." 

<Audience> Grinna says, "Yes hog away" 
<Audience> Walker has a question regarding the methodology of science 
  and the impact of it today. 

Stoko says, "Okay, but please wait a bit, until we're done with the 
  ongoing theme." 

<Audience> Boris says, "I agree with your last statement, and find 
  Tramp's question/observation to be interesting. However, I've always 
  thought the main weakness of the scientific method is it's reliance on 
  that which can be observed or measured. How much does God weigh, after 
  all? Is this what Feyerabend was getting at? Why was he relevant?" 
<Audience> Brazil has a question regarding the 'goodness' of dispelling 
  ideas which have the potential for creating value in society...even if 
  they are not true. 

Stoko says, "To address Boris'es comment first..." 
Stoko says, "Well, first of all, Feyerabend didn't consider science to 
  be superior to superstition." 

<Audience> Boris listens 

Stoko says, "Feyerabend claimed that there's weakness in any 
  methodology. If the whole methodology of a science was that we have to 
  be honest about our work, that methodology would, in Feyerabend's 
  eyes, be bad, too. Actually, he even gave examples where it's 'good' 
  that a scientist wasn't honest." 
Stoko says, "So, reliance on observation and measurements isn't the only 
  thing Feyerabend criticized." 
Stoko says, "He criticized even the scientific honesty Popper was 
  advocating. And more." 
Stoko says, "My professor said that perhaps Feyerabend's theory was so 
  popular mainly because it was very radical." 
Stoko says, "... and possibly not because it was good and well 
  argumented." 
Stoko says, "I think I can't answer this question any better than this. 
  Sorry." 

<Audience> Boris says, "aha...it's fine, thank you" 

Stoko nods. 

<Audience> tramp says, "probly why berkeley hired him, t" 
<Audience> Boris giggles 
<Audience> tramp says, "too." 

Stoko smirks. 
Stoko says, "Okay, I'll address Brazil's question now, because it's 
  related to the previous question." 

<Audience> Brazil nods. 
<Audience> tramp says, "btw, Brazil. For all intents and purposes in our 
  day-to-day lives, the earth is flat and the sun does (from an 
  egocentric perspective) appear (which is all that matters to us here 
  on earth) to revolve around the earth." 

Stoko says, "It's somewhat tough a question for me. In literature (for 
  instance, Pratchett's Hogfather), science is described as something 
  that may be in conflict with noble values." 
Stoko says, "With human values, such as mercy, compassion, etc." 
Stoko says, "Personally, neither do I want such values dispelled. But 
  neither do I truly see examples of such an effect of science on 
  ethics. Can you give us some examples, Brazil?" 

<Audience> Brazil says, "Science makes objective ethics tough to say the 
  least." 

Stoko says, "Can you explain why?" 

<Audience> tramp says, "motive." 

Stoko says, "Okay, I have an observation here." 
Stoko says, "Psychology could give a physiological explanation, and 
  physiological causes of every human state of mind, and every action of 
  a human being... Noble emotions would be nothing more than a 
  consequence of some biological processes." 
Stoko says, "And as such, they may be thought to be as important as 
  digestion." 

<Audience> tramp says, "science does not have a place for 'motivation' - 
  only 'action and reaction' or 'cause and effect'. It can explain all 
  of the mechanics of kicking a field goal (in american football), but 
  not explain why the moronic coach chose to try a 68 yard field goal 
  instead of just punting." 

Stoko nods. 

<Audience> Brazil says, "But, without a belief in anything outside the 
  box we call the universe, how does one appeal to doing good for its 
  own sake? There is no room for objective ethics, and what I do is only 
  governed by the risk of being caught and price of being caught." 
<Audience> Brazil says, "One might even say that trying to make as many 
  kids as I can by as many women as I can is actually a 'good' thing as 
  it is the 'natural' thing." 

Stoko says, "I guess that, when one would analyze science to see its 
  implications for ethics, one could easily come to such a conclusion. 
  However, many scientists believe in God, and many scientists are 
  ethical." 

<Audience> Brazil has not worked out a good answer himself, but was 
  curious whether anyone else had. 

Stoko says, "Actually, many of them are exceptionally ethical and 
  religious." 
Stoko says, "I guess I haven't worked out such an answer, either. I've 
  had similar questions for myself, but I gave up on trying to answer 
  them." 

<Audience> tramp says, "this issue, however, is why science is only one 
  of the topics philosophy separates itself from and sets itself over as 
  a metathought. there is also 'philosophy of religion' (separate from 
  religion, but studying it), ethics (separate from philosophy of 
  religion which is more about morality than ethics), and so on and so 
  forth." 
<Audience> Molikai has an answer to the, 'Why do good' thing. Works for 
  me, anyway: Because I want to be what I would consider an ethical 
  person. 

Stoko says, "Yeah, ethics has been a philosophical discipline for 
  millenia." 

<Audience> tramp says, "motivation." 
<Audience> tramp says, "you do good because you want to do good (your 
  reasoning for why you want to is irrelevant)." 
<Audience> Brazil suspects that desire is inculcated from religious 
  parents or from a religious pattern the parents are carrying forward. 
<Audience> tramp says, "or any rolemodel." 

Stoko says, "I don't believe one has to be religious to be moral." 
Stoko says, "Nor that he has to have religous parents in order to be 
  moral." 

<Audience> Boris says, "well, isn't that all born from a desie for 
  social order? I mean, if we all fought all the time, we couldn't be 
  productive...." 
<Audience> Boris says, "desire" 

Stoko says, "Yes, I guess that's very possible. Not only that we 
  couldn't be productive, but our lives would have a much lower 
  quality." 
Stoko says, "People would do harm to each other very often, thus 
  decreasing each other's quality of life." 

<Audience> Sketch emerges from the Linux Lobby. 
<Audience> Sketch has arrived. 

Stoko greets Sketch. 
Stoko says, "The lecture is over, but we have a discussion now, and it 
  will last for nearly an hour more." 

<Audience> Sketch says, "Ah. Blast. O:)" 
<Audience> tramp says, "interestingly, Stoko, that is implied in the 
  technical (rather than day-to-day) definition of moral. morality has 
  nothing to do with religion. that's a very (VERY) new use of the term. 
  a 'moral' person is one who abides by the mores (pronounced 
  'more-ays') of the society in which one lives." 

Stoko says, "I believe it's pronounced more-ehs." 
Stoko says, "It's latin. Customs." 

<Audience> tramp says, "right." 

Stoko says, "But this has gone far away from the theme of the lecture. 
  Let's deal with the next question." 

<Audience> tramp says, "point being, the definition of 'moral' 
  explicitly includes all members of a society, regardless of whether 
  they're jewish, christian, muslim, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise. it 
  just means 'getting along' (get along or get along, as they say out 
  west)." 

Stoko says, "Which was: What's the impact of scientific methodology on 
  the modern society?" 
Stoko nods. 

<Audience> tramp defers to the speaker. 
<Audience> tramp has an example situation for discussing that question. 
<Audience> tramp says, "pharmaceutical industry." 

Stoko says, "Go on, Tramp." 

<Audience> tramp says, "at what point is the scientific quest (for a 
  cure for the common cold or whatever) harming the society it is 
  attempting to serve? at what point is <Pharmaceutical Company X> no 
  longer benefitting society with its research (new drugs)? at what 
  point is it actually harming society (X, meth, etc.)? And why is the 
  'science' part of it always protected even if it's causing harm at 
  some point? (every new drug is eventually recalled because the MDs 
  weren't adequately informed about the potential for harmful 
  side-effects... like... DEATH)." 

Stoko says, "Well, that isn't directly linked to the current question. A 
  scientific methodology tells us in which way research is conducted, 
  not what's the purpose of the research." 
Stoko says, "But it's a good question, and more, it's a good philosophy 
  of science kind of question." 

<Audience> tramp says, "but it is a methodology with no accountability." 

Stoko says, "We can address it later." 
Stoko says, "Right." 

<Audience> tramp says, "and societies need accountability." 

Stoko says, "Okay, I agree with you." 
Stoko says, "Well, nuclear bombs are bad. It'd be better if there were 
  no such things. Heroin was invented by a scientist who wanted to 
  create cough medicine for children." 
Stoko says, "Heroin was even sold as such." 
Stoko says, "Many illegal drugs were created by scientists." 
Stoko says, "Even though none of those scientists wanted those drugs to 
  be abused." 
Stoko says, "Lead researcher of the hydrogen bomb didn't care about what 
  he was creating. He was in for fame and money." 
Stoko says, "Tellerman, if I recall correctly." 

<Audience> tramp says, "that's actually a good example." 

Stoko says, "But the hydrogen bomb didn't harm anyone yet." 
Stoko says, "We can't yet say that it harmed the society." 
Stoko says, "While heroin, which was supposed to help people, was 
  actually causing death of thousands." 
Stoko says, "I'd give two classes of causes of harm which science does 
  to the society." 
Stoko says, "First class would be harm which arises out of ignorance." 
Stoko says, "The other class would be the harm which arises out of lack 
  of morals." 
Stoko says, "Or ethics, if that's the more proper word." 

<Audience> tramp says, "and there's a related one... from about 5 years 
  ago... but I can't recall the specifics of it. some experiment which 
  had the (hypothetical) potential to destroy the earth (and about half 
  of our solar system). at what point should science say 'wait... um... 
  there's a danger factor here which we MUST include'? right now, there 
  is no such barrier to scientific research (only laws to protect harm 
  to individual creatures... some of which frequently go ignored)." 
<Audience> tramp says, "probably ethics in this situation." 

Stoko nods. 

<Audience> Sketch says, "There are a lot of hypotheticals like that..." 

Stoko says, "IMO, such risks shouldn't be taken." 

<Audience> Sketch says, "First sonic boom, first atom bomb, etc.." 

Stoko says, "It's better that science suffers, than that society 
  suffers." 
Stoko says, "In CERN, appearance of black holes was anticipated." 
Stoko says, "Due to high energies of particles." 
Stoko says, "And increase of mass." 

<Audience> tramp says, "that's the one." 

Stoko says, "Theory said that the black holes would likely just 
  disintegrate." 
Stoko says, "But theory didn't seem so certain, so I'd rather vote 
  against the experiment." 
Stoko says, "Well, I believe the experiments in new CERN's accelerator 
  started this year." 

<Audience> Sketch believes he is still living. 

Stoko says, "To answer the first question: Science starts harming the 
  society when either the scientist doesn't manage to have complete 
  control of his project, even though he has good intentions (he creates 
  heroin thinking it's a cough medicine), or when a scientist may or may 
  not have complete control over what he's doing, but has unethical 
  intentions." 

<Audience> tramp says, "what about that h-bomb guy?" 
<Audience> tramp says, "you dind't account for him." 

Stoko says, "A cure for the first thing would be a more thorough testing 
  and consideration." 
Stoko says, "He goes in the second category, IMO." 
Stoko says, "He had unethical intentions." 

<Audience> tramp says, "you think his intentions were unethical?" 
<Audience> tramp says, "hmmm. interesting." 
<Audience> Walker says, "Or Alfred Nobel? ;). Inventor of Dynamite, 
  founder of the Nobel Peace Prize." 

Stoko says, "Well... He would be somewhat closer to the first class." 

<Audience> Walker says, "The inventor of the H-Bomb had no intention for 
  it to be used, either." 

Stoko says, "Tramp, he wanted fame and fortune, not caring for the lives 
  the h-bomb could end. That's unethical, in my book." 

<Audience> Walker says, "Have you ever read his books?" 
<Audience> tramp says, "hmmm. did he say that? or is that just your 
  opinion?" 

Stoko says, "No, I didn't." 

<Audience> Walker says, "Richard Feynman's got several autobiographies 
  out there." 
<Audience> tramp says, "lawyers - they get paid to defend criminals. it 
  is quite ethical for them to do so... and to do so with all of their 
  combined resources and skills. because... that's what they're getting 
  paid to do." 
<Audience> Walker says, "He's really an incredibly interesting guy, with 
  a lot to say and a lot he's done." 
<Audience> Walker says, "It was the president of the USA who ordered the 
  bombing." 
<Audience> Walker says, "Good inventions, horrid uses." 

Stoko says, "Okay, third class would be the scientists who, unlike the 
  first class, had control over what they were creating, but created a 
  potentially abusive invention, and had no sufficient control over its 
  usage." 
Stoko says, "And they also had good intentions, wanting the invention to 
  be used in a specific way." 
Stoko says, "say Feynman has two books of memoirs, I believe." 
Stoko says, "But Feynman wasn't the guy behind the H-Bomb." 

<Audience> Walker says, "Anyway, it's all beside the point, you've got 
  your classes delineated ;)." 
<Audience> tramp wants to ask about shrodenger's (sp?) cat (well, a 
  related notion, anyway). 

Stoko says, "Schroedinger." 
Stoko says, "Uh... What about it?" 

<Audience> tramp says, "specifically, the issue of 'impact of the 
  experimenter on the experiment'." 
<Audience> tramp says, "science keeps wrestling with this, but keeps 
  ignoring the simple answer, because it's a can of worms they don't 
  want to address, IMO." 

Stoko says, "I'm not well versed in quantum mechanics, unfortunately. I 
  know some stuff, but I'm far from being an expert." 

<Audience> tramp says, "and that is: I want to get a specific result, so 
  I'm going to set my experiment up so that it points toward that 
  result. specifically (back to my earlier comment in response to 
  brazil's inquiry), motive." 

Stoko says, "Kuhn gave some evidence that experimenters were doing 
  exactly that." 

<Audience> tramp says, "science refuses to deal with the human will, 
  period." 
<Audience> Walker says, "Actually, Tramp, that's the point. You devise 
  an experiment to prove something you think is true" 
<Audience> Walker says, "And perform it." 
<Audience> tramp says, "one of the most powerful forces in the 
  universe... and they ignore it." 

Stoko says, "Results that were in conflict with the current disciplinary 
  matrix and exemplar were often treated as erroneous measurements, and 
  thus ignored." 

<Audience> Walker says, "They always want a specific result. It's when 
  it doesn't happen that their science is proved wrong, and that's how 
  new things are learned." 

Stoko says, "Experimenter would try finding causes of an error, and 
  would often succeed in finding them, for the measurements which 
  weren't anticipated by the currently dominant theory. If a result was 
  in accord with the currently dominant theory, that result was viewed 
  with less skepticism." 

<Audience> tramp says, "that's not the point I was after, walker. that's 
  the scientific answer: ignore the human will and let the prophesying 
  begin!" 

Stoko says, "He gave examples. Measurements which would today be 
  considered unlikely and false were written down by the experimenters 
  in the past." 

<Audience> Walker says, "Then that's not science, that's just making up 
  results." 
<Audience> tramp thinks you're missing the point. 
<Audience> Walker may be, yes. 

Stoko says, "Walker's comment is interesting, and is giving me a good 
  occasion to mention another thing from Kuhn's theory." 

<Audience> tramp says, "penn and teller can make you believe things that 
  aren't in accordance with reality. science can do the same thing, if 
  the scientist is motivated to do so." 

Stoko says, "In Kuhn's opinion, refutations occur very often, and are 
  ignored by the scientists during the periods of normal science." 
Stoko says, "A refutation is only taken seriously when science can't go 
  around it" 

<Audience> Boris quietly gets up and softly says "so sorry, I must be on 
  my way....fascinating topic, Stokos - thank you..." 
<Audience> tramp waves! 

Stoko says, "Thank you for participating, Boris." 

<Audience> Boris goes home. 
<Audience> Boris has left. 

Stoko says, "Refutations during the period of normal science are most 
  often viewed as problems which can be solved, but are not currently 
  solveable." 
Stoko says, "They are viewed as problems to which the exemplar can 
  apply, but the way in which it can be applied isn't yet seen." 

<Audience> tramp says, "I have a scientific theory which was just 
  ignored while I was studying philosophy, simply because I hadn't 
  established a reputation to support it (the theory was... and still 
  is... sound... just not backed by a 'known name')." 

Stoko says, "To think that refutations are always taken as a reason to 
  change the theory is wrong in Kuhn's opinion, but correct in Popper's 
  opinion." 
Stoko says, "If the theory deals with science or epistemology, feel free 
  to describe it in a couple of words." 

<Audience> tramp says, "well, I think some refutations mean your theory 
  needs polish. others mean your theory doesn't hold water." 
<Audience> tramp says, "well, it's a theory to resolve the dispute about 
  whether light is a wave or a particle." 

Stoko nods, "That's a legitimate opinion" 

<Audience> tramp says, "I say it's neither (technically)." 

Stoko says, "I've already heard the same words from a colleague of 
  mine." 
Stoko says, "And I agree with that." 

<Audience> tramp says, "I say it's a spiral... a corkscrew effect." 
<Audience> tramp says, "you ever seen those fireworks which are a 
  circular tin thing with flaps ... when you light it, it spirals up 
  into the air like a helicopter?" 

Stoko says, "I think I saw something similar." 
Stoko says, "But that moves because of the friction with the air." 
Stoko says, "Light wouldn't have anything to make friction with." 
Stoko says, "If it was spiralling." 
Stoko says, "Unless you believe in ether." 
Stoko says, "Or something similar." 
Stoko says, "Ether was refuted in the late 19th century." 
Stoko says, "Any more comments about this subject?" 

<Audience> tramp says, "take a hundred or so of those... mark a line on 
  each one (across the diameter) with a + on one end and a - on the 
  other. then put them in a pile and light them all with a blow-torch. 
  The resulting chaos of spirals will describe the light behavior I'm 
  describing.... a single 'piece' of light is like the 'line' you drew 
  on each one (a positive and negative charge, spiraling outward through 
  space until its energy runs out)." 
<Audience> tramp says, "when I discussed this with my philosophy of 
  science teacher, his response was: don't forget to pick up your term 
  paper next week. (no comment about my theory)" 

Stoko says, "Are you claiming that light has charges, or did I 
  understand something incorrectly?" 
Stoko says, "What did you major in, if I may ask?" 

<Audience> tramp says, "potentially yes." 
<Audience> tramp says, "philosophy." 

Stoko nods. 
Stoko says, "If light had charges, that would probably be detected." 

<Audience> tramp says, "but perfectly balanced charges." 
<Audience> tramp says, "so not detectible." 

Stoko says, "Something which has two opposing charges which are at some 
  distance from one another is an electric dipole." 

<Audience> tramp says, "like a sub-microscopic magnet." 
<Audience> tramp says, "no distance." 
<Audience> tramp says, "like 2 sides of a coin." 

Stoko says, "If you put a dipole in a strong electric field, you'd 
  likely see a very big change in its behaviour." 

<Audience> tramp says, "only if it has mass." 
<Audience> tramp says, "I don't think light has mass." 

Stoko says, "Ah." 
Stoko says, "True." 
Stoko says, "But..." 
Stoko says, "If it had charges, it would generate an electric field of 
  its own." 
Stoko says, "And a magnetic field, too, if it was moving." 
Stoko says, "However, yes, it's true that light is an electromagnetic 
  wave." 

<Audience> tramp says, "not necessarily. that assumes that charges are 
  always electric ones." 

Stoko says, "Which has magnetic and electric fields." 
Stoko says, "So, you're saying it's some other type of a charge?" 

<Audience> tramp says, "light, as we know from the prism, is a 
  spectrum... it has two 'ends' (infra red and ultra violet)... it has 
  it's 'opposite sides' so to speak." 

Stoko says, "There's a small error there." 
Stoko says, "Light isn't a spectrum. Light can be even monochromatic, 
  meaning it has light of only one color." 

<Audience> tramp says, "probably a huge one, scientifically speaking." 
<Audience> tramp says, "true that. but now you're dismantling light, not 
  my theory." 

Stoko says, "Infra red and ultraviolet are opposite sides only because 
  of our definition of light." 

<Audience> tramp says, "wait." 

Stoko says, "Technically, radiowaves are the same thing as red light, 
  only difference being in wavelength." 

<Audience> tramp says, "let's take a single frequency of light. say... 
  yellow (let's not get too specific, okay... just for discussion)." 

Stoko says, "But we defined light to be the part of the electromagnetic 
  spectrum with a certain range of wavelengths." 
Stoko says, "Okay." 

<Audience> tramp says, "one side of yellow is next to orange, the other 
  side of it is next to green. even the single color has two sides." 

Stoko says, "That sounds a bit weird to me." 

<Audience> tramp says, "it has no mass. that's why it sounds weird." 

Stoko says, "The true thing in what you said is that light with slightly 
  lower wavelength is observed as orange, and that light of slightly 
  smaller wavelength is observed as green." 
Stoko says, "Er... s/lower/bigger/" 
Stoko says, "But you can't talk about light's sides, except abstractly." 

<Audience> tramp says, "nor can you talk about light, except 
  abstractly... because we still don't know precisely what it is." 
<Audience> tramp says, "let's take a single number." 
<Audience> tramp says, "5." 
<Audience> tramp says, "if we line up the numbers sequentially and look 
  at 5. (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 etc.). on one side of 5 is 4. on the other 
  side of 5 is 6. tell me 5 doesn't have 2 sides." 
<Audience> tramp says, "5 has no mass though. so you can't 'touch' the 
  sides of it." 

Stoko says, "Not meaning to insult you, I believe that to try making a 
  physical theory if you're not a physicist is same as trying to write a 
  top quality poem in Russian without knowing Russian." 
Stoko says, "The reason why you can touch your keyboard isn't its mass." 
Stoko says, "It's its charge." 
Stoko says, "Anyway, I think I'd have to go." 
Stoko says, "Right." 
Stoko says, "To conclude..." 
Stoko says, "I sincerely hope these two hours weren't a waste of time 
  for you all. If they were, don't judge the rest of the festival on the 
  basis of this lecture. There will likely be more interesting 
  lectures." 

<Audience> Brazil perks post-commute and see much scrollback and The End 
  (tm). 
<Audience> tramp adds quickly... should have said 'inspect' rather than 
  'touch' (re: 5). 

Stoko says, "Well, I guess not" 
Stoko says, "Even a single photon can be detected with the proper 
  equipment. If detection is a form of inspection, then no, it's 
  probably not even to say it can't be inspected." 
Stoko says, "If you people would like to continue discussing, I nominate 
  Tramp for the moderator of the discussion, since he was the most 
  active debator." 

<Audience> tramp declines. 
<Audience> tramp says, "thanks for the good talk, Stoko." 
<Audience> tramp says, "close it up. say goodnight, gracie or 
  somehting." 

Stoko says, "Right. I thank everyone for attending the lecture. Have a 
  nice remainder of the night." 
Stoko says, "Bye." 

<Audience> tramp claps