Imatge de l'autor
5 obres 423 Membres 6 Ressenyes

Sobre l'autor

Crèdit de la imatge: Creationism's Trojan Horse

Obres de Paul R. Gross

Etiquetat

Coneixement comú

Data de naixement
unknown
Gènere
male

Membres

Ressenyes

why left attacks on objectivity of science are wrongheaded
 
Marcat
ritaer | Hi ha 5 ressenyes més | Jun 22, 2021 |
I’ve been wanting to read Higher Superstition for some time now, and it finally showed up at a local used book store. To my surprise, I’m a little disappointed.


Authors Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt preach to the choir. Higher Superstition is as inaccessible to the average reader as some of the neologism- and jargon-ridden deconstructionist tracts that it criticizes. Particularly annoying is the consistent mocking of mathematical ignorance by using advanced mathematical concepts – a particularly egregious example is a footnote discussing deterministic causality and quantum mechanics (the subscripts are not going to come out):

“The model is so simple that we cannot resist the temptation to summarize it for readers with a little knowledge of mathematics and physics:


Consider a universe of N particles the set of whose possible respective coordinates form a configuration space (modeled on 3N-dimensional Euclidean space). Let qk denote the position of the kth particle (as a triple of local coordinates) and mk its mass. Thus q = (q1, … ,qN) is the configuration vector. We assume as well a complex-valued wave function, ψ, defined on the configuration space. The dynamics are then given by the familiar Schrödinger equation


iħ∂ψ/∂t = -(ħ2/2)Δψ + Vψ

(where V denotes a potential energy function) together with the ordinary differential equation

dq/dt = ħIm(gradψ/ψ)

(here the Laplacian Δ and the gradient are given in terms of a Riemann metric scaled by the mass of the particles.) The mathematically literate reader will readily see that, given an initial ψ0 at one particular time, ψ evolves purely deterministically (as usual) and thus, with initial values for q as well, the whole system evolves deterministically. As it turns out, however, with modest and unproblematic assumptions on the initial values of ψ0 and q(0), “small” subsystems consisting of “small” numbers of particles will behave so that, statistically speaking, the standard quantum mechanical formalism applies.

This sort of thing – especially the comments about readers with “some” knowledge of mathematics and physics and the “mathematically literate” reader – just gives ammunition to the opposition.

Gross and Levitt’s documentation of some of the stranger claims of the deconstructionists – that the uncertainty principle and relativity mean that physics is uncertain and relative are valuable, but they don’t really answer the questions of an ordinary reader – i.e., one not physically and mathematically literate enough to follow the example above – of why physics isn’t uncertain and relative. Although they discuss some general ideas in their introductory chapter, they really don’t get down to the meat of the matter – the persistent misconception that science is a belief system or a philosophical position, instead of just being a tool. Rodin was once asked how he sculpted, and supposedly replied “Well, I start with a block of stone and chisel away everything that isn’t a statue.” That’s really all science is – you start with an immense block of stuff and chisel away anything that isn’t true.

Worth a read mostly for historical purposes; surprisingly dated (written in 1994) now, as the two cultures have moved even further apart and both sides seem to be proud of their isolation.
… (més)
 
Marcat
setnahkt | Hi ha 5 ressenyes més | Dec 11, 2017 |

Two smug conservatives go yah boo sucks at leftie straw men. That's not quite an accurate summary of this book, but it conjures up perfectly my feelings all the while I was reading it: revulsion at the abominably orotund and self-congratulatory writing style, profound irritation that -- despite a half-hearted attempt in the introductory pages to claim non-partisanship -- the authors were framing their very justified criticisms of sloppy, antiscientific thinking as a political left-right battle. A full 100% of Republican Senate/House candidates this Fall reject the science of climate change. The leaders of the campaigns against the science linking tobacco smoke to disease, against the science showing the depletion of the ozone layer, against the science demonstrating the reality of evolution, against the science that showed SDI wouldn't work, and now against the science indicating the world is warming -- it is nary impossible to find a leftie amongst them. But, you cry, Gross's and Leavitt's real targets are the postmodernists/social constructivists, who're definitely a bunch of lefties, no? Well, okay, if you think that people like Nietsche and Nazi Party member Heidegger, two of the primary inspirations of that school, are lefties. To be fair, some of the authors' targets are of the left -- for example, that branch of feminism which tried to twist science for ideological reasons -- but this is by no means uniformly the case. Antiscientific idiots are to be found all across the political spectrum, but the majority of them seem always to be on the political right.

I succeeded in ploughing through this book because I had to for the sake of research. What's depressing is that, behind the tone of infantile sneer, there's some very valuable stuff being said. But I imagine that most of the people who should be reading it will have thrown the book at the wall in disgust long before they get that far.
… (més)
 
Marcat
JohnGrant1 | Hi ha 5 ressenyes més | Aug 11, 2013 |
A much needed dissection of the unfortunate philosophy of scientific criticism. The authors evaluate the phenomenon of people evaluating and criticizing science from the standpoint of ignorance of its very methods, and give a devastating critque of the emptiness that has pervaded too much of the thinking on the left. They take great pains to distinguish the academic left from the political left, although there is obviously some overlap. There are some definite weak spots, as the authors sometimes appear to be more interested in maintainint the status quo than in evaluating their subject critically. While there are definitely critiques to be made of the excesses of the new feminism, eco-feminism, New Age environmentalists, and radical Afrocentrists, in some places they speak smugly from a position of privelege about things they are clearly uninformed on, counting mere numbers of women in the schools as though that is the whole story, and dismissing the concept of animal rights summarily as though everyone who has a brain automatically accepts that position. They do acknowledge the problems society has with sexism, racism, and environmental damage, but clearly assume that all right thinking people will agree with their particular take on it, and everyone else is a radical or a reactionary who can be easily dismissed. It also seems at times that perhaps the ahthors are of different political leanings, which could perhaps explain the somewhat schizophrenic approach to social and political issues that arise...it may simply be a compromise position. Overall, it's a solid work that should be read by all academics, but as with most books, it should be read with a critical eye, rather than just accepting everything the author's say as gospel.… (més)
 
Marcat
Devil_llama | Hi ha 5 ressenyes més | Oct 29, 2011 |

Potser també t'agrada

Autors associats

Estadístiques

Obres
5
Membres
423
Popularitat
#57,688
Valoració
3.8
Ressenyes
6
ISBN
7
Llengües
1

Gràfics i taules