Subject: Re: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22)

From: "Dierk Vandenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 08:45:11 +0200

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Robert B. Waltz <[email-masked]>
An: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Datum: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 1998 00:11
Betreff: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22)

>those who do not understand relativity should not be quoting it!
>
>Einstein did not say that observations (observations, be it noted,
>not "truth" -- whatever that is) depends on the "viewer's point of view."
>The results of the measurements depend on the viewer's *Frame of
>Reference.* It's not the same thing. The frame of reference is
>the environment in which the viewer stands. It has certain
>characteristics measured against the rest of the universe. None
>of these are under the control of the observer.
>
>Still, any data taken from that frame of reference will be repeatable
>(except as affected by the uncertainty principle, etc.).
>
>So, please, folks, don't say "everything is relative," or "everything
>depends on the viewer's point of view," or any such nonsense. Because
>that's what it is. Nonsense.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry, but it seem to me as if you were afraid to leave a closed (Christian)
system - and "system" exactly was the term I used to define truth as a
viewers point of view. What he realizes is an observation, Sir. And he
measures with the techniques founded axiomately in his system. That's why
e.g., Bultmann realized that the largest circle to be drawn in a
2-dimensional system is equal to the beginning point: "We do not really know
who the HJ was!"
I won't comment on your knowledge of Einstein, but doubtlessly you haven't
yet read his book "Über die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie",
Akademy Press, Berlin 1956.
Enough about Albert and his axiom of impossibility to explain
3-dimensionality onto a 2-dimensional audience.

What about the use of the present instead of the imperfect in Ja 2:22?
Still I've heared no good news from you aside a classic refusing position
which blames Jesus' double Love-Commandment.

Regards from Goethe's Germany,
Dr. rer. nat. Dierk Vandenberg

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 08:00:54 -0500

On Thu, 28 May 1998, "Dierk Vandenberg" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>viewers point of view.

I haven't a clue what this means. Doesn't sound like science to me, though --
which is what *I'm* talking about.

>What he realizes is an observation, Sir. And he

Pardon me, but can you tell me what the "axioms" of relativity theory
are (apart from some of the assumptions of mathematics)?

>Akademy Press, Berlin 1956.

You're right. I haven't read it. It's hardly likely that I would
read anything Einstein wrote after 1927 -- which is when Einstein
ceased to be a scientist and became a mystic. (Yes, a mystic.
Because, by refusing to accept the Uncertainty Principle, Einstein
put his beliefs ahead of the truth.)

On the other hand, I *have* studied EInstein's real work. Not in
depth -- I only have a bachelor's in physics. But I can define
Brownian Motion, and the Photoelectric Effect, and the Fitzgerald
Contraction. Can you? If not, then you don't understand Einstein.

>3-dimensionality onto a 2-dimensional audience.

What? A scientific axiom cannot contain the word "explain."
I must say again, if you do not understand science, don't quote
it.

I'm not objecting to your philosophy. That's your concern. But, Sir,
you are misquoting and misusing science. Don't expect me to approve.
If I stop arguing, it's because I've given up.

>which blames Jesus' double Love-Commandment.

I'm not making any statement about the reading of this passage. I made
an early comment about how I would select a variant, based solely on
external evidence. I don't do internal evidence. (A slightly exaggerated
statement, but in general I leave internal evidence to others.)

You may choose whichever variant you want in this verse. I won't
even argue, since I consider either almost equally possible.
I am simply objecting to the fact that you claim to be following
Einstein, and are in fact spouting philosophy, not science.
Quote Einstein's philosophy if you wish -- but don't call it
science, and don't ring relativity theory into philosophy.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 09:25:25 -0400 (EDT)

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>"Dierk Vandenberg" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> You're right. I haven't read it. 

This is getting prepostersously far afield of the topic of this list, but
just to make the point that, yes, I have read the above book (at least in
it English translation, as part of my graduate courses in relativity) and
I have to say that I fail to understand in what way it supports the claims
in whose support it is being cited. 

But the relevant point here is that Robert is right; there is a lamentable
tendency on these lists to play fast and loose with certain highfalutin
--an utterly irrelevant-- concepts from the hard sciences (most commonly
from physics) to support an otherwise flimsy position (typically of the
"quantum-mechanics-proves-that-the-Q-hypothesis/darwinism/whatever-can't-
be-correct" school of argument). This tendency should be resisted.

And with that, in turn, I strongly suggest that this thread be allowed to
die the death that it deserves.

Nichael Cramer
work: [email-masked]
home: [email-masked]
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/

---

From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 07:09:20 -0700 (PDT)

I normally lurk on this list because I am only an amateur in the field of
textual criticism and generally do not consider myself qualified to join
the discussion. However, by education I am a mathematician, and
professionally I am a software analyst (in medical informatics, though my
area of specialization is networking and distributed systems). 

Having said that, I am of two minds about they types of misuse of science
I often see in philosophical discussions. In Einstein's theory, relativity
means something very specific. I won't go into the details right now, but
it is NOT a philosophical principle. GR is a very precise mathematical
model which encompasses mechanics and gravitation (which were separate in
classical Newtonian physics.) The term "relativity" is really a description
of how Einsteinian and Newtonian physics differ and nothing more If GR had
no historical context it would probably have been called something like
the Einstein gravitational field equations -- much less inspiring from a
philosophical point of view.

That being said, I realize that metaphor exercises a very powerful
influence on our way of thinking, and even though mathematicians and
physicists find it rather grating at times to hear relativity described
as an an abstract philosophical idea, it is true that the natural world is
a rich source of metaphors, and so I don't want to be too negative about
the use of relativity as a metaphor. But don't forget that in relativity
the universe is only "one way", so to speak, it's just that observers in
different reference frames will come up with different values. 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discipline.

---
Gregory Woodhouse
[email-masked]    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
The only way to build a building is to start at the ground and work upwards.

---

From: Kenneth Litwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 16:49:06 -0700

While this may be off-topic, I have a simple query.  I grant that
the humanities, like  textual criticism, are not like the hard sciences
in that data cannot be generated again.   That is, you can't do an
experiment to verify whether the Alexandrian text-type is really the
closest to the original, since we don't have the original.  There's also
no way to "verify" the interpretation of a given biblical text, and
interpretation of texts does, after all, have some bearing on textual
decisions, though it should be a lower priority criterion than external
evidence.  

   At the same time, I have to ask why it should be the case that fields
that do have "testable" conditions, like the hard sciences, when
"epistemological" principles are derived, those principles are ot seen
as relevant to other areas.  I've never read Einstein in German or
English.  What I have read, relating to the hard sciences, suggests to
me that at least some representatives of those disciplines and I have
two degrees in computer systems, if that counts at all) can suggest that
one's point of view affects ow one interprets data, and that we can
never know anything as it is but only s we perceive it through a
particular interpretive grid, which is affected by our world view (I
think that's from Polanyi but my memory may not be perfect on this), why
doesn't that pertain by extension to the humanities?  

     If you believe that the Byzantine text type is the most original
(and I don't but some do), that belief affects how you read MS
evidence.  The meaning of the evidence is affected by your point of
view, or frame of reference.  Just because this principles of
observation are made in physics, I see no logical reason that the same
epistemological principles don't pertain to other disciplines, whether
in "science" or the "humanities".  Why isn't what the philosophers of
science say relevant to research in all the sciences and in the
humanities as well?  Why isn't Polanyi relevant to the humanities?  I
realize this is way off-topic, so feel free to reply to me privately but
I think this is a real issue.  

Ken Litwak
University of Bristol
Bristol, England
(and Java instructor in California)