Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 21:34:32 -0500 From: derekh-AT-yorku.ca (Derek Hrynyshyn) Subject: Re: Science on another planet In reply to Hans' Without digressing, let me just say that I was not offended, merely confused at where the critical points Hans raised came from. (I am, by the way, not an American but a Canadian and we have a reputation for being even more polite and passive than Americans. How do you get 20 Canadians out of a swimming pool? - Say "would everyone please leave the pool". :> ) But on a more serious note, I think that Hans' reply about science on another planet makes the same mistake that Bhaskar makes, (inadvertently - I don't think the mistake is inherent in transcendental realism) assuming that the scientific theories that we have developed are the only possible correct one. I admit that it is difficult to imagine different ways to come up with scientific explanations that would work as well as ours do, but that may not be anything to do with the structure of the universe - instead it may be a product of our own natures. Perhaps other planet's inhabitants would produce scientific theories in a different chronological order than ours - perhaps they would discover electricity before gravity, or magnetism before the periodic table or something like that. In which case perhaps they have already discovered things that we haven't discovered yet, and vice versa. There might be all kinds of reasons to develop different representations of the real mechanisms of our shared universe, perhaps involving mechanisms that we have not yet learned to represent. They need not be quite so exotic as Hans' neutrino amoebas, but might be able to perceive, say, magnetic forces the way we perceive light. Or they might have some more heightened sense of balance and might be able to detect the change in gravitational forces as they gain altitude on their planet. Or something like that. But we probably agree on this: If species were to develop on two different planets and both were to develop space travel so that they could meet, then they would probably have to have come up with the same astrophysics. But to assume that they would get there along exactly the same paths of scientific discovery, discovering things in exactly the same order, is to assume that we have discovered things the only way possible and that no one else could do as much as we have done unless they did it exactly the same way we have done it. This kind of thinking reminds me of standard imperialist ideas about the rest of the world traditionally held by Euro-American culture (from which I do not exclude myself) which is why I use the term arrogance. I think others use anthropomorphism or something. I am also reminded that the Aztecs were able to build massive pyramids lined up with the sun and stars and astrological events and had extremely precise calendars but never managed to invent the wheel. (This fact has always been incredible to me.) Lastly, I am reminded of the Woody Allen film where Woody meets a crazy guy who claims that he can prove that if there is life on other planets, that they must have a Marxist political economy. :) derek. Derek Hrynyshyn, Graduate Program Phone: 650-2276 in Political Science, derekh-AT-yorku.ca York University Ross S609 Communications Officer, CUPE local 3903 cupe3903-AT-yorku.ca * Fax: 736-5480 * Office: 736 - 5154 http://www.yorku.ca/org/cupe/cupe3903.htm
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005