i just looked up empiricism and science in 'the new webster's
dictionary' (1975 college ed.).
empiricism: the belief that knowledge is derived from experiment or
experience.
science: knowledge of facts or principles, gained by systematic
study.
if experience can be studied in a systematic manner, that information
is then to be considered scientific, is it not?
what this argument then becomes is a question of which information is
valuable and by what method is that information observed. knowing how an
electron works is valuable in building large weapons, it is unnecessary in
making a tasty pie. 'is the town gone?', a question one might encounter in
judging the value of information relating to the construction of large
weapons, is one with an objective answer. 'did the pie taste good?' has a
subjective answer. if we are to apply a scientific approach to pie making,
we have to come up with a system that informs us how to make a pie
'incorrectly', the way uncle seymour likes it, if this information is to be
of value.
so, the value of information is then in the value of its application.
the f-14 had the most up to date technology available to the pilots flying
it. one would think this was going to great however, most of the pilots
ended up shutting half the systems off. not only were they unable to use
the information in the time frame allowed them, the overload was a dangerous
distraction and therefore, not useless but harmful. the military criteria,
'expert use of whatever works', applies.
mike
(medalist, 1999 irwin corey festival)
'quack, quack'
|
|  |
