[MD] Theism and literalism

[david buchanan]

Scott and all MOQers:

dmb had said to Scott:
...All you've done is nakedly deny that this lab data counts as empirical 
evidence for that conclusion. Why does it not count? Why does the 
"preference" model not work better than the "causal law" model? Wasn't my 
main point centered on the inadequacy of that model, AS IT IS REVEALED BY
THAT DATA? Yes.

Scott replied:
I agree that the data shows that mechanical, spatiotemporal determinism is a 
bad model. But there isn't any data shows that 'preference' is a good model. 
These aren't the only two possibilities.

dmb now says:
Who said there are only two possibilities? Oh yea, I remember now. It was Mr 
Phony McStrawman. He's such a fool. We can easily knock his argument over 
with a single, gentle push.

dmb had said:
I don't think the MOQ is making any claims about what electrons are "really" 
doing. The preference model is simply designed to describe the "behaviour" 
of subatomic particles as they are revealed in scientific experiments.

Scott replied:
These two sentences contradict each other. The "preference" model is an 
addition to the behavior revealed in experiment. That sure looks like a 
claim about what they are "really" doing to me. As I said, the only way to 
keep within the empirical is to say nothing.

dmb now says:
I think you are adding some kind of essentialist claim to this preference 
model, one that does not belong in the MOQ. As I keep pointing out, this is 
not a claim about how electrons think or that electrons have some kind of 
subjective consciousness with which to make deliberate choices. The 
preferences model is simply a coherent and consistant way to explain the way 
subatomic particles, its just one way to make sense of the data. I mean, you 
have to keep in mind the MOQ's rejection of single, exclusive truths with 
the flip side of that coin being, of course, that such truths are 
provisional and are adopted until something better comes along. Am I saying 
that this model is better than anything that the physicists have to offer? 
No. I really wouldn't know. I'm just saying that the preference model works 
to explain this data in such a way that it is consistent with the larger 
structure of the MOQ.

As to your claim that "the only way to keep with the empirical is to say 
nothing", I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Silent philosophers 
and physicists? Huh?

Scott said:
The data shows that the mechanical, spatiotemporally determinist claim is 
wrong. It does not show that the preference claim is right. Show me the 
experiment that verifies the 'preference' claim over the multi-universe 
claim and the non-local hidden variable claim and you'll have yourself a 
Nobel Prize.

dmb says:
Again, you're approach seems to add claims that nobody has made. The idea 
here is simply that the preference model is better than the causal laws 
model because it agrees with the data better. It works better within the 
MOQ. I mean, you seem to be pretending that these are claims made outside of 
the context of the MOQ, where the explainations of scientists are viewed as 
works of art and not propostions about absolute truths or objective truths 
or anything like that.

thanks

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/