[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[ian glendinning]

David I think you may miss my point. I was agreeing with you.

Science does only a small part of it's work by controlled experiment.
It's the bit that distinguishes science from other ologies, granted,
it is the essense of scientific method, which accounts for 80% of the
drudgery in scientific experimentation to disprove hypotheses. A lot
of this is automated where possible to relieve the drudgery and avoid
"accidental" values creeping in. We agree, on this, the obvious
GOF-SOMist stuff.

The important thing people forget is that this is only 20% of science
itself. The important bit (the real 80%) of science is evolving
hypotheses that (a) explain and (b) preferably are testable. That's
the clever bit, the quality bit, that for some reason philosophers
seem to thing is a field reserved for them to the exclusion of other
plebs like scientists. Must I quote Max Born again ?

Ian

On 1/2/06, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Ian
>
> I think it is important, in this area, to remember that science
> does a lot of its work via controlled experiment. The whole point,
> but also necessary limitation, of controlled experiments is that they
> produce conditions that do not actually occur in nature, specifically
> repeatable, and devoid of DQ, unlike naturally uncontrolled reality.
>
> DM
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ
>
>
> > David - one point inserted below on this one ...
> >
> > (Otherwise mostly covered by my latest response to Scott. -
> > Complaining about me calling things "physical" is the same lingusitic
> > problem as me objecting to Scott using the word "material". Just
> > words. Let's agree what we're talking about and choose the words later
> > - my favourites are "quality" and "nature", but I'm not a betting
> > man.)
> >
> > On 12/30/05, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Hi Ian
> >>
> >> I do not entirely object to this approach but care and
> >> caution is required. My main problem is that much of
> >> experience/life is never repeated and therefore not easy for
> >> science to describe and not very useful for science to do so.
> >
> > [IG] Absolutely. Which is why I continually say that (a pragmatic,
> > useful) science, called physics or nature, is something much more than
> > repeatable, predictable, objective testing of hypotheses. I'm nothing
> > if not consistent. Science needs the MoQ.
> >
> >> No SQ can be described or identified, there is more disorder
> >> than order to be experienced. I take the emergence on new forms
> >> to be characterised as the reduction of many possible actuals to
> >> just one. For example life on this planet has gone down a carbon
> >> based route rather than one of many other possibilities.
> >>
> >> My other point would be that science has generally been about
> >> describing the patterns of actual experience, i.e patterns that exist
> >> in space-time. But quantum theory does seem to require the use
> >> of patterns of possibles rather than actuals to describe what is able
> >> to become actual. This opens up vast territories of the possible,
> >> the imagined, that seem have an influence on what becomes actual,
> >> that science now needs to explore, and I think calling these physical
> >> is misleading. Mathematics via imagination and creativity
> >> is of course crucially involved in this exploration of the
> >> non-physical possible.
> >>
> >> DM
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> >> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> >> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:53 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ
> >>
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>