[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[ian glendinning]

Platt, David, been out of the loop ... catching up here ...

Platt, survival of the fittest has nothing to do with "ruthless
control". Fitness is about best quality of "fit" with environmental
opportunities, ruthlessly defeating your opponents (directly or in
control of resources) is only one aspect in only some cases. Fitness
is about fitting, not the power of being fit.

David, on the contrary, I do expect science to have much to say about
values. Reading Maxwell (Is Science Neurotic) and Dennett (Breaking
the Spell) amongst many others, I think it's clear scientists see
values as central to what science does and what it can explain, and
how and why ... as soon as one accepts that no-one's "truth" is
absolute ... ie enlightened scientists don't want to exclude values,
far from it .... those same enlightened scientists of course realise
that values are excluded from the basic empiricism (the 1&2 => 3&4
numbers game) of that one aspect of scientific method(s) that attempts
to confound hypotheses by empirical test. But all other aspects of
science, like all aspects of life, need to understand values.

I agree with you David, that ignoring the centrality of values (and
our differences in how we see such values) across all spheres of human
activity (secular science inlcuded) is the real problem. One point of
Dennett's book, by the way - wish I'd read it sooner, but the
fashionable avalanche of anti-religious hype put me off . It's much
better than that.

Regards
Ian

On 8/5/07, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Platt
>
> I don't expect science to have any say about what values
> are best. Values differ, we have to learn how we can live together
> given our different values, this is the stuff of politics rather than
> science.
> We need intelligent ways to look at how to assess our different values.
> Pirsig's levels and notion of quality is one useful way to look at values.
> Religion and secularism have their own ways of looking at values
> and that just arn't going to be ignored or overcome in a hurry.
> We need to get honest about our disagreements about values and
> stop pretending they have anything to do with truth and that anyone
> has any privileged access to some truth-values that are superior.
> Of course we can claim point to how our values relate to experience
> and reality but this is never going to make a decisive case.
> Of course, where we have values of autonomy and equality they are
> going to conflict with authoritarian and hierarchical values.
>
> Regards
> David M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <pholden at davtv.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Alternatives to the scientific method
>
>
> > Quoting David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>:
> >
> >> Hi Platt
> >>
> >> Obviously we do not ask science to describe
> >> our aesthetic experiences, so yes, it has its obvious
> >> limits. The 'ruthless control' is something being pushed
> >> out of science's description of nature these days so
> >> Pirsig's suggestion is no longer really true about the
> >> most progressive science today although science has yet to
> >> fully overcome SOM limitations it is on the road to do so I'd suggest.
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > To my knowledge "survival of the fittest" (ruthless control) has yet to
> > be revoked by biologists, nor do I see any evidence that science is ready
> > to provide moral guidance. But, I could be wrong.
> >
> >> And then there will be plenty of room for human and quality choices
> >> to be taken as valid.
> >
> > Yes. But without some agreed upon standards to guide "quality choices,"
> > there's plenty of room for arguments over which choices are "valid" and
> > which are not. One need only witness the shenanigan of our current
> > politicians
> > in Congress to know the problem.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Platt
> >
> >> >> Hi Jos/Platt
> >> >>
> >> >> Platt said:
> >> >>
> >> >> By and large science looks for "mechanisms," not entities
> >> >> capable of  expressing choices.
> >> >>
> >> >> DM: Here is the heart of the matter but I ask why should this
> >> >> be a problem? Mechanism only implies a pattern where there
> >> >> is only one possible outcome, all other forms of behaviour have
> >> >> many possible outcomes and where we can ascribe a purpose
> >> >> in selecting certain outcomes over others we call this life or agency.
> >> >
> >> > It's a problem because of its limits. A Beethoven sonata is a lot more
> >> > than sound waves striking an ear drum, a Homer watercolor a lot more
> >> > than
> >> > pigment on paper.
> >> >
> >> >> Of course, science has moved on from its devotion to mechanism
> >> >> as Jos says, quantum theory being the science of the possible par
> >> >> excellence.
> >> >
> >> > Quantum theory is limited to the very small and leaves many questions
> >> > unanswered.
> >> > As Pirsig wrote, "So today we have have as a result a theory of
> >> > evolution
> >> > in which
> >> > 'man' is ruthlessly controlled by the cause-and-effect laws of the
> >> > universe while
> >> > the particles of his body are not. The absurdity of this seems to be
> >> > neglected."
> >> > (Lila, 11)
> >> >
> >> > Platt
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> > 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/
>