[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[David M]

Hi Ian

Fair enough, but we assess values as human beings first not as scientists.

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Alternatives to the scientific method


> 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/
>>
> 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/
>