[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[David M]

Hi SA

>From my reading of science and the philosophy of
science it seems that there is a move to the view I am
suggesting which is that reality is very disorderly
with some order. I think this fits our experience, as
we never know what a day may bring. I'd recommend
John Dupre's The Disorder of Things. I agree that on
the level of medium sized objects like balls this is the
scale that shows most order, but it is more the exception
than the rule and the rule is a high propensity and not a
certainty. A ball made of certain exotic materials could roll
up hill -something that I believe has been done.

Regards
David M



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Perella" <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Alternatives to the scientific method


>     [DM]
>> Behaviour is rarely law like, rather sometimes
>> you get one outcome, sometimes another. To
>> create a controlled situation where a specific
>> outcome happens most of the time takes a lot of
> setting up
>> of controlled experiments. Outside of the lab,
>> and generally not even in the lab outcomes vary.
>> Or take technology, a machine does a certain job,
>> it is consistent for a while, perhaps not always,
>> and in the end 'breaks down' which means it reverts
>> to the normality of unpredictable behaviour.
>
>      This seems easy to say, but Newtonian laws are
> used everyday, right?  Sure inconsistencies are
> present, but Newton's physics still are working.  I'm
> not sure about your seemingly blanket statement that
> unpredictability reins always.  The machine was
> predictable until it broke down, sure, so just fix it
> and it will do what it did before.  I don't see how
> quantum physics has been able to make that jump into
> macro-scale events.  I find this too much of a
> reduction of underlying themes, such as quantum events
> being what drives macro-events.  Sure quantum events
> underlie macro-events, but a ball rolling down a hill
> will roll until another force acts upon it, that's all
> Newton said.  The macro-scale is more organized than
> the quantum level.
>
> woods,
> SA
>
>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Heather Perella"
>> <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
>> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 12:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Alternatives to the scientific
>> method
>>
>>
>> >
>> >     [DM]
>> >> Yes, but its propensities not laws, that's my
>> point.
>> >
>> >
>> >     Laws are universal, right?  If so, then I
>> > understand Newtonian physics are not law.  They
>> are
>> > laws on that particular macro-level, but not
>> > scientific laws, if scientific laws must be
>> universal.
>> > What do you mean by propensities?  I can guess you
>> > mean propensities are laws on a particular level,
>> but
>> > I'd rather you say what they mean, for I'm not
>> sure.
>> >
>> >
>> > SA
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
> http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
> 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/
>