[MD] [Moq_Discuss] Essentialism: MATTER AND FORM

[Ham Priday]

Ian --

> I was not referring to the hypothesis, but the four step process itself;
> that is presumed common sense too, but unfounded and untestable
> in itself. (A meta-problem)

As I now understand your argument, you maintain that the rational method by 
which scientists have learned about the physical world is flawed.  If that 
is so, how do you account for the discovery of quarks, neutrinos, dark 
matter, and all the other constituents and laws added to scientific 
knowledge over the last century?  Is the ability to expand knowledge by this 
logical approach just a fluke, or is the knowledge itself "false"?

[Ham, previously]:
> You asserted that this 4-step methodology is a "faith-based process"
> because the hypothesis selected "leads to a testable prediction."

[Ian]:
> Wrong ... I didn't say "because" there.  I said (intended) because
> they (such scientists) believe that, in order to be of scientific value,
> 1&2 MUST NECESSARILY lead to 3&4. Clearly IF 2 leads to 3,
> THEN it's a matter of fact not faith, and generally a matter of deliberate
> intent by said scientist.

Your complaint, then, is that the scientist INTENDS (or designs) his 
hypothesis to lead to a testable prediction.  Why should it be otherwise? 
Why should scientific effort be wasted on ideas that CAN'T be tested?  Are 
not such ideas the province of Philosophy rather than Science?

Science is basically a pragmatic discipline.  For the scientist Truth is 
"what works".  Therefore, it's the aim of scientific investigation to 
acquire knowledge that can lead to practical results.  If a hypothesis is 
testable universally in the laboratory, it is capable of producing 
predictable results in the world at large.  It seems to me that this is how 
science and technology moves forward.   Much of quantum physics is still 
theoretical, of course, but that doesn't seem to have discouraged physicists 
from coming up with new hypotheses.

[Ian]:
> [Science] should admit that it IS in reality GUIDED by untestable
> hypotheses, metaphysical assumptions, even though it (officially)
> makes progress only through testable hypotheses.

We're all "guided" by our personal interests, values, and conceptions of 
reality.  It's only natural that a scientist will develop hypotheses that 
reflect that interest.  I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that the 
proof of their method is confirmed by the results.  Science and Technology 
have been quite successful in expanding man's understanding of the world, 
eliminating and curing disease, increasing his productivity, and adding 
decades to his lifespan.  How can you deny the evidence?  I don't understand 
how can you say that the method by which all this has been achieved is 
"unfounded" and "untestable".

What grounds do you have for this claim?  And what would Ian Glendinning 
propose as a more efficacious alternative to the scientific method?

Regards,
Ham