[MD] [Moq_Discuss] Essentialism: MATTER AND FORM

[ian glendinning]

Ham,
Since Jos has started a new thread ... I'll respond there ...
Ian

On 7/27/07, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> 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/
>