[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[ian glendinning]

Hi Ham, (Platt mentioned), and Jos, Ron, etc ..

Ham, as we discovered once before ... we are much closer than might appear.
You actually make my point (and Nick Maxwell's point).

I used the phrase "what ain't broke don't need fixing" myself in
connection with science in the essay I referred you to (did you
actually read it ?).

The very point is that science is running out of capability to sort
out "the truth about reality". The fact is as you say, that the
1,2,3,4 numbers game of science is not (cannot) going to give us that
compehensive picture of reality ... "physics" at the state-of-the-art
boundaries to science - post-quantum stuff - complex adaptive (living)
systems stuff - is much more a matter of philosophy that science.

This is not new, I mentioned Schroedinger, and I previously quoted
many times one of the other quantum pioneers Max Born (from memory) "I
am convinced that theoretical physics is actual metaphysics".

The "neurosis" is that much of science close to this limit of known
physics is clinging to the belief that the 1,2,3,4 numbers game is
going to crack the truth, as if there is no alternative (Platt's point
about scientific arrogance and aggression) - whereas we know it is not
going to cut the mustard. Science (and education, and arguments about
creationism, sustainability, and other important issues) is in danger
of a nervous breakdown, at the very moment we need it to have a clear
head.

They may still call it "physics", but it's far less science than it is
philosophy. (We're getting back to the original intent of the word
physics, berfore Aristotle, Bacon and Popper invented the thing we
know today as 1,2,3,4 science.)

Alternatively if we accept the pragmatic definition of science as
"that which is amenable to the 1,2,3,4 game" we are saying that the
stuff of fundamental reality is not science. Nick is saying science
ought to be honest with itself and wake up to that fact. Others, like
David Chalmers are more phlegmatic and simply accept that the
boundaries of physics (science) and philosophy are foreeevr blurred
... and we end up simply in a pointless debate about words and
defintions.

Pragmatically on this point I think we're agreeing.

(Aside - whatever you think of the MoQ as a finished product, it was
the gap between 1&2 and 3&4 - the nature of "hypothesis" that of
course first gave Pirsig his Phaedrus insights when he was advanced to
degree level science aged only 14/15.)

Apologies for my (ego) dominating the discussion, but I think there is
some important stuff learned here.

Ian

On 7/27/07, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Ian, Ron, Marsha, Platt, Gav, et al --
>
>
> [Ron]:
> > Essentialism is cool but it doesent help me to understand
> > complex systems which is what reality is composed of.
>
> [Marsha]:
> > The achillies heel of the essentialist atheist is exposed -
> > personally this kills me as I can't tell God bothering nutjobs
> > what I think of them anymore with any real conviction.
>
> [Platt]:
> > To defend their faith, some scientists and many of their
> > acolytes mock, demonize and marginalize competing views,
> > using highly emotive language and implying that all
> > "intelligent" people must agree with them.
>
> [Gav]:
> > Ham, I think that by asking that question you miss your own
> > opportunity to even try and come up with something,
> > would you like to join Ian out on his limb and see if
> > anything springs to mind?
>
> [Ian]:
> > Ham, I'd never seen you as one of these all or nothing people.
> > You are being very unscientific, by in any meaning of the word.
>
> See, this is why I'm reluctant to engage in discussions that are off the
> philosophy track.  Ron makes some absurd allegation about the scientific
> method never having been tested, and suddenly I'm expected to come up with
> an alternative to two centuries of scientific progress.
>
> All this hysteria stems from the notion that Science, not Philosophy, holds
> the key to the truth about reality.
> The notion is founded on the fallacy that Faith has been superseded by
> empirical knowledge, and that scientists are somehow to blame for holding
> back on us.  Now just because we (even some scientists) have awakened to the
> fact that subjectivity plays a role in creating our reality, the philosopher
> is supposed to turn the scientist's methodology upside down because it
> hasn't provided the solution to problems Philosophy can't solve?  How
> ridiculous!
>
> No, I'm not going to redesign the most rational and reliable system ever
> devised for investigating the physical world.  I don't believe the answers
> we're seeking are to be found by observing and testing matter -- whether
> it's macro, micro, or sub-quantum data.  As I've said before, the riddle of
> the universe and its creation is beyond man's finite reach.  I've also
> stated my belief that there's a logical reason for this, and I'll say it
> again:  If man had access to absolute knowledge, he would lose his autonomy
> as a free agent.  Individual freedom is a higher prize than anything Science
> will ever discover or prove.
>
> The aim of Science is utilitarian.  Its purpose is to discover and validate
> empirical knowledge that can lead to a healthier, more efficient, more
> productive world.  The "test" of its success can be measured by the results
> of the last two centuries.  Do we not all live better, longer, and more
> efficiently as a direct result of Science's contributions?  Whatever became
> of the old adage 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'?
>
> More knowledge about "complex systems", probability statistics, quarks and
> neutrinos, and the evolution of the universe is not what we need to learn
> the meaning of life and our relation to the primary source.  We need the
> wisdom of intuitive reflection that can only come from the study of
> Philosophy.
>
> But as SA is sure to remind me, "That's YOUR view."
>
> Thanks all,
> 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/
>