[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[Ham Priday]

Ron --

> I never said this, I said science is now exploring MOQ type
> methods and philosophy  in an effort to better
> explain natural phenomena at the quantum level.

I seem to have trouble separating the plays from the players.  You did not 
make the absurd allegation, Ian did.  My apologies, Ron.

As to your question ...

> [Ron]
> Then exactly what are you going on about?

If you check back to Ian's message of 7/24 (Re: Matter and Form), you'll see 
how this all got started.  Here's what Ian asserted, minus the numbers and 
parenthetical statements.  He's referring to the 4-step methodology I sent 
him to show that Quantum Physics is not a different approach than other 
sciences.

> Ham, et al
>
> That picture of "science" is a faith-based process - believed by
> many highly respected scientific academic institutions I'll grant you,
> but that's an argument from authority.
>
> Faith-based in the sense that it is based on the faith that the only
> meaningful approach to choosing an explanatory hypothesis is if it
> leads to a testable prediction, even if an infinite range of arbitrary
> variations on the same theory could lead to the same prediction.
>
> The reality is that even with the aim to progress through 3 and 4,
> step 2 is largely arbitrary, and dependent on many (untestable)
> presumptions about what makes a good hypothesis / theory,
> other than a testable prediction.

What I find absurd is his criticism of the scientist's "faith" in the 
meaningfulness of a hypothesis (he later refers to it as "dogma") that leads 
to a testable prediction.  If instead of the deprecatory term "faith" we 
substitute "belief", then it becomes clear why they believe what they do. 
Obviously only "testable" hypotheses are meaningful.  If you can't test it, 
you can't verify it, hence can't rely on it to work in the "real world". 
Isn't it simple common sense to believe that a proven theory will work?  If 
so, why attack it on the ground that it might work for some other reason 
than the hypothesis tested?

The scientific method is not a dogma and does not rely on faith.  It is in 
fact the most logical and effective approach to solving problems.  Questions 
as to WHY it works, and whether an alternate hypothesis would also work, are 
theoretical issues not built into the methodology.  I have no problem with 
this; Ian evidently does.

Thanks, Ron
Ham