[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

Mon Jul 30 01:46:39 PDT 2007

Hi Platt, (Ian's view also sought)

Not much point picking over every statement, I can see what you're saying.  - 
My entire point can be summed by saying that this thread is about the method of science, not its discoveries and I contend that this "method" is the same one that philosophers use to think with. You seem to see the method as inseparable from the culture and there might well be something in that.  Really I'm being tricky by asserting that scientists who do something other than according precisely to "the method" aren't really "proper" scientists and I thus exclude them from by dwindling elite. Like with much of the pap I find myself typing here, this position is absolutely accurate but absolutely useless, which probably says something about the whole clash between Pragmatism and Objectivism. 

Anyway
The first pair of statements is interesting: You offer me the choice of a given "cause" being either "natural" or "supernatural", could you define either of these categories please?

I think that I would say that things occur because they have a preference to do so, I would also say that this is "natural" and that I consider this view to be a scientific one. 

In particular, as I'm currently spending time attempting to contrive thought experiments that might be potentially confounding to this view but am making no progress whatsoever, it must now be time to move on to stage 4 and seek peer review.

Any thoughts? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of 
> Platt Holden
> Sent: 28 July 2007 01:30
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Alternatives to the scientific method
> 
> 
> Jos:
> 
> Thanks for your critique. I have a few comments:
> 
> > > Faith-based metaphysical assumptions of the scientific worldview:
> > > 
> > > a. Determinism-all effects emerge from prior natural causes -
> > > incomaptible with quantum theory, simple cause effect 
> relationships are
> > > not valid. 
> 
> "Simple" cause-effect relationship? Who said anything about "simple?" 
> Also, are you suggesting quantum effects occur for no reason 
> whatsoever? 
> Or that they occur by some supernatural cause?
> 
> > > b. Rationalism-the intellectual engine that drives 
> scientific inquiry -
> > > ok fair cop
> > > 
> > > c. Reductionism-complex phenomena can be explained by 
> > > isolating simple elements and
> > > processes -  Incompatible with observations of chaotic systems in
> > > particular fluid dynamics.
> 
> I would say strange attractors are simple elements.
> 
> > > d. Empiricism-reality grounded in sensory phenomena - Is 
> there a problem
> > > with this one?
> 
> No problems with any of them. Just that science operates on 
> unprovable 
> assumptions as do all intellectual endeavors.  
> 
> > > e. Materialism-matter/energy is the source of all phenomena 
> > > including human intelligence. - wide ranging debate on 
> this one , you
> > > have a handfull of scientist/philosophers like Dennet and 
> Dawkins who go
> > > out on a limb, but its hardly representative of a whole 
> community. Again
> > > "the method" forces one to look for potentially 
> confounding experiments
> > > and in this instance they abound - please see various books by RMP
> 
> What books or ideas from RMP did you have in mind?
> 
> > > f. Externalism-nature and its laws exists independent of 
> > > human observation - incompatible with observations of 
> quantum effects and
> > > in particular copenhagen  interpretation, this is now 80 
> years old -
> > > Platt please try to stay apace of modern developments.
> 
> >From Newsweek, July 30, 2007: "New studies suggest, however, 
> that it is 
> possible to measure something without affecting it. The key 
> is doing the 
> experiments, well, gently." Jos, do try to stay abreast of modern 
> developments. :-)
> 
> > > g. Mechanism-basic processes stem from causes that can often 
> > > be formulated in
> > > mathematical terms - Maths is just language done digital, 
> in fact your
> > > implied criticism is the wrong way around, theres lots 
> that can only be
> > > described mathematically and has no real linguistic 
> analogue - please see
> > > RMP SODV paper and comments on neils Bohr et al 
> 
> Don't see that this denies my statement. Quantum mechanics is largely
> expressed in mathematical terms if I'm not mistaken. 
> 
> > > h. Experimentalism-models of cause and effect must be tested 
> > > by repeated measurements - "must be"? This is just 
> pragmatism, cant
> > > incorporate something into a hypothesis untill you have resaonble
> > > confidence in its validity. 
> 
> Are you suggesting a single measurement constitutes 
> scientific validity?
> 
> > > i. Evolutionism-continuous development is brought about by 
> > > blind chance and natural
> > > selection - this is one particular scientific theory, true a very
> > > significant one, but it does not define the method.
> 
> I am not defining " the method." I am listing the 
> metaphysical assumptions 
> of science.
> 
>  > > j. Emergentism-some phenomena occur as the result of 
> > > self-organizing patterns - same as above, but doesn't 
> this conflict with
> > > your assertion of reductionism?
> 
> Note the word "some." But yes. This is the famous scientific "oops"
> explanation of phenomena that goes against its own 
> cause-effect, reductive
> assumptions.  
> 
> > > k. Conditionalism-new discoveries may invalidate current 
> theories -
> > > anything "may" happen its hardly a belief.
> 
> What do you call it then?
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > Demonize !???!!!
> 
> "To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as 
> contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked 
> why I am so 
> hostile to organized religion."
> -- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004) 
> 
> Platt
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the 
> Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by 
> Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM 
> Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems, please 
> call your organisations IT Helpdesk. 
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, 
> monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
> 
> 
> This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the 
> attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, 
> disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are 
> not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and 
> inform the sender by return e-mail.
> 
> This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the 
> attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, 
> disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are 
> not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and 
> inform the sender by return e-mail.
> 
> This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may 
> be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of 
> Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, 
> and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a 
> responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing 
> or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
> 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.