[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[Platt Holden]

Hi Jos,

[Jos]
> 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.

Some do, some don't. Some philosophers used poetry to express themselves,
Wordsworth and Frost for example. Others, like Plato, use dialogue. Still 
others, like Schopenhauer and Pirsig, base their philosophy on our sense 
of quality (beauty). So I think your statement is a bit broad. 

> 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. 

Usefulness or "utility" is a criteria I find necessary but somehow 
lacking, exemplified by that old truism, "Man does not live by bread 
alone."  I like Carl Sandburg's question, "If it doesn't create laughter 
or tears, what good is it?" To which I would add, "Without beauty, what 
good is it?"

> 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?

Examples: "Natural" is conception described mechanically as penetration of 
an ovum by sperm. "Supernatural" is conception described mysteriously as a 
gift from God.
 
> 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. 

Agree with preference and that it is "natural," but don't think this view 
is scientific. By and large science looks for "mechanisms," not entities 
capable of  expressing choices.

> 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? 

I have always been struck by Pirsig's observation from Chap. 11 of Lila:

"So today we have as a result a theory of evolution in which 'man' is 
ruthlessly controlled by the cause-and-effect laws of the universe while 
the particles of his body are not. The absurdity of this seems to be 
neglected."

Another absurdity: consciousness emanating from an electrified lump of 
meat. 

Regards,
Platt