[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

Mon Jul 30 06:32:03 PDT 2007

Platt 

Absurd indeed! plus other general mumblings of agreement, apart from in response to my assertion that MOQ (for example) is a scientific hypothesis.
I can point you to endless examples in RMPs writings where he will ask rhetorical questions (put forward a hypothesis) and then run through a thought experiment to test his hypothesis, either rejecting or accepting as he goes along.  
What about his "subtract quality from the world" experiment in ZMM? 

Please confront the below process head on:

Scientists agree on what the scientific method is, I use it exactly as intended and propose a hypothesis to explain some observed phenomena. I subject the hypothesis to repeated experiment and fail to dis-credit it. I accept my hypothesis pragmatically as valid. This is what I have done and this is the conclusion I draw. I have arrived at it scientifically, so in what way was this not science? 

(trying now to find supporting quotes from prominent scientists)  

Jos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of 
> Platt Holden
> Sent: 30 July 2007 14:50
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Alternatives to the scientific method
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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.