[MD] Alternatives to the Scientific Method

[MarshaV]

Both very interesting papers.  It makes me think I should read all 
the articles on your values page.  - Marsha


At 02:55 PM 7/30/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Ron [repeat mailing] --
>
>
> > I think faith and belief are commonly held to mean roughly
> > the same thing.  I think what is trying to be said is that science
> > has faith in their method based on evidence as proof of their
> > beliefs, much the same way a christian scientist would base
> > evidence of miracles on objective truths.what is being called
> > into question is the interpretation of the data.
>
>What may be troubling you, Ron, is whether "evidence of the proof" is Truth.
>
>For the scientist, Truth is a hypothesis that has proven to be universally
>reliable by empirical testing and that fits into a rational theory of
>things.  Einstein's theory of relativity is such an example.  Scientific
>method is itself testable by the fact that it can be falsified by new data.
>In other words, Truth is relative to what we know now.  What is true today
>may not be true tomorrow, if anomalies are discovered in the hypothesis.
>This is what happened when the particle theory of Einstein was equivocated
>by quantum physics experiments showing that a particle could behave as
>an energy wave under certain conditions.
>
>I think Science retro-fits empirical observations to conform to man's
>reason.  So that despite the fact that scientific evidence is tested and
>subject to falsification, it must also be "rational".  For the scientist,
>therefore, there is no such thing as "irrational" truth, which may explain
>Ian's claim that the methodology is "faith-based".   Reason is based on
>relational logic, which is the subjective (intellectual) perspective of
>objective knowledge, a metaphysical dichotomy that has been ignored by
>Science.  For that reason, I do not define scientific "facts" or "verified
>hyoptheses" as Truth.  I do not believe that man has access to any kind of
>Truth but relational knowledge, and I reject the notion that ultimate
>reality is relational.
>
> > What you have been saying has got me to thinking a lot about
> > faith and belief, and the concept of Essence and it's relational value.
>
>I'm pleased to hear that.  By the way, Richard Schain, a neurologist, has
>some interesting things to say about the issue of subjectivity in Science.
>I'm repeating his essay calling for a "radical metaphysics" in this week's
>Values Page at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm.   I think you might find it
>enlightening.  When you've read that, click on "A New Theory of the
>Universe" -- the 8th item on the left side of the archives listing 
>at the bottom
>of this page, and you'll get another neuoscience perspective by Robert Lanza.
>I'd like to know what you think of these two extraordinary essays.
>
>Thanks, Ron.
>
>-- 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/