[MD] Scientific Method?

[ian glendinning]

Two points Akshay ...

One - It is only GOF-Science that presumes the world exists out there
... enlightened science has recognised the fallacy of that logic for
around a century .... the "new physics".

Two - surely logic and scientific method pre-date "computer science"
... or did I miss your point ?

Ian

On Nov 27, 2007 11:05 AM, Akshay Peshwe <akshay.infosys at gmail.com> wrote:
> The scientific method, stated in bare-bones fashion, is not at fault. It is
> the application of it that renders studies like classical physics incomplete
> in its definition of reality.
>
> Let me point out a simple error of application of the scientific method. At
> the core of the SM is Logic, with its foundation laid in computer science
> (axiomatic set theory et al). However, one of the biggest assumptions of
> science is that of the existence of an external world; in other words, the
> absolute truth of what is the waking state of mind. As Gav pointed out in a
> most fitting way, quantum physics has arrived at a stage where the
> fundamental assumptions of science are being subjected to scrutiny -- by
> science itself (as opposed to by philosophy, as was custom for hundreds of
> years).
>
> The Vedantic answer, modified to the MoQ's requirements, would be that
> Dynamic Quality is the absolute reality and everything else is relative.
> Now, exactly as to how true the normal world is is a debate that is related
> to one's attachment to the world. Hence, a complete renunciate (sannyasi)
> would say that DQ alone is reality and all else (SQ) is illusion, whereas a
> householder (grihastha) would say that SQ is real although only relatively
> so, thereby not denying SQ completely and maintaining his role in it by
> minimum attachment.
>
> I don't quite agree when Pirsig implicitly calls DQ an aesthetic experience
> (in ZAMM there is a division between the aesthetic and logical parts of the
> mind). What has aesthetics to do with it? Aesthetics is purely an
> intellectual pattern that links to biological patterns of pleasure and pain
> and social patterns of desire and aversion.
>
> Akshay
>
> On 26/11/2007, gav <gav_gc at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
>
> > the problem is not the scientific method.
> > the problem is in the interpretation.
> > whilst science operates under the inadequate aegis of
> > SOM it will have difficulty understanding the whole
> > picture: