[MD] What is SOM?

[Krimel]

[David M]
I understand your concern with overly romantic attacks on science
and agree we should keep sight of sciences many benefits. But
there is a case against scientism and reductionism and essentialism
to be made against some approachs to science that I think inprove
our understanding of science. I also think there is a non supernatural
case against a type of naturalism, see this for explanation:

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_may2003.htm

[Krimel]
Your reading suggests while not always welcome are usually interesting and
eventually appreciated. But here the argument is not naturalism as opposed
to supernaturalism. I think Ham and dmb and Platt each in their own way
wants to embrace the supernatural while hiding in their respective closets.

[David M]
I also agree that the aim of MOQ is to recontextualise the modern
world and offer a better context for understanding life, science and
society than SOM does. For me, we need to have an understanding of
how we base our knowledge on lived experience. Lived experience is
our context, this is a context of qualities, values, change, patterns, and
the potential for change and action. Given experience as it is and
understood (described) in terms like these we can go on to understand
how we can have scientific, personal, emotional, sexual, aesthetic, social, 
political, etc forms of knowledge. Experience is a larger category that 
contains 'objects' of knowledge that exceed those that science wants to, or 
can, address.

[Krimel]
I have no problem with any of that with the possible exception of your move
toward imbuing the inorganic with "experience." Even there I suspect the
disagreement is mainly semantic. I would add that all I think science does
is formalize the most natural process we have available to us for gaining
knowledge which is to check things out, mess with them and see what happens.