[MD] Science and the MOQ

[David M]

Hi SA

Thanks for your noble attempt to explain some
of the differences of perspective/understanding here.

David M 




Value
> according to the moq is subjectivity, objectivity,
> perhaps, nothing, both, and a number of different ways
> of slicing or not-slicing reality.  Thus, why I think
> your definition of value is different from my
> definition of value.  This is why it is not science,
> but the way science is understood.  SOM society thinks
> science is the truth of reality, and their definition
> of how science arrives at the truth of reality is for
> people with an SOM mindset to look 'out there' and to
> find truth in what can be observed in a telescope or
> microscope only.  Meanwhile, we understand reality
> involves imagination and opinions that are not readily
> observed.  If one thinks reality is only about what's
> 'out-there', then these people are missing out on what
> is not readily observed, for instance, how one feels
> or what one might be thinking.  These types of
> experiences persist, and a data in the telescope type
> reality is here, but not everything.  Sure, science
> may understand everything I mentioned, but the
> population at large is focused upon 'what is seen is
> truth'.  Do you see how your definition of value seems
> to be different from how I define value?  Value to me
> is science - physics science, and value is art.  Value
> involves all of these, though, the definition of the
> value partaking in these differing events (physics,
> art, etc...) will be a value involving different
> definitions.  The definition of what happens in
> physics will be a value process defined much
> differently than the value process in art, for
> instance.  
> 
> 
> SA:  I see what your saying.  To say science is
> valueless is to skew what is meant by value.  What
> might be a better way to discuss this, is not that
> science refutes value, but how certain people define
> what science does and what place certain people give
> to science.  When people give science the role as the
> all-truth giver and the only path to defining what
> reality is, then these certain people have placed
> limits not on science, but on what THEY-THINK science
> is, which one could consequently state they have thus
> placed limits on what science is.
> 
> 
> Is this more helpful?
> Questions, comments?
>