[MD] End of Science

[Platt Holden]

Hi Bo, 

Yes, "strong opinions about the MOQ are not wanted," unless they happen to 
those one agrees with. :-) 

Apparently what's hard for some to assimilate is the idea you indicate by 
saying things like, "From the MOQ view . . ." and "It's from the MOQ
seen . . ." Other ways to phrase the same notion are: 

>From the MOQ frame of reference 
>From the prism of the MOQ
In the MOQ sense
According to the MOQ perspective
Through MOQ eyes
The MOQ stance suggests
Wearing MOQ glasses we see  
etc.

But, it's tough to shed the SOM outlook because it's so deeply immersed in 
language-dependent thinking.  Some physicists and mathematicians, however, 
don't seem to have a problem. They intuitively seek to verify their 
theories by their beauty.

Platt

[Platt previously] 
> > Interesting article outlining reasons why science has reached the end
> > of its rope. If accurate, such an end promises a search for a new
> > worldview other than science's "Nobody Here But Us Chickens." If a
> > better worldview is demanded, guess what can fill the gap? The article
> > can be found at:
>  
> > http://www.science-spirit.org/newdirections.php?article_id=742e 
> 
> Interesting piece, it shows the dead end that latter day science is 
> in - physics in particular - but also that the MOQ can get it out of 
> these dire straits.
> 
> Science is (SOM's) objectivity systemized. From this it follows that 
> as long as SOM reigns science is torn between its old conviction 
> that it is supposed to find nature's ultimate secrets and the new 
> ironic findings that objectively seen all is subjective. This is what in
> my opinion John Horgan means by "end of science".
> 
> This is the SOM-generated dead-end that the MOQ opens up by 
> postulating that the S/O distinction is its own intellectual level - with
> the static limitations - not a pattern to the be removed (that's back 
> to the Stone Age) It says that intellect as science - physics in this 
> case - applied to the inorganic level eventually will encounter its 
> borderline to the dynamics it emerged from.   
> 
> This would relieve physics from the said quandary and allow it to 
> go along as usual without any irony or inconsistencies.  But then 
> you and I belong to the abominable old-school  "... built on 
> competition who think discussion is a contest and the winner is the 
> one that gets the last word in". So strong opinions about the MOQ 
> is not wanted  ...except DMB's according to Gavin
> 
> Bo