[MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 20 Jul 2010 at 20:45, Krimel wrote:

[Platt]
Despite our many disagreements I like what you say here about reason and 
emotion, especially the part about emotions having no place in experimental 
studies. Perhaps you can further explain the difference as you see it
between 
"empirical and rational methods" and a offer bit more definition of "honest 
inquiry." 

[Krimel]
Rational methods would be things like logic and math, philosophy of science
and theoretical physics. Empirical methods typically would be experimental;
manipulation of variables to determine causality. But it can also include
observational studies like Jane Goodall or case methodologies, like Freud. A
honest inquiry is one in which questions are asked and answers sought from
the bottom up, not dictated from the top down or from outside the inquiry. 

[Platt]
I guess it's safe to assume that logic and math are integral parts of
empirical 
methods, and that the underlying empirical methods are observations of 
measurable events by subjects (observers). I guess I can also assume that 
"honest inquiry" relies on empirical methods. Is all this about right or am
I 
missing something?

[Krimel]
Pretty much. I would add that empirical and rational methods are not at odds
the interplay between them is two way. You see it clearly in physics where
theories have outstripped our ability to empirically test them without huge
capital outlays.

I don't think any of that is confined to science though. The legal system
operates in much the same way. Rational scenarios of guilt and innocence are
proposed and empirical evidence is presented. Of course rhetorical skill and
psychology are often used to support legal arguments as well but in the
courtroom everyone involved is supposed to be seeking justice. 

I have heard theologians talk with those kinds of assumptions in the back
ground. They would discuss 1st century Christianity in terms of its customs,
politics, history and theology. Evidence took the form of various ancient
texts and from archeological digs in the middle east. Theories of authorship
and doctrine were laid out and chains of rational and empirical evidence
were presented in support of them.

In fact I would say that some form of this is pursued throughout the modern
academy in much the same spirit as it was in Plato's Academy.

[Platt]
Thanks. I think I get the picture. It's a fairly static system of establishing 
belief. But, as Pirsig pointed out, its saving grace is willingness to change 
in the light of new evidence, although that's sometimes tough to do. At the 
bottom of it all is trust in those who produce the empirical data who, being 
human, may have hidden agendas. One can wonder what's in it for them.