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

[Platt Holden]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

> [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.
>
> [Krimel]
> I don't think this is all that static and I think the various systems that
> involve these approach are set up to allow dynamic answers to emerge from
> the process.
>
> Of course humans have agenda's hidden or otherwise but in most cases of
> honest inquiry the idea is to either bring those agendas to light so as to
> factor them into the process or to control for whatever influence they
> might
> have. Science for example is inherently skeptical in is approach and it
> treats its findings provisionally. I think you on the other hand are
> suggesting that because people have agendas, they must be self serving and
> honest inquiry is not possible. This may not be what you think or what you
> are suggesting but if it is I think it moves past skepticism into cynicism.
>
> [Platt] Just suggesting that scientists and those who use scientific
methods
are human, subject to the same temptations as anyone else, like government
funding. Not cynical, realistic. Also, I recognize that science operates
under
certain basic assumptions that its method cannot prove, like determinism,
reductionism, materialism and the ever-popular emergentism. That's what I
meant by it being a fairly static system.

>
>
>