[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[David Harding]

Hi Dan,

>>> Dan:
>>> Well, this is what you said:
>>> 
>>> "... with enough observation, and the right type of experiment which
>>> removes all distractions it would be safe to make a conclusion about
>>> which parts of the brain lighting up relate to a particular
>>> thought.."
>>> 
>>> Sounds pretty 'safe' to say the conclusion is set in concrete, no?
>> 
>> No, not really.  A 'concrete' conclusion is one that doesn't change.  As we both know, the MOQ doesn't make such a claim about anything - including scientific conclusions.  But that doesn't mean that conclusions aren't as valuable as they always were either..  I thinks it's good to use the best scientific conclusion until a better one comes along.
> 
> Okay then. A safe conclusion is subject to change then. So how is it
> with enough observation and removing all distractions we can rely upon
> conclusions regarding parts of the brain lighting up when we have no
> way of actually knowing what the subject is thinking about? Oh, just
> forget it. This is going nowhere fast…

We can make these conclusions the same way we make all conclusions.  Based on how well they explain our experience.  If a person is told to consistently think of a tree and *if* consistently a certain part of the brain lights up.  And *if* this is true for many people - not just one person.  Then we can make a valuable conclusion that a certain part of the brain which has lit up for all people when they've thought of a tree correspond to one another.  

In science, the way they avoid anomalies such as the subject thinking of something other than a tree, is by increasing sample size.  That's how we can 'rely' upon these conclusions being valuable. 

>>> David H;
>>>> Too many scientists?
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> I'd say one too many, yes. :)
>> 
>> Err, okay? You don't approve of my talking with Mark?
> 
> Did I say that? You seem intent on reading meaning into my words that
> I did not write. I don't see that I mentioned Mark at all so I am
> unsure why you wrote this? And why is my approval important to you?

You said 'one' too many? 

>>> Dan:
>>> Did I say that? No, looking back over my post I did not. It is only
>>> when those who claim to be that which they obviously are not that
>>> "scientists" are no good. Science is wonderful.
>> 
>> Oh I see… Well to avoid any further conclusion, I value genuine scientists as well..  You at least value scientists who are such yes?
> 
> I imagine scientists are just like everyone else ranging in value from
> better to worse. I don't expect any scientist cares whether I value
> them or not. Why would they?
> 
> Anyway, this is no fun. Got too much else to do. End of discussion.

Who ever said their opinion of you was valuable?   Look, to get things clearer, I'll ask again in another way..

Do you think that, all else being equal, a society which values scientists and the science they produce, is more valuable than one which doesn't?

Thanks Dan,

-David.