Ham, et al That 1, 2, 3, 4 picture of "science" is a faith-based process - believed by many highly respected scientific academic institutions I'll grant you, but that's an argument from authority.
Faith-based in the sense that it is based on the faith that the only meaningful approach to 2 (choosing an explanatory hypothesis) is if it leads to a testable prediction (3 and 4), even if an infintite range of arbitrary variations on the same theory could lead to the same prediction. The reality is that even with the aim to progress through 3 and 4, step 2 is largely arbitrary, and dependent on many (untestable) presumptions about what makes a good hypothesis / theory, other than a testable prediction. The reason sub-quantum level science (many worlds, strings, etc) is "different" is because it is at least forcing more (open-minded) scientists to question those metaphysical presumptions, since so few of the theories are directly testable to start with. Yes they can still make some progress by testing what can be predicted and tested, but the weirdness of possible theories that fit, tests the very faith in the process itself, except where scientists are bound by the dogma of the process. (I refer to my earlier Nick Maxwell / Is Science Neurotic thread.) ie it's "neurotic" (for scientists who would disown dogma) to draw such a hard line between science and philosophy. Ian On 7/24/07, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ron -- > > > > > In as far I know Quantum mechanics uses a process to > > theorize which is very similar to Pirsig's pragmatic method. > > It describes itself as a theory of possibilites. What I like > > about MOQ is its practical functionality which I have > > put to use in my daily life. What aspects of > > Essentialism have this sort of application? > > > > You obviously think Essentialism is better than MOQ. > > Can you explain why you feel this way? > > I am not aware of any "special method" that distinguishes Quantum Physics > from the other sciences. The University of Rochester outlines the > methodology of Science in four steps: > > "1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. > > 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the > hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical > relation. > > 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to > predict quantitatively the results of new observations. > > 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several > independent experimenters and properly performed experiments." > > What do you consider Pirsig's "Pragmatic Method", and how have you put it to > use in your > daily life? Can you explain phenomena from it, make predictions from it, or > have it confirmed by independent observers? > > I do not posit Essentialism as a Science, since it is not intended as an > investigation of empirical phenomena and its conclusions are not empirically > confirmable. I don't even think philosophy should be "scientific". Nor do > I believe a philosopher should tell other people how to live or what > decisions to make. The purpose of philosophy is to answer questions outside > the province of Science, such as where does existence come from, what is the > meaning of life, and what is man's role in the universe? > > If a philosophy can provide a perspective that helps you understand your > relation to the creative source, your life-experience will be enriched and > your life goals better defined. You will be less dependent on external > authority for your decisions and more appreciative of the values that are > yours to choose. I am optimistic enough to believe that mankind has the > potential to develop a society of "authentic" individuals, self-reliant > free-thinkers who revere human life and are moved to preserve its values. > > The first step in this process is to acknowledge that there is a reason for > our existence and that it won't be found by simply exploring new frontiers > of objective knowledge. Those who have succumbed to postmodern nihilism are > already lost to the cause. They've been brainwashed to the ideology that > subjectivity is a myth and that man is a bio-mechanical product of > evolution, a pawn in a predetermined system. > > Regrettably, individuals who have rejected the dogma of religion often turn > their spiritual spigots to the OFF position and will never accept the > concept of a primary source. That is foolish, because belief is not a black > and white matter. To pit Faith against Science is an exercise in futility > where everybody comes out the loser. I won't get into specifics. Suffice > it to say that man has the autonomy to be the choice-maker of his world. > What one believes -- whether it's based on knowledge, intuition, or > values -- determines one's reality. In that sense, we are each free to > choose our own reality. > > That's the gist of the "practicality" of Essentialism. I hope I've answered > your questions. > > Regards, > Ham > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
