Hi Ian [Ron mentioned] --
[Ian, parenthetically to Platt]: > (I see Ham is ignoring my detailed comment about the dogmatic > process by which science confirms what is "true" anyway.) It's curious how people feel your ignoring them if you don't immediately respond to a long pronouncement that asks no questions and is addressed to "et al". Truthfully, Ian, I didn't catch the drift of what you were saying. Ron had stated his belief that the methodology of quantum mechanics is somehow unique in a way that complements Pirsig's "pragmatism". I must admit my ignorance of both. I don't see anything "pragmatic" about the MoQ and, as far as I know, quantum physics is a legitimate branch of the physical sciences which follows the methods I quoted from the Univ. of Rochester's website; briefly, 1) Observation of the phenomenon, 2) Development.of an hypothesis, 3) Testing the predictability of the hypothesis, and 4) Obtaining corroborative experimental evidence. On 7/24 you asserted that this 4-step methodology is a "faith-based process" because the hypothesis selected "leads to a testable prediction." Why is that not just common sense rather than "faith-based"? The hypothesis would be based on faith if it were accepted without testing; hence the "testable" process. Alternative hypotheses may also be developed if they too are testable. If they are not testable (i.e., empirically confirmable), they remain hypotheses. So what is your point? Surely you don't mean to suggest that Science should be guided by unconfirmable hypotheses. Then you said this: > 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. This is the part I'm not qualified to comment on from a scientific perspective. However, from a logical viewpoint, I find your statement that "the weirdness of possible theories that fit tests the very faith in the process itself" self-contradictory. To put it simply, if the results are "weird" it means that they refute (or disprove) the hypothesis. This may "test the faith" of the researcher, but it doesn't do much for advancing scientific knowledge. Moreover, even if scientists are "bound by the dogma of the process", they can no longer be bound to it once the results are in. You say "it's 'neurotic' (for scientists who would disown dogma) to draw such a hard line between science and philosophy." Actually I don't think scientists do draw a hard line between Science and Philosophy. I've seen many statements by nuclear physicists, cosmologists, and cognitive scientists that demonstate a leaning towards metaphysics in resolving anomalies that come up in their research. However, the word "faith" is pejorative in this context. I'm not a proponent of Scientism, but I think this misleads the non-scientist and is somewhat demeaning to both Science and Philosophy. Thanks and 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/
