Ham, Since Jos has started a new thread ... I'll respond there ... Ian
On 7/27/07, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian -- > > > I was not referring to the hypothesis, but the four step process itself; > > that is presumed common sense too, but unfounded and untestable > > in itself. (A meta-problem) > > As I now understand your argument, you maintain that the rational method by > which scientists have learned about the physical world is flawed. If that > is so, how do you account for the discovery of quarks, neutrinos, dark > matter, and all the other constituents and laws added to scientific > knowledge over the last century? Is the ability to expand knowledge by this > logical approach just a fluke, or is the knowledge itself "false"? > > [Ham, previously]: > > You asserted that this 4-step methodology is a "faith-based process" > > because the hypothesis selected "leads to a testable prediction." > > [Ian]: > > Wrong ... I didn't say "because" there. I said (intended) because > > they (such scientists) believe that, in order to be of scientific value, > > 1&2 MUST NECESSARILY lead to 3&4. Clearly IF 2 leads to 3, > > THEN it's a matter of fact not faith, and generally a matter of deliberate > > intent by said scientist. > > Your complaint, then, is that the scientist INTENDS (or designs) his > hypothesis to lead to a testable prediction. Why should it be otherwise? > Why should scientific effort be wasted on ideas that CAN'T be tested? Are > not such ideas the province of Philosophy rather than Science? > > Science is basically a pragmatic discipline. For the scientist Truth is > "what works". Therefore, it's the aim of scientific investigation to > acquire knowledge that can lead to practical results. If a hypothesis is > testable universally in the laboratory, it is capable of producing > predictable results in the world at large. It seems to me that this is how > science and technology moves forward. Much of quantum physics is still > theoretical, of course, but that doesn't seem to have discouraged physicists > from coming up with new hypotheses. > > [Ian]: > > [Science] should admit that it IS in reality GUIDED by untestable > > hypotheses, metaphysical assumptions, even though it (officially) > > makes progress only through testable hypotheses. > > We're all "guided" by our personal interests, values, and conceptions of > reality. It's only natural that a scientist will develop hypotheses that > reflect that interest. I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that the > proof of their method is confirmed by the results. Science and Technology > have been quite successful in expanding man's understanding of the world, > eliminating and curing disease, increasing his productivity, and adding > decades to his lifespan. How can you deny the evidence? I don't understand > how can you say that the method by which all this has been achieved is > "unfounded" and "untestable". > > What grounds do you have for this claim? And what would Ian Glendinning > propose as a more efficacious alternative to the scientific method? > > 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/
