Hi Ham, inserted, thanks for responding ... On 7/26/07, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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".
[IG] Come come now, the "et al" address was in the mail where you were mentioned only parenthetically. The mail you are responding to is the one addressed specifically to you, and specific points in your mail, a specific view of scienec on which you built the rest of your response (about science) to Ron, but no matter. (The speed of respopnse was irrelevant, just that you were carrying on in the same way you had started, with Ron.) > > Truthfully, Ian, I didn't catch the drift of what you were saying. [IG] Honesty is good ;-) > 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." [IG] 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. > 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. [IG] That would be common sense. 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) > 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. [IG] Yes I do, because it is. That is the drift you said you weren't getting. ie it should admit that it IS in reality GUIDED by untestable hypotheses, metaphysical assumptions, even though it (officially) makes progress only through testable 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. [IG] Not sure I ever suggested the result of the test (a test of a testable hypothesis) was weird per se. The test findings (if the test is properly constructed by the 1,2,3,4 process) tend to be binary - supported or not. The point about quantum physics is that (apparently) quite incompatible hypotheses can both be supported by tests - the classic wave / particle dualities for example. That's what first raises the weirdness - and most newer research boils down to variations on the "one electron through two slits" experiment - according to John Gribben > 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. [IG] So the significance of quantum (and sub-quantum) physicists is that they regularly have their "faith" tested in this way, such that they "may" start to question the 1,2,3,4 basis of their work. That 1,2,3,4 basis is not itself a testable hypothesis, which is why many (but clearly not all) scientists tend to steer clear of even questioning it. > > 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. [IG] I didn't say they did. I said its is neurotic of those that CLAIM they do, those who would disown the 1,2,3,4 dogma, All would in fact disown dogma (say / claim they do), but most would not recognise (or admit) the 1,2,3,4 process as dogma (in what they actually do), that's the dysfunction, the neurosis. > 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. [IG] Oh yes, science still makes progress. This is not all or nothing, I'm just pointing out the fallacy that the 1,2,3,4 process is the ONLY correct way for science to progress. > 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. [IG] It does get tricky to find language talk about it, and "faith" would be seen as a pejorative choice of words, until you get the point. Our language is so accustomed to the "falsifiable objectivity" of science. (I've had spats with DMB before about my use of that word in this context, I have the scars.) [IG] They are basing their work on an untestable hypothesis. Nick Maxwell calls it "neurotic", Bryan Josephson calls it "pathological disbelief" to ignore points like these. (No idea what scientism has to do with this BTW.) The point is not demeaning, it's deadly serious, just not well recognised by many scientists yet. Fortunately most scientists become creative and wise enough to work through the neurosis, without giving it a second thought, but the trouble is most journalistic / public commentary on science fails to appreciate it entirely, and worse still "scientific rationale" tends to dominate all decision making processes well beyond science. I was really just alerting you to the simplification in your starting assumption about the 1,2,3,4 process. Regards Ian > > 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/ > 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/
