SA wrote:
SA:I read your post, and I must correct myself to
an extent. I don't know how much the moq can change
science. What I do know, to clarify myself, is how
science is performed, the moq can best explain.
Therefore, the discuss causes and such, is more
philosophy of science. To discuss how much a society
of people, a culture of scientists and the larger
culture scientists are living amidst, is again, more a
discussion in philosophy of science. I do know this,
as well, that many students are filling the
classrooms, from what I learned on an education
program on TV, to learn String Theory. Not for what
String Theory has been able to collect data wise, but
due to its' explanatory power. Yet, scientists still
debate if String Theory is more a philosophy than a
science for it promises much, but hasn't been able to
deliver. Yet, it is a beautiful understanding and
students are attracted to it, since the other theories
have hit some dead-ends students are reaching out to
what might be a very fulfilling String Theory. Learn
it now while in the university and then soon it might
be THE Theory and as a student this gamble would place
them in the center of the action in physics. So what
draws them there, not the data, that aspect is
lacking. Maybe the beauty?
So, can the moq change science? I don't know, but
science is spearheaded by thoughts and ideas.
Theoretical physicist spearhead where the experiments
are to be performed. Stephen Hawkings sits around all
day thinking of formulas and theorizes what might be
happening at a black hole. Then he compares data
found in particle accelerator's. Thought-experiments
streamhead and cut down on the $ cost as to what
experiments would be best to perform.
To tie this together, maybe the moq would make a
better culture for science to further thrive within.
I don't know the first-hand experiences of what a
scientist does daily, and this makes it difficult for
me to comment on what the do and don't do. Yet, I
know philosophers try to figure out what scientists
are doing, and maybe a moq philosopher would come
closer to explaining what a scientists exactly does.
I don't know."
+++++++++
Jorge: Thanks for your comments, I find them very
interesting. One in particular: when you say that
"maybe the moq would make a better culture for science
to further thrive within".
In my opinion that is a very sound approach.
Instead of trying 'to reform' Science, much better to
change culture of the society at large and let Science
to reform itself. By changing Culture (in a positive
way) not only Science but also Art and other
intellectual pursuits may benefit. The underlying
assumption is that what we do, in any given period, in
Science, Art, History or whatever, are very much
influenced by the values of the society at large. A
view to which I strongly subscribe.
Because of my ignorance in MOQ I don't quite see
though how it can improve our prevalent culture
(which IMHO is in dire need of improvement). Have you
got any concrete ideas in that direction?
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
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/
