Hello Jorge A good post indeed. But I'd like to start with criticising the last part of the post. The MOQ can't "leave sciense out" because it is a metaphysics, and thus e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g has to be incorporated in it. If something is left out, it doesn't work. But I think we can all quite easily agree on this. Now, the question then, how does the MOQ help science? Well, science must be able to go on like it has done before, but perhaps give it stability and directions, that's my spontaneous thought. Science doesn't really have direction or meaning, to sum up large parts of ZMM in one sentence. This I feel is the main thing about science and the MOQ. It is quite usefull to talk about science and the MOQ with someone who doesn't know about the MOQ and is so much drawn to science, because you get questions like: But if no one can say anything about Dynamic Quality, what does the notion of DQ give science?
Anyway, we also talked a bit about perception of Quality. Dynamic Quality can't be foreseen, and it doesn't make things deterministic, and the way it is perceived has to do with what static filter/frame it is affecting. So a given brain is static biological pattern, and it will interpret Quality according to it's specific static nature. and.....etc 'muddling through.' - it feels Good. Regards Chirs > Krimel writes (answering a question from Chris > Ivarson): > > "I don't think the MoQ would change the way science >> is practiced so much as >> it changes our understanding of what science does. >> As a practical matter >> science already functions according to the MoQ. >> Scientists look for static >> patterns in their data. They look for patterns in >> the objects and forces >> they study and the relationships among those objects >> and forces." > > Jorge: I'd like to comment on Krimel's above > paragraph. First, about the MOQ "changing our > understanding of what Science does" . I wouldn't say > that Science "does", scientists 'do'; much in the same > vein that Art doesn?t do something, artists 'do'. What > scientists 'do' is not necessarily looking for static > patterns in their data; scientific research, as an > occupation, is extraordinary varied and multifaceted > and to reduce it to just looking for static patterns, > seems to me extreme reductionism. > > I'd rather say that what scientists (laboriously) > do is to try to increase their understanding of > restricted regions of the external world (the regions > they select for their research). This pronouncement is > sufficiently vague to cover the wide variety of > aspects of scientific research; it stresses rather a > motivation than a particular procedure; they do this > within the constrains of a certain set of "rules of > the game" which takes the name of the scientific > method. > > Admittedly some scientists may be looking for > patterns "in the objects and forces > they study" but many more are not concerned with > objects and forces at all. Or, let me put it some > other way, to consider the external world merely in > terms of objects and forces may have been a good > description of the mechanicist outlook of the world > prevalent in Science up to, say, 80 years ago, but not > the prevalent outlook now. > > I was far happier with the approach in your former > Posts of thinking of the scientist's activity as a way > to reduce Uncertainty ( to reduce, not to eliminate > it). Conforming a process or event to a pattern is > not, as you well know, the only way to reduce > uncertainty. > > Try to put yourself, for a moment, in the case of > Ivarsson's scientist friend (let's call him Mr.X) who > was asking how could MOQ help Science. You presume to > tell Mr.X. that MOQ knows better than him what he does > at work: he's supposed to be looking for 'static > patterns'. > > Problem is, as you yourself said in another > post, that 'the terms static and dynamic do not have > special meaning in the MOQ" . I've just emerged from a > long discussion on Patterns, with the impression that > the meaning of patterns in the MOQ is also rather > diffuse. Suppose Mr.X. is trying to understand, say, > the role of a certain enzyme in a biochemical process, > how can this new system of thought you propose to him > be of some use? > > In former conversations I kept asking a > question which, I think, is a relevant one --- Does > the MOQ need Science? --- Because, if it doesn't, why > not leave Science alone for the time being? Perhaps > later on, when the MOQ is more firmly established as > a Metaphysics, the time would arrive to change > Science's numerous shortcomings. > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good > > http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 28, Issue 29 > ******************************************* > 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/
