Abey writes:
"MOQ attacks the very root of the tree of science and
its main
> objective is to try and free it from being a
prisoner to the
> psuedo-mystical immersion in a blind belief in
empirical verities.
> Thats to put it badly."
Jorge: I quite agree: I think you put it badly.
To say that Science is a prisoner of its
"pseudo-mystical immersion in a blind belief in
empirical verities" entails, in my view, a gross
misunderstanding.
If by "empirical verities" you mean experiments and
observations then better to drop the "verities" part.
Verity is taken as a synonym of truth, reality, etc.,
an experiment or observation doesn't confirm or refute
truth, only goes to confirm or support a certain
theory or an hypothesis. The way it usually goes,
there is a huge lot of empirical data around each
theory; this data is continuously evolving as new,
better experiments or observations cause previous ones
to be discarded. Not pleasant, I must admit, when
those discarded happen to be the ones you spent years
of hard labor but if one cannot take that with a
twisted smile, one is in the wrong trade. But,
"verities" ? that would be a self-delusion.
As to yours "pseudo-mystical immersion in blind
belief"
I can put your mind at rest. Instead of
blind belief, there is always the nagging belief that
you neglected to measure or control one other
variable. Instead of a pseudo-mystical immersion,
there is deep immersion in what you are doing so that
it'll be the best you are capable to do. The actual
performance of the experiment is craftsmanship,
nothing mystical about it, what counts in Science is
not so much the experiment itself but the way you
interpret your results and how do they fit with those
of others.
=======
Bo writes (commenting on Abey's):
"Exactly, but it only attacks science in its SOM
capacity and
leaves the residual S/O divide as its own intellectual
level (the
SOL interpretation) Something that much of LILA
supports or
advocates, yet, when asked to directly define the said
level as the
S/O distinction Pirsig hesitated and that leaves the
MOQ in limbo"
Jorge: A question for you, Bo. Could I take your words
as implying that as long as scientists rely (heavily)
on the S/O distinction, it doesn't conflict with the
MOQ? That the conflict appears only when scientists
adopt or accept SOM?
Suppose I'm doing a series of measurements on the
red-shift of some celestial body and that, in so
doing, I try to approach objectivity as much as I can.
So far, no conflict with MOQ?
Suppose next that, because of me(and others doing
the same) have been pretty objective, I believe said
measurements reflect "the truth" about the velocity of
that celestial body, I'd be in conflict with the MOQ?
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
The World's Favourite Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
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/
