To Bo:
IIn my last I put forward these questions for you:
"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?
To which you answered:
Bo: A most penetrating question Jorge, straight to the
point I have
raised several times: What will MOQ's impact on
science be?
Can science go on working as if nothing has happened
even if
the metaphysical rug is pulled from under it? IMO yes
they can,
as showed in the Relativity and Quantum examples the
S/O as M
(as reality really is) is already weakened, yet
science goes on.
Jorge: I'm sorry that I'll abuse your patience even
more but, this and following answers left me as
puzzled as before.
You retort with another question "can Science go on
working even if the metaphysical rug is pulled from
under it?" And your answer is yes, it can.
Problem is (and that's why I must abuse your patience)
I don't understand enough neither your question nor
your answer.
You assume that Science is working over a certain
metaphysical rug. I am not aware that there is or was
a metaphysical rug on which Science rests. If by that
rug you mean a SOM, I'd say that most scientists are
and have been working without accepting such
Metaphysics. Actually, most are unawares that such a
thing as SOM was ever invented. That was behind my
second question: if a scientist were to adopt SOM will
only then be in conflict with the MOQ?
You say moreover that Science can go on (in spite
of said affair of metaphysical rug) and, in practice
goes on, although the S/O as M (as reality really is)
is already weakened. I wouldn't say that the phrase
"as reality really is" has much to do with Science as
a method of enquiry; it looks to me more of a phrase
from some philosophical school or other.
Jorge (previous): Suppose I'm doing a series of
measurements on the red-shift of somecelestial body
and that, in so doing, I try to approach objectivity
as much as I can. So far, no conflict with MOQ?
Bo: In a possible MOQ-based future a scientist doing
the said
measurements will know that his work is that of the
highest static
value. The fact that the absolute split is the DQ/SQ
one will not
diminish the said S/O distinction. As said the S/O as
fundamental
has been undermined for a long time.
Jorge: when scientific work will be considered of "the
highest static value" I hope public funding of Science
goes up accordingly. Jokes apart, it is worth
mentioning that said undermining of the S/O
distinction, was done mostly by scientists themselves.
If, as you propose, a DQ/SQ split will not
diminish the S/O distinction then, I take it, you
think that it will be "business as usual" in Science
and we could go on keeping striving for maximum
objectivity in our observations?
Jorge:(previous):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?
Note: instead of "having been pretty objective" I
should have said "believing we have been pretty
objective" (not quite the same thing.
Bo:No, not at all. Truth - objectivity - is the
highest static good ....
in the SOL interpretation.
Jorge: there you lost me. Does SOL contend that truth
and objectivity are intrinsically linked? Or that
objectivity is a necessary condition for truth? Could
you please elaborate on this?
Bo: What I don't like is Pirsig in LILA making
it sound as if the MOQ is out to prove "science and
knowledge"
as fraudulent because they have forgotten their social
roots, i.e.
their efforts to sound objective is false and further
that (his)
intellectual level will be set right if this is
achieved. However (the
SOL) intellect need not be chastised for "forgetting
its social
roots", its very PURPOSE is to free existence of
social bigotry by
pursuing truth.
Jorge: but, as I've said in other posts, so-called
scientific objectivity is eminently social. Something
is accepted or not as depending on whether there is or
not (peer) consensus about it. I do hope you don't
consider that an example of social bigotry, do you?
___________________________________________________________
Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
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/
