dmb says: Metaphysical speculations could leap into the lurch at this point and try to make claims about how that happened or why that happened, but this would not be science.
[Krimel] That was a decent summary of the theory Dave; although the point about lighting a fuse rather plays into Ham's misconceptions. Science invites us to see the world in strange and interesting ways. It describes whole states of matter that we are not equipped to experience directly. We have neither the sensory apparatus nor the conceptual tools to really understand a black hole or a "time" before time or an entity that is both wave and particle at the same time. Ham's problem is that he is attempting to resurrect medieval theology with medieval science. [dmb] The MOQ (and I) take the empiricism of science to be too narrow. It is based on what we might call "sensory empiricism" and this usually means they're operating with the assumptions of SOM. The MOQ's radical empiricism rejects those assumptions and expands the notion of "experience" beyond what can be known through the five senses. It insists that all experience counts as real and rejects as unreal anything that can't be known in experience. [Krimel] What sort of experiences do you think transcend sensory experience? What exactly comes wandering through this door you think you are opening? 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/
