MoQers, It is hard to recall a set of threads that has so clearly demonstrated why the "levels" are at best a secondary feature of the MoQ. The inability to clearly delineate between the social and intellectual or even to unambiguously state what the intellectual level is, jump off the screen with every new post. I have said many times similar problems occur at each level. Pirsig puts organic chemistry on the inorganic level and creates a social level divorced from its biological function. It is a mess.
But this last bit raises all sorts of questions. How does anything Mati proposed constitute a "methodology"? How does: "Describe how you see your future and the future of Estonia," constitute a research question? It is entirely too vague and contains nothing measurable to analyze. Worse yet asking a vague question and collecting freeform answers from individuals is a sure fire prescription for getting meaningless results. What in Reet's answer can be considered "data"? How would her "data" be compared to "data" from other respondents? Even in a purely MoQ context asking a vague question and looking at the jumbled answer is only going to produce "intellectual level" "data". Reet is telling you what she thinks. This can only be an intellectual formulation of her situation. Is this really what you think an MoQ approach to a scientific study would look like? Krimel 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/
